Well, I am sure I am on the terrorist list now....

[iGary]

Washington Post Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012000780.html)

Judge Rejects Md. Anti-Gay Marriage Law
By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; 6:03 PM

A Baltimore judge ruled this morning that Maryland's law banning same-sex marriage "cannot withstand constitutional challenge," throwing open the possibility of a ferocious legislative battle over a constitutional amendment on the issue.

Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock, acknowledging her ruling's impact, immediately stayed the decision, and the state attorney general's office has filed notice of its intent to appeal. But the decision comes just as the Maryland General Assembly has convened for its 90-day session, and promises to refocus the legislature's attention squarely on the issue.

"The evidence is now on the table. We must pass a constitutional amendment," said Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel). "This issue is not for the courts to decide."

Maryland has had a law in effect since 1973 defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Nineteen gay men and women filed suit last year, arguing that the law was unconstitutional.


My response to senor asshat™ (my Delegate):


Mr. Dwyer,

You, sir are exactly the reason that hundreds of thousands of Republicans are fleeing the party (I did a year ago). Unfortunately, you and most of the party have long lost sight of about what the Republican Party was formed for--and at its core--is about: individual freedom with a limited and non-intrusive government.

Your quote in Friday's Washington Post is what struck me to write this letter to you:

"The evidence is now on the table. We must pass a constitutional amendment."

I, for one, as have many Marylanders, have had it with state lawmakers passing laws that are very obviously a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause as well as meddling in the affairs of "the sanctity of marriage." Let me assure you, Mr. Dwyer, that with a 50% divorce rate, the "sanctity of marriage," as you put it, is far from an untouched treasure that we need to "defend," as our governor has put it.

The other item you are quoted as saying follows:

"This issue is not for the courts to decide."

I say, sir, that the issue of marriage, and who it can and can't include is not for you and state lawmakers to decide. Please stop wasting the salary I pay you dealing with such foolishness in order to "save us" from some imaginary evil and remember what being a Republican is about - freedom, not exclusion. I wouldn't mind a tax break while you are at it.

Respectfully yours,

Gary Reich

[2nyRiggz]

I wouldn't mind a tax break while you are at it.

Respectfully yours,

Gary Reich

You had to throw it in there huh;) LOL


Bless

[zimv20]

Gary Reich
a-HA! so your name is gary! i KNEW it!!!

:-)

steve

[iGary]

a-HA! so your name is gary! i KNEW it!!!

:-)

steve

I should have signed it iGary.

[pseudobrit]

individual freedom with a limited and non-intrusive government.

Hey! Sounds a lot like my kinda government.

And seeing as I'm a Democrat, normally we'd just be arguing about how limited the non-intrusive and freedom-respecting government should be.

Shame about those Republicans though.

Steve (another one)

[aquajet]

Great letter, iGary. I hope you plan to send Mr. Dwyer a hard copy.

-David-

[pseudobrit]

I should have signed it iGary.

You should have delivered it by hand.

[silverback66]

May as well add it to the constitution. Enough states have already made their will clear. Funny how you all think you're in the majority on this.

[vniow]

May as well add it to the constitution. Enough states have already made their will clear. Funny how you all think you're in the majority on this.

I agree. Equality sucks.

[aquajet]

May as well add it to the constitution. Enough states have already made their will clear. Funny how you all think you're in the majority on this.

Welcome back, silverback...

The legislatures can add it to their Constitutions, but the courts have already ruled such legislation unconstitutional. Perhaps we should pass a constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage?

[aquajet]

I agree. Equality sucks.

Heh, yeah. If everybody followed the logic of SB, black people would still be in bondage, you wouldn't be able to vote, and we'd both be in jail for our "choices." Sounds like a winning situation for all of us.

[silverback66]

Thanks for the warm welcome back. I bet you al missed me terribly and even shed a tear while I was gone.

As for your contentions, that's some twisted logic you have yourself there my friend because race and ethnicity is not a moral issue. I think it's pretty well accepted that rascism in any form is an evil thing. Homosexuality on the other hand is a moral issue and so at the local and state level we have every right to define marriage as we see fit. We may even have that right on the national level which we will soon find out.

[belvdr]

Okay, so who is going to be the first person to bring out a big stick?

EDIT: I guess I should add that I must have missed some interesting posts before the mods stepped in on the last few debates, so I have no idea why silberback66 got the ban-stick waved over his/her head. So my comment is just a joke really.. Not trying to start anything... :)

[vniow]

Homosexuality on the other hand is a moral issue and so at the local and state level we have every right to define marriage as we see fit.

Not really, its a trait, much like hair colour, eye colour, how tall you are, etc. It only seems a moral issue because your religion tells you to and last time I checked we don't let the church make our laws.

Its an equality issue, plain and simple.

[belvdr]

Not really, its a trait, much like hair colour, eye colour, how tall you are, etc. It only seems a moral issue because your religion tells you to and last time I checked we don't let the church make our laws.

Its an equality issue, plain and simple.

I have a question then. And I'm serious too, not trying to poke holes in anyone's thoughts.

Why do people switch to homosexuality, then switch back if it's a trait? It seems this would something one wouldn't be able to switch between at all in the first place.

[silverback66]

I'll be happy to fill you in. I was telling a story of a couple women I know who were raped and decided to keep their babies and now are glad they made the descision they did because their babies have become such tremendous blessings in their lives. Someone called that anti-abortion propoganda, I got upset and called them an A##hole for talking down on people that I care about and I got banned for a week.

[silverback66]

Not really, its a trait, much like hair colour, eye colour, how tall you are, etc. It only seems a moral issue because your religion tells you to and last time I checked we don't let the church make our laws.

Its an equality issue, plain and simple.

And that's not a fact, that's an opinion. I guess the recent trend of middle school and high school kids claiming to be bisexual is just a genetic anomoly at work huh?

[vniow]

Why do people switch to homosexuality, then switch back if it's a trait? It seems this would something one wouldn't be able to switch between at all in the first place.

Because in some people, their trait is that they're flexible. Some people are stuck one way or the other but some are inherently attracted to one, then the other and some are inherently attracted to both. Sexuality is certainly not something that's static but I would say it was certainly a trait not unlike any other.

And that's not a fact, that's an opinion.

Its a fact that most people are pretty sure they know what gender they're attracted to. I'm assuming you're quite confident you know you're attracted to the opposite sex no?

I guess the recent trend of middle school and high school kids claiming to be bisexual is just a genetic anomoly at work huh?


So I'm an anomaly eh? :rolleyes:

I wouldn't call it a trend so much as I would say that (some of) society os more open to non-heterosexual ways of being and the people who would have already had those feelings are more free to act and explore them to find out where they really stand on things.

Homo/bisexuality is nothing new, its not a trend and its not going away. The only thing in flux is society's attitudes about it.

[silverback66]

Because in some people, their trait is that they're flexible. Some people are stuck one way or the other but some are inherently attracted to one, then the other and some are inherently attracted to both. Sexuality is certainly not something that's static but I would say it was certainly a trait not unlike any other.



Its a fact that most people are pretty sure they know what gender they're attracted to. I'm assuming you're quite confident you know you're attracted to the opposite sex no?




So I'm an anomaly eh? :rolleyes:

I wouldn't call it a trend so much as I would say that (some of) society os more open to non-heterosexual ways of being and the people who would have already had those feelings are more free to act and explore them to find out where they really stand on things.

Homo/bisexuality is nothing new, its not a trend and its not going away. The only thing in flux is society's attitudes about it.

Yes, it's a fact that I'm attracted to women, but that doesn't make it genetic.

And I don't know if you're an anomoly yet. I'll get back to you on that one lol.

[vniow]

Yes, it's a fact that I'm attracted to women, but that doesn't make it genetic.

Yeah, so am I. What was your point again?

[aquajet]

As for your contentions, that's some twisted logic you have yourself there my friend because race and ethnicity is not a moral issue. I think it's pretty well accepted that rascism in any form is an evil thing. Homosexuality on the other hand is a moral issue and so at the local and state level we have every right to define marriage as we see fit. We may even have that right on the national level which we will soon find out.

Yes, they were moral issues. The most significant argument expounded by opponents of interracial marriage claimed that it was unnatural and immoral.

[silverback66]

Yeah, so am I. What was your point again?

My point is that you can't prove that it's genetic and there seems to be more evidence to the contrary so why keep hiding behind that excuse. If you're attracted to women aren't you woman enough to say that that's your choice?

[silverback66]

Yes, they were moral issues. The most significant argument expounded by opponents of interracial marriage claimed that it was unnatural and immoral.

Well obvioiusly those people who I imagine were from the church missed all of the examples of interracial and interethnic marriage in the Bible and were nothing more than common bigots. Don't hate on all for the mistakes a few man, it's just not groovy cat, you dig?

[zimv20]

there seems to be more evidence to the contrary
let's see the research, then.

[aquajet]

My point is that you can't prove that it's genetic and there seems to be more evidence to the contrary so why keep hiding behind that excuse.

Then how would you explain the fact that in identical twins, if one identifies as gay, then in 52% of cases the other identifies gay as well? And this is in spite of whether or not they were reared together or separately.

(Bailey and Pillard, 1991)

[Agathon]

Unfortunately, you and most of the party have long lost sight of about what the Republican Party was formed for--and at its core--is about: individual freedom with a limited and non-intrusive government.

You have to be joking right?

The Republican Party has always been about individual freedom with a limited and non-intrusive government as long as you are: (a) a man; (b) white; (c) rich; and (d) straight.

And how many years did it take you to realize this?

[vniow]

The debate wether sexuality is genetic or socially determined (most likely both) is largely irrelevant to the greater issue of equal rights. Quite frankly it shouldn't matter what gender a person decides to be with be it determined off of genes or off of social upbringing, the fact is they wish to spend the rest of their lives (ideally) with someone they care about and want to make that official, a la marriage. Right now 90% of the population can and the rest can't. Like I said before, this is not a debate about morality, religion, nature or nurture, its a debate about equality.

[silverback66]

http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/privacy/gene-sexuality.html

Here you go dear chaps. It's a fair minded article with interesting points for both sides. Happy reading.

[silverback66]

The debate wether sexuality is genetic or socially determined (most likely both) is largely irrelevant to the greater issue of equal rights. Quite frankly it shouldn't matter what gender a person decides to be with be it determined off of genes or off of social upbringing, the fact is they wish to spend the rest of their lives (ideally) with someone they care about and want to make that official, a la marriage. Right now 90% of the population can and the rest can't. Like I said before, this is not a debate about morality, religion, nature or nurture, its a debate about equality.


In your mind it's just a debate about equality, but for others in the country it is a moral issue.

[vniow]

http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/privacy/gene-sexuality.html

Here you go dear chaps. It's a fair minded article with interesting points for both sides. Happy reading.

In your mind it's just a debate about equality, but for others in the country it is a moral issue.

I loved this quote from the end of the article:

We need an end to discrimination, an acceptance of all human beings, and a celebration of diversity, whatever its origins.

[zimv20]

http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/privacy/gene-sexuality.html

please enlighten me on how this article supports your assertion.

[silverback66]

I loved this quote from the end of the article:




I don't support discriminating against gays, but I don't support giving them special rights either. And I know what you'll say, "it's not special rights it's equal rights!"

Opinion....that's yours....this is mine.

[silverback66]

please enlighten me on how this article supports your assertion.

Zim, you didn't even read it did you? *sigh* Okay, just for you buddy, here's a few things that stuck out:


"The most frequently cited study was conducted by molecular biologists at the National Institutes of Health under the direction of Dean Hamer. This study is currently under investigation by the federal Office of Research Integrity for possible scientific misconduct, because one of the study collaborators alleges that Hamer suppressed data that would have reduced the statistical significance of the reported results."

"But even more significant for Hamer’s studies is the definition of who is gay. Hamer uses the extremely conservative estimate of two percent for the prevalence of homosexuality among American men. Increasing this value to the usually accepted values of five to ten percent reduces or even eliminates the statistical significance of his results. "

"Hamer’s results remain controversial. An independent study of gay siblings did not reproduce his results"

"Another study claiming that there is a connection between homosexuality and biology, by the neurophysiologist Simon LeVay, claims that a specific structure in the brain is smaller in gay than in straight men. The size of this structure in gay men, he claims, is more like that seen in heterosexual women – though in fact, he has no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined. All of LeVay’s observations were made on the brains of cadavers, and his evidence about the sexual orientation and practices of the people in life is entirely circumstantial. Furthermore, the "gay men" all died of AIDS, which is known sometimes to affect brain structures. Another criticism of this study is that in some of LeVay’s "gay" samples, the structure was larger than in the "straight" ones, so that upon inspection, there is no basis for deciding whether a given person in life had been "gay" or "straight."

[vniow]

And I know what you'll say, "it's not special rights it's equal rights!"


It IS equal rights!! How many times do we have to prove that before you finally realise it?

[silverback66]

It IS equal rights!! How many times do we have to prove that before you finally realise it?

Go ahead, prove it, I'll listen.

[aquajet]

In your mind it's just a debate about equality, but for others in the country it is a moral issue.

No, it is entirely a debate about equality. Morality is merely your argument for inequality.

[aquajet]

I don't support discriminating against gays, but I don't support giving them special rights either. And I know what you'll say, "it's not special rights it's equal rights!"

Opinion....that's yours....this is mine.

I assume you're trying to use the flawed argument that gays are allowed to marry (just as straights), as long as it is a member of the opposite sex?

Gay marriage is not a 'special right.' If I am allowed to marry another man, then so are you. Likewise, if you are allowed to marry a woman, then so am I.

[zimv20]

Zim, you didn't even read it did you?
i did read it. the article questioned the methods used in some studies. how does that demonstrate that, with regard to genetics being a determiner in sexuality, "there seems to be more evidence to the contrary"?

the article asserts no such thing. when articulating a position, i suggest you be a little more diligent in your research and founded in your argument.

[silverback66]

No, it is entirely a debate about equality. Morality is merely your argument for inequality.

Opinion.

[silverback66]

I assume you're trying to use the flawed argument that gays are allowed to marry (just as straights), as long as it is a member of the opposite sex?

Gay marriage is not a 'special right.' If I am allowed to marry another man, then so are you. Likewise, if you are allowed to marry a woman, then so am I.

If we lived in a world without God, conservatives and traditionalists you'd win the prize bucko! Exccccciting!

[aquajet]

Opinion.

Then answer me this question:

Why should gay marriage be illegal?

[silverback66]

i did read it. the article questioned the methods used in some studies. how does that demonstrate that, with regard to genetics being a determiner in sexuality, "there seems to be more evidence to the contrary"?

the article asserts no such thing. when articulating a position, i suggest you be a little more diligent in your research and founded in your argument.


Hhahaha you are a funny little man. since you're sucha diligent researcher why don't you articulate the opposite position of mine and go to town with it. I tell ya, there's no pleasing some people.

[silverback66]

Then answer me this question:

Why should gay marriage be illegal?

Ooooooh, you're not going to like my answer. Because God says it's wrong.

[vniow]

My goddess says equality for all.

Which religion are our laws based off of again? I forget.

[silverback66]

Here's an interesting thoretical for you to consider. The article spoke breifly on genetic engineering saying that if in fact a gene were found linked to homosexuality, parents would be able to prevent homosexuality in their children thus virtually elimating homosexuality. I'm curious what you all think because we're dealing with two liberal ideas that in effect destroy one another and provide yet another moral dilema.

[silverback66]

My goddess says equality for all.

Which religion are our laws based off of again? I forget.
It's based off of islam...didn't they teach you anything in school ;)

[aquajet]

Here's an interesting thoretical for you to consider. The article spoke breifly on genetic engineering saying that if in fact a gene were found linked to homosexuality, parents would be able to prevent homosexuality in their children thus virtually elimating homosexuality. I'm curious what you all think because we're dealing with two liberal ideas that in effect destroy one another and provide yet another moral dilema.

Can you clarify the two liberal ideas?

[OnceUGoMac]

You have to be joking right?

The Republican Party has always been about individual freedom with a limited and non-intrusive government as long as you are: (a) a man; (b) white; (c) rich; and (d) straight.

And how many years did it take you to realize this?

That's a curious argument as the Democrats were the party of the Deep South until Nixon. Which party sponsored abolition? The Republicans. Didn't think that one through, eh?

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/

[Mike Teezie]

Yes, it's a fact that I'm attracted to women, but that doesn't make it genetic.

And I don't know if you're an anomoly yet. I'll get back to you on that one lol.

I have a serious question. At what point did you choose to be attracted to women?

I'm a guy, and I'm attracted to women (woman if my girlfriend is reading this). I chose nothing. I was born, and here I am.

And Gary - great going. People don't speak out enough.

[silverback66]

Can you clarify the two liberal ideas?

homosexual rights and science without regard for morality....granted the second isn't exactly an idea but moreso a reflection of the ideas you hear being tossed around by those on the left.

[silverback66]

I have a serious question. At what point did you choose to be attracted to women?

I'm a guy, and I'm attracted to women (woman if my girlfriend is reading this). I chose nothing. I was born, and here I am.

And Gary - great going. People don't speak out enough.

C'mon man I can't remember what I had for breakfast last week and you want me to tell you when I chose to be attracted to women? Well let me give it a go....probably between 10 and 12. Before that girls were gross....ewwwww.....girls have cuties! After that....DANG girls are awesome! So yeah man, I made a choice right around puberty. I think Freud talked about this stuff. Maybe I'll look into it....then again, maybe not. We'll see.

[Mike Teezie]

You missed the point.

I'm asking when you made your choice between men and women.

[vniow]

I'm asking when you made your choice between men and women.

I choose the cuter one(s).

[silverback66]

You missed the point.

I'm asking when you made your choice between men and women.

Well I pulled out my checklist and and put a check next to penis since I already had one and then saw that the female counterparts weren't checked off yet so I moved in that direction. Seriously, how do you expect me to explain my sexuality from when I was 12?

[silverback66]

I choose the cuter one(s).

there's something we agree on ;)

[aquajet]

Well I pulled out my checklist and and put a check next to penis since I already had one and then saw that the female counterparts weren't checked off yet so I moved in that direction. Seriously, how do you expect me to explain my sexuality from when I was 12?

You can't explain it because it's something that came naturally to you. You became attracted to girls because it felt right. And much like you, I can't explain why I turned out gay. It's just something that felt right.

[silverback66]

You can't explain it because it's something that came naturally to you. You became attracted to girls because it felt right. And much like you, I can't explain why I turned out gay. It's just something that felt right.

I can't explain it because I was too young govna'. Luckily, I found some info about what our friend Mr. Freud says:

http://www.hku.hk/english/courses2000/2078/gender.htm


Just as a side note, I'm curious, did you grow up in a broken home? Just thinking here.

[Mike Teezie]

I guess I could spell it out:

People don't choose their sexuality.

Oh, and something else - I feel that bigotry is immoral.

[silverback66]

I guess I could spell it out:

People don't choose their sexuality.

Oh, and something else - I feel that bigotry is immoral.

According to Freud the social factors determine sexuality. Seems logical enough.

By the way, I agree with you that bigotry is immoral but I won't go into the difference between the sin and the sinner....unless you want me too. ;)

[Mike Teezie]

Well according to my friends who happen to be gay, they chose nothing. They were born that way.

Living in the south, I've heard that "hate the sin, love the sinner" crap my entire life, and I've never met one person who practices it.

[silverback66]

You can, but it might be a waste of time.

Living in the south, I've heard that "love the sin, hate the sinner" crap my entire life, and I've never met one person capable of it.


That's because there's only one person who has ever done it perfectly and I'm sure you know who I'm referring to. ;)

[OnceUGoMac]

Well according to my friends who happen to be gay, they chose nothing. They were born that way.

Living in the south, I've heard that "love the sin, hate the sinner" crap my entire life, and I've never met one person who practices it.

I think you mean "hate the sin, love the sinner"?

[Peterkro]

I think you mean "hate the sin, love the sinner"?

I don't know the other way round seems more in line with christians.

[silverback66]

Well according to my friends who happen to be gay, they chose nothing. They were born that way.


It's not just a matter of choice. According to Freud homosexuality is the result of certain childhood factors particularly as they relate to the children's parents. I mean considering that little kids aren't even sexually aware until years later, how can one just happen to be gay before it's even possible to incline one way or the other sexually?

[Mike Teezie]

Weird. My friend has five brothers, and they are all straight.

And I'm not concerned with when anyone becomes sexually aware. But when they do, there is no choice involved. I'm offering that there is never choice involved, whatever Freud might say.

I'm also concerned that some people seem to think being gay is something that happens when a person's morals aren't in line. Or it's something that can be cured.

[silverback66]

I don't know the other way round seems more in line with christians.

Way to go mate! Stick it to the man! You show those Christians whose boss! Here's your big boy pants! ;)

[silverback66]

Weird. My friend has five brothers, and they are all straight.

Well people do get treated differently within families you know. Otherwise how would we be able to keep making family sitcoms!? :eek:

[Peterkro]

Since you appear to like using Freud to bolster your predujices maybe you could read up on Projection because thats what your doing.Me I'm polymorheus perverse.

[OnceUGoMac]

Well people do get treated differently within families you know. Otherwise how would we be able to keep making family sitcoms!? :eek:

Dude, don't you dare drag "Ozzie and Harriet" into this.:mad: ;) :D

[aquajet]

According to Freud the social factors determine sexuality. Seems logical enough.

Too bad Freud passed in 1939, and since then, empirical evidence suggests that homosexuality is caused by a "complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors."

American Psychological Association (http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31)

[faintember]

Does it matter if anyone chooses their sexuality or if they are born with it?
What does that have to do with the right to marriage?

Everyone should have that right, equally. This coming from a straight male, age 25, born and raised in South Carolina as a Southern Baptist.

Even if you choose to go down the path that says "The Bible says it is wrong" well, the God to which that bible refers to also gave us this free will thing, it allows us the right to choose to do as we wish. Also another little tid-bit from that same collection of writings "Ye without sin shall cast the first stone".

Even if none of what i said makes any sense, what harm would it make to anyone to allow homosexuals to marry?

Edit: i forgot to give props to iGary. Way to go speaking out. I am probably on the list as well as i own a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook and was once involved in an, well, non-mainstream political party.

[silverback66]

Seen you appear to like using Freud to bolster your predujices maybe you could read up on Projection because thats what your doing.Me I'm polymorheus perverse.

I don't have any "predujices" and the only projection I care about is high def with 6.1 surround sound! WOOHAAA!!!

[silverback66]

Dude, don't you dare drag "Ozzie and Harriet" into this.:mad: ;) :D

sorry, my mistake...what about Ozzie and Sharon? ;)

[silverback66]

Too bad Freud passed in 1939, and since then, empirical evidence suggests that homosexuality is caused by a "complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors."

American Psychological Association (http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31)

and before that note what it says:

"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation"

emphasis on theories.

[Peterkro]

I don't have any "predujices" and the only projection I care about is high def with 6.1 surround sound! WOOHAAA!!!

Could you translate that into english please.:rolleyes:

[Mike Teezie]

Even if none of what I said makes any sense, what harm would it make to anyone to allow homosexuals to marry?

This has always been my biggest question with the whole anti-gay thing.

How does it negatively affect anybody?

Like iGary said, if it's the sanctity of marriage they are trying to protect, I'm pretty sure they're a day late and a dollar short with that whole thing what with divorce rates and all.

[sethypoo]

Even if you choose to go down the path that says "The Bible says it is wrong" well, the God to which that bible refers to also gave us this free will thing, it allows us the right to choose to do as we wish. Also another little tid-bit from that same collection of writings "Ye without sin shall cast the first stone".

I totally agree with you. We have free will, as given by God. Let's use it.

Also, I seem to recall that Jesus was very much looked down upon by the Pharisees since he associated with Gentiles, lepers, and (gasp) tax collectors. Isn't it accepted fact that these sorts of people, back then, were scorned and refused basic rights in the same way homosexuals are scored and denied basic rights (like marriage) today?

[faintember]

Also, I seem to recall that Jesus was very much looked down upon by the Pharisees since he associated with Gentiles, lepers, and (gasp) tax collectors. Isn't it accepted fact that these sorts of people, back then, were scorned and refused basic rights in the same way homosexuals are scored and denied basic rights (like marriage) today? You just said what i was trying to say, way back in my mind, but did it quite eloquently! Well done! Cheers!

[silverback66]

Does it matter if anyone chooses their sexuality or if they are born with it?
What does that have to do with the right to marriage?

Everyone should have that right, equally. This coming from a straight male, age 25, born and raised in South Carolina as a Southern Baptist.

Even if you choose to go down the path that says "The Bible says it is wrong" well, the God to which that bible refers to also gave us this free will thing, it allows us the right to choose to do as we wish. Also another little tid-bit from that same collection of writings "Ye without sin shall cast the first stone".

Even if none of what i said makes any sense, what harm would it make to anyone to allow homosexuals to marry?

Edit: i forgot to give props to iGary. Way to go speaking out. I am probably on the list as well as i own a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook and was once involved in an, well, non-mainstream political party.


If you can show me where God supports marriage between two men and marriage between two women then I'm with you man, but to the best of my recollection the words that come up in association with homosexuality are sexual immorality. We are called to loves the sinners which we all are, but nowhere does it say to support the sin and be an advocate of it.

[Mike Teezie]

God doesn't write the laws in America though.

[faintember]

If you can show me where God supports marriage between two men and marriage between two women then I'm with you man, but to the best of my recollection the words that come up in association with homosexuality are sexual immorality. We are called to loves the sinners which we all are, but nowhere does it say to support the sin and be an advocate of it.Did you catch that last part of my post, about the whole "ye without sin......" thing??? Just curious, do you, or have you ever masturbated? (i am totally serious and apologize to anyone offended by this question; i will edit if necessary)

[Peterkro]

If you can show me where God supports marriage between two men and marriage between two women then I'm with you man, but to the best of my recollection the words that come up in association with homosexuality are sexual immorality. We are called to loves the sinners which we all are, but nowhere does it say to support the sin and be an advocate of it.

If you can show me where god supports or doesn't support anything,or that she exists,I'll start believing in imaginery friends.

[Mike Teezie]

If you can show me where god supports or doesn't support anything,or that she exists,I'll start believing in imaginery friends.

Ah yes, the more direct approach.

[sethypoo]

We are called to loves the sinners which we all are, but nowhere does it say to support the sin and be an advocate of it.

I think (and yes, this is my opinion) that God calling on us to love sinners no matter what is the same thing as supporting said sinners. While the Bible may not state the word "support," I think that "love" can easily mean the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to hand a murderer a gun and say "go shoot em'" and call that love and support. However, I think God would smile upon us if we were to open up marriage to whomever wants to get married. To me, this is supporting in a healthy, Godly, goodly, whateveryouwanttocall it way.

[sethypoo]

Did you catch that last part of my post, about the whole "ye without sin......" thing??? Just curious, do you, or have you ever masturbated? (i am totally serious and apologize to anyone offended by this question; i will edit if necessary)

Ha HA! :D :D :D :D :D I laughed so loud I think I woke my girlfriend up (yes, I'm straight, silverback).

I want to know too, have you ever masturbated, silverback?

[sethypoo]

You just said what i was trying to say, way back in my mind, but did it quite eloquently! Well done! Cheers!

Thanks for the cheers, mate. I haven't gotten a "cheers" on these forums in quite awhile. :)

[faintember]

no problem sethypoo, and my apologies to your girlfriend!

I am quite serious about my question though, and look forward to a reply.:cool:

[aquajet]

Just curious, do you, or have you ever masturbated?

*pushes buzzer button*

Yes. I'm doing it right now. :eek:

j/k

[silverback66]

I totally agree with you. We have free will, as given by God. Let's use it.

Also, I seem to recall that Jesus was very much looked down upon by the Pharisees since he associated with Gentiles, lepers, and (gasp) tax collectors. Isn't it accepted fact that these sorts of people, back then, were scorned and refused basic rights in the same way homosexuals are scored and denied basic rights (like marriage) today?

Jesus also said ,"you shall know them by their fruit." and "those who love me will obey my commandments." and what's more, Paul says, that the word of God will appear as foolishness to those who don't know Him. Seriously, if you want to use scripture to back up your argument how me where God approves of gay marriage. Jesus didn't hang out with sinners and the lower echelon of society to give them "basic rights" as you seem to contend. As he said in his own words, "it is not the healthy that need a doctor but the sick." Also let's look at mary magdalene (presumably) who is brought before Jesus after being caught in the act of adultery. This is where we find "let he who is without sin cast the first stone but also "go and sin no more."

[silverback66]

no problem sethypoo, and my apologies to your girlfriend!

I am quite serious about my question though, and look forward to a reply.:cool:

sorry I don't reply to disgusting degenrates such as yourself. ;) I'm sure you can find other forums where people will take care of your cycber sex needs though.

[faintember]

sorry I don't reply to disgusting degenrates such as yourself. ;) I'm sure you can find other forums where people will take care of your cycber sex needs though.Ok, don't answer. How about this instead...Have you ever looked at a woman with lust? i.e, Have you ever seen a woman and said "wow, look at that (insert favorite portion of the female anatomy)!"

even further off topic..i wonder if aquajet would allow me to us that last post as my signature?? lol

[sethypoo]

Jesus didn't hang out with sinners and the lower echelon of society to give them "basic rights" as you seem to contend.

Um, yes he did.

Jesus hung out with sinners to give them the ultimate basic right: the right to eternal life in heaven. If you're really a Christian, you should know this by heart.

I'm not so much trying to prove word-for-word that God approves of gay marriage as I am trying to prove that God stands, if anything, for equal rights. Rights like the right to marry whom you choose.

I believe that God is all-forgiving, regardless of sexual orientation or what not. When we get to those pearly gates (or whatever they are), God is going to know full well what we did with our lives, and he's going to weigh everything and pass judgement. I will not be surprised in the least if I meet gay people up there. Being gay should not be a instant "you're going to Hell" label: let's leave that hard decision up to God!

[aquajet]

sorry I don't reply to disgusting degenrates such as yourself. ;) I'm sure you can find other forums where people will take care of your cycber sex needs though.

Hmmm...do you think masturbation is evil? Are you ashamed that you do it?

[silverback66]

Ok, don't answer. How about this instead...Have you ever looked at a woman with lust? i.e, Have you ever seen a woman and said "wow, look at that (insert favorite portion of the female anatomy)!"

that's more like it....and yes I have, many times. And according to Jesus that makes me an adulterer and also I've lied before so that makes me a liar. I've stolen, so that make me a theif. I've spoken in anger and said some equivalent of RAKKA at my brother which makes me a murderer. I've also eaten until I could eat no more which makes me a glutton. And each of my sins is equal in severity with homosexuality. As an aside, I don't support lusting, lying, stealing, wrathful anger, gluttony or homosexuality.

Here's the kicker, for the longest time I measured myself against the world's standard of what a good person is. I was damn good by wordly standards. Then when I became a christian two years ago I was faced with God's standard and dang, I was horrible compared to that. BUT, that's exactly why Christ came so that the punishment I deserved for my sins would be taken upon Him. He took it all for me so that someday I'll be able to stand blameless before God. And so, as is spoken is the bible, I'm justified by faith and have been born again into a life in which my penalty has been paid thuis negating all those things I mentioned before is Christ's eyes.

[faintember]

And so, as is spoken is the bible, I'm justified by faith and have been born again into a life in which my penalty has been paid thuis negating all those things I mentioned before is Christ's eyes.So you don't sin anymore? I will make it easy for you, what i am attempting to get across is that we all sin, if you think being homosexual is a sin, fine, but my problem is you preaching, knowing that you are a sinner as well. What is that other quote from the Bible...something like "take the log out of one's own eye first before trying to take the speck out of someone else's eye" (i know thats not the exact verbiage, but you get my drift)

[Blue Velvet]

What is that other quote from the Bible...

Never get into a biblical discussion with a Christian. Once they've dragged you down to their level and onto their homeground, you're dead meat.

They can find anything to justify their prejudice in that slippery mass of twisted contradictions and half-baked homilies they call 'God's word'.

[silverback66]

Um, yes he did.

Jesus hung out with sinners to give them the ultimate basic right: the right to eternal life in heaven. If you're really a Christian, you should know this by heart.

I'm not so much trying to prove word-for-word that God approves of gay marriage as I am trying to prove that God stands, if anything, for equal rights. Rights like the right to marry whom you choose.

I believe that God is all-forgiving, regardless of sexual orientation or what not. When we get to those pearly gates (or whatever they are), God is going to know full well what we did with our lives, and he's going to weigh everything and pass judgement. I will not be surprised in the least if I meet gay people up there. Being gay should not be a instant "you're going to Hell" label: let's leave that hard decision up to God!

First off, *************!! Heaven is not our basic right. God doesn't OWE us anything. We deserve death but God loves us enough to die in our place so that we can live.

And since when does God stand for equal rights? Are you freaking kidding me? Tell that to the Egyptians or the Amalekites or Job! God stands for righteousness and love. As you might recall Paul wrote, "what relationship does light have with darkness?"

You're right to say that God is all-forgiving, but you may want to add for those who accept Christ. Remember what Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except through me." Of course there will be gay people in heaven! Homosexuality is a sin, it isn't a one way ticket to hell. It'll be judged the same as any other sin. Only those who die without accepting Christ will go to hell.

[Blue Velvet]

Only those who die without accepting Christ will go to hell.

So there's no room on your magic spaceship for most of the world's population who have ever lived? Just those who are somehow special?

[silverback66]

Hmmm...do you think masturbation is evil? Are you ashamed that you do it?

to be honest I haven't quite made up my mind on it. Lusting I know for sure is a sin, but masterbation isn't addressed specifically. Of course for the most part it's virtually impossible to seperate the two. I'm ashamed that I do it, but not for the reason you might think. I'm ashamed because of the lust that genrally comes with it and my knowing that it's a sin. I mean frankly it doesn't matter who you're lusting after whether it's a girl you know or some porn star, they're all creations of God and in the case of the porn star I would argue that it's more shameful to use them as objects of lust, though again, all sins carry the same weight.

[faintember]

Never get into a biblical discussion with a Christian. Once they've dragged you down to their level and onto their homeground, you're dead meat.

They can find anything to justify their prejudice in that slippery mass of twisted contradictions and half-baked homilies they call 'God's word'.Well, being that i am a christian, i am arguing with another christian.

You did hit on one of my sore points. Some people really like to read into the Bible, put their own spin on it. It really gives all of "us" a bad name, because we constantly bicker, we get zealots that say the most stupid things (not mentioning names...cough ***Pat Robertson*** cough), and the people that say that it only costs $20 for you to be HEALED!!!!!! Personally i think it is a whole lot simpler than most people make it out to be, but thats an rant for another thread, lol.

Thanks for the warning though. To this one, i go in, head down, guns blazing (that is until i get sleepy)...

[Peterkro]

First off, *************!! Heaven is not our basic right. God doesn't OWE us anything. We deserve death but God loves us enough to die in our place so that we can live.

And since when does God stand for equal rights? Are you freaking kidding me? Tell that to the Egyptians or the Amalekites or Job! God stands for righteousness and love. As you might recall Paul wrote, "what relationship does light have with darkness?"

You're right to say that God is all-forgiving, but you may want to add for those who accept Christ. Remember what Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except through me." Of course there will be gay people in heaven! Homosexuality is a sin, it isn't a one way ticket to hell. It'll be judged the same as any other sin. Only those who die without accepting Christ will go to hell.

No self respecting Gay would be seen dead in heaven.*adjusts velvet and diamonte gloves*

[faintember]

I'm ashamed that I do it [masterbate]
Ok, so you do that "thing". Thats basically sex with yourself, right? So, anyone that partakes in that activity is a homosexual (or at least bisexual), right? ;)

[Blue Velvet]

...all sins carry the same weight.

So the mass genocide of millions of people is equivalent to my friend's loving and nurturing gay relationship in which they care for each other through sickness and health?

What a complete and festering mountain of utterly worthless crap.

[silverback66]

So you don't sin anymore? I will make it easy for you, what i am attempting to get across is that we all sin, if you think being homosexual is a sin, fine, but my problem is you preaching, knowing that you are a sinner as well. What is that other quote from the Bible...something like "take the log out of one's own eye first before trying to take the speck out of someone else's eye" (i know thats not the exact verbiage, but you get my drift)

I sin, but I'm forgiven for it and save for rare instances I am not willfully seeking after sin.

Here's the verses you were referencing though I got this from the Message Bible. I just like this translation of it:


1"Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults--unless, of course, you want the same treatment. 2That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. 3It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. 4Do you have the nerve to say, "Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt?

I'm not oblivious to the fact that I sin and I admit on occassion when people speak to me in a certain way I have the tendancy to throw the boomerang back at them, but let me make it clear, I have no animosity towards homosexuals nor do I think being homosexual is anymore a sin than anything else. It's simply the one that's most often a topic of discussion.

[silverback66]

So there's no room on your magic spaceship for most of the world's population who have ever lived? Just those who are somehow special?

Mormons are the ones who get their own planet so go talk to them.

[Peterkro]

I sin, but I'm forgiven for it and save for rare instances I am not willfully seeking after sin.

Here's the verses you were referencing though I got this from the Message Bible. I just like this translation of it:


1"Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults--unless, of course, you want the same treatment. 2That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. 3It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. 4Do you have the nerve to say, "Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt?


This from a person who criticised my spelling.:confused: :confused:

[silverback66]

So the mass genocide of millions of people is equivalent to my friend's loving and nurturing gay relationship in which they care for each other through sickness and health?

What a complete and festering mountain of utterly worthless crap.

Listen why don't you go spew your hate somewhere else?

[silverback66]

This from a person who criticised my spelling.:confused: :confused:


dude, C'mon now:

"I'm not oblivious to the fact that I sin and I admit on occassion when people speak to me in a certain way I have the tendancy to throw the boomerang back at them"

[Peterkro]

Keep it up BV(if you can be arsed) hes going to blow again.:D

[silverback66]

:rolleyes: oh look the liberals are getting all worked up again. Big surprise.

[zimv20]

Listen why don't you go spew your hate somewhere else?
if you're going to proselytize in every thread, then she's got a right to comment on it. and i agree with her.

[faintember]

Listen why don't you go spew your hate somewhere else?Remember the freedom of speech thing we have in the USA? Yeah....blue velvet is entitled to his/her ideas, and is free to speak them. And they are within the forum rules IIRC.

[Blue Velvet]

Listen why don't you go spew your hate somewhere else?

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about loud-mouthed and ill-mannered n00bs.

I have no hate, just contempt for your 'arguments'.

If anyone around here is expressing hate it's those who profess to be concerned about the souls of other people while simultaneously condemning them under the guise and pretence of concern for their spiritual welfare.

[Peterkro]

:rolleyes: oh look the liberals are getting all worked up again. Big surprise.

I am not ,never have been and will never be a "liberal".

[aquajet]

No self respecting Gay would be seen dead in heaven.*adjusts velvet and diamonte gloves*

*lightly chuckles*

;)

[silverback66]

Well I blocked her so now she can say whatever she wants because frankly her words aren't worth my time.

[Agathon]

That's a curious argument as the Democrats were the party of the Deep South until Nixon. Which party sponsored abolition? The Republicans. Didn't think that one through, eh?

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/

Did I say that the Democrats were historically any better?

Nope.

Both parties are largely a joke, the Republicans are just more of a joke. Conservatism isn't even a coherent and non trivial political philosophy.

[aquajet]

Listening to Michael Savage too much can be bad for your health, silverback.

[silverback66]

Remember the freedom of speech thing we have in the USA? Yeah....blue velvet is entitled to his/her ideas, and is free to speak them. And they are within the forum rules IIRC.

Did I ever say she wasn't? I shut her up since I knew she wouldn't do it herself. She's more than welcome to do the same to me as are the rest of you if you don't like what I have to say. ;)

[Blue Velvet]

Well I blocked her so now she can say whatever she wants because frankly her words aren't worth my time.

I am truly privileged. :D

[silverback66]

Listening to Michael Savage too much can be bad for your health, silverback.

I don't know who that is. What network is he on?

[Agathon]

First off, *************!! Heaven is not our basic right. God doesn't OWE us anything. We deserve death but God loves us enough to die in our place so that we can live.

And since when does God stand for equal rights? Are you freaking kidding me? Tell that to the Egyptians or the Amalekites or Job! God stands for righteousness and love. As you might recall Paul wrote, "what relationship does light have with darkness?"

You're right to say that God is all-forgiving, but you may want to add for those who accept Christ. Remember what Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except through me." Of course there will be gay people in heaven! Homosexuality is a sin, it isn't a one way ticket to hell. It'll be judged the same as any other sin. Only those who die without accepting Christ will go to hell.

None of this has anything to do with the legal rights of homosexuals.

If you don't like the idea of homosexuals getting married, then don't get married to another person of the same sex, and don't attend or approve of gay weddings. No one is compelling you to do either.

If you want to make religious morality into law, go read some history and study the intellectual wreckage of this idea. In a state where there are fundamental disagreements about the conduct of one's private life and what is permissible conduct between consenting individuals, attempts to legislate virtue will not only fail in the end, but will cause no end of harm.

[Agathon]

I am not ,never have been and will never be a "liberal".

Don't consign yourself to the dustbin of history like that!!!

[faintember]

Did I ever say she wasn't? Yeah, ya did. You told her to go away and "spew" somewhere else. She has the right to speech no matter where she is...hence my previous comment, hence you violating the first amendment.

I guess you didnt like my comment back in post #102. You seemed to gloss right over that....

[OnceUGoMac]

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about loud-mouthed and ill-mannered n00bs.

I have no hate, just contempt for your 'arguments'.

If anyone around here is expressing hate it's those who profess to be concerned about the souls of other people while simultaneously condemning them under the guise and pretence of concern for their spiritual welfare.

Show respect for your fellow posters
Name-calling, eye-rolling, use of deprecating smilies, generalizations/stereotypes, etc. will be viewed as a display of disrespect and will fall under the heading of "trolling"

Not that I agree with Silverback66, but the only thing that you've added to this discussion is Christian-bashing:

Never get into a biblical discussion with a Christian. Once they've dragged you down to their level and onto their homeground, you're dead meat.

They can find anything to justify their prejudice in that slippery mass of twisted contradictions and half-baked homilies they call 'God's word'.

You may not agree with his religious stance on the issue, but to bash his religion and call him names for expressing his beliefs falls under trolling.

[Peterkro]

I don't know who that is. What network is he on?
Well I'm guessing he's not the Michael Savage who was NZ's best known Prime Minister and a Socialist to boot,so I guess he won't be in your heaven.

[aquajet]

I don't know who that is. What network is he on?

I cannot, for moral reasons, divulge that information to you.

[silverback66]

None of this has anything to do with the legal rights of homosexuals.

If you don't like the idea of homosexuals getting married, then don't get married to another person of the same sex, and don't attend or approve of gay weddings. No one is compelling you to do either.

If you want to make religious morality into law, go read some history and study the intellectual wreckage of this idea. In a state where there are fundamental disagreements about the conduct of one's private life and what is permissible conduct between consenting individuals, attempts to legislate virtue will not only fail in the end, but will cause no end of harm.

And what if the majority of the country doesn't approve of it and wants to make it so marriage can only be between a man and a woman? You know there are alternatives.....like Canada. I often wonder why American liberals don't move up there. It's basically everything they want America to be that it's not, soooooo.....seems like it'd be a good place for them to be able to live in the kind of society they'd like. I'm not being facetious at all with this.

[silverback66]

I cannot, for moral reasons, divulge that information to you.

Hahaha....good stuff. :D

[Blue Velvet]

I'm not being facetious at all with this.

No, you're making it quite clear what you are being.

[Peterkro]

Don't consign yourself to the dustbin of history like that!!!
I think the problem here is semantics,liberal isn't the same thing in English as it is in American english.:)

[silverback66]

Alright, I'm going to get some sleep. Goodnight all!

Goodnight Blue Velvet....and God bless you.

[OnceUGoMac]

And what if the majority of the country doesn't approve of it and wants to make it so marriage can only be between a man and a woman? You know there are alternatives.....like Canada. I often wonder why American liberals don't move up there. It's basically everything they want America to be that it's not, soooooo.....seems like it'd be a good place for them to be able to live in the kind of society they'd like. I'm not being facetious at all with this.

That's just silly. We moderates need the liberals to counter the conservatives so we can take over. :D Plus, variety is the spice of life. ;)

[Agathon]

And what if the majority of the country doesn't approve of it and wants to make it so marriage can only be between a man and a woman? You know there are alternatives.....like Canada. I often wonder why American liberals don't move up there. It's basically everything they want America to be that it's not, soooooo.....seems like it'd be a good place for them to be able to live in the kind of society they'd like. I'm not being facetious at all with this.

Um... smack me in the head if I'm wrong, but your country is based on the idea of protecting individual rights from the tyranny of majority opinion. So is Canada for the record. The gay marriage decision in Canada was enacted through the courts, because the present law was found to violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the Canadian government wants to change the law, it will have to invoke the notwithstanding clause, which is a politically difficult thing to do.

What if the majority wished to abolish private property? I bet you'd be squealing like that dude in Deliverance if that happened.

I'm sorry, but Conservatism is essentially stupid. It's not even a coherent political philosophy (I spend a great deal of time trying to work out what it is supposed to be, and I couldn't come up with a workable theory that wasn't trivial or daft). The liberal framework of non-interference in private life is the only workable political system in a modern multiethnic and pluralist society. Sqawking won't change that.

[Blue Velvet]

Not that I agree with Silverback66, but the only thing that you've added to this discussion is Christian-bashing:

You may not agree with his religious stance on the issue, but to bash his religion and call him names for expressing his beliefs falls under trolling.


And you'd know about that... right?

Besides, it has nothing to do with Christianity. Bring on anyone who condemns others on the grounds of 'immorality' using religion as a crutch to their argument. It's just that we don't get many other proponents of various faiths here expressing such twisted views.

[Agathon]

I think the problem here is semantics,liberal isn't the same thing in English as it is in American english.:)

In American English "liberal" covers a variety of political positions incorporating all of the practical ones as well as some of the more extreme and impractical positions of the far left.

In American English "conservative" refers to a collection of antiquated and incoherent political positions involving fundamental misunderstandings of how modern societies work politically and economically.

[OnceUGoMac]

And you'd know about that... right?

:confused:

Besides, it has nothing to do with Christianity. Bring on anyone who condemns others on the grounds of 'immorality' using religion as a crutch to their argument. It's just that we don't get many other proponents of various faiths here expressing such twisted views.

Fair enough.

[bousozoku]

This is quite lovely. How did this mess ensue? I could say a few things but I think I would dig the hole deeper.

Let me just say that we shouldn't continue to discuss this further and I'm closing the thread.