MichFan Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 If you expand that to include anyone that Roseanne or Liza marry, you may have a deal. Deal!!! How about adding alcoholics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 It's that free and open integration with society thingy that really bugs me. 120572[/snapback] I don't really disagree with that and am vehemently opposed to homosexual couples adopting children. I just don't have an issue with them being screwed over legally like the rest of us married schmoes. Lawyers gotta eat, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 To ofiba and Arrondale: Why is the sin of homosexuality singled out? And why does the Bible have to be the moral standard for the United States? Our country was founded on the basis of religious freedom. Homosexuals do not think it is immoral. If we are going to persecute people for sinning, why don't we have a constitutional ban on adultry(it's in the ten commandments)? Adultry is defined as sex with someone who is not your spouse. Therefore anyone who has had premarital sex has also committed adultry. Since we want to keep marriage as a sacred bond between a man and a woman, I think we should not allow anyone to get married that has committed adultry. Now we've excluded anyone who has disgraced the sacred bond by having sex with someone other than their spouse. Since we believe strongly about upholding the institution of marriage, we shouldn't condone these people (adulterers) and their lifestyle, let alone grant them equality in marriage. While we're at it, how about we persecute anyone who goes to work on Sunday. After all, that's breaking another one of the commandments. If we are going to be crusaders for morality, we should crusade against all sins. Like ofiba said, "They cannot pick and choose which immoral acts to allow, and which ones to frown upon." 120277[/snapback] Joe there is quite a difference between the two. The act of a homosexual marriage is immoral in itself. A person who previously had premarital sex that wants to get married is completely different. Their act of marriage is independent of their previous actions. In your example, we would prevent a person from doing something moral just because they once did something immoral. Tell me where in the Bible it says that once people sin, they cannot be forgiven. People cannot be forgiven for their homosexuality if they are proud of and continue to do it. Allowing someone to get a homosexual marriage would be ENCOURAGING an immoral act. Tell me one law we have that encourages adultery or any immoral act for that matter. If we gave out federal grants for acts of adultery, I would certainly be opposed to it. Eliminating immoral acts from society is impossible, but encouraging them is not the answer. Since you say we should be free to have any belief, do you think polygamous marriages should be allowed in the United States? After all, they should have the freedom of choice to create their own rules of marriage right? Regarding working on Sunday. First of all, there is a difference between the country being governed by the Bible, and having our country's ideals centered around many morals of the Christian faith. While many of the founding fathers weren't devout Christians, it is hard to argue that the foundation of the country is not based around absolute morals seen in Christianity. But even if this country was governed strictly by the Bible, this should explain why work on Sunday would still be allowed.... As I explained in my first post..... "Many of the laws of the Old Testament dealt with the old covenant with God and his people. Many of those laws became not applicable when Jesus came along with the new covenant. Now you could argue that the Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality should be thrown out too, except there are also instances in the New Testament where homosexuality is condemned." The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament do not apply to Christians living under the new conenant. This site explains it pretty well. Should Christians Keep the Sabbath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeFerguson Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Typical lib kneejerk reaction. Arondale and ofiba never even mentioned the words sin, bible, or religion in any of their responses. 120559[/snapback] Typical kneejerk reaction? First of all, Arondale referenced the Bible in several posts in this thread. He also stated his religious affliation as Christianity, and that it was the basis for his opposition to gay marriage. Try reading the thread next time. Here is just one of those quotes: I don't know what background you are coming from and how familiar you are with the Bible, so it is difficult to answer this. I'm not going to get in depth, but I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God, without exception. Let me just make one point here. I do not consider it to be dangerous to interpret the Bible literally. The problem is how you define "literally". If you think the original post is a literal translation of the Bible, then yes that is dangerous. But in fact, that is not a literal translation. A literal translation is not just taking scripture verses and following the exact words. Again, you have to take the Bible in its entire context. A literal translation of the Bible would not result in the conclusions your initial post made. Show me a true literal interpretation of the Bible that you consider to be dangerous, which means finding a verse and correctly understanding its context, then we can better discuss your problems with the Bible. 114144[/snapback] Second of all, by no means am I a liberal. I voted for Bush. MichFan, I may agree with you on many ideological issues, but I'd have to say your debating skills are terrible. Just about every post you've made on this thread prefaces with the "Typical lib....blah blah blah blah blah" and then you eloquently finish off your stereotype with the emoticon. How, in anyway, did you refute the post I made? Did you critique the reasoning behind it? Did you offer a point by point counter-argument? All you did was give me an insulting one liner that falsely stereotyped me. While mine was an erroneously labeled as a "Typical lib kneejerk reaction", I'd have to say yours was a "Typical idiot kneejerk reaction". As long as I am sparring with MichFan, I'd also like to ask you if you think sodomy between a man and a woman is morally worse/better/or just as bad as sodomy among two men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeFerguson Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Joe there is quite a difference between the two. The act of a homosexual marriage is immoral in itself. A person who previously had premarital sex that wants to get married is completely different. Their act of marriage is independent of their previous actions. In your example, we would prevent a person from doing something moral just because they once did something immoral. Tell me where in the Bible it says that once people sin, they cannot be forgiven. People cannot be forgiven for their homosexuality if they are proud of and continue to do it. Allowing someone to get a homosexual marriage would be ENCOURAGING an immoral act. Tell me one law we have that encourages adultery or any immoral act for that matter. If we gave out federal grants for acts of adultery, I would certainly be opposed to it. Eliminating immoral acts from society is impossible, but encouraging them is not the answer. Since you say we should be free to have any belief, do you think polygamous marriages should be allowed in the United States? After all, they should have the freedom of choice to create their own rules of marriage right? 120651[/snapback] One law in which adultry is encouraged: state sanctioned DIVORCE Although I think polygamy is kind of weird and I would never personally want to be involved in a polygamous marriage, I do not see any problem with it as long as it does not physically harm the parties involved....FLAME AWAY! Incest of course is no good because it's biologically bad for the gene pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Joe there is quite a difference between the two. The act of a homosexual marriage is immoral in itself. A person who previously had premarital sex that wants to get married is completely different. Their act of marriage is independent of their previous actions. In your example, we would prevent a person from doing something moral just because they once did something immoral. Tell me where in the Bible it says that once people sin, they cannot be forgiven. People cannot be forgiven for their homosexuality if they are proud of and continue to do it. Allowing someone to get a homosexual marriage would be ENCOURAGING an immoral act. Tell me one law we have that encourages adultery or any immoral act for that matter. If we gave out federal grants for acts of adultery, I would certainly be opposed to it. Eliminating immoral acts from society is impossible, but encouraging them is not the answer. Since you say we should be free to have any belief, do you think polygamous marriages should be allowed in the United States? After all, they should have the freedom of choice to create their own rules of marriage right? Regarding working on Sunday. First of all, there is a difference between the country being governed by the Bible, and having our country's ideals centered around many morals of the Christian faith. While many of the founding fathers weren't devout Christians, it is hard to argue that the foundation of the country is not based around absolute morals seen in Christianity. But even if this country was governed strictly by the Bible, this should explain why work on Sunday would still be allowed.... As I explained in my first post..... "Many of the laws of the Old Testament dealt with the old covenant with God and his people. Many of those laws became not applicable when Jesus came along with the new covenant. Now you could argue that the Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality should be thrown out too, except there are also instances in the New Testament where homosexuality is condemned." The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament do not apply to Christians living under the new conenant. This site explains it pretty well. Should Christians Keep the Sabbath 120651[/snapback] I read this post like 5 times, then walked away and read it another 5 times to make sure what it was I was reading. Then I looked at a calender to make sure it was 2004. This has gone on for 10 pages now. We're now debating whether we should have a literal interpretation of the bible about working on Sunday. Look, if you want to live by the teachings of the Bible, that's great. I was raised a Catholic, I sort of know where you are coming from. My Mom is devout, my brother is a minister in his church in Seattle, my sister-in-law is Born-again. Our great country lets you practice your religion without prejudice. But the Bible is not the law of the United States. You can talk about morality all you want, but that is just your interpretation of how to live YOUR life. I don't read the bible or go to church, and I know I can't name all 10 commandments. I follow my own sense of right and wrong, and quite frankly, I think I'm a pretty decent guy. Far be it from me to tell you how to live your life, and as long as I abide by the laws of this contry, far be from you to tell me, or anyone else for that matter, how to live theirs. Gay people just want to get married. That's it. They don't want to rule the world...they don't want to make you gay...they don't want to turn your children gay. They are gay because that is how God, their God and yours, made them. God put them on this planet. They are just like me and you, only they don't have the same sexual preference as me and you. Time to set your clocks ahead. It's 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Gay people just want to get married. That's it. They don't want to rule the world...they don't want to make you gay...they don't want to turn your children gay. They are gay because that is how God, their God and yours, made them. God put them on this planet. They are just like me and you, only they don't have the same sexual preference as me and you. Time to set your clocks ahead. It's 2004. 121048[/snapback] I'm getting sick of writing this....but I must. What will you say if in 2020, people want to marry their siblings? Or get married to more than 1 person? Will you tell all the opposers to set their clocks ahead and let them do what they want? Do you think God made people to be rapists too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 All you did was give me an insulting one liner that falsely stereotyped me. While mine was an erroneously labeled as a "Typical lib kneejerk reaction", I'd have to say yours was a "Typical idiot kneejerk reaction". As long as I am sparring with MichFan, I'd also like to ask you if you think sodomy between a man and a woman is morally worse/better/or just as bad as sodomy among two men? 120665[/snapback] You shouldn't tell someone not insult you with a one liner, then insult them with a one liner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I'm getting sick of writing this....but I must. What will you say if in 2020, people want to marry their siblings? Or get married to more than 1 person? Will you tell all the opposers to set their clocks ahead and let them do what they want? Do you think God made people to be rapists too? 121055[/snapback] And I'm getting sick of responding to this line of thinking. Ofiba, if for some crazy, bizzarro reason that in 2020 both incest AND polygamy have made it into mainstream America, and they aren't bothering me, and the incestos (I have no idea what to call this make-believe constituency), then I, Johnny Coli will in fact fight for their civil rights. Are you happy? Can I just go to hell now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 And I'm getting sick of responding to this line of thinking. Ofiba, if for some crazy, bizzarro reason that in 2020 both incest AND polygamy have made it into mainstream America, and they aren't bothering me, and the incestos (I have no idea what to call this make-believe constituency), then I, Johnny Coli will in fact fight for their civil rights. Are you happy? Can I just go to hell now? 121073[/snapback] Wouldn't it be the "incestuous"? We should debate this, so we're ready for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 As long as I am sparring with MichFan, I'd also like to ask you if you think sodomy between a man and a woman is morally worse/better/or just as bad as sodomy among two men? Just as bad, yet I'm not proposing that we invade people's bedrooms to find out if they are engaging in sodomy. With gay males it is pretty much guaranteed that sodomy is occurring if they are having sex. So I do not agree with sanctioning a relationship in which sodomy is inherent. With heterosexual couples I believe sodomy is used many times as a form of abuse. Just like you don't hear gay males jumping up and saying they love anal sex, you also don't hear that from women. You certainly can make an argument there are laws on the book already that would criminalize the use of sodomy as a violent act without the need for specific anti-sodomy laws. Second of all, by no means am I a liberal. I voted for Bush. MichFan, I may agree with you on many ideological issues, but I'd have to say your debating skills are terrible. Just about every post you've made on this thread prefaces with the "Typical lib....blah blah blah blah blah" and then you eloquently finish off your stereotype with the emoticon. How, in anyway, did you refute the post I made? Did you critique the reasoning behind it? Did you offer a point by point counter-argument? All you did was give me an insulting one liner that falsely stereotyped me. While mine was an erroneously labeled as a "Typical lib kneejerk reaction", I'd have to say yours was a "Typical idiot kneejerk reaction". If you are in favor of gay marriage then you are liberal on the issue. Stop ducking the label and wear it with honor. I'd gladly accept being called conservative on the issue and wouldn't take offense to it. I really didn't care to debate you on the point you were making. Your post accused two conservatives of selectivity applying biblical values as it suits their agenda. It's a ridiculous argument. Neither was suggesting that homosexuality should be illegal based on biblical grounds. The post from Arondale you quoted from had nothing to do with him using the bible to prove homosexuality was wrong, it was in response to his perception that others were improperly using verses from the bible. Just because people have religion doesn't mean they necessarily force their religion on others. You were accusing them of exactly that. It was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 If you are in favor of gay marriage then you are liberal on the issue. Stop ducking the label and wear it with honor. 121078[/snapback] Why is the label even important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Wouldn't it be the "incestuous"? We should debate this, so we're ready for the day. 121077[/snapback] "The Incestos" makes it seem more SciFi. Maybe they can have a convention in Vegas. It's all about PR anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 And I'm getting sick of responding to this line of thinking. Ofiba, if for some crazy, bizzarro reason that in 2020 both incest AND polygamy have made it into mainstream America, and they aren't bothering me, and the incestos (I have no idea what to call this make-believe constituency), then I, Johnny Coli will in fact fight for their civil rights. Are you happy? Can I just go to hell now? Your response implies that homosexual marriage has made it into mainstream America. Sorry to inform you, but 70% of Americans that have had the opportunity to vote on it have voted against it. Massachusettes' Supreme Court and Hollywood are not the mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Why is the label even important? 121079[/snapback] For honor, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Why is the label even important? Because when it comes to liberal positions it implies something deeper. Come on, AD, you took me to the ropes over my opinion on assault guns and I admitted I was a stupid lib on that position. If I can accept the label when it suits me surely I should be able to use it with others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Your response implies that homosexual marriage has made it into mainstream America. Sorry to inform you, but 70% of Americans that have had the opportunity to vote on it have voted against it. Massachusettes' Supreme Court and Hollywood are not the mainstream. 121085[/snapback] MichFan, I disagree. If it is in fact 70%, which I doubt, but I'm sure you or others will jump to provide a link, it won't be 70% for long. You know why it won't be 70% for long? Ignorance and bigotry are dying off. The more people that actually meet, work, interact, call as friends gay Americans, the more the stigma will dissappear. You may not dig the lifestyle, but there is no real reason to discriminate against it by law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Because when it comes to liberal positions it implies something deeper. Come on, AD, you took me to the ropes over my opinion on assault guns and I admitted I was a stupid lib on that position. If I can accept the label when it suits me surely I should be able to use it with others. 121090[/snapback] Sweet. I'm a liberal because I don't care if two adults marry each other. Those explosions you hear around you are the skulls of liberals like Tenny and Debbie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Just as bad, yet I'm not proposing that we invade people's bedrooms to find out if they are engaging in sodomy. With gay males it is pretty much guaranteed that sodomy is occurring if they are having sex. So I do not agree with sanctioning a relationship in which sodomy is inherent. With heterosexual couples I believe sodomy is used many times as a form of abuse. Just like you don't hear gay males jumping up and saying they love anal sex, you also don't hear that from women. You certainly can make an argument there are laws on the book already that would criminalize the use of sodomy as a violent act without the need for specific anti-sodomy laws.If you are in favor of gay marriage then you are liberal on the issue. Stop ducking the label and wear it with honor. I'd gladly accept being called conservative on the issue and wouldn't take offense to it. I really didn't care to debate you on the point you were making. Your post accused two conservatives of selectivity applying biblical values as it suits their agenda. It's a ridiculous argument. Neither was suggesting that homosexuality should be illegal based on biblical grounds. The post from Arondale you quoted from had nothing to do with him using the bible to prove homosexuality was wrong, it was in response to his perception that others were improperly using verses from the bible. Just because people have religion doesn't mean they necessarily force their religion on others. You were accusing them of exactly that. It was wrong. 121078[/snapback] Michfan...please look at the definition of sodomy...how much oral sex do you think goes on in the homes of Americans....i have read that in middle schools around this country young girls compete to see who can give the most oral sex.. Homosexual anal sex is not the only form of sodomy....sdrry it runs rampant in hetersexual households...sodomy laws..thats a laugh...sodomy is NOT used as a form of abuse in heterosexuals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Sweet. I'm a liberal because I don't care if two adults marry each other. Those explosions you hear around you are the skulls of liberals like Tenny and Debbie. 121101[/snapback] You owe me a new keyboard, dude, because this one just got a gin and tonic shower. I can't unstick my "W" key. I'm fugged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts