I am veteran of wars and think gays should not be able to get married. anyone who disagrees is a racist

I am veteran of wars and think gays should not be able to get married. anyone who disagrees is a racist

I don't disagree that you are a veteran of wars, but I'm not sure why that makes you hate gays.

LOL, good one

I don't disagree that you are a veteran of wars, but I'm not sure why that makes you hate gays.

??

Don't you KNOW?!?!?!

The same reason that ALL religionists hate and fear gays;

"Gays are unclean"

"Gays ain't natcherull"

"Gays are evil"

"Gays are :::::<horrified gasp!!>:::::.........sinful!"

I see satire is lost on you...

I see satire is lost on you...

I see that you are ignorant of what Trav's (previously stated) position is.

Do you believe that the first sentence of his --- "I am veteran of wars.... , was satire?

Do you believe that the second part of the first sentence of his -- "...gays should not be able to get married" --- was not his true opinion on the matter?

I don't think there was one ounce of 'satire' in it.

The **anyone who disagrees is a racist** comment, it's true, was no doubt tongue-in-cheek...........the rest was (based on his previous comments) a statement of fact.

Just because we are anti gay marriage, doesn't mean that we hate gays.

Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.

If gay people want civil unions, that is fine, but don't call it marriage.

Where will you draw the line? If we allow gay marriage, what's next.

(Will it be multi person marriage?????)


I don't disagree that you are a veteran of wars, but I'm not sure why that makes you hate gays.

You call yourself a free thinker?? To say that ALL persons in a group believe something is not thinking freely.



??

Don't you KNOW?!?!?!

The same reason that ALL religionists hate and fear gays;

"Gays are unclean"

"Gays ain't natcherull"

"Gays are evil"

"Gays are :::::<horrified gasp!!>:::::.........sinful!"

if you disagree with gay marriage, you hate gays, if you hate illegal immigration, you are a racist who hates all immigration. thats how they operate

I was withholding judgement until I saw the responses, but this thread is fucking stupid.

yea, its stupid because of two things....

its 75% stupid because freethinker's moronic claim that ALL religionists "hate and fear gays".... well i can put that to rest right now because i dont hate or fear gays, and im a religionist. Guess you are wrong FT

And its 25% stupid because of Trav's challenge, but at least he had some sarcastic satire tied in, which made it at least worthwhile. Just leave it to FT to be the idiot of the group, he's become quite good at it. If you disagree with Trav, argue the point. Dont be dumb like "Free"thinker.

I dunno, I'm starting to get mixed feelings. After endless article after article of nothing but the same old shit, I can't really fault Trav for trying something different. The last thread he started was excellent, so I was willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt.

Still, though, yah, it's pretty dumb.

If you disagree with Trav, argue the point.

Problem with that is, he has no patience for argument.

You call yourself a free thinker?? To say that ALL persons in a group believe something is not thinking freely.

You're right.

I apologize.

The way I should have phrased it was ----------------

Those people who believe in and follow the commands and precepts contained in the Bible (IOW, the same people I was speaking of when using the term *religionists*) are required to hate gays, for the following reasons;

"Gays are unclean"

"Gays deserve to be put to death".

"Gays are sinful"

if you disagree with gay marriage, you hate gays, if you hate illegal immigration, you are a racist who hates all immigration. thats how they operate

You've been known to operate that way yourself Trav. You frequently accuse those against the war in Iraq of wanting to surrender, or put Saddam back in power. It's a pretty ridiculous tactic no matter who uses it.

[QUOTE=Freethinker]??
The same reason that ALL religionists hate and fear gays....
==================================

I suppose, that if I were a religionist, I would judge not, least I be judged.
Or, I would sort thru the book and pick out only those passages that pertain to my own way of thinking.
Two perfectly good, and convenient, ways of thinking.

Of course, there is the third alternative, not think at all. This keeps the head from hurting, besides, staying up at night, and worrying what others might be doing in their bedrooms, might ......oh well, I'll leave that to thread #6745377.

Please show me where in the Bible we are required to hate gays? I do believe the Koran says that followers of Allah should hate Gays.

Please show me this in the Bible.

For your info, all have sinned, all of us are sinners.

Gay people and strait people have sinned. The bible says that we should love.

But we won't let them change marriage with out a fight.



You're right.

I apologize.

The way I should have phrased it was ----------------

Those people who believe in and follow the commands and precepts contained in the Bible (IOW, the same people I was speaking of when using the term *religionists*) are required to hate gays, for the following reasons;

"Gays are unclean"

"Gays deserve to be put to death".

"Gays are sinful"

Please show me where in the Bible we are required to hate gays? I do believe the Koran says that followers of Allah should hate Gays.

Please show me this in the Bible.

It doesn't say you are required to hate them, it says you are required to kill them.

Leviticus
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

OTOH, perhaps merely treating them shabbily will be enough to please God.


1 Kings
15:11 And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.

15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.


But we won't let them change marriage with out a fight.

Gays don't want to change marriage, they want to participate in it. It is you who believe that allowing gays to marry will somehow "change" marriage. Assuming you are married, how will allowing me to marry another man change your marriage?

if you disagree with gay marriage, you hate gays, if you hate illegal immigration, you are a racist who hates all immigration. thats how they operate

Kind of like how if you disagree with the war, you hate the troops? Or if you disagree with religion, you hate religious people?

Marriage is an institution of God. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. If 2 dudes get married, that would change marriage.

There was a woman who was caught commiting adultry. (With a dude)

She was going to be stoned, and Jesus prevented it.





It doesn't say you are required to hate them, it says you are required to kill them.


OTOH, perhaps merely treating them shabbily will be enough to please God.





Gays don't want to change marriage, they want to participate in it. It is you who believe that allowing gays to marry will somehow "change" marriage. Assuming you are married, how will allowing me to marry another man change your marriage?

Please show me where in the Bible we are required to hate gays? Please show me this in the Bible.

Find it yourself. I have posted it here previously numerous times.

A very basic search of the internet (or the book itself, if you can stomach it) will reveal it in clear detail.

I do believe the Koran says that followers of Allah should hate Gays.

True. Islam and Christianity spring from the same source......and, unsurprisingly, both preach hatred of homosexuals.

For your info, all have sinned, all of us are sinners.

For YOUR info, the concept of "sin" has ---for me--- no meaning. It is akin to saying ----"All human beings have been blessed".

It is a human construct....a meaningless human construct.

"He is YOUR God, they are YOUR rules, YOU Burn in Hell." -- Ephemera Buttons and Magnets

The bible says that we should love.

What the..........?!?!?!?

Two sentences ago, you seemed unaware of WHAT the Bible says. Now you're telling us what it says. If you've ever READ the thing, you HAD to have come across the part where your invisible friend ordered that gays were to be executed.

Oh wait!!!!....maybe that's the way your unseen, omnipotent deity shows his "love" for homosexuals....by having them stoned to death.

Yeah....that must be it.

Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.[quote]

Marriage isn't SUPPOSED to be anything. Its an institution created by man, so there is no one definition set in stone, just like any other man-made institution.

[QUOTE=gmsisko1]If gay people want civil unions, that is fine, but don't call it marriage.

Where will you draw the line? If we allow gay marriage, what's next.

(Will it be multi person marriage?????)

So you're fine with gay civil unionn? Well, If we allow gay civil unions, what's next. Will it be multi person civil unions???? I can't believe you support multi person civil unions.

Marriage is an institution of God. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. If 2 dudes get married, that would change marriage.
Yes, it would alter it slightly. Want to know what altered marriage far more?

Divorce. Which was not possible until the eighteenth century.

"By marriage the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being of legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything."

Marriage is an institution of God. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. If 2 dudes get married, that would change marriage.

Marriage has existed in some form in every human civilization of written record. That crosses over religious, political, language, and race barriers; IOW, that assertion is silliness. Marriage is defined by however the two involved in it define it as, some partners have a different mode of their relationship than others, that includes homosexuals.

Also, the government is not to make laws that enforce religious beliefs on the public, "defining" marriage is not your business, nor is it of the government. We here know you are a Christian, and so disdain the idea of homosexual marriage by doctrine, but can you not understand that the government is not a Christian insititution with no business dealing with the romantic and sexual lives of its citizens?

Gay Marriage Thread # 6745376

Pointless thread #8675309

Marriage is an institution of God. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. If 2 dudes get married, that would change marriage.

Civil marriage is non-religious marriage. Why shouldn't same-sex consenting adult couples be able to undergo civil marriages without changing the religious definition of marriage or the practice of marriage within religious institutions?

Why shouldn't same-sex consenting adult couples be able to undergo civil marriages without changing the religious definition of marriage or the practice of marriage within religious institutions?

The reason that same-sex consenting adult couples in the U.S are unable to undergo *civil marriages* is BECAUSE, America is --unfortunately-- a nation filled to the goddamned BRIM with superstitious fucking idiots for whom the idea of **gay marriage licenses** is just "wrong".

The reason that same-sex consenting adult couples in the U.S are unable to undergo *civil marriages* is BECAUSE, America is --unfortunately-- a nation filled to the goddamned BRIM with superstitious fucking idiots for whom the idea of **gay marriage licenses** is just "wrong".
Well, to be completely honest, I agree with you, but there's a bigger issue at hand here. I, personally, believe gays should be allowed to marry one another, but that isn't good enough, is it? In a truly "progressive society", we should allow brothers to marry sisters, and we should issue marriage licenses to people who think a legitimate relationship entails 4 men, 13 women, a team of clowns, and 12 ft. double dong, shouldn't we? My point is simple: you people have NO moral boundaries, period. Why should we listen to you, especially when it comes to the issuance of licenses our government is responsible for handing out? Mind you, we live in a country that’s BY the people, and supposedly FOR the people. You let that shit fly, and you're just as sick as the twisted fucks who participate in it. I’m not giving those weirdoes a tax break. If they want their relationship validated, then they can move to the Red Light district in Prague.

My point is simple: you people have NO moral boundaries, period. Why should we listen to you, especially when it comes to the issuance of licenses our government is responsible for handing out? Mind you, we live in a country that’s BY the people, and supposedly FOR the people...

Why listen to FT? Because he is a citizen of this country. Whether he is politically active, or well-educated on the subject, is not a requisite to be worthy of decision-making, nor is his possessing of the same moral confines as you a part of that.

Now, the phrase, "You people have no moral boundaries", but the statement is faulty, why? Simply because FT and other similarly-minded individuals (say, Guerilla) do have a moral compass that guides their decision-making, whether they acknowledge that reasoning as "morality" or not. We see guerilla and FT outraged at the state of the US government, because of their own morals that "force" them to see abuses or clandestine conspiracy as repugnant, they continue to voice their frustration. FT has shown to operate under the ideal "An it harm none, do as thou wilt" (the Wiccan Rede), which is itself a moral boundary.

And we do indeed live in a country that is by the people, as our elected officials are chosen by the populace, but to live in a government that is for the people, would that not entail a libertine bent on social issues like this?

Why listen to FT? Because he is a citizen of this country.
Good, then once again, I submit that this issue should be put to a national referendum, and we'll call it a day. Thanks for clearing up the confusion.
And we do indeed live in a country that is by the people, as our elected officials are chosen by the populace, but to live in a government that is for the people, would that not entail a libertine bent on social issues like this?
Great word - I was looking for it earlier, and I couldn't think of it: "libertine". That's exactly what FT is; unprincipled and unrestrained. In answer to your question, I recognize the point you're trying to make (and in an "ideal" world, it isn't entirely bad...), but that, in no way, means that I think our government should backstab the American collective to appease their pseudo-romantic notion of gladly accepting the lifestyle of the rankly dissolute at all costs. I will NEVER bend on incest, and to be honest with you, I don't think polygamy is much better.

Thanks for clearing up the confusion.

Just because you've the ability to listen to FT doesn't mean you should be influenced by him, same goes with the American people. The collective can't always be counted on to do what is fair.

In answer to your question, I recognize the point you're trying to make (and in an "ideal" world, it isn't entirely bad...), but that, in no way, means that I think our government should backstab the American collective to appease their pseudo-romantic notion of gladly accepting the lifestyle of the rankly dissolute at all costs. I will NEVER bend on incest, and to be honest with you, I don't think polygamy is much better.

As for FT, he may be unrestrained, but there is a semblance of "principle" within his stands.

As for your argument, I understand your disdain for polygamy and incest (being that I have siblings, I find it a few jumps further than just plain "awkward"). But I don't think the American people merely misunderstand it, they loathe "it" (polygamy and/or incest). I see that there are clear obstacles, both legal and biological, in those situations, but being that I don't believe it is the government or the society's job to tell two people how and why they should love each other, I support the freedom for such to become a legally-recognized marriage if the partakers so choose. You may find it disgusting, or some act of insanity, but the simple truth is that they are living their life the way they want. You claim such notions are "pie in the sky fantasies", but this is the real world; as such, the American people need to note that their inhibitions and discrimination against such small minorities only keeps that minuscule group of people from living their life the way they want to.

How is the American public being "backstabbed" by allowing a fringe group to have rights that it deserves? "Backstabbed" because the American government is making pro-freedom measures that disagree with the religious set-in-stone values that most Americans have (Your reasoning isn't from religion, we've covered that, but it is out of simple disgust, which is nonsense because your lifestyle could easily be taken as disgusting by anyone who chooses to dislike you)? Government shall make no law respecting religion is one of the most important phrases in our Constitution, and always will be.

Let them have their unions, and call it a civil union.

Do not allow them to call it marriage.



Civil marriage is non-religious marriage. Why shouldn't same-sex consenting adult couples be able to undergo civil marriages without changing the religious definition of marriage or the practice of marriage within religious institutions?

Well, to be completely honest, I agree with you, but there's a bigger issue at hand here. I, personally, believe gays should be allowed to marry one another, but that isn't good enough, is it? In a truly "progressive society", we should allow brothers to marry sisters, and we should issue marriage licenses to people who think a legitimate relationship entails 4 men, 13 women, a team of clowns, and 12 ft. double dong, shouldn't we? My point is simple: you people have NO moral boundaries, period.

I have moral boundaries, and they sound similar to yours...but I think yours are blurred. You put gays on one side of the boundary, and you put incest and polygamy on the other side, yet when it comes to the law you want to put them all on the same side.

The reason I don't buy the slippery slope argument is because I don't believe there are ONLY two options. People act like the only two options are A) allow heterosexuals couples to marry and NO ONE else, or B) allow EVERYONE to marry. I don't see it that way. Look at sex laws. Its legal for gay people to have sex with each other, but that hasn't created a slippery slope causing the legalization of sex between siblings or sex between adults and minors...so why would allowing gays to get married lead to those groups getting married? Has anyone every heard of two siblings going to court and trying to say it should be legal for them to have sex citing the legal precedent that gays are allowed to legally do it?

Do not allow them to call it marriage.

Why? What argument do you have that makes that sound reasonable?

I am veteran of wars and think gays should not be able to get married. anyone who disagrees is a racist

Sorry I didn't read all the post but are you telling me homosexuals are a race? That would mean the obese, different hair color, cripples, etc must be types of races??????????? I'm also a vet maybe I belong to the vet race? everyone here is part of the allforum race, wonder if we can get any special treatment???????????

The reason I don't buy the slippery slope argument is because I don't believe there are ONLY two options. People act like the only two options are A) allow heterosexuals couples to marry and NO ONE else, or B) allow EVERYONE to marry. I don't see it that way. Look at sex laws. Its legal for gay people to have sex with each other, but that hasn't created a slippery slope causing the legalization of sex between siblings or sex between adults and minors...so why would allowing gays to get married lead to those groups getting married? Has anyone every heard of two siblings going to court and trying to say it should be legal for them to have sex citing the legal precedent that gays are allowed to legally do it?
That was a very logical way to combat my argument. I have to say, in all honesty, I think you're right. Maybe I was making a mountain out of a molehill, but me understanding that doesn't do much for the nausea that results from even thinking about "allowing" these people to marry each other. That being said, kudos, Dna.

I don't have a problem with gay or polygamous marriages. Consenting adults should be free to live as they choose. Incest, however, is another matter altogether, even between consenting adults. Aside from the obvious genetic reasons, the social taboo attached to incest is beneficial. It is important for adolescent males to have close nonsexual relationships with women near to their own age. This helps them to see women as people at a time when their hormones are screaming that they are objects. While (for now) I have no evidence to support this, my intuition tells me that a young man who is close to his sisters or female cousins is less likely to behave like an animal when alone with a young lady who is not his sister or cousin.

When I look back on the relationship I've had with my sister and how it helped me to mature, I can not help but think it would have been lessened had I been thinking about her tits all the time. As it was, the thought simply never occurred to me (and everyone knew the easiest way to start a fight was to say something sexual about a guy's sister). Young men have enough turmoil and confusion during adolescence without adding sexual thoughts of their female relatives to the mix. There is a process of maturation by which the lust and desires of adolescence evolve into the protectiveness of, and respect for women that every adult male should exhibit. The incest taboo is a tool that assists that process.

Good posts abound.

And for the heck of it: :matrix: