# OT: Bush pushes amendment to ban Gay Marriage - Gay Marriages in PDX



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*OT: Bush pushes constitutional amendment to ban Gay Marriage*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3518117.stm

Anyone remember Bush Sr.'s Anti-Flag-Burning amendment? That worked real well, didn't it?

This is quite clearly political: I can't really see this passing, but it's a long slow process, so by the time it dies, the election will be long over and the loyal cadre of religious wingnuts will have trooped out to vote for their boy, because after all, "protecting marriage" is the #1 issue that Jesus would have cared about.

I just wonder how many people this piece of pandering to his far-right base will alienate? Can't see the Log Cabin Republicans being too enthused...

Wonder what the Cheney household is like right now?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: OT: Bush pushes constitutional amendment to ban Gay Marriage*



> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3518117.stm
> 
> Anyone remember Bush Sr.'s Anti-Flag-Burning amendment? That worked real well, didn't it?
> ...


To me, Bush is WAY out of his place as President on this issue.

It just isn't a political issue. It is a legal issue, plain and simple. Bush's beratement of judges and saying that they are in the wrong and pushing "activist agendas" is just ludicrious.

There is no place for abortion, same sex marriage or any such stuff in politics. These are moral/quasi-religious issues and have no place in politics. 

When it comes to same-sex marriage, this is about as legal an issue as you can come by. It is NOT under the jurisdiction of the legislative or executive branches of government.

Marriage is a CONTRACT! By definition, a contact is a legally binding document and thus under the jurisdiction of the courts.

Furthermore, anything not expressly stated in the constitution should be governed by each individual state. 

Simple as that.

The Supreme Court should be hanged for treason on the whole Patriot Act thing (and federal income taxation), but if they don't squash this -- then they have really lost their heads.

The founding fathers were trying to PREVENT this type of governmental control when they created the constitution. 

Play.


----------



## pumkinhead (Jan 30, 2004)

*is this a political forum*

Who really cares about gay marriage? who can consumate a "holy ordinance" ADAM and ERVING can you please take the bedroom where it belongs not on a public sports forum


----------



## Political_Baller30 (Feb 20, 2004)

*Re: OT: Bush pushes constitutional amendment to ban Gay Marriage*



> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> the election will be long over and the loyal cadre of religious wingnuts will have trooped out to vote for their boy, because after all, "protecting marriage" is the #1 issue that Jesus would have cared about.


That is a somewhat inaccurate generalization, many religions are against homosexuality and gay marriage completely.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: is this a political forum*



> Originally posted by <b>pumkinhead</b>!
> Who really cares about gay marriage? who can consumate a "holy ordinance" ADAM and ERVING can you please take the bedroom where it belongs not on a public sports forum


if you don't like off topic posts, just don't read posts that contain "OT" in the subject heading.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: OT: Bush pushes constitutional amendment to ban Gay Marriage*



> Originally posted by <b>Political_Baller30</b>!
> 
> 
> That is a somewhat inaccurate generalization, many religions are against homosexuality and gay marriage completely.


i see what you're saying, but i think the point is that there are much more pressing problems facing this country right now. if bush is really serious about getting this amendment through, it will inevitably take his and his employees' time away from more important issues - i.e. the economy and the thousands of people that don't have jobs. i don't think that the 10 or so people i know that have been out of work for over a year care about gay marriage. they needs a freakin' job first.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: OT: Bush pushes constitutional amendment to ban Gay Marriage*



> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3518117.stm
> 
> Anyone remember Bush Sr.'s Anti-Flag-Burning amendment? That worked real well, didn't it?
> ...



way to polarize the nation george.

sure, more than 50% of US aren't in favor of gay marriages, but a constitutional amendment??

isn't that kinda like an amendment Prohibiting alcohol? kinda like, 'don't you have something better to complain about?'


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

I want to point something out:



> While reaffirming his opposition to gay marriages, Mr. Kerry also reiterated his support of civil unions between same-sex partners.


LINK 



> Kerry has said he believes marriage - both legally and religiously - should be reserved between a man and woman.
> 
> "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples - from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision," Kerry said last week after the court ruling.


LINK 



> The amendment, which would have to be passed by Congress and ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures, would still allow states "to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage," said Bush.


 aka "Civil Unions"... 
LINK

 FWIW-Raph Nader says the same thing...no to marriage, yes to civil unions (on Hardball last night 2/23)


It's all semantics-they are ALL against gay MARRIAGE. They are ALL willing to go with CIVIL UNIONS.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

A nice, tongue-in-cheek commentary on this issue from the Daily Show last night (only paraphrasing the end of it):

Jon Stewart: But do you support a *constitutional amendment* to prevent gay marriage? That seems like a drastic step...

Stephen Colbert (as relationship expert): Absolutely, Jon. Gay marriage is a societal trend that *I* do not agree with. What are constitutional amendments for but to prevent things I, personally, do not like? We *have* to preserve the sanctity of marriage!

Jon Stewart: But, if we want to protect the sanctity of marriage, what about a constitutional amendment banning adultery? After all, adultery does much more harm to...

Stephen Colbert (breaking in urgently): Jon, Jon! Are you insane? A constitutional amendment banning adultery? The government has no business regulating my personal life! Keep your jack-booted thugs *out* of my bedroom! Or, rather, out of several, undisclosed bedrooms in unspecified locations...


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> It's all semantics-they are ALL against gay MARRIAGE. They are ALL willing to go with CIVIL UNIONS.


The point is Bush has no right to amend the constitution against homosexual marriages. The right to decided if gays can get married should be left up the the individual states and not the federal government.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> 
> 
> The point is Bush has no right to amend the constitution against homosexual marriages. The right to decided if gays can get married should be left up the the individual states and not the federal government.


He has the right to make a proposal to amend. It has to be voted on and passed as any other change would be. Our gov is set up so that these things come to a vote-that is all he is doing and he is doing his job to do so. He is responding to what he believes to be the will of the people....the congress (voted in by the people) will vote on this-it will either pass or not pass...If he's wrong it will fail, if he's right it will pass.

He can not do it as a dictator would-that is what we're all about isn't?


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

This will never get through. Bush knows it, his advisors know it.

He is doing this to get the backing of the religious conservatives for the upcoming election.

Good strategic move? Yes. Should he be doing this as the President of the United States?? No.

I just don't understand this... we, as a country, are moving towards gay marriage. If it doesn't happen this year, or next, it will soon. 

It is inevitable.

Polls are slowly but surely creeping towards gay civil rights as they did for civil rights and abortion in their heyday.

And for those of you that say marriage is a religious institution. Why do some get married at City Hall? That certainly is not a religious ceremony.

Stuart

P.S. And to lighten things up a little...


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

I think the president is wrong on this one...but a majority in polls say they are against gay marriage. i'm sure the Log Cabin repubs won't be too happy.


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> He has the right to make a proposal to amend. It has to be voted on and passed as any other change would be. Our gov is set up so that these things come to a vote-that is all he is doing and he is doing his job to do so. He is responding to what he believes to be the will of the people....the congress (voted in by the people) will vote on this-it will either pass or not pass...If he's wrong it will fail, if he's right it will pass.
> ...


I agree, He has the right to make the proposal.

But, IMO, it is an inappropriate use of the amendment process. There's no need for such an amendment. There's no jeopardy whatsoever to any exisiting or future marriage. Therefore, not only is it a bad idea it's a waste of my money as a taxpayer.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

maybe I'm just ignorant religiously or am missing something here, but I just don't even see what the big deal is. Marriage is basically a legal contract. Who cares whether it's a man and a woman, a man and man, or a friggin man and a hyena? If you think it's wrong for whatever reason, no one is forcing you at gunpoint to enter into a gay marriage, so just live and let live. If the reasons for disagreeing with it are religious, what is it doing in the political spectrum? What happened to the separation of church and state? Why is the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" such an acrimonious one? Why does marriage need to be, in Dubya's oh-so-eloquent phrasing, "protected"? It's not like all of a sudden, straight couples can't get married because there aren't enough marriage licenses to go around, or that marriage is somehow discredited. Gay people want to formalize their partnerships legally as marriages. Why is that such a threat? What's the big deal?

If you guys have any input as to why this is such a divisive issue, please enlighten me, because I simply don't understand why anyone should be getting their feathers ruffled about it.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> He can not do it as a dictator would-that is what we're all about isn't?


Bfan,

One would hope, but if you look at some of the laws good ol' Georgie Porgie got pushed through, you'd be scared. 

Further, this was the same thought that got income taxation (a blatantly unconstitutional tax) pushed through. 

Sick dog politics is the name of the game. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> I think the president is wrong on this one...but a majority in polls say they are against gay marriage. i'm sure the Log Cabin repubs won't be too happy.


The majority of the polls ... wow... they would lead you to believe that this actually is some indication of American thought.

But, look at this message board. 

Not one person supports it. Based on the stats, at least half should. We don't even have one.

Play.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> I just don't understand this... we, as a country, are moving towards gay marriage. If it doesn't happen this year, or next, it will soon.
> 
> It is inevitable.
> 
> Polls are slowly but surely creeping towards gay civil rights as they did for civil rights and abortion in their heyday.



You are likely right. 
No need to go into long explanations here...but I am glad that in our country's past, people who opposed certain issues stepped up to the plate. Winning and losing isn't the issue...not laying down and letting "anything go" IS and issue. 

It is only right that there be at least a vote on these issues as there are obviously different points of view.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> He has the right to make a proposal to amend.


Not when the amendment is religion based. Ever heard of separation of church and state?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "

Sense his reasoning for making the amendment is the "sanctity of marriage" which is clearly religious he has no right to amend the Constitution against the homosexual marriages.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

this is just done to suck up to a certain wing of the party, just as an amendment made up to allow gay marriage would be done to suck up to another wing of the party. 

I like the Daily show reference...if they're going to ban homosexual marriages to save the sanctity of marriage, why not then make an amendment on adultery? or dead beat fathers? men who leave their children and wives? women who leave their children and husbands?

this is purely a political move to garner more votes. 

Saying he doesn't agree with homosexual marriage is one thing, but making an amendment to ban it is a different story, and an utter waste of our governments time, money and power.

honestly, does two men being married take any rights or strength from the average male/female marriage?

does it make someone want to get married less?

[ sarcasm ] Lord knows thats the reason I don't want to get married. it has nothing to do with the lack of women interested in me..it's because of those damn gays [ / sarcasm]

lots of people make bad examples of marriages, regardless of their sexual practices.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> If you guys have any input as to why this is such a divisive issue, please enlighten me, because I simply don't understand why anyone should be getting their feathers ruffled about it.


My feathers are MORE ruffled by the proposal to ban the marriage then anything else.

This is NOT a political issue. 

The FEDERAL government needs a nice check from the American people, because they have been overstepping their bounds for some years now. 

This is just a continuation. 

The Patriot Act now this. These are things we should be cognizant of and worried about. This is 1984, Big Brother stuff.

That is what bothers me.

Play.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

In Bush's little speech about this, I found myself disgusted by his tone in general. He didn't say it outright, but you could just sense the fact that he thinks homosexuality is deviant and wrong, and that he's doing something incredibly noble and brave by "protecting" marriage, as if this "protection" is saving some critical aspect of the American way. 

Don't expect me to help you up when you fall off your high horse, Dub. :|


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> 
> 
> Not when the amendment is religion based. Ever heard of separation of church and state?
> ...


He can still propose it. I was not evaluating the amendment itself but the option to propose it.

He could propose that we amend voting rights to apply only to Christians and he'd still have the right to propose it.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> You are likely right.
> No need to go into long explanations here...but I am glad that in our country's past, people who opposed certain issues stepped up to the plate. Winning and losing isn't the issue...not laying down and letting "anything go" IS and issue.
> 
> It is only right that there be at least a vote on these issues as there are obviously different points of view.


To an extent, I agree.

But certain issues are NOT political. They are NOT up for debate and should NOT be up for debate.

We aren't a democracy. We don't throw up anything and vote for it. We have a guideline and that guideline is the constitution. 

The government is NOT a tool to govern our individual lives, but society as a whole. 

How would you like it if they threw up the question on whether or not blacks and whites can/should get married? It isn't a political issue. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>obiwankenobi</b>!
> 
> 
> He can still propose it. I was not evaluating the amendment itself but the option to propose it.
> ...


Actually, he can't.

That is the difference between a democracy and a republic. We are the latter.

We have guidelines. 

Play.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

Just a tidbit:



> Former president Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act which endorsed the traditional view and stressed that no state must accept another's definition of marriage.



LINK Before Hilary tries to jump on the bandwagon-here's what she said in 2000


> WHITE PLAINS, NY -- Hillary Rodham Clinton said on a campaign swing through New York on Monday that while she favors full benefits for gay and lesbian couples, marriage is an institution that should be restricted to opposite sex couples.
> 
> Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman," the Associated Press quotes Mrs. Clinton as saying after a press briefing.


 LINK 

This has been around a while and it is interesting that (it seems) most do try to defend marriage as being between a man and a woman.

This isn't just a Bush issue...not at all. I applaud his guts in standing up for what he believes to be correct. Whether I agree with him or not-the guy has guts in coming right and and speaking specifically on where he stands on controversial issues. Many politicians do not do that.

I'd be real interested in seeing if Bill or Hillary say anything different now. Then we can talk political agendas...


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> The majority of the polls ... wow... they would lead you to believe that this actually is some indication of American thought.
> ...


Polls are a useful gauge of public opinion...i'm sorry if it doesn't fit your agenda in this case.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> This isn't just a Bush issue...not at all. I applaud his guts in standing up for what he believes to be correct. Whether I agree with him or not-the guy has guts in coming right and and speaking specifically on where he stands on controversial issues. Many politicians do not do that.
> 
> I'd be real interested in seeing if Bill or Hillary say anything different now. Then we can talk political agendas...


I'd appluad his belief if it was an issue that is hard to swallow or has an impact on society.

If he felt it necessary to drop taxes or raise them. If he felt that welfare was out of whack and needed restructuring. If he felt that cutting budgets across the board might be good fiscal policy.

But, this ... this is a personal issue. 

He may have guts, but he also has no conception of what his job is as President of this nation.

So far, in his term in office he has darn near pissed on everything this nation stands for. 

Play.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I'm annoyed that it's even a political issue, regardless of where certain politicians stand. 

On an aside, I wonder if Bush's team knows that visible democrats, such as Kerry, that he'll be dealing with during the campaign have taken up this stance before and he's baiting them into a flipflop that he can then call them out on.


and I applaud Gavin Newsom for also standing up for what he thought was right and fighting what he thought was a form of discrimination by allowing gay marriages in SF in defiance of state law. Bush may be making a stand (and I agree that politicians need to do this more often, right or left), but at least to me, he came off sounding far too aloof and high and mighty for me. But then again, my patience with Bush ran out years ago.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> Polls are a useful gauge of public opinion...i'm sorry if it doesn't fit your agenda in this case.


Tom, 

I was being sarcastic. 

I don't have an agenda. 

Furthermore, polls are not that useful of a gauge. Most polls are taken to display the point that the media/government want them to portray.

That is basic politics and basic stats. You know that.

Play.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> How would you like it if they threw up the question on whether or not blacks and whites can/should get married? It isn't a political issue.
> 
> Play.


This has happened...but it didn't work. Alabama was the last state to get rid of this law...

The very fact that the gay populations wants to change the laws makes it a political issue.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

uhhhhhh...i was jokin to...yaa.

I wouldn't govern by them myself, but they seem to be ingrained into our political system


Peace.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> This has happened...but it didn't work. Alabama was the last state to get rid of this law...
> 
> The very fact that the gay populations wants to change the laws makes it a political issue.


Bfan,

There really isn't much law to change. Changing law isn't always a political issue either.

The fact that there is a law banning this just shows that our supreme court has been asleep at the wheel.

Now, if the Supreme Courts decide that there should not be same-sex marriage, then I wouldn't have such an upheavel about this. 

This is not a case for the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is a case for or judicial. 

But, each state has the right to make their decision. This is NOT a Federal Governement sponsored issue. It has NO place among politics.

As for Alabama and it's interracial law ... in Mississippi there is a law that doesn't allow black people to remain in-town after sunset. It was just never removed (it may have been by now). There are law that would make you hurl if you read them.

This is one of those laws. 

Once it is brought forth, there should be no discussion. 

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> The majority of the polls ... wow... they would lead you to believe that this actually is some indication of American thought.
> ...


supports gay marriage or supports the constitutional amendment?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> uhhhhhh...i was jokin to...yaa.
> 
> I wouldn't govern by them myself, but they seem to be ingrained into our political system
> ...


Hehe. A lot of guys misread my posts and take me TOO literally. 

When I talk, I use a LOT of intonation and emotion, so people usually understand me. I lose that ability in emails.

It's my fault.

Play.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> .....But, each state has the right to make their decision. This is NOT a Federal Governement sponsored issue....


Hmmmm.....what if a gay couple gets married in a state where it's legal.....then, later, moves to another state where it's not. Are they still _legally_ married?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> supports gay marriage or supports the constitutional amendment?


Supports a constitutional amendment. 

I would be suprised if 50% of us have any REAL STRONG feelings about same-sex marriage in general.

We may not agree with it, but I don't know any of us disagree with it enough to declare it WRONG and have the feeling that it somehow affects them and their marriage.

I mean, I could understand if the issue was same-sex couples adopting a child. Then the issue becomes the welfare of the child. How will the child respond to the situation? Is it healthy? Blah, blah, blah. 

THAT - to me - is an issue. 

This, this is nothing to me, personally. 

I do wonder though, how many people here actually disagree with s.s. marriage.

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....what if a gay couple gets married in a state where it's legal.....then, later, moves to another state where it's not. Are they sill _legally_ married?



hm...is that sorta lie "if a tree falls in a forrest, and lands on ralph nader...is _everybody_ happy?"


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> I think the president is wrong on this one...but a majority in polls say they are against gay marriage. i'm sure the Log Cabin repubs won't be too happy.


I am probably a cynic but I have always believe the government manipulates pubic opinion polls to get the results they want to see.

For all we know that "50% of the American people" could be actually be "50% of the American people in Rutland, Michigan".


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Hmmmm.....what if a gay couple gets married in a state where it's legal.....then, later, moves to another state where it's not. Are they still _legally_ married?


I would believe so, yes.

The contract would still be in effect. 

This prohibits companies or people from signing a contract and then moving to another state. 

The contract would still be valid. 

But, once one or two states vote "FOR" same-sex marriages, most other states will fall in line. It is VERY difficult, given our court of law to prohibit this.

The issue I am concerned currently with is abortion. I am really keeping an eye on the Roe vs. Wade case right now. 

Play.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

If they actually do amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, it basically turns that document into toilet paper.

It will be the first time in history that they actually amended the Constitution to *DISCRIMANATE* against a certain group of people.

It's ****ing ridiculous.

If gay people want to get married, I don't give a ****. There are much more important things to worry about if you ask me. Maybe the situation in Iraq is a bit more important, for example.

It’s pretty sad to me that some people take it upon them selves to “rid the nation of ****.” It’s like they think that homosexual people chose to be gay. If you ask any homosexual if they could take a pill that would turn them straight, I’ll bet you a dollar every one asked would say “I’d take that in an instant.”

Now don't get me wrong, I’m not gay or anything. I just don’t understand why so many non-homosexuals are getting so upset about all this.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> hm...is that sorta lie "if a tree falls in a forrest, and lands on ralph nader...is _everybody_ happy?"


Yeah, except for the spotted owls.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Supports a constitutional amendment.
> ...


roger dodger..I thought thats what you meant, but it seemed a bit ambiguious. 

personally, I don't care if two men get married, or two women get married. I don't see marriage as some special thing, especially basing it on the bible. Why you ask? why am I making such a grandious statement??

well, there are a lot of things good about the bible. infact, there are great things in it. but people seem to pick and chose what they deem applicable to their thinking. I don't see anyone calling for the stoning of people who work on the sabbath, do I?

since we claim that marriage is a religious thing, how do atheists get married?

(do they get married??)


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, he can't.
> ...


I stand corrected. 

But that begs the question, If the President has no role in a Constitutional Amendment why in tarnation was he on TV this morning?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> This isn't just a Bush issue...not at all. I applaud his guts in standing up for what he believes to be correct. Whether I agree with him or not-the guy has guts in coming right and and speaking specifically on where he stands on controversial issues. Many politicians do not do that.


How is Bush showing guts? He's pandering directly to his most staunch supporters, the Christian Right. He knows he needs to make good with the most conservative elements of the country in order to have a good chance win the next election.

He's shoring up his support, not putting his political career on the line for a principle.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> How is Bush showing guts? He's pandering directly to his most staunch supporters, the Christian Right. He knows he needs to make good with the most conservative elements of the country in order to have a good chance win the next election.
> ...



if he did show guts by doing this, he wouldn't have waited so long TO do it.

he would have, at the first moment they started marrying gays and lesbians in San Francisco, told them to stop.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HearToTemptYou</b>!
> If they actually do amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, it basically turns that document into toilet paper.
> 
> It will be the first time in history that they actually amended the Constitution to *DISCRIMANATE* against a certain group of people.


Here's the thing-it isn't a ban on gay marriage. It is to set a definition of marriage. 

As it goes on to say...they can have other legal definitions.

Why are THEY getting so upset? It's only a term isn't it?

Just a thought your comment brought to mind.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>obiwankenobi</b>!
> But that begs the question, If the President has no role in a Constitutional Amendment why in tarnation was he on TV this morning?


The President has a right to propose Constitutional Amendments, but they must not violate the spirit of the constitution. If they do, then it is OUR job and more succinctly the Supreme Courts' charge to nullify it.

The REASON Bushiepooh was on TV this morning is the same reason that he was able to push the Patriot Act through without allowing ANYONE in Congress or the Supreme Court to read it. Thus violating any and all rules to passing such a powerful piece of law. It is the same reason the guy can declare war without an act from Congress.

The reason:

The Federal Government is running amok right now. They have basically vetoed any and all checks and balances and have begun to collude. 

All our Supreme Court justices should be tried and found guilty of treason. 

The Supreme Court is OUR protection from our government. That is why they were to be appointed FOR LIFE. That way they owed no favors and ruled. Their charge is to strike down anything that violates the SPIRIT, not the letter, of the Constitution.

They missed the boat.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> Here's the thing-it isn't a ban on gay marriage. It is to set a definition of marriage.
> 
> As it goes on to say...they can have other legal definitions.
> ...


I agree.

If I were gay, I don't think I would mind having a Civil Union. In fact, I might prefer it. In fact, I am not gay and I might go that route since I find the idea of marriage to be too religious.

BUT --

The Constitution is NOT the place for such a declaration. 

Remember, this IS a legal issue. 

This should proceed the SAME way that abortion proceeded. There wasn't a constitutional amendment proclaiming abortion to be legal, rather it was a Supreme Court ruling. 

That is why I find it funny when politicians take a stance on abortion or something like this. Sorry pal, this isn't political... it is legal. 

If we want to challenge such a law, we go to the court.

Play.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

The activist courts in Mass and the lawless mayor of San Francisco forced Bush's hand. They are the ones responsible for this debate coming to the forefront.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RipCity9</b>!
> The activist courts in Mass and the lawless mayor of San Francisco forced Bush's hand. They are the ones responsible for this debate coming to the forefront.


I don't know if this is honest thought or pure sarcasm.

Play.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> Why are THEY getting so upset? It's only a term isn't it?


It's more than a term. It's about parity.

The public influences the government as the government influences the people.

Gay's can have their civil unions, but it woudn't be on the same level in the publics' eyes. 

It's different. And that is the difference. 

And in whispered voices behind closed doors, it's accentuating that "Gays and lesbians are different from normal people" and not in a good way. It's divisive. 

Its about walking the walk and not just talking the talk about freedom for all citizens of the United STates.

Stuart


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

*ha ha "activist judges" our new buzzphrase*



> Originally posted by <b>RipCity9</b>!
> The activist courts in Mass and the lawless mayor of San Francisco forced Bush's hand. They are the ones responsible for this debate coming to the forefront.


Wrong. This has been in the forefront way before any of this.

Stuart


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RipCity9</b>!
> The activist courts in Mass and the lawless mayor of San Francisco forced Bush's hand. They are the ones responsible for this debate coming to the forefront.


yep, Gavin Newsom is the poster boy from anarchy and rebellion. What are we going to do with him?


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

He tried to rewrite the rules on his own. The attorney general of California will show that in court. There's no question what he's done is illegal.


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

I disagree with the Mayor of SF just as I disagree with the Alabama Judge who placed the 10 commandments in the courthouse and then refused to move them. 

They are violating the law in doing so.

The California constitution is in direct contradiction to their proposition 48. It's a legal argument and should be attacked that way.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RipCity9</b>!
> He tried to rewrite the rules on his own. The attorney general of California will show that in court. There's no question what he's done is illegal.


And what about those activist judges? What do they have up their sleeves? 

Stuart


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> Here's the thing-it isn't a ban on gay marriage. It is to set a definition of marriage.
> ...


Seperate but equal is never equal. 

Ask any African American if seperate but equal was equal during the days of Jim Crow laws.

Terming a gay marriage a 'civil union' can only breed more problems. 

Like Sabas11 said earlier..."And in whispered voices behind closed doors, it's accentuating that "Gays and lesbians are different from normal people" and not in a good way. It's divisive."

Exactly.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Lots of misinformation floating around here . . .

For starters, the mayor of San Francisco is breaking the law by giving out marriage licenses to gays. Anybody concerned about that . . . ?

Bush is hardly going out on a limb. Every civilization in the history of the world has agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman. 

Abortion rights were never voted on by Congress. They were handed down by a liberal Supreme Court. 

If you approve of marriage between "any consenting adults," how do you feel about a brother and sister marrying, or a brother marrying a brother? That's where we're headed if gay marriage is made legal.

It's folly to say that gay marriage is only a "legal issue." It is a moral and philosophical issue that goes to the very heart of our culture. As such, it can certainly be a matter for a constitutional amendment. Was a woman's right to vote only a legal issue, too? Did we really need a constitutional amendment for that?

Bush isn't the first president to declar war without an act of Congress. Clinton didn't get congressional approval for Kosovo or Somalia, either. The Civil War was never declared by Congress, and neither was the Korean War, or Vietnam.

Whether or not people choose to be gay is irrelevant. Some serial killers say that God commands them to kill people, but we don't let that stop us from prosecuting them for murder. If behavior is destructive to the culture (whether it be running a stoplight, stealing, or committing perjury), we create laws to deal with it.

Finally, public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, and are concerned about its effect on the society. Isn't it the job of the President to reflect those concerns?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Some serial killers say that God commands them to kill people, but we don't let that stop us from prosecuting them for murder. If behavior is destructive to the culture (whether it be running a stoplight, stealing, or committing perjury), we create laws to deal with it.


So if a man has sex with another man, how exactly is that behavior destructive to society? 

It has NO bearing whatever on my life. It's a choice between the two men (or two women) who consent to have sex with one another. The government needs to stay the **** out of the bedroom.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> The President has a right to propose Constitutional Amendments, but they must not violate the spirit of the constitution. If they do, then it is OUR job and more succinctly the Supreme Courts' charge to nullify it.


If there's an Amendment that's up for discussion and possible enactment, it's up to each of us to oppose or support it as we see fit. No question. It's a civic duty.

If an Amendment to the Constitution _has been made_, it's NOT up to the Supreme Court to say, "That Amendment contradicts previous decisions and previos Amendments, so it's no good." The preexisting Amendments hold little or no sway over a new Amendment, especially when a new Amendment is specific. The separation of Church and State and freedom of speech exist because they are Amendments, not because judges say they do.

If an Amendment to the US Consistution states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, it's up to the judges to do their duty and rule according to that supreme law of the land, and if they can't do their duty they should step aside and let others do it.

I am not in favor of this Amendment, but I would consider supporting and Amendment that states that each state can decide how to define marriage on their own, rather than having the issue be decided by judicial fiat at the discretion of either the Supreme Court or, worse yet, another state court.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> So if a man has sex with another man, how exactly is that behavior destructive to society?
> 
> It has NO bearing whatever on my life. It's a choice between the two men (or two women) who consent to have sex with one another. The government needs to stay the **** out of the bedroom.


It's nice to be able to draw black and white lines like that, but what about laws that outlaw polygamy? Or incest between two consenting adults? Or necrophilia (assuming the decedent gave permission before passing?)

What about the case of a man who chopped off another man's privates, shared it with him as a meal and then killed him? All with the guy's consent? It happened in Germany recently.

Is homosexuality as destructive and disturbing as any of these things? *Not even CLOSE* in my opinion. 

But I don't feel comfortable using MY definition of what's acceptable or not as the limitation for what laws should or should not be in effect. I think that with some basic guarantees (as articulated in the Constitution and then supplemented by state law) the majority opinion of what's right and wrong should be respected. Whether it's in the bedroom, in the kitchen, or on the freeway.

Ed O.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Lots of misinformation floating around here . . .
> 
> For starters, the mayor of San Francisco is breaking the law by giving out marriage licenses to gays. Anybody concerned about that . . . ?


several judges have already ruled in favor of Newsom's contention that it is discriminatory. It's not flat-out lawlessness as people are claiming. I don't think it's a good idea to allow local officials to ignore state and federal laws as a rule, but the guy is no renegade cowboy.



> If you approve of marriage between "any consenting adults," how do you feel about a brother and sister marrying, or a brother marrying a brother? That's where we're headed if gay marriage is made legal.


there's a difference between banning a sizeable contingent of our society from getting married due to a sexual orientation they didn't choose, and from discouraging people from taking part in incestual relations which have well-known health impacts. and I highly doubt that the people interested in marrying their siblings are 1/1000th as big a contingent of the population as gays.



> It's folly to say that gay marriage is only a "legal issue." It is a moral and philosophical issue that goes to the very heart of our culture. As such, it can certainly be a matter for a constitutional amendment. Was a woman's right to vote only a legal issue, too? Did we really need a constitutional amendment for that?


Please explain HOW it's such an important moral and philosophical issue. I've heard those terms thrown out there with no explanation. Explain how this is going to corrupt our society. Banning gay marriage isn't going to stop people from being gay, and being gay isn't a deviant thing anyway. I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, I'd really like to hear an explanation of these things. And please, don't equate this to women's suffrage. That was about creating equal rights, and this seems to be about DENYING them.



> Whether or not people choose to be gay is irrelevant. Some serial killers say that God commands them to kill people, but we don't let that stop us from prosecuting them for murder. If behavior is destructive to the culture (whether it be running a stoplight, stealing, or committing perjury), we create laws to deal with it.


equating gay people to serial killers...whew boy, do I even need to start about that? Serial killers usually have mental illnesses or handicaps. Being gay isn't a mental illness or even a choice. They're denied the right to marry because of something they didn't choose? Should we ban people under 6'0" to own land? I mean, it's irrelevant that they didn't CHOOSE to be that short. And again, I'd like to hear a rational explanation of how gay marriage would destroy our culture. 



> Finally, public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, and are concerned about its effect on the society. Isn't it the job of the President to reflect those concerns?


...are concerned about its effect on society? Is that your own inference? I haven't seen any polls that measure this. there are a lot of things that a majority of Americans believe in that shouldn't necessarily be constitutional amendments...in my opinion this is one of them.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I think that with some basic guarantees (as articulated in the Constitution and then supplemented by state law) the majority opinion of what's right and wrong should be respected. Whether it's in the bedroom, in the kitchen, or on the freeway.
> 
> Ed O.


Unfortunately, the majority of the population is often grossly misinformed.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

Seperation of Church and State. 

It seems to me all marriage, man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, whatever.... should be a religous ceremony according to what your beliefs are and should have nothing to do with the legal system. 

Civil Unions, however, should be allowed for any couple that chooses. No matter who the couple is. Marriage shouldn't be a legal contract, but a religous commitment or a non-religous commitment, according to your beliefs. Should religous couples be allowed to do both at the same time? Absolutely.

Radical thought from a normally conservative person? Probably. But you know, Seperation of Church and State is important. It is important to basic rights for all americans, gay, straight, bi, whatever....


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Lots of misinformation floating around here . . .
> 
> For starters, the mayor of San Francisco is breaking the law by giving out marriage licenses to gays. Anybody concerned about that . . . ?


The mayor has a valid legal point that the law is overruled by the California Constitution. That is, that the equal protection clause supercedes the proposition of a few years ago.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> Unfortunately, the majority of the population is often grossly misinformed.


I'm willing to agree with you, but that's the way the system works best, I think. The alternative is to have a relatively homogenous (same education, often the same socio-economic background and world view) set of judges decree when the population knows best and when it does not.

Ed O.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

politics are being played and not neccessarily by bush...where was the uproar in '96...

DOMA


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> It's nice to be able to draw black and white lines like that, but what about laws that outlaw polygamy? Or incest between two consenting adults? Or necrophilia (assuming the decedent gave permission before passing?)


Polygamy, at least, has some harm to the society. If one person can have valid marriages with multiple people, then they can draw on "marriage benefits" on behalf of more than one person/relationship. From a legal perspective, that can cause problems.

Incest, in that it can create birth defects and the like, can potentially harm the child brought into the world, as biologically proven.

Therefore, they really cannot be compared to homosexuality. Whether two men or two women have sex with one another impacts nobody else.

I don't really want to discuss necrophilia, as that seems tainting of homosexuality to compare the two.



> But I don't feel comfortable using MY definition of what's acceptable or not as the limitation for what laws should or should not be in effect. I think that with some basic guarantees (as articulated in the Constitution and then supplemented by state law) the majority opinion of what's right and wrong should be respected. Whether it's in the bedroom, in the kitchen, or on the freeway.


Majority rules really should not be the basis of law-making. Not only is that a good way to ensure justice only for the majority (if the majority of people are white, making laws that help white people sure makes sense for them), the majority often judges despite ignorance or for the wrong reasons.

A preference is a wrong reason to make a law. Preventing a damage to others is a great reason to make a law. Individual rights should be sacrosanct *until* they abridge other people's individual rights. That removes murder, rape, robbery, etc from the accepted practices. But it doesn't arbitrarily take away things that lots of people happen to not like, even though it impacts them not at all.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Majority rules really should not be the basis of law-making. Not only is that a good way to ensure justice only for the majority (if the majority of people are white, making laws that help white people sure makes sense for them), the majority often judges despite ignorance or for the wrong reasons.


Then why do we vote? Isn't that pretty much how we got where are today?

Winning a vote is the same as the majority (of the voters) isn't it? pretty much? I know this can be sliced and diced....but basically?

If one doesn't vote-well-too bad for them. They have no room to complain about anything.

Are you saying that if the majority doesn't see things your way that the majority is wrong?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> Are you saying that if the majority doesn't see things your way that the majority is wrong?


I'm saying the majority shouldn't be allowed to impose a preference, when it has no effect on them whatsoever.

The things we vote on generally have an effect on *us*...increase in taxes we pay, reduction in our social security benefits, etc.

Gay marriage has *no* impact on anyone voting against it. All they're doing is imposing their own intolerance upon others.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Polygamy, at least, has some harm to the society. If one person can have valid marriages with multiple people, then they can draw on "marriage benefits" on behalf of more than one person/relationship. From a legal perspective, that can cause problems.


That's easy to remedy. Just name a "primary" spouse and a "secondary" spouse and only allow benefits for one.



> Incest, in that it can create birth defects and the like, can potentially harm the child brought into the world, as biologically proven.


If either of the pair are sterilized reproduction isn't really the problem... while your argument would work for incestual reproduction, I don't see it holding for the act of incest itself.

Similarly, I don't think that the spread of AIDS through segments of the homosexual community should be a valid or fair argument for illegalizing homosexuality or not allowing homosexual marriage.



> I don't really want to discuss necrophilia, as that seems tainting of homosexuality to compare the two.


I agree that the two are apples and oranges, but I don't let my belief system limit what _others_ should think. When people discussed inter-racial marriage in the bad ol' days the same argument that you make could have been made about homosexual marriage, and I don't think that argument should have held water then, either.



> Majority rules really should not be the basis of law-making. Not only is that a good way to ensure justice only for the majority (if the majority of people are white, making laws that help white people sure makes sense for them), the majority often judges despite ignorance or for the wrong reasons.


Majority rule is not perfect, certainly, but it's better than the alternative of pure minority rule (ask South African blacks and countless other oppressed majorities). Of course, those are not the only two options.

The issue, really, is when and where the majority should be checked in their ability to impact their fellow citizens and I think that should be through guarantees in the Consitution. Any Amendment requires a sort of super-majority, and when that type of dominance in policy is established, I think it's unfair and/or whistling in the dark to ignore it.



> A preference is a wrong reason to make a law. Preventing a damage to others is a great reason to make a law. Individual rights should be sacrosanct *until* they abridge other people's individual rights. That removes murder, rape, robbery, etc from the accepted practices. But it doesn't arbitrarily take away things that lots of people happen to not like, even though it impacts them not at all.


I am not sure I agree, and I'm not sure that you do.  With the cases that I mention above (and which can easily be adjusted to work under the "not affect other people's rights") the majority is ALREADY dramatically limiting the ability of individuals to do what they want, merely through laws based on the preferences of their fellow citizens.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> That's easy to remedy. Just name a "primary" spouse and a "secondary" spouse and only allow benefits for one.
> ...


In either of those cases, then, I *don't* think there should be laws against it. Again, we're legislating preferences instead of legislating against harm to others.



> The issue, really, is when and where the majority should be checked in their ability to impact their fellow citizens and I think that should be through guarantees in the Consitution. Any Amendment requires a sort of super-majority, and when that type of dominance in policy is established, I think it's unfair and/or whistling in the dark to ignore it.


If a super-majority was for bringing back slavery, would it be unfair or whistling in the dark to ignore that?

I'm all for majority vote on issues that affect us all (as long as they aren't oppressive). I don't believe in majorities voting on preferences, where the exercise of a different preference has no effect on anyone else.

A trivial version of this would be for the majority to ban the eating of raspberry ice cream, because the majority doesn't care for it. Exactly who does it hurt when someone who *does* like it, eats it? By what justification, then, should the majority ban something that has no effect on them?

Homosexual marriage is exactly in this vein. Whether the majority, super-majority or 99.999999999% of the population doesn't like it, they shouldn't be able to ban it. Because even if only two people do it, you're taking away the rights of two people for *no* gain. 

I think that's the crux of what I'm saying. If you are going to take away the rights of people, there had better be a great gain in doing so. Preventing harm to the society, preventing harm to other individuals, preventing harm to the environment...all of these can be important gains. But, in fact, there's *no* gain (let alone "great gain") to banning homosexual marriage. It's just taking away rights for the hell of it.



> I am not sure I agree, and I'm not sure that you do.  With the cases that I mention above (and which can easily be adjusted to work under the "not affect other people's rights") the majority is ALREADY dramatically limiting the ability of individuals to do what they want, merely through laws based on the preferences of their fellow citizens.


You're arguing what *has* occurred. I was arguing what's *right* (in my opinion, obviously). Yes, rights have been limited for preference's sake. I'm saying that that's a very bad basis for laws, and I *do* agree with that.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Gay marriage has no impact on anyone voting against it. All they're doing is imposing their own intolerance upon others.


This is your opinion. Me personally? Honestly, I am not positive. But it seems to me that it is lessening the sanctity of marriage. Marriage as I know it. Love, marriage, babies...life as we mostly know it...

If anyone can marry anyone/anything-does it lose it's meaning? To me it does.

It is getting more watered down with each passing year. The ease and rise of divorce also does this.

Why is it so wrong to say marriage is a man and woman union? Why not give a gay union it's own definition? What is wrong with "Civil Union" or whatever other term. The rights are still there. 

Why take away from our culture what marriage is? Same sex relationships/marriages add a different dimension to our culture-why shuoldn't it be recognized as it's own thing? Why blend it in with marriage?

Why make marriage a term for all "unions"? 

There is a difference between a man/woman relationship than a man/man or woman/woman....one can procreate naturally and one can not. 

I am curious-do Civil Unions have the same ramifications that a divorce has should the union break down?

really-I am not trying to argue this...I am asking.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Lots of misinformation floating around here . .
> 
> For starters, the mayor of San Francisco is breaking the law by giving out marriage licenses to gays. Anybody concerned about that . . . ?


Yep. Not a big fan of it, but I find myself cheering it.



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Bush is hardly going out on a limb. Every civilization in the history of the world has agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman.


And since we're going back into history, lets not forget that women are always the weaker sex and slavery was seen as "ok" as recent as 200 some years ago.



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Abortion rights were never voted on by Congress. They were handed down by a liberal Supreme Court.


If you were referring to my mention of abortion, I never said that it was voted on by congress. I brought it up because of it's relevance in regards to decisions made by those in power and it's effect on it eventually becoming socially acceptable among the masses.



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> If you approve of marriage between "any consenting adults,"...how do you feel about a brother and sister marrying, or a brother marrying a brother? That's where we're headed if gay marriage is made legal.


Isn't that what a marriage is now, with a consenting male and female? Why hasn't that opened the floodgates to incestual marriages or civil unions? Just because gays and lesbians will have the inevitable legal right to marry, incestual marriages will piggyback on this? I don't buy it. 



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Whether or not people choose to be gay is irrelevant. Some serial killers say that God commands them to kill people, but we don't let that stop us from prosecuting them for murder. If behavior is destructive to the culture (whether it be running a stoplight, stealing, or committing perjury), we create laws to deal with it.


How exactly is homosexuality destructive to the culture?



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Finally, public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, and are concerned about its effect on the society. Isn't it the job of the President to reflect those concerns?


So Bush decided to push this amendment through because of public opinion polls? Had he cared that much about the majority he would have ceded the presidency to Gore back in 2000.

Stuart


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> This is your opinion. Me personally? Honestly, I am not positive. But it seems to me that it is lessening the sanctity of marriage. Marriage as I know it. Love, marriage, babies...life as we mostly know it...
> ...


Well, if allowing homosexuals to marry makes marriage mean less, maybe divorce should be outlawed too. That certainly doesn't give marriage any more meaning.

Honestly, if two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, I think they should be able to marry, no matter what their sex is. Just because they can't have kids (naturally) shouldn't mean anything. There are plenty of married couples out there that don't have kids, either by choice or because of a medical defect.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> really-I am not trying to argue this...I am asking.


Okay, well I'm not an expert on all this, but I'll give my answers, as far as I can.



> This is your opinion. Me personally? Honestly, I am not positive. But it seems to me that it is lessening the sanctity of marriage. Marriage as I know it. Love, marriage, babies...life as we mostly know it...
> 
> If anyone can marry anyone/anything-does it lose it's meaning? To me it does.


But you're acting like homosexuals marry for different reasons than heterosexuals. If they also do it for true love, companionship, committment, etc, then how does that cheapen marriage, in any way?



> It is getting more watered down with each passing year. The ease and rise of divorce also does this.


I would definitely agree with that. The simplicity and speed with which people marry, divorce, re-marry cheapens marriage. Adultery cheapens marriage. Spousal abuse cheapens marriage.

To me, those are the enemies to the "sanctity of marriage." Homosexuals sharing loving, committed relationships don't cheapen marriage. That's what marriage is all about.



> Why is it so wrong to say marriage is a man and woman union? Why not give a gay union it's own definition? What is wrong with "Civil Union" or whatever other term. The rights are still there.


Separate but equal has been tried and has failed before. Obviously, I'm referring to separate bathrooms, fountains, restaurants, schools, etc, for blacks and whites. The problem with that is that the fact that you feel the need to create a separate categorization for a segment of people creates the impression and environment that they are lesser...they should not be given what the majority gets, which is the age-old tradition of marriage.

Instead, they get some artificial "civil union."

Offhand, I wonder: What if we *did* use civil unions, but *heterosexuals* had to do civil unions, while *homosexuals* got marriages. Do you think those who are currently for "separate but equal" civil unions would still be so gung-ho for them?

I suspect not. And, to me, that says a lot.



> Why take away from our culture what marriage is? Same sex relationships/marriages add a different dimension to our culture-why shuoldn't it be recognized as it's own thing? Why blend it in with marriage?


Because same-sex couples are doing the same thing heterosexual couples are. It's not a "different cultural thing." It's the same thing, so why should it carry a new name?



> There is a difference between a man/woman relationship than a man/man or woman/woman....one can procreate naturally and one can not.


Yes, that's a difference. How about a heterosexual couple that cannot conceive, due to either the husband being impotent or wife being infertile? Should they get a "civil union"? Should being able to create children determine this?



> I am curious-do Civil Unions have the same ramifications that a divorce has should the union break down?


No idea.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> This is your opinion. Me personally? Honestly, I am not positive. But it seems to me that it is lessening the sanctity of marriage. Marriage as I know it. Love, marriage, babies...life as we mostly know it...
> ...


I don't think anyone knows the impact of Civil Unions and the ramifications if they fail. 

Based on your opinions, I am wondering if my suggestion works for you? Let Marriage be a religous ceremony and commitment done in the church or where ever, and let the guidelines be decided by individual religions. Let Civil Unions be the legal one. And civil unions can be between a man and woman, homosexual couple, whatever... It clearly seperates Church and State and in my opinion, keeps the rights of all individuals the same.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*This isn't about Morals*

Look at the true motives behind this issue. People who are Married get a tax break. Especially if they have kids. This move is all about taxable income. 

As for marriage, it can and can't be a religeous issue depending on who is doing the marrying. Some people view it as a legal binding, some people view it as religeon. Either way, its something the government shouldn't be sticking its nose into. Let people live and be happy. It isn't hurting anybody else.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> So Bush decided to push this amendment through because of public opinion polls? Had he cared that much about the majority he would have ceded the presidency to Gore back in 2000.


I think that Bush is personally opposed to gay marriages. Everything we know about his religious faith would suggest this. But yes, he is a politician, and I'm sure he thinks he has a broad base of support for his position. 

By the way, our presidential elections are determined by the electoral college, and always have been. Bush won the electoral college vote, Gore didn't. That's the way it goes.

To say that Bush should have just given the election to Gore is ridiculous. If the tables were turned, would you have encouraged Gore to give the election to Bush? Of course not.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> Then why do we vote? Isn't that pretty much how we got where are today?
> ...



BFan,

You didn't vote.

Did you get a little flyer that said check 'yes' or 'no' for the war in Iraq? Did you get a flyer about the Patriot Act? 

You AREN'T voting. 

We live in a REPUBLIC. In a republic we are goverened by a set of codes, in our case the constitution. We base our laws on it. Elected officials vote for us, but are bound to the overriding clauses set forth in the official set of rules (constitution).

The MAJORITY does not rule this country in all cases, nor should they. That eventually leads to chaos. Our forefathers were so petrified of our system becoming TOO democratic that they contemplated making it a monarchy. 

The majority doesn't rule and the majority isn't correct. I am not saying or advocating same-sex marriage here. This is basic tenet of our society. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Lots of misinformation floating around here . . .


I don't see very much.



> For starters, the mayor of San Francisco is breaking the law by giving out marriage licenses to gays. Anybody concerned about that . . . ?


The Supreme Court broke the law by allowing the Patriot Act to pass as did Congress.

Bush declared an illegal war.

The Supreme Court broke the law by allowing federal income taxation. 

I don't see much concern on your part. I can go on with the corruption our government has, but I think you get the picture.



> Bush is hardly going out on a limb. Every civilization in the history of the world has agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman.


Hmmm... wow. That is a broad statement. 

But, more to the point, does this make it right?

All societies have slavery, is this a good thing? Does this make it okay? Mass rule isn't always right. 



> Abortion rights were never voted on by Congress. They were handed down by a liberal Supreme Court.


I don't remember anyone here saying that abortion rights were passed by Congress. I certainly didn't.

The Supreme Court passed the law in the Roe vs. Wade case. Strangely enough, she never had an abortion and became a religious fanatic and is now seeking to overturn her own judgement. 



> If you approve of marriage between "any consenting adults," how do you feel about a brother and sister marrying, or a brother marrying a brother? That's where we're headed if gay marriage is made legal.


To tell you the truth, I could care less. 

Why should I care? 

Now, after they are married, I would worry about their offspring. 

But, my guesstamite is that for every 10,000 gay couples, you might find one instance of a brother marrying a brother.



> It's folly to say that gay marriage is only a "legal issue." It is a moral and philosophical issue that goes to the very heart of our culture. As such, it can certainly be a matter for a constitutional amendment. Was a woman's right to vote only a legal issue, too? Did we really need a constitutional amendment for that?


What is folly about this line of thinking? Please explain. 

Marriage is a contract. Plain and simple. Which is why, when one goes for a divorce, you are SUED for divorce. It is a LEGAL issue. 

The underpinnings of the legal contract are moral, but that is a separate topic. It does not permeate to the center of our culture, and if it did, changing it to allow same-sex marriage won't change this moral/philisophical issue. 

Yes, actually we needed a constitutional amendment for women's right to vote. Read the constitution's wording and you will see why. This was NOT only a legal issue though, which is why it was constitutionally amended. 

Of course, I find it a stretch to compare women's sufferage and gay marriage. 



> Bush isn't the first president to declar war without an act of Congress. Clinton didn't get congressional approval for Kosovo or Somalia, either. The Civil War was never declared by Congress, and neither was the Korean War, or Vietnam.


Yes, and you further back my point. Our government has run amok. 

Also, wouldn't it be hard to declare a Civil War? And if history serves me, the north did DECLARE war. 



> Whether or not people choose to be gay is irrelevant. Some serial killers say that God commands them to kill people, but we don't let that stop us from prosecuting them for murder. If behavior is destructive to the culture (whether it be running a stoplight, stealing, or committing perjury), we create laws to deal with it.


I agree. Who cares if it is a choice or not. 

If Billy sat down at his computer and decided ... HECK, I'm gonna be gay... then so be it. It shouldn't matter in the least. He should still be afforded the same rights as if it were NOT a choice.

Comparing gays and serial murderers is just innane. Last time I checked, homosexuality was not a crime against humanity.

How is same-sex marriage destructive?



> Finally, public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, and are concerned about its effect on the society. Isn't it the job of the President to reflect those concerns?


I am sure I could concoct public opinion polls that show we should kill every black man in America and legalize rape. Does that mean it is right?

I promise you 50% or more of Americans would be for legalizing pot. Why aren't we doing anything about it?

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> If an Amendment to the Constitution _has been made_, it's NOT up to the Supreme Court to say, "That Amendment contradicts previous decisions and previos Amendments, so it's no good." The preexisting Amendments hold little or no sway over a new Amendment, especially when a new Amendment is specific. The separation of Church and State and freedom of speech exist because they are Amendments, not because judges say they do.


It is their duty to strike any law that violates the spirit of the constitution. Read up.

Thus, when something has been proposed, their job is to kill it dead. 

They can also go back and change decisions. Our society is NOT static, but rather amorphic. Thus, if a prior ruling is deemed unconstitutional, then they should attack it and strike it.

DO either of those amendments you mention violate the spirit of the constitution? No. 

Play.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I had a huge discussion on another board over this issue, I am staying out of this one...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I think what this whole issue comes down to is that if we want to preserve the "sanctity of marriage" - whatever the **** that means - we need to come to terms with something.

The way that we've been thinking about marriage is completely and utterly a religious issue. And therefore the US government should have absolutely NOTHING to do with it...

Every church can make their own definition of "marriage" or make up new words if they want...

"Susie and I can't wait to get huallabalooed!"

If we still want to give out these contracts to recognize two people as a unit as far as the government is concerned, then we can talk about civil unions or whatever we want to call those.

I'm not sure that this is at all unique in comparison to Gym Rat's idea.

Anyway, that's my solution if we give a flying **** about the "sanctity" of marriage. 

Since I think that, in fact, is a bunch of hullabaloo, I think we should just let gay people get married.

Show me a victim to the "crime", pleeeeaaase, somebody do it...

Cheers


----------



## nikebasketball (Jan 28, 2004)

*
What does it matter if gay couples get married?

They pay their taxes just like the rest of us so they should be entitled to the exact same rights as hetrosexual couples.
*


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

*Mea Culpa*



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> By the way, our presidential elections are determined by the electoral college, and always have been. Bush won the electoral college vote, Gore didn't. That's the way it goes.
> 
> To say that Bush should have just given the election to Gore is ridiculous. If the tables were turned, would you have encouraged Gore to give the election to Bush? Of course not.


I know how the electoral college works. 

I was just pointing out where you referenced public opinion polls to support your statement. I countered (in jest) by saying that if it really mattered that much to George Bush in reflecting what the majority wanted, then he should have gave up office on account that he lost the popular vote in 2000.

Sigh

I'm not one of those liberals that stews about the 2000 election, it was just bad timing on my part to inject levity in a serious conversation.

My bad!

Stuart


----------



## Flaming Homer (Jan 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> ...
> Bush is hardly going out on a limb. Every civilization in the history of the world has agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman.
> ...


Just wanted to add, that in germany same sex marriages are legal and allowed.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

How about this for a thought...

If we're concerned about preserving the sanctity of marriage, then why don't we just write an ammendment saying that only Christian couples can get married.

That would be fair, right?

If the only objections to homosexual marriages are based on ignorance and shortsighted religious beliefs, would this idea be any different?

I really just can't believe this Bush character. Tax breaks for the rich, the Patriot Act, flipping off the UN, logging in National Forests, drilling in Alaska, and now this...

There's no room in MY constitution for discrimination.

There's no room in MY White House for a guy like this...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Since we are a distinctly Christian nation (80% of Americans describe themselves as such), it might be useful to take a look a look at what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible is, after all, the basis of many of our laws, and our founding fathers relied on it extensively for guidance.

Here is how Genesis 2:24 describes marriage: 

*"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."*

Note that it doesn't say a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto another man. In fact, on the subject of homosexuality, the Bible is very clear. Here is what it says in Romans 1:26-27: 

*"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."*

It's very clear that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. We can debate this forever, and that's fine. But if you think of yourself as a Christian, this is what God has to say on the subject.

Peace.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

No, if you think of yourself as a Bible Thumper then you believe homosexuality is wrong...

There's a lot more to Christianity than the Bible. At least, I hope so...

Isn't that the Old Testament?

Isn't Christianity primarily based around the New Testament?

Regardless, the point is that our country was founded on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the idea that "all men [and women] are created equal". 

It was not founded on the Bible. The Bible is not a legal document. The Bible does not feel that all men and women were created equally and therefore is not a good representation of our legal system. Even the most prolific Bible Thumpers do not take every word in it literally, because there's a ridiculous amount of outdated heinous stuff in there.

Why do people feel the need to push their religious beliefs on others? 

Will we need to repeal the second ammendment to put this into place? 

Can there be two ammendments coexisting that so clearly contradict one another?


----------



## Flaming Homer (Jan 27, 2003)

In my opinion, when Church and State are separated like in USA or Germany, it's meaningless what religion says/thinks in this case, isn't it?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

You really want to get into a discussion of religious text? We can do that and destroy your faulty foundation of a bigot, racist, chauvenistic God. 



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Here is how Genesis 2:24 describes marriage:
> 
> *"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."*
> Note that it doesn't say a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto another man.


One must interpret these sayings carefully. They obviously do not apply to all people. For example:

* The text refers to male and female. Truth be told, there are a total of FIVE genders (male, merm, herm, ferm and female) as explained by Dr. Fausto-Sterling of the Division of Biology and Medicine at Brown University. These are people who are neither male nor female, and are not covered in the simplistic view of Genesis. 

Approximately 3 to 10 million Americans are intersexual. 


* Infertile people

God's plan was for Adam and Eve to form a heterosexual relationship and have children. By implication, the plan expects the same behavior of at least some of Eve and Adam's descendants. But it would not necessarily apply to all individuals. 



> In fact, on the subject of homosexuality, the Bible is very clear. Here is what it says in Romans 1:26-27:
> 
> *"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."*
> 
> It's very clear that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. We can debate this forever, and that's fine. But if you think of yourself as a Christian, this is what God has to say on the subject.


ABOMINATION in the eyes of the lord? You believe this rubbish. 

Why not reread your Bible. 

As stated in 2 Peter 3:15-17, we are warned to be quite careful of misinterpretations of Paul's writings.

_"As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." _(KJV) 

Reading Paul is like listening to ONE end of a phone conversation, since most of the testament is based on responses to letters he received or based on news of the time. 

Well, now that we know that Paul is open to mass misinterpretation (as stated WITHIN the Bible) let's examine what he said line by line, shall we?

The term "vile affections", in original Greek, probably does not mean "passions" or "lust" as we experience in normal everday life. It is not a reference to the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. More to the point it probably refers to a frenzied state of mind that many ancient cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music. Paul seems to be describing the ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan cults of the era. Most likely Paul is referring fertility cult worship that was prevalent in Rome at the time. 

"Change" or "Abandon". These words are important, because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking. He is referring to people that deviated from their natural orientation and engaged in sexual behavior with others. Most likely in the sexual orgies performed by fertility cults.

The word "natural". The Greek word is "phooskos", meaning "inborn", "produced by nature" , "agreeable to nature". This term, and the corresponding phrase "para physin" or non-natural (more correctly, unconventional) are open to interpretation. Homosexual tendencies are normal, natural, and inborn for a small percentage of human adults. For these people, heterosexual behavior would be abnormal and unnatural. 

<B>Using YOUR Bible and select passages as a reason to discrimnate is just awful. In fact, doing so defies every teaching Jesus set forth. </b>

Anyhow, let's debunk this notion.

Your Bible has many relationships which are believed to progress beyond simple, casual relationships. There is, however, no proof one way or the other, but there is also no proof that God wrote the Bible.
Ruth and Naomi 
David and Jonathan 

Proof?

Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11: 
_"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." _(NIV)

Ruth 1:14, in reference to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi it is mentioned that _"Ruth clave onto her."_ (KJV) Isn't that the SAME word used to describe HETEROSEXUAL marriage in your precious passage (Gen 2:24)? 


> " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)


1 Samuel 18:1
_"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself."_ (NIV)
or
_"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul"_ (KJV)

The Bible speaks of an "immediate bond of love", where their souls are "in unison," or better yet "knit". "Soul", in the ancient Israelite times, is the succinct combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally. 

1 Samuel 18:2
_"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house."_ (NIV)

Well, dear ol' David departed his parent's house to live with Saul and Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. 

1 Samuel 18:3-4
_"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." _(NIV)

In those times, there was no such thing as underwear. Thus, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. This is extremely odd behavior for the time, unless their their relationship was physical. 

1 Samuel 18:20-21
_"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."_

In English, the translation would be: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children". This would refer to Saul's son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul recognized David and Jonathan's homosexual marriage. The translation by the NIV is clearly wrong and deceptive. 

1 Samuel 20:41
_"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most."_ (NIV)

What's funny is that the translators had REAL issues with this line and tried to decieve the reader. The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! I would guess this is a little bit of a lie.

The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The original word to be traslated is: "gadal". Most theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. Isn't that a threatening thought. Why would David get a aroused?

2 Samuel 1:26
_"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."_

In that era in Isreal, men and women did not communicate in public. Their entire relationship is based on sex. Since David's relationship with women would be sexual, then the reference here would ALSO indicate sexuality since there is NO other kind of relationship with women.




> Since we are a distinctly Christian nation (80% of Americans describe themselves as such), it might be useful to take a look a look at what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible is, after all, the basis of many of our laws, and our founding fathers relied on it extensively for guidance.


Who cares if we are 80% Christian. That has nothing to do with making laws that govern our society today. Our placeholder document is NOT the Bible, but rather the Constitution. 

Based upon the Constitution, religious freedom and church/state separation were to be quite important. The sole reason for America was RELIGIOUS freedom from the masses. Thus, 80% means nothing. Nata. Less then Ziltch.

FURTHERMORE, 99% of Americans are an ignorant. So, I certainly don't want them living for me.

<b>Finally, let's just look at Genesis. VERSE 18.
_"It is not good for the man to be alone"_ (NIV). 
This is a direct indication that God loves committed relationships. For a heterosexual, the only suitable companion is a person of the opposite gender. For a homosexual individual, the only suitable companion is a person of the same gender. To say that gays and lesbians should not form committed relationships is to say that it is good for people to remain alone. This is a direct contradiction of God's statement; it implies that God is a liar.</b>


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "If you think of yourself as a Bible Thumper then you believe homosexuality is wrong..."


What a gross misrepresentation of the facts. People from all religions and cultures around the world have traditionally regarded homosexuality as wrong. That includes Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. . . . 



> "There's a lot more to Christianity than the Bible. At least, I hope so... "


Not sure what you mean. The Bible is the foundation of Christianity. Everything that Christ said to us is in the Bible, including an explanation of history and prophecy. How can you even begin to be a Christian without the Bible?



> "Isn't that the Old Testament?"


Romans is in the New Testament, my friend.



> "The point is that our country was founded on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the idea that "all men [and women] are created equal".


That's right, thank goodness. But the Bible and Christianity are at the center of our laws and institutions. The next time you visit the Supreme Court, take a look at the statues that line the front of it. The one in the middle, and the one that all the other statues are looking at, is Moses holding the 10 Commandments. You might also take a walk on the Washington Mall, which is laid out in the shape of a cross. For that matter, our money says "In God We Trust," and the Senate begins each day with a prayer to that God. 



> "The Bible does not feel that all men and women were created equally."


Actually, it does. All of us are equal in the eyes of God. All are sinners, and all have fallen short. And all can be saved if they believe, regardless of race, sex, or origin. That's what the Bible says. 



> "Even the most prolific Bible Thumpers do not take every word in it literally, because there's a ridiculous amount of outdated heinous stuff in there."


Actually, "prolific Bible Thumpers" do tend to take the Bible literally. But it's always interesting to me that the "outdated" stuff in the Bible is often the stuff that people don't want to believe, because it would get in the way of their good time. 



> "Why do people feel the need to push their religious beliefs on others?"


Why do non-religious people feel the need to push THEIR beliefs on others? The liberal secular courts are trying to redefine our laws and overturn our long-established principles through outrageous legislative dictates. We are a Christian country, and yet federal judges are trying to tell us otherwise.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Why do non-religious people feel the need to push THEIR beliefs on others? The liberal secular courts are trying to redefine our laws and overturn our long-established principles through outrageous legislative dictates. We are a Christian country, and yet federal judges are trying to tell us otherwise.


Like the belief that we shouldn't discriminate against minorities?

Oops sorry, maybe all of us non-Christians should get separate drinking fountains.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> What a gross misrepresentation of the facts. People from all religions and cultures around the world have traditionally regarded homosexuality as wrong. That includes Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. . . .


I would LOVE for you to point me in the direction of this GROSS MISINTERPRETATION by a Buddhist! Just show me ONE place where there is a tenent in Buddhism against homosexuality. For every one you show me, I'll show you someone who missed the boat of Buddhism.

Jews/Muslims/Christians are pretty much one and the same. Read the Quran some day. It is literally the same book. Christians and Jews USE the same book, Christians just added to it. That is like lumping Mormonism in there... they use the same guidebook and are subject to the same misinterpretations.

But, please, find an ancient Eastern religion or philosophy that defames homosexual behavior.... PLEASE.



> Not sure what you mean. The Bible is the foundation of Christianity. Everything that Christ said to us is in the Bible, including an explanation of history and prophecy. How can you even begin to be a Christian without the Bible?


Easily. Christ never said a word. You are probably such a religious zealot that you don't even know that CHRIST is not the guys name. It is the title for the annointed one or the messiah, whichever you prefer. It is JESUS THE CHRIST.

Anyhow, Jesus said lots of things that were ommited or mistranslated in the Bible for means of control. I could provide examples if I need to, but for now, I will remain civil.

One is a Christian by following the teachings of the Christ figure. In this era, one in a Christian by following the teachings of Jesus.

One can follow those teachings by simply:  "Treating everyone as you would your brother, in doing that you will have fulfilled all of my father's commandments" - Jesus.

It is a consciousness, my friend. Not a book.



> Romans is in the New Testament, my friend.


Yes it is, but also often misinterpreted and misquoted.

Ask the Jews during the holocaust.



> That's right, thank goodness. But the Bible and Christianity are at the center of our laws and institutions. The next time you visit the Supreme Court, take a look at the statues that line the front of it. The one in the middle, and the one that all the other statues are looking at, is Moses holding the 10 Commandments. You might also take a walk on the Washington Mall, which is laid out in the shape of a cross. For that matter, our money says "In God We Trust," and the Senate begins each day with a prayer to that God.


The reason Moses is outside the Supreme Court is because those were the first documented laws ever set forth. If this nation owes anything to anyone, it is the Romans. We stole their entire society. 

The Washington Mall is NOT a government building.

Our money says "In God We Trust..." but does not indicate a Christian God. Which is GOOD, because I would have severe issues if it did.

The Senate opens with a prayer, and the prayer can be individual or through mass. Participation is NOT mandatory. 



> Actually, it does. All of us are equal in the eyes of God. All are sinners, and all have fallen short. And all can be saved if they believe, regardless of race, sex, or origin. That's what the Bible says.


Don't count me in on your narrow definition. I didn't fall short of anything and I think I am the best me that I can be. 

We are equal in the eyes of our creator, I'll grant you that. 




> Why do non-religious people feel the need to push THEIR beliefs on others? The liberal secular courts are trying to redefine our laws and overturn our long-established principles through outrageous legislative dictates. We are a Christian country, and yet federal judges are trying to tell us otherwise.


What outrageous legislative dictate has been set forth? Laws, just as the times, change. Society evolves and understanding changes. 

If we didn't change we would still believe the world is flat. In fact, some still do. Does that mean they are right?

Non-religious people DON'T push their belief on others. If you want marriage to be between a MAN and a WOMAN then only accept that in your mind. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> 
> 
> Like the belief that we shouldn't discriminate against minorities?
> ...


Good one, Ringy.

Of course, I think he is still trying to digest his own Bible being thrown at him. It's a bit of a curveball that will be answered something like this:

I'm right, you're wrong. I have faith. You will burn in hell.

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Using YOUR Bible and select passages as a reason to discrimnate is just awful. In fact, doing so defies every teaching Jesus set forth."


"Discrimination." The favorite word of the political left. As if any and all forms of discrimination were wrong. As if making value judgements of any kind is wrong. What a sorry state we have come to.

Jesus discriminated all the time. He discriminated between good and evil. To the woman at the well, he said, "Go, and sin no more." Jesus loved all people, but he also called sin by its proper name. We're afraid to do that any more in this country. Today, every group has it's "rights." Every perversion is granted legitimacy. Heck, even NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, is arguing for its constitutionally protected "rights."

Personally, I believe in live and let live. If homosexuals want to copulate in their bedrooms, let them. They should not be persecuted or maligned for their private behavior. But homosexuals have a very aggressive agenda. They want kids in public schools to read books like "Johnny has 2 Daddies," and they want homosexuality depicted on TV shows as much as possible, and they want the stamp of approval that a marriage license provides.

With the help of liberal courts, and the media, they are getting their way. But most Americans don't approve, and don't want to see the radical changes that homosexuals are promoting. Thus the current debate. 

One day, perhaps very soon, we may resemble Sodom and Gomorrah. If you don't recall, those are the cities that God destroyed for their evil lusts.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> "Discrimination." The favorite word of the political left. As if any and all forms of discrimination were wrong. As if making value judgements of any kind is wrong. What a sorry state we have come to.


Who said I am a leftist?

Actually I am libertarian and that constitutes the furthest RIGHT you can get. 

In case you are unfamiliar, I would basically believe that ALL government intervention, no matter how benign or helpful it may be (see: Recipient: WELFARE) is wrong. I believe I was born in a state not a federal... so on and so forth.

I am not a leftist. I just don't believe this is a government issue. 

As for discrimination, what you say IS discrimination.



> Jesus discriminated all the time. He discriminated between good and evil. To the woman at the well, he said, "Go, and sin no more." Jesus loved all people, but he also called sin by its proper name. We're afraid to do that any more in this country. Today, every group has it's "rights." Every perversion is granted legitimacy. Heck, even NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, is arguing for its constitutionally protected "rights."


Yet Jesus said that he came for the sinners and had more love for them for they are the ones that need him. 

Do you know what sin is? Do you know the original Hebrew word?

To SIN is to miss the bullseye in archery. It isn't bad or good, it just isn't the most efficient. 

Good and evil are not absolutes. They are individual constructs. 

No one is AFRAID to take a stand on things. I don't think NAMBLA gets much love from most people. But, one has to choose what is right and wrong for society. NAMBLA thought can HARM a child who is not ready to honestly make a sexual choice about themselves or their mate. Whereas an adult homosexual being married harms no one. 




> Personally, I believe in live and let live. If homosexuals want to copulate in their bedrooms, let them. They should not be persecuted or maligned for their private behavior. But homosexuals have a very aggressive agenda. They want kids in public schools to read books like "Johnny has 2 Daddies," and they want homosexuality depicted on TV shows as much as possible, and they want the stamp of approval that a marriage license provides.


Aggressive agenda? What agenda? To turn us all into gays? I mean, what agenda do you think they have?

Their sole purpose is to become accepted and tolerated and receive the same benefits as straight people. 

I agree that "Johnny has 2 Daddies" and "Sue Ellen Loves The Women" are not proper reading material for elementary students. I don't think their mind is developed enough to understand what the heck that means. They haven't even developed their own sexual identity. 

I could care less if homosexuals have TV time. So do blacks, who only make up 10-12% of the population. So what? If you don't want to watch "Moe Eisha" don't turn it on. The same goes for "***** Eye". No one controls your remote and with technology you can turn off certain things so your children don't have access.



> With the help of liberal courts, and the media, they are getting their way. But most Americans don't approve, and don't want to see the radical changes that homosexuals are promoting. Thus the current debate.


Why are the courts LIBERAL?! 

This is NOT a political case! Liberals & Conservatives need to get a grip... social issues should have VERY little to do with politics. 



> One day, perhaps very soon, we may resemble Sodom and Gomorrah. If you don't recall, those are the cities that God destroyed for their evil lusts.


I think I have demonstrated a firm understanding of the Bible. In fact, I would argue that I have a firm understanding of religions in general. 

Play.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

*DOMA*

i believe it was found unconstitutional

http://www.lgirtf.org/newsletters/Fall96/FA96-09.html


----------



## Flaming Homer (Jan 27, 2003)

In Germany, social live hadn't change because of the legalisation of same sex marriages, nor have other people disadvantages of this, nor see I mainly gays on TV. The only thing that changed is the live of the gay people who can get married, and the rights they get in result. I think this is pretty fair, I guess it must be horrendus when your long year partner for example have an accident and you're not allowed to visit him in the hospital only because of this.
Sorry for my bad english, I hope my intention is clear.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

I agree with Gym Rat.

If they are going to divide it ... then divide it TOTALLY.

The contract with the government is called a "Civil Union".

Marriage is a contract with the church and with god. 

This allows Churches the right to discriminate if they want. They don't HAVE to perform the marriage, and that IS their right. They are not government run. 

One can be married, but they don't get any special treatment unless they undergo the "Civil Union" contract. 

So -- in essense -- to be married as it is today, we all must get a "Civil Union" contract. If we want to be "married" in the eyes of the lord, then find a church that is open.

Play.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Separate, but equal...will that separate remove the rights of heterosexual couple to get government assistance? It is a separtion of church and state issue then?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> Separate, but equal...will that separate remove the rights of heterosexual couple to get government assistance? It is a separtion of church and state issue then?


Explain, please? What assistance?

Do you mean - tax breaks and such. Well, truth be told, the tax break is a bit of a misnomer because you are elevated into a different bracketing system. You are actually penalized for being married, the tax break is to help you think you aren't. Federal income tax is a NASTY thing. 

But, yes, it would proclude them if they decided NOT to get a "Civil Union". All that "married" allows is that you have done it in the eyes of the lord. The clergy can sign the "Civil Union" certificate as well as the "marriage certificate", but in truth the "marriage certificate" would have NO meaning except to you, your spouse and your god.

Really, it is semantics. But, I think they should have done this from the get go. There should never have been a MARRIAGE CONTRACT. It is too religious based. 

What is REALLY sad is that a marriage, in the eyes of most states, ahs taken place the moment you recognize someone as your wife. For instance:

If you moved in with Sally and the next door neighbors came over and said hi... and you said Hi, I am Bobby and this is my wife Sally. You are LEGALLY married because of the portrayal. 

It is weird stuff. 

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Play, I'm not going to address all of your arguments. It would take too much time and it probably wouldn't change your mind anyway. You have an interesting point of view, and are a worthy debater.

I'll just say a couple of things:

To refute the idea that there should be any "discrimination" against homosexuals, you quoted the text where Jesus says treat everyone as you would your brother. But how do you know Jesus actually said this? You have been arguing that the Bible is full of myths and innacuracies, so how can you believe this text is accurate? Did you quote it just because it happened to serve your purpose? 

You also say that you have NOT fallen short in any way, despite the fact that the Bible says we have ALL fallen short. So again I have to ask, why do you believe the text about treating everyone as you would your brother, yet you don't believe the one that says you have fallen short? Are you choosing which parts of the Bible to believe based on what is convenient for you?


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Whether or not people choose to be gay is irrelevant.


Well, it becomes relevant when you use an argument like this...



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> It's very clear that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. We can debate this forever, and that's fine. But if you think of yourself as a Christian, this is what God has to say on the subject.


So, if it is found that homosexualtiy is chosen (I highly doubt this) then we know by this logic that all homosexuals are going to hell blahblahblah. 

*BUT,* if it is found to be biological (or at least partly biological) what does the bible say about that? Sure, it is still an abomination, but if we are God's children, then why did he create gay people?

And lets be honest, homosexuals have existed throughout the history of the world. They have become prominant only because of a slowly-progressive society.

I just cannot understand the "nurture" argument, humans are born in varying heights and weights, without arms, strong hearts, diffferent hair colors and textures, thin legs, thick legs, eye colors vary etc etc why is so hard to accept variations in sexuality?

Stuart


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

seems to me anything labeled "The Protection of Marriage Act" should include things like:

• jail time for adultery

• limits on divorces based on circumstance and frequency (ie, Britney Spears can't get a divorce after a one hour marriage. nobody can have more than two divorces in a lifetime, etc)

• making it illegal to cheapen the institution by televising it for commercial purposes ("Who wants to marry a millionaire")

these things are far more likely to return value and sanctity to the idea of marriage than a constitutional ammendment that prevents a small minority of people from enjoying the same rights everyone else does. 

even my proposals won't work, though. in truth, there's really nothing a democractic state can do to make the marriage between me and my wife more or less valuable. 

more marriages end now in divorce. the reason isn't because gay people are getting married, nor because of increases in adultery or a lack of respect for the institution. the fact is that more people get divorced now because it's finally socially acceptable to decide that you won't want to waste the rest of your life with the wrong person. 

permanently yanking away the rights of a minority will never change that.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Play, I'm not going to address all of your arguments. It would take too much time and it probably wouldn't change your mind anyway. You have an interesting point of view, and are a worthy debater.


Thank you. I take my spirituality and the progression and study I did to reach my understanding quite seriously. 

I have studied as much as I could bear to come to the ideas I have come to. 



> To refute the idea that there should be any "discrimination" against homosexuals, you quoted the text where Jesus says treat everyone as you would your brother. But how do you know Jesus actually said this?


I don't. 

But, I believe this to be the only irrefutable truth across all religions. 

Depending on your belief structure or philisophical base we are all either children (creations) of god or part of god. I am of the latter, thus I believe that to treat another poorly is the same as treating yourself poorly.




> You have been arguing that the Bible is full of myths and innacuracies, so how can you believe this text is accurate? Did you quote it just because it happened to serve your purpose?


I believe that the Bible is what it is. It is a great book with lots of knowledge that should be taken with a grain of salt. People were different then and their understanding was different. I'm sure if I were teleported to those days, I would be a giant and a genius compared to their biggest and their smartest people. 

It is the message that I feel is important.

The reson I quote it and use it in the discussion is because <B>YOU</b> do not believe the Bible is errant. <B>You</b> believe the Bible to be written by the hand of God. I consider it to be inspired, but the message went through each individual's personal filter. Anyhow, I have a pretty solid background in Bible literature and love to learn more, and it helps when I have discussions like this. 



> You also say that you have NOT fallen short in any way, despite the fact that the Bible says we have ALL fallen short. So again I have to ask, why do you believe the text about treating everyone as you would your brother, yet you don't believe the one that says you have fallen short?


I believe that we ALL are part of God. In truth, everything is. 

Basically my mindset can be explained mathematically. 

God = INFINITE
Infinite / # is not a proper mathmatical property. The infinite cannot be subdivided. All subsets are, by definition, part of the infinite. 

Therefore, all things are God. God is all things. There is NOTHING that IS NOT God. 

Thus, by definition I would believe that I should treat everyone as I would want myself to be treated. It is the basic tenet of ALL major religions, when they are broken down to the basics. If you do this ONE thing, then all other things fall in line. 

Then, as for falling short, I don't believe in GOOD and BAD. Good and bad to me, are not absolutes. Which is why in the Bible it refers to "yourself being your ultimate judge at the end of time". Judge not, lest ye be judged and all that. Because the way we view the world is how we view ourselves and how we judge ourselves.

I know the typical fallback is to say "What about serial killers?" or whatnot. And it is a hard concept, even for me. But even serial killers are providing each person (and society) with what they need at that time. 

God has said in the Bible that there he will give you exactly WHAT YOU NEED. This is proof of that. Remember, God is everything in my belief. Even if we cannot possibly reconcile it with our limited physical understanding. I just rest my head down on the concept that the whole thing is bigger than me, and I am only seeing a sliver of it. 

To the same extent, I don't think of RIGHT and WRONG the same way. There is no absolute right or wrong. Kind of like HOT and COLD.... how hot is HOT? how cold is COLD? Is it the same for everyone? There are more efficient ways of doing things, but not "right" per se.



> Are you choosing which parts of the Bible to believe based on what is convenient for you?


Yes and no. I choose parts of every religion, discussion, experience and study that make sense to me. If I meditate (or think, as I prefer) on each topic and try to find what feels right to me. 

An internal compass, as it were. 

People can say that this is an easy way of living, because you don't HAVE to be good. But, I think eventually ... everyone will tire and search for more. Maybe not in this life, maybe not the next ... but sometime.

Yes, by the way, I believe in life after death. I think that is what Jesus was trying to prove. He was showing that DEATH is the illusion. Life is an illusion. (good reference material: Matrix, The)

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> more marriages end now in divorce. the reason isn't because gay people are getting married, nor because of increases in adultery or a lack of respect for the institution. the fact is that more people get divorced now because it's finally socially acceptable to decide that you won't want to waste the rest of your life with the wrong person.


I think there is that, and that people are EXTREMELY lazy. 

No one wants to work. 

Marriage by definition IS work. You don't wake up every day, ready to be sweet and loving and happy and hunky and dorey. You don't always roll over and go: "MY GOD, I love them SO much!" Sometimes you just want to be alone, you tire of them a little, the giddy little butterfly stomach thing leaves ... but they come back and leave again and come back.... 

It isn't always fairy tale is what I'm getting at. And some people feel that change and think they need to change it all.

To me, marriage is a second job. Children is a third. With people getting lazier and lazier, they find less time for themselves and quit one of their jobs. Lots of time, children suffer. Sometimes the spouse. 

That is my argument. 

But yes, wrong marriages are also awful.

Play.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Play-amazing. Thank you. I have to read more of what you all wrote.


Bfan-

You said "There is a difference between a man/woman relationship than a man/man or woman/woman....one can procreate naturally and one can not."

So, Are you against marriage between a man and a woman if they are incapable of having children? By your logic, you want to ban marriage for menopausal women and sterile men. 

I take great offense to "If anyone can marry anyone/anything-does it lose it's meaning? To me it does." Gay marriage does not involved getting married to a THING. It's about two people. Two men or two women. No THINGs.

Here's the deal. Gay marriage hurts no one. No ones rights are taken away when gays get married. And straight people lose nothing. The only way to protect the sanctity of marriage is to ban divorce. Period.

In FACT, everyone BENEFITS when gays get married. When two people fall in love and are allowed to be together and pronounce their love to the world, that helps EVERYONE. Think about it. Bad stuff tends to happen when someone is DENIED love. When someone is cast OUT. When two people are NOT allowed to be together (read Shakespeare). There is a lyric to a song that goes "Each love denied leaves people colder." This country should be CELEBRATING gay marriage, quite frankly. The world is a better place when two people commit to each other. Think about it- What BETTER way to curb the AIDS epidemic then to promote gay marriage? This makes EVERYONE's lives better.

If you ban gay marriage and piss off a bunch of people and alienate them, this will not make any straight person's marriage more successful.

All of that said, I don't think many gays want to get married. Gay marriage is an issue that only affects that very small group of gays who even WANT to get married. It seems to me, that Bush and his crew are on the wrong side of the issue. They should be trying to figure out how they can FORCE all gays to get married, not how they can stop us from getting married.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I was going to drop out of this thread and move on, but the following quote stunned me:



> "I don't believe in GOOD and BAD. Good and bad to me, are not absolutes."


So it's not "bad" when Saddam Hussein had people's tongues and ears cut off, and his sons abused hundreds of women in special "rape rooms"? It's not bad when he stuck children in prison, and killed thousands of his own people with chemical warfare? Didn't you just say that we should all treat each other like brothers, and that this is a universal truth across all religions? If so, why isn't cruel and inhuman treatment of others a "bad" thing?


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

The problem is that everyone always brings up these issues when bush is around. Like i've posted The DOMA made know headlines. This morning Kerry said...the issue wasn't important then. Well, i hope waiting until its someone else's problem is the wrong way to go.

Bush will be part of the solution...hate him or not. I gaurentee you a compromise will be found.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> 
> Bfan-
> 
> ...


no-I am not. I was speaking to the biology.


> I take great offense to "If anyone can marry anyone/anything-does it lose it's meaning? To me it does." Gay marriage does not involved getting married to a THING. It's about two people. Two men or two women. No THINGs.


Some are saying that this should expand to let anyone marry anyTHING. I wasn't calling gay people "things".

I will add that if marriage is to be defined-then who's to say that the definition will not include gays? As GymRat brought up-perhaps they will strike the word MARRIAGE, and call all unions CIVIL UNIONS. Allowing marriage to be a religious term used by those who follow traditional marriage....


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> So it's not "bad" when Saddam Hussein had people's tongues and ears cut off, and his sons abused hundreds of women in special "rape rooms"? It's not bad when he stuck children in prison, and killed thousands of his own people with chemical warfare? Didn't you just say that we should all treat each other like brothers, and that this is a universal truth across all religions? If so, why isn't cruel and inhuman treatment of others a "bad" thing?


I said - it is a very difficult concept to grasp. One I struggle with because I AM human and have such a limited scope of it all. I have to constantly remind myself that the picture is larger than my mind can contain. 

I could undergo a HUGE dissertation on why I believe we are here and why ALL things work for good and why we need this type of thing to understand something else. But, it would require time, an open mind and the ability for me to correctly communicate it.

Even if this isn't perceptable on the physcial plane. We may never know why we were raped as children in this life, but the understanding will come after. We needed the experience in order for us to spiritually evolve.

Is it bad to do the things you mentioned?
As a human, it is bad. As a universal constant, it is nothing. 

Did Saddam Hussein teach the world about things? Did he cause us to change the way we interact with the world? Then he did a VERY good job at being Saddam Hussein. The best Saddam Hussein imaginable. 

To treat people as you would want to be treated IS a universal truth. It is the most efficient way to exist. To act this way brings you closer to your true self, or God. But, this doesn't MEAN it is RIGHT or WRONG... just efficient or inefficient.

In our eyes, things hurt and experience pain or die. But, in the whole scheme of things, what really happened? Didn't Jesus try to teach us about the illusion of life?

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

hold on a second..NathanLane is gay??

hold the phone martha, when did I miss that memo?


the more we argue about whether nor it right, wrong, lega, illegal, immoral, moral, political, not political, ethical unethical, good bad, blah blah blah blah...the more we push normal moderate middle of the road people away from fighting for either side.

Some people think gays are wrong, but even if I did (which I don't) why would I go out of my way to condemn them, or in some cases, way out of my way to make their lives harder?

Sleeping with another consenting adult, is none of my business. I'm actually much more offended by people who sleep around with people left and right, without any good reason behind it, than I am with a man sleeping with a man.

Neither one is something I'd do, but on a scale, skankin' yourself out is much worse to me. Doesnt matter if you're a man skankin yourself out to men and or women..or a woman skankin yourself out to men and or women. 

And that IS a different issue, because generally people who skank themselves out, aren't fornicating for (for this argument, we'll call it) a positive reason.

When two women who love each other, it's not the same as people floozing around with each other. Same with two guys. 

Now obviously there's cases that can be used as anecdotal evidence to disprove what I'm saying, but i've left my belief open to a case by case situation.

I dont think it should be made into a religious argument, because most people miss understand religion, or purposely point out things that benefit their thinking. It's a political and personal issue. 

Should the government be able to tell two LEGAL consenting adults do in the bedroom? Not really. As long as it doesn't involve children, animals, or some other crap (that actually NEEDS to be illegal), who really cares? This doesn't mean (if I ever got married) my wife to be screwing around on me behind my back because she's a "consenting adult", but thats really not the issue either. It just means, what you do with your lover/spouse (as long as it doesn't personally involve me) is none of my business. The second it does invovle me and I'm not consenting, my boot and someones *** will have a meeting.

It ain't my cup of tea, but that don't mean NathanLane can't have tea.

anyone who lets what others do, affect their reasoning for why they do or don't do something (especially on a scale such as this) is just begging to find some excuse not to do something. Seriously, if you feel slighted because two men are married, then somethings wrong with your thinking. There are a lot of things people do that bother me, but eh...life goes on. No need to make a federal case out of it.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> hold on a second..NathanLane is gay??


Nathan said he was gay? I didn't read that.



> I dont think it should be made into a religious argument, because most people miss understand religion, or purposely point out things that benefit their thinking. It's a political and personal issue.


I agree that there is no need to discuss this religiously, but some people feel this IS a religious topic. Marriage to them is NOT about coming together and letting others and yourself know this is the person I want -- forever. But, rather, it is something to be done FOR God. (and sometimes the rest)

Thus, it debases and casts stones at their beliefs. <sarcasm>I don't know if you are aware, but some people really get riled up about their religion. </sarcasm>

This is definitely a LEGAL issue. Whether or not the contract of marriage applies to same-sex couples. 

The Churches can prevent and refuse to marry same-sex couples from now until eternity and that is their right. 



> Should the government be able to tell two LEGAL consenting adults do in the bedroom? Not really. As long as it doesn't involve children, animals, or some other crap (that actually NEEDS to be illegal), who really cares?


Go check out the lawbooks. They don't agree with you. Sodomy is illegal in MANY states. Performing any oral stimulation is completely illegal. 

Government overstepping it's bounds. Of course, I got to wonder how many times it has been enforced.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Play-amazing. Thank you. I have to read more of what you all wrote.


Thanks man. 

I try.

I'm glad SOMEONE will read it, because I put a LOT of effort into it. :sigh: 

Play.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

You make well constructed arguments Play, but then as if you stepped completely away from that format you make statements like, "the bible should be taken with a grain of salt". You appear to be oblivious to what it means to have faith, or how absolutely insulting that is to believers. I fail to see where you or anyone else for that matter can make such a definitive statemnet on what others _should_ do or not do. When you do this you not only step away making well thought out personal arguements, but you intrude into the very core of someone else's being. I do not believe the bible is to be taken with a grain of salt, and it ridiculous that someone would suggest I do.

Don't get me wrong. I think you make for some interesting debate for those so inclined to debate this subject. I just think you either don't give a rip, or fail at times to consider what you say will mean to others.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "We may never know why we were raped as children in this life, but the understanding will come after. We needed the experience in order for us to spiritually evolve."


Uh, uh. Very profound.

I guess no woman should ever try to sue the guy who raped her. After all, it's just part of her "spiritual evolution." And women who have been raped numerous times must be the most spiritually evolved people on the planet. No, wait. I guess the most spiritually evolved would be people who had their heads cut off or who were killed in some other way. 

You've been reading too much new age literature, Play. Come back to the real world.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> You make well constructed arguments Play, but then as if you stepped completely away from that format you make statements like, "the bible should be taken with a grain of salt". You appear to be oblivious to what it means to have faith, or how absolutely insulting that is to believers. I fail to see where you or anyone else for that matter can make such a definitive statemnet on what others _should_ do or not do. When you do this you not only step away making well thought out personal arguements, but you intrude into the very core of someone else's being. I do not believe the bible is to be taken with a grain of salt, and it ridiculous that someone would suggest I do.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I think you make for some interesting debate for those so inclined to debate this subject. I just think you either don't give a rip, or fail at times to consider what you say will mean to others.


I completely apologize. It was certainly not a rip on people's religion or faith.

I think the transition in my head was "I believe the Bible to be what it is..." ... the "I believe" statement was to cover the entire thought process.

I apologize that I did not make that clear. 

I would never try to attack the faith of another, unless I felt violated. (Then we can watch the floodgates open) Which is why I would not want to attack someone else's faith.

No, TO ME, the Bible is something I need to read with a grain of salt. TO ME all that is written is not fact, but rather allegory sprikled with fact. 

That is more what I meant, I think I was taking the cheap way out.

Again - I apologize if I offended you.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> I guess no woman should ever try to sue the guy who raped her. After all, it's just part of her "spiritual evolution." And women who have been raped numerous times must be the most spiritually evolved people on the planet. No, wait. I guess the most spiritually evolved would be people who had their heads cut off or who were killed in some other way.


Again, you are looking at it on a VERY human level, which is the way we should look at it when it comes to terms with society.

BUT - on a universal level - these things are experience. Do you know what the ultimate goal for your soul/spirit/being is? 

There is no right and wrong, in my understanding, just the definitions I hold them to. I have notions about what I like and want, thus I assume others want this. This doesn't make me right or wrong, it makes me right or wrong for me. 

I'm seeing terms such as "good", "evil" and "right" and "wrong", for example, as being so incredibly vague, relative and subjective to the point that you would need to discuss and define them in response to a specific act. An act can be considered "good" in one context and "evil" in another. Then, after a specific act is placed in a specific context, you would have to consider whether or not your definitions would hold true across cultural boundaries. Then there are socio-psychological theories of "good" and "evil" to consider such as how we sublimate "evil" desires into socially accepted behavior. A case in point: a person sublimates his/her sadist desires and becomes a dentist thereby relieving the pain and suffering of others.

Do you really think Bin Laden attacked the WTC out of evil? Do you think he sat around with his evil hat on and thought of an evil thing to do? No. He thought he was doing the right thing. 

Was he? Who knows. Is it a socially acceptable move ... no. 

That is the crux of my argument we can define what is good for a society. In fact, until we mature as a species we NEED this definition. 

But as for universal good and evil- it is impossible to define those terms.

That is the conundrum.

It isn't that societal GOOD and EVIL don't exist. But, universal spiritual GOOD and EVIL don't exist. 

You forget your teachings from Luke 6:29:
_If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. _

Jesus is implying that you are to give those who need these things, these experiences the experience they need. 

It seems weird when we think about it on our level, but Jesus was implying ... if someone robs your car, let them. If someone requires your life, let them take it. 

It is deep stuff, but that is the point. It is VERY difficult to accept and I fight with the concept constantly, because it is just weird to think that I might need to get robbed or experience a particular pain in order to learn something about who I really am. 



> You've been reading too much new age literature, Play. Come back to the real world.


I've played gentle so far and would appreciate the same respect. I would hate this to degrade into a complete mockery of religion and a blatant attack on each other.

Again, read Luke 6:29.

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Blah, blah, blah. I'm letting you go, Play. You make no sense at all. Your arguments are built out of straw. It all sounds oh so sophisticated to the untrained ear, but it's really just secular humanist rationalization and a completely valueless universe.


----------



## pumkinhead (Jan 30, 2004)

*now reading these replies*

I see where{ politicaly and spiritualy} some are in the walk through this life. {play} if i read you right you tend to believe that you can create a god in your own image and in the same breath say that we are little gods? would you assume this is correct>? that if we are all little peices of god and interconnected as pieces, so if you have the power and mind of god. through the piece theory then please make dale davis 23 years old and the most dominant power foward in the leauge. what you "cant" come on were all pieces in your theory and what you want should obviously be universaly accepted by all. If were all interconnected as little gods. I for one would never exult myself as equall to god or say his divine word "take whith a grain of salt". but in your religous theory yes why not create your own divine word and better yet, whatever you do, their is no repercussion. Becuase if it" feels good do it".{60s mantra} our jails are brimming full of these kind of thoughts. Yes to be interconnected in the "Many piece plan" whith every rapist and thug and social perverse human. {wow } as far as crimminals then we should set them all "free" becuase they dont need good or evil to follow. OR assimilate a proper code of sociatle restraint. becuase their is no absolutes. right?/ no mores or right or wrong. you argument is full of holes and if homosexuality was a great lifestyle why is the millions of years of human kind every sociaty that has embrasssed this, As ok failed, fallen to ruin. I have examples: greek society as wonderful it was. EMBRASSED this lifestyle wholly and if" fell" "never to be resererected again". the medo- persian allowed temple prostitutes who were gay service men it also fell. babolynian " the start of unversall religon" they too as greeks medes,romans held temples were men could have sex whith temple male prostitutes. and again it" fell" never trully to be reserected. it was a great part of these kingdoms. dont fool yourself. the civil union thing though not as politicalised, as the current form the USA has allowed. Has always been allowed in each of the six great empires yet "it"[ homosexual common law or cival union} whithin the power struggle. whithin its ranks and a then destruction. not includeing a biological reason for this. in every society this eventualy was universally accepted. "fact" yet. somehow it destabilised the great empires. { and this isnt revisionist history} I too studied comparitive religons. bibical art and have a degree in world history. i see a coralation of "cause and effect". I have many homosexuall freinds but they also know my conservative veiw, i stiill love and care for them just the bedroom is never to be political issue."ever". Yet these issues and a push for "speacial rights " has got our country in a uproar. and its not gonna quite down. as long as we dont assertain our past.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Blah, blah, blah. I'm letting you go, Play. You make no sense at all. Your arguments are built out of straw. It all sounds oh so sophisticated to the untrained ear, but it's really just secular humanist rationalization and a completely valueless universe.


I expected no less.

You remind me of guys who step up and talk a lot of trash and when the moment for a fight arises, they say "Ah, you ain't even worth it."

But, nonetheless, I feel that I made quite a bit of sense and I feel that a lot of people - even if they don't back my opinion - feel that I made sense. 

I'm sorry you felt that I don't make sense.

As for my argument being built on straw, please, I find that offensive and I swear by everything that I am I could chew through your religious beliefs like a termite in a lumberyard if I felt the desire. Don't attack mine and I won't attack yours. 

I think the REAL issue you have is that you have never encountered someone with a solid background in religious scripture coupled with a slant toward eastern philosophy. 

People like me scare people like you. We put thought into our beliefs, which most of the time people like you have never done. So once your typical regurgitation of rhetoric is done, you are done. Spent. 

Go back to your pastor, preacher, rabbi, buddy or whatever and get some fresh material and we can talk again. 

I don't want this to be a fight, I was rather enjoying espousing my thoughts, how I got there and why I think the way I do. In fact, I was quite intrigued to see if you would offer me something new. (Some people here privately messaged me with new things, and for that I am thankful) 

It's unfortunate you felt it needed to be concluded in such a crude manner.

Play.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> I expected no less.
> 
> You remind me of guys who step up and talk a lot of trash and when the moment for a fight arises, they say "Ah, you ain't even worth it."


Let it be known that just a few pages back, he called you a "worthy debater" and now it's come to him saying your argument's are "built of straw"?

Which is it?

Stuart


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: now reading these replies*



> Originally posted by <b>pumkinhead</b>!
> i see where politicaly and spiritualy some are in the walk through life. play if i read you right you tend to believe that you can create a god in your own image and in the same breath say that we are little gods? would you assume this is correct. that if we are all little peices of god and interconnected as pieces, so if you have the power and mind of god. through the piece theory then make dale davis 23 years old and the most dominant power foward in the leauge. what you "cant" come on were all pieces in your theory and what you want should obviously be universaly accepted by all if were all interconnected as little gods. I for one would never exult myself as equall to god or say his divine word "take whith a grain of salt". but in your relgous theory yes why not create your own word and better yet whatever you do their is no repercussion. becuase if it feels good do it. our jails are brimming full of these kind of thoughts. yes to be interconnected in the many piece plan whith every rapist and thug and sociatle perverse human. wow they then we should set them all "free" becuase they dont need good or evil to follow. OR assimilate a proper code of sociatle restraint. becuase their is no absolutes. right/ no mores or right or wrong. you argument is full of holes and if homosexuality was a great lifestyle why is the millions of years of human kind every sociaty that has embrasssed this as ok failed fallen to ruin i have examples greek society as wonderful it was. EMBRASSED this lifestyle wholly and if" fell" never to be resererected again. the medo- persian allowed temple prostitutes who were gay service men it also fell. babolynian " the start of unversall religon" they too as greeks medes,romans held temples were men could have sex whith temple male prostitutes. and again it" fell" never trully to be reserected. it was a great part of these kingdoms. dont fool yourself. the civil union thing though not as politicalised, as the current form the USA has allowed. Has always been allowed in each of the six great empires yet "it"[ homosexual common law or cival union} whithin the power struggle. whithin its ranks and a then destruction. not includeing a biological reason for this. in every society this eventualy was universally accepted. "fact" yet. somehow it destabilised the great empires. { and this isnt revisionist history} I too studied comparitive religons. bibical art and have a degree in world history. i see a coralation of cuase and effect. I have many homosexuall freinds but they also know my conservative veiw, i stiill love and care for them just the bedroom is never to be political issue yet these issues and a push for "speacial rights " has got our country in a uproar. and its not gonna quite down. as long as we dont asertain our past.


I have to jet right now, BUT I will reply in full. 

But suffice it to say, you are off-base in my assertation. I will leave you with these tidbits to chew on before I return.

Matthew 17:20
_“Have ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”_

James 4:2
_"You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God."_


Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Blah, blah, blah. I'm letting you go, Play. You make no sense at all. Your arguments are built out of straw. It all sounds oh so sophisticated to the untrained ear, but it's really just secular humanist rationalization and a completely valueless universe.


Actually, Play came a lot closer to any true insight and meaning about the universe and true spirituality than so-called religious zealots who mouth hatred and exclusion because "God told them to in the Bible."

I think, TalkHard, you simply don't have the ability to think beyond black and white. The moment anything more sophisticated comes along, you pooh pooh it as "nonsense, not in the real world" and act like you're *more* sophisticated for dismissing a well thought-out opinion, rather than far less sophisticated.

Reading through this debate, I was very impressed with all you had to say, Play. I'm not a Christian, but I agree with many of your spiritual beliefs, especially the lack of meaning to the concepts of "objective good" and "objective evil."

I would have liked to input, but you pretty much said what I wanted to say, so I didn't wish to be redundant.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

This is a great debate and I personally think everyone has got strong ideas.

However let's all take a step back and look beyond this amendment for what it really is.

Bush is running a classic smoke screen for a bigger purpose to get his re-election taken care of.

One of the other posters on this board said that Bush is once again appealing to the religious sector by dangling this amazing bone for them to latch onto. That poster was absolutely right!

This amendment is politics 101. We've got an election six months away. Bush has noooooo economic plan and tons of people out of work, and many who are back to work are working for less.

We've got a war in the middle east that many think was white house created. We've not got Bin Laden, and Iraq is quickley becoming Beruit all over again. Our president is in trouble!

On top of that he'll be running against a man who has more money than his family and their friends put together. Kerry is loaded and will be able to run an A++++++ campaign. My feeling is Bush is dreading a debate with Kerry so he's going to find a needle in a hay stack just like this gay marriage situation to make his defining stance.

Why is this amendment such a great pieace of bait? Cause 70% of all people that go to church regularly vote republican. That can get ya re-elected! Cause the church folk vote, plain and simple!

My feeling is Bush will jump up and down on this issue till election time cause it will put voters in the booths for him.

Bush knows this amendment will never pass, but it will take time away from the bigger issues as it's doing right now!


This is a desperate act by a president that wants to get re-elected.


It's actually pretty sad when this is what the end result of JR's presidency will be remembered for, that and sleeping at the wheel when our country was attacked for the first time!


----------



## pumkinhead (Jan 30, 2004)

so if we are just part of a piece theory are then to head to a godhead. matt is talking about christans faith that can move mountains. belief in a plural god. and faith as defined as: the evidence of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. the secound scriptue quoted is confuseing in its context. james wasnt makeing a generalised statement he was useing it in a context of "verse one -too verse 11 not loving the things of this world" the cautions concerning criticism in verse 11 is to a non beliver of the law " the one criticised to say homosexuality is a abomination in the eyes of god" also "brotheren" exspressed is the brothers in christ. not non belivers the epistle was writen by james the half brother of jesus. sinnce you seem to enjoy scripture i have some for you to mull over colossians2;8 "See to it no one takes you spoiled thru hollow deceptive philosophy whitch depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather on christ". NIV 1 corinthians 6:9-10" Do you not know know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of god? Do not be decieved: neither the sexually immoral nor idolterers nor adulters nor male prostitutes nor homosexuall offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of of god."{remember this was in corinth} a place of roman rule as i said allowed homosexuality in temples. as to a gay goddess . but it also was a admonishment to the romans of all their sins :} and fact again in 1 john 3;6 another eye openning revelation if your a slave to sin you have neither seen god or know him:} god has in so many scriptures said it is a sin and in one a "abommination"the worst term imagineable. but i quess we can pic and choose whitch ones to believe if we are a god ourself right "play":} well im not giving up and enjoy a good civil discussion but i think even if god himself spoke to you youd still believe your philosophy even when you were proved wrong so" addios amigo" well see in the END


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Playmaker -*

I appreciate your intelligent dialogue in this thread. But I must take exception of some of your arguments in regards to Biblical commentary on homosexuality.



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> As stated in 2 Peter 3:15-17,  we are warned to be quite careful of misinterpretations of Paul's writings.
> 
> ...


WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! Peter says that Paul's writings can be misinterpreted because some ignorant people (amatheis in Greek) distort his writings (streblousin in Greek) and suddenly Paul is open to mass misinterpretation???

I could say the same thing about your posts - that because some people don't understand what you're saying, that makes your posts unclear and subject to various meanings. I would be absolutely wrong in saying so, but you get the point.



> The term "vile affections", in original Greek, probably does not mean "passions" or "lust" as we experience in normal everday life. It is not a reference to the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. More to the point it probably refers to a frenzied state of mind that many ancient cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music. Paul seems to be describing the ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan cults of the era. Most likely Paul is referring fertility cult worship that was prevalent in Rome at the time.


I've heard this argument before and I don't buy it. The two words used in the text are epithumiais (desires) and akatharsian (unclean/impure). The first word is used several other times in the NT to refer to "lusting after a woman". The second is used in other NT passages in association with adultery and fornication - talking about how those activities make a person unclean. 

As for the context - there is absolutely no internal evidence to suggest that Paul is referring ONLY to Pagan cult practices. In fact, there are a number of places in Paul's writings where he defines his context when he is addressing something in particular (eg, idol food sacrifices). This tells me that when he is referring to a particular cultural context, Paul establishes itself within the text itself. He does nothing of the sort in Romans 1.



> "Change" or "Abandon". These words are important, because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking. He is referring to people that deviated from their natural orientation and engaged in sexual behavior with others. Most likely in the sexual orgies performed by fertility cults.


They are important. They point out the error of changing (metallaksen) the truth (alatheian) of God and of abandoning (paredoken) the natural (phusikan). This is not a condemnation of sexual activity. Paul praises sexual activity in his writings - that is, within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. This, he says, is the natural orientation of human beings, one which can be changed and abandoned.



> The word "natural". The Greek word is "phooskos", meaning "inborn", "produced by nature" , "agreeable to nature". This term, and the corresponding phrase "para physin" or non-natural (more correctly, unconventional) are open to interpretation. Homosexual tendencies are normal, natural, and inborn for a small percentage of human adults. For these people, heterosexual behavior would be abnormal and unnatural.


There are many other "natural" impulses that we all have - to lie, to cheat, to steal, etc. Should I assume that you would have me completely abandon any restraint when it comes to these impulses? That you would have no problem with me coming to your house and enabling my impulse to take any and all of your possessions? I find that hard to believe.

The word phusis (the root word) entails a sense of "nature according to the natural order of things". I find no evidence here or anywhere else that Paul is sanctioning behavior simply on the basis of "doing what comes naturally". In fact, throughout his epistles, Paul continually says that we as human beings should not fall into the trap of doing what comes naturally - that we need to be open to the work of God within believers which can transform those desires and bring them into line with His plan for our lives.



> .<b>Using YOUR Bible and select passages as a reason to discrimnate is just awful. In fact, doing so defies every teaching Jesus set forth. </b>


Agreed.



> Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11:
> _"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." _(NIV)
> 
> Ruth 1:14, in reference to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi it is mentioned that _"Ruth clave onto her."_ (KJV) Isn't that the SAME word used to describe HETEROSEXUAL marriage in your precious passage (Gen 2:24)?


It's the same word, but it doesn't equate to marriage. The word is used in Genesis to describe the conscious decision of a man to be close to his wife to facilitate the becoming of one flesh. That is the phrase used to describe marriage - becoming one flesh.

In other places, the same word is also used in the OT to refer to "cleaving to the Lord" (many places in Deut.) and even to "leprosy cleaving to a person" (II Kings 5:27). It also refers to clods of dirt cleaving together (Job 38:38), and to a person's tongue "cleaving to the roof of the mouth". In other words, it's a word with varied applications of "being close to" or "attached to" depending on the context. It is NOT synonymous with marriage.

In this case, there is no external or internal evidence pointing to anything in Ruth and Naomi's relationship being romantic or erotic in any way. In fact, Naomi seems extremely interested throughout the story in helping Ruth to find love again with another man.




> 1 Samuel 18:1
> _"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself."_ (NIV)
> or
> _"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul"_ (KJV)
> ...


To love with your spirit or soul does incorporate the physical - no denying that. But since believers are commanded to love God with their soul, I would contend that there are ways to love with your soul that are non-romantic. That's the idea of the David and Jonathan story. David finds a friend in Jonathan whose love is "more wonderful than that of women" - understanding that the Hebrew phrase connotates also a sense of different. In other words, a non-erotic love that still facilitated the bonding of spirits.

I have a friend like this. He and I, for 20 years, have shared our fears, our dreams, our joys. I can tell him anything. But there's nothing remotely romantic about our friendship. Being best friends has done nothing to impede my dating relationships with women or his marriage. In fact, it has enhanced them.

To reduce the idea of "loving with your soul" purely to a romantic level is, IMO, a classic case of proof-texting.




> 1 Samuel 18:2
> _"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house."_ (NIV)
> 
> Well, dear ol' David departed his parent's house to live with Saul and Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close.


Yes it was.



> 1 Samuel 18:3-4
> _"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." _(NIV)
> 
> In those times, there was no such thing as underwear. Thus, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. This is extremely odd behavior for the time, unless their their relationship was physical.


Are you saying that when David went dancing naked in the streets he was asking for the entire nation to sleep with him?

Nakedness is a biblical symbol of intimacy (see Genesis 3 among others). Again, you are taking a concept - intimacy in this case - and reducing it to eroticism. In taking off his robe, Jonathan is telling David that he is willing to let David see "the real him". Yes, this COULD be a homosexual act, but it is not necessarily so. We clearly have a difference of opinion here.



> 1 Samuel 18:20-21
> _"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."_
> 
> In English, the translation would be: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children". This would refer to Saul's son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul recognized David and Jonathan's homosexual marriage. The translation by the NIV is clearly wrong and deceptive.


Actually, you're wrong here. Saul offered his older daughter, Merab, to David in verse 17. This has nothing to do with Jonathan and Michel, but has everything to do with Merab and Michel.

And in English, the phrase actually means "a second opportunity to become my son-in-law."



> 1 Samuel 20:41
> _"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most."_ (NIV)
> 
> What's funny is that the translators had REAL issues with this line and tried to decieve the reader. The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! I would guess this is a little bit of a lie.
> ...


Interesting. I've never heard this interpretation. However, I do know that gadal is often used adverbally (Gen. 16:10, Gen. 31:30). It's used of David in this way in I Chron. 29:9. This would allow a use of "greatly" in this passage rather than "became great". That allows for the interpretation of "both men wept and David greatly (or more so)."

Oh, and I kissed my grandfather the last time I saw him. How do you interpret that?




> 2 Samuel 1:26
> _"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."_
> 
> In that era in Isreal, men and women did not communicate in public. Their entire relationship is based on sex. Since David's relationship with women would be sexual, then the reference here would ALSO indicate sexuality since there is NO other kind of relationship with women.


First of all, to say that the only relationship between men and women was sexual in OT Israel is preposterous. To say that they didn't communicate in public is ignorant. Just a few examples you might want to take a look at:

I Kings 17:7-24
II Kings 4:1-37
Judges 4:1-24
Etc., etc.

Yes, it was different than it is today. But not to the extent that you portray it.



Finally, let me say again, *playmaker* that you are clearly an intelligent person who has thought a lot about this issue. I like to think that the same is true of me. But we do disagree vehemently on this issue. That's OK - I'm not going to put you on my ignore list or anything. But it's very clear to me that the Bible speaks against homosexuality as a practice. That it's sin. And that it is wrong, just like lying and stealing and cheating are wrong. People have "natural impulses" to do all those things, but it doesn't make them right.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>pumkinhead</b>!
> so if we are just part of a piece theory are then to head to a godhead. matt is talking about christans faith that can move mountains. belief in a plural god. and faith as defined as: the evidence of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. the secound scriptue quoted is confuseing in its context. james wasnt makeing a generalised statement he was useing it in a context of "verse one -too verse 11 not loving the things of this world" the cautions concerning criticism in verse 11 is to a non beliver of the law " the one criticised to say homosexuality is a abomination in the eyes of god" also "brotheren" exspressed is the brothers in christ. not non belivers the epistle was writen by james the half brother of jesus. sinnce you seem to enjoy scripture i have some for you to mull over colossians2;8 "See to it no one takes you spoiled thru hollow deceptive philosophy whitch depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather on christ". NIV 1 corinthians 6:9-10" Do you not know know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of god? Do not be decieved: neither the sexually immoral nor idolterers nor adulters nor male prostitutes nor homosexuall offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of of god."{remember this was in corinth} a place of roman rule as i said allowed homosexuality in temples. as to a gay goddess . but it also was a admonishment to the romans of all their sins :} and fact again in 1 john 3;6 another eye openning revelation if your a slave to sin you have neither seen god or know him:} god has in so many scriptures said it is a sin and in one a "abommination"the worst term imagineable. but i quess we can pic and choose whitch ones to believe if we are a god ourself right "play":} well im not giving up and enjoy a good civil discussion but i think even if god himself spoke to you youd still believe your philosophy even when you were proved wrong so" addios amigo" well see in the END


pumpkinhead, please, and I don't say this with malice... please use paragraphs... 

Stuart


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> I believe that we ALL are part of God. In truth, everything is.
> 
> ...


Interesting. Sounds a lot like classic Hindu thought.

My basic criticism of pantheistic thought is that it either denies the "fallen" aspect of human behavior or else that it cannot explain where "fallen" behavior came from. Your other posts seem to indicate that you hold that there is no no "good" or "evil". I understand this position, but disagree vehemently with it.

I appreciate dialogue with those who hold other beliefs/philosophies. Through such dialogues, I discover that Christianity offers a unique solution to the human dilemna - that the answer to our problems do NOT lie "within ourselves", but that we need help from an external source. Understanding that continues to reinforce my belief in God and my dependence upon Him.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

The more I read people quoting scripture, the more I realize that God word is tooooo complicated for any man to write it down and turn it into law.

Can you imagine now why so much blood has been spilled for THE WORD OF GOD?

A great deal of people can't even agree on the interpretations of the interpretations.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> The more I read people quoting scripture, the more I realize that God word is tooooo complicated for any man to write it down and turn it into law.
> 
> Can you imagine now why so much blood has been spilled for WORD OF GOD?


It's tragic.

God's Word is like gravity. Even very young children understand gravity, to an extent. There's a simplicity to the concept that all can grasp.

At the same time, it is a great mystery. Men and women have spent lifetimes trying to delve into the intricacies of gravity in an attempt to understand it. And we, as a human race, are still much in ignorance of it, even after so much effort has been spent in trying to understand it.

There is ignorance of God's Word ("I don't know anything about it and I don't really care") and there is ignorance of God's Word ("I have spent my life trying to understand it completely and portions still are beyond my full grasping"). Everyone exists, at some level, in ignorance of God's Word.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

The part that scares me the most is it's usually the people who understand God's word the least, that are motivating the most people to act on it.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> The part that scares me the most is it's usually the people who understand God's word the least, that are motivating the most people to act on it.




OK, it's not ALWAYS true....but when it is....


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I will respond, Minstrel, if for no other reason than to defend myself against your attack. I chose not to debate the fine points with Play because my opinion varies with his in so many respects that it would be exhausting to lay it all out. But here are a few points . . .



> "Play came a lot closer to any true insight and meaning about the universe and true spirituality than so-called religious zealots who mouth hatred and exclusion because "God told them to in the Bible."


Well . . . when you put it that way, we naturally want to agree with you. Who wouldn't? You've created a bogeyman out of anyone who disagrees with Play, but you haven't addressed the merits of his argument.



> "I think, TalkHard, you simply don't have the ability to think beyond black and white. The moment anything more sophisticated comes along, you pooh pooh it as "nonsense, not in the real world" and act like you're more sophisticated for dismissing a well thought-out opinion, rather than far less sophisticated."


What I have is the ability to sniff out B.S. when I see it. Maybe Play's arguments are new to you, but I have seen them before in many different guises. I know the rap.

I'm not going to address all of his points, but here are a few things you might like to chew on.

Play claims to know the Bible very well, yet his statements show otherwise. When Paul talks about men burning up with unnatural desires for each other, he's not referring to "orgies." If you believe Play's interpretation of this text, Paul is saying it's okay for men to have sex with each other as long as it's not in the setting of an orgy. This is plainly not what Paul is saying. What Play is doing is trying to divert attention from the real meaning of the text, simply because he doesn't like what it's saying. People do this all the time when they disagree with something the Bible says.

Play also wants us to believe that Bin Laden's attack on the WTC was not evil because he thought he was doing the right thing. Well, the attack may or may not have been evil, but I will guarantee you that what bin Laden thought about it is not the point. Just because someone THINKS his actions are not evil does not mean he is right. If that were true, we wouldn't prosecute anybody for any crimes. All a murderer would have to do is say, "Your honor, I didn't think killing my wife was evil," and the judge would let him go. 

Play's use of Luke 6:29 to justify the value of pain being inflicted on us is also a misinterpretation of the Bible. The text reads, "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." What Christ is telling us is to love one another, to be selfless, to give unto others, because that is what he did. But he sure as hell is not telling us that getting our tongues hacked out or our ears cut off is some kind of blessing that will help us "evolve spiritually" as Play claims. Torturing others in that way is evil, and un-Christlike, and is something that Christ would condemn as wicked. Play is unable to do.

And so on. Play is doing what his moniker suggests: he is "playing" with the Bible. He needs to really study it, instead of trying to find ways to deconstruct it. Otherwise, he will become one of those people who, as the Bible says, "think they are wise, but are really foolish."


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> The part that scares me the most is it's usually the people who understand God's word the least, that are motivating the most people to act on it.


Interesting thought.....



> _Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ gave the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
> 
> But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before Him. It is because of Him that your are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God - that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord._
> 
> *I Corinthians 1:20-25 & 27-31*


This, I can stand upon. :yes:


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Thanks for the reply Play, it was appreciated. I ask you keep in mind though....there are those who can make very convincing arguements for why a bumble bee should not be able to fly....but apparently the bumble bee hasn't read them.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Can someone tell me how many times the Bible has been reinterpreted and/or rewritten since its conception?


----------



## pumkinhead (Jan 30, 2004)

*the web rowser i have currently wont allow spell check and*

my indentation of paragraphs. sorry it just slaps them together even whith prpoer spaceimg its a older version of windows web browser.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting. Sounds a lot like classic Hindu thought.
> ...


Why do you feel that's a flaw or a point for criticism? The idea is that we do not live in a universe of moral judgement. There is no absolute good and evil, as far as the *universe* is concrned. Certainly, *we* will see things as good and bad, generally based on the misery caused / alleviated, but all actions are neutral as far as reality, itself, goes.

Therefore, there isn't a need to explain "fallen" behaviour. We have our opinions of what's bad, but those things come about from a wide range of possible behaviours...it's like a wide range of colours, of which you don't like some. Is there a need to explain the origin of "fallen colours," or is it sufficient to say, "We have a lot of colours, colours are neutral to the universe, but we may like, dislike or even hate certain colours."


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> What I have is the ability to sniff out B.S. when I see it. Maybe Play's arguments are new to you, but I have seen them before in many different guises. I know the rap.


They're not the least bit new to me. I've studied many religions and philosophies and what Play said has a whole lot of validity, as a perspective.

The fact that you dismiss it as "BS" is not new to you either. You frequently throw away as BS anything that has the least bit of nuance to it. Either you adhere strictly to the Bible, or you're espousing "new age BS." Either you say only good things about the US, or you're unpatriotic and maybe a supporter of the terrorists.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> The idea is that we do not live in a universe of moral judgement. There is no absolute good and evil, as far as the *universe* is concrned. Certainly, *we* will see things as good and bad, generally based on the misery caused / alleviated, but all actions are neutral as far as reality, itself, goes.


Minstrel-this is what this makes me think:

If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound? 

Factor humans out of the picture then there really is nothing to talk about-right? 

Seriously...philosophy and religion are meaningless if there is no one to put it into practice or thought...good and evil are meaningless if there is no human to view it as such by filtering it through their thinking (collective conscience) and coming to a conclusion....a moral conclusion. 

The reality is that there are humans living on earth in this universe ...you can't just dismiss it. It makes for good conversation but it isn't real.

We can pretend we don't exist and create whatever realities we want. 

It dosn't change the fact that we are here and we have to DEAL with a real reality, one way or another. Whether that reality be deemed good or evil.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> Seriously...philosophy and religion are meaningless if there is no one to put it into practice or thought...good and evil are meaningless if there is no human to view it as such by filtering it through their thinking (collective conscience) and coming to a conclusion....a moral conclusion.
> 
> The reality is that there are humans living on earth in this universe ...you can't just dismiss it. It makes for good conversation but it isn't real.


I agree with you, to a point. But religion and philosophy (or one might combine them as "spirituality") are not meant to decide worldly matters. We don't say a murderer or a rapist is "not evil in an objective sense" and let them go free. They've caused misery and should be locked up to prevent more misery.

That's *dealing* with *our* reality.

The use of spirituality, in my opinion, is to school one's own emotions. To reduce the hatred in one's heart, to reduce various negative emotions. Not only can that have a tangible physical health benefits, it can also have great benefit to one's contentment and peace of mind. All of which I think is worth having.

Dealing with things is a separate matter. We should always do what we can to reduce misery and suffering in the world, but we can either do it with righteous anger or we can do it with a peace and understanding.

That's my perspective. My opinion is *not* that we should be *paralyzed* just because there's no objective good and evil.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> You frequently throw away as BS anything that has the least bit of nuance to it. Either you adhere strictly to the Bible, or you're espousing "new age BS." Either you say only good things about the US, or you're unpatriotic and maybe a supporter of the terrorists.


Talk about missing nuance! You are categorizing my arguments into neat little slots that suit you. I never said anyone had to "adhere strictly to the Bible," but I did suggest that it forms a framework for our laws and institutions. This is a proven fact, whether your or Play or anyone else likes it. 

And when did I say that one could only talk about the "good things" of the U.S.? I personally find all kinds of things objectionable about the U.S., from its forms of popular entertainment, to its media, its tax code, its foreign policy, and on and on. What I object to is a wishy-washy relativism about the good things that the U.S. DOES stand for. There are far too many folks in this country who have profited from its economic and cultural polices, yet take great pleasure in attacking it from within.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> The use of spirituality, in my opinion, is to school one's own emotions. To reduce the hatred in one's heart, to reduce various negative emotions. Not only can that have a tangible physical health benefits, it can also have great benefit to one's contentment and peace of mind. All of which I think is worth having.


But we have to exist to do so...right? :grinning:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Okay, TalkHard. I think you tossed aside Play's opinions with a dismissiveness that I felt was unnecessary and I've felt you've done that in other discussions, too, but I don't wish to argue what you will and will not accept. Perhaps I'm wrong. Or maybe I'm not. Either might be true.

But there's no point getting into an argument over you, as a poster. That's not appropriate and I'll apologize for starting anything in that direction.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> But we have to exist to do so...right? :grinning:


Certainly.  I'm not making an argument for a universe in which we don't exist! I'm simply saying that it's reasonable (even likely, to me) that we exist in a universe that is neutral to our actions...rather than making value judgements about good and evil.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Why do you feel that's a flaw or a point for criticism? The idea is that we do not live in a universe of moral judgement. There is no absolute good and evil, as far as the *universe* is concrned. Certainly, *we* will see things as good and bad, generally based on the misery caused / alleviated, but all actions are neutral as far as reality, itself, goes.


2 reasons why:

1) If there is no universal good or evil, then where did the concepts come from? Why do we label any activity as good or evil? Call it Biblical morals or Platonic forms, there must be absolutes in order for us to be able to differentiate between behaviors. It doesn't make sense.

2) If there is no universal good or evil, then there is no reason (spiritually speaking) for me to be "good". Why resist temptation? Why help one another? No moral basis at all for behavior that we seem to all know intuitively is the way we should act.



> Therefore, there isn't a need to explain "fallen" behaviour. We have our opinions of what's bad, but those things come about from a wide range of possible behaviours...it's like a wide range of colours, of which you don't like some. Is there a need to explain the origin of "fallen colours," or is it sufficient to say, "We have a lot of colours, colours are neutral to the universe, but we may like, dislike or even hate certain colours."


No offense, but you're putting all moral decisions/behavior on the level of Baskin Robbins, aren't you? Choose one flavor or choose another or choose none at all - in the end, it just doesn't matter.

I simply can't live like that. If there's no universal/eternal difference between love and hate, then there's no reason to love. That goes against every grain of reason and instinct in my heart, mind and soul.

And if there's nothing inherently wrong with doing "bad", then why put people in jail? They're just making one decision instead of another. Sure, their decisions have consequences that might make life a little less convenient for me, but you've just taken away any right that society has for judging behavior, other than arbitrary laws that don't mean anything in the long run anyway.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> But there's no point getting into an argument over you, as a poster. That's not appropriate and I'll apologize for starting anything in that direction.


No offense taken. If I come across as too "dismissive," that's something I should consider. But I find that many posters here are dismissive when it comes to things like Christianity, traditional values, or patriotism. Play's remarks about the Bible, for example, are extremely offensive to Christians. When people like me stand up to defend our beliefs we are charged with hostility, while those with a more liberal sensibility are allowed to sling mud freely.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> 1) If there is no universal good or evil, then where did the concepts come from? Why do we label any activity as good or evil? Call it Biblical morals or Platonic forms, there must be absolutes in order for us to be able to differentiate between behaviors. It doesn't make sense.


You're confusing relative good and evil with universal good and evil. Either you are, or you're lionizing those who have confused the two.

There are those who consider murder "evil." It is evil, in a relative sense. To us, humans, we consider it bad. There's a temptation to take whatever we feel and assume that it's actually an objective thing. Certainly, religious types want to do that, because it's the only way to rationalize a judging God...that whatever He says is objective good and evil.

You may believe in a judging Creator, but you should at least be aware that there are other religious and philosophical standpoints for reality. And ones without a God, that decrees what is "good" and what is "evil" for the entire universe, do not credit concepts like absolute, or objective, good and evil.



> 2) If there is no universal good or evil, then there is no reason (spiritually speaking) for me to be "good". Why resist temptation? Why help one another? No moral basis at all for behavior that we seem to all know intuitively is the way we should act.


Again, you're confusing objective and subjective good and evil. Just because there is no such thing as an objective good and evil doesn't mean we cannot have subjective good and evil. In our subjective view, causing others misery is bad. In our subjective view, easing misery is good.

Based on that, there's plenty of reason to do good and be good.



> No offense, but you're putting all moral decisions/behavior on the level of Baskin Robbins, aren't you? Choose one flavor or choose another or choose none at all - in the end, it just doesn't matter.


Define "matter." Matter to the universe? Not at all. Do whatever you want...there's no way to rationalize that what we do has any cosmic importance, unless you choose to take on a God-centric viewpoint.

Matter to our family, friends and society? Certainly it matters. Hurting others matters to them. It matters to society if we hurt other or help others.



> And if there's nothing inherently wrong with doing "bad", then why put people in jail? They're just making one decision instead of another. Sure, their decisions have consequences that might make life a little less convenient for me, but you've just taken away any right that society has for judging behavior, other than arbitrary laws that don't mean anything in the long run anyway.


I imagine you wouldn't say this in light of what I've already said above, because these are basically all the same point, but I'll repeat: The lack of objective good and evil doesn't remove the possibility for subjective good and evil. We don't like misery. Therefore, we don't want people causing misery.

Jailing people shouldn't be about anger and hatred for their being "evil." Especially if you believe in God, since God created the capacity in those people to do such things.

If we were perfectly enlightened people, they should be restrained from doing further harm to others with compassion in our hearts. Since we are falliable humans, we will generally have anger and hatred. But that accomplishes nothing. It's not about judging...it's only about reducing misery in the world.

If you believe in God, even the murderers and robbers are here for a reason and play a part. Pity them that that's the part they play and remove them from society. If you do not believe in God, then what goes on matters not a whit to the universe what we do here. Again, they should be removed from society, but what point to doing so out of anger and hatred?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Jailing people shouldn't be about anger and hatred for their being "evil." Especially if you believe in God, since God created the capacity in those people to do such things.


God created us as perfect, unfallen beings. It was his plan that we live in a perfect relationship with him, in which there was no sin and no selfishness. This was the divine plan. 

But God also gave us the ability to CHOOSE, to be free moral agents. Those who are evil have chosen to be evil, and God does not condone it. To suggest that God is somehow complicit in man's sinning is to distort the nature of God.



> If you believe in God, even the murderers and robbers are here for a reason and play a part.


Again, it was never God's plan that murderers and robbers would exist. He created a world without sin or selfishness of any kind. But when man chose to sin, the game changed. Sin opened the door for all kinds of deviant behavior, including murder and robbery. We live in a fallen world, a pale imitation of the world that God had in mind. That's why he had to come down and die on the cross to redeem us.



> Define "matter." Matter to the universe? Not at all. Do whatever you want...there's no way to rationalize that what we do has any cosmic importance, unless you choose to take on a God-centric viewpoint.


You hit the nail on the head, brother. Take God out of the picture, and it really doesn't matter what we do. God is what brings meaning to the universe.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> You hit the nail on the head, brother. Take God out of the picture, and it really doesn't matter what we do. God is what brings meaning to the universe.


Yes, but I could also create some space aliens theory to bring meaning to the universe. Doesn't make it right.

There's not really a need for "meaning" to the universe. It could just be, without specific purpose. Some people feel comforted creating and believing some theory that gives them meaning.

But even without a god, it matters what we do. It matters to other humans. It just doesn't matter to the universe.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>
> I never said anyone had to "adhere strictly to the Bible," but I did suggest that it forms a framework for our laws and institutions. This is a proven fact, whether your or Play or anyone else likes it.


I'm more familiar with the *Baha'i faith* than any of the other world religions/philosophies, and I've noticed that Baha'i teachings lay out a framework for government and instituitions (especially on a global scale). Does the Christian bible (and other texts) do a similiar thing, or is the suggested framework derived from the moral/social teachings offered by the bible?

On a completely different note, is SAR a practicing Muslim? I remember Hakeem talking about adhering to the fast during the season, and I wondered if SAR does as well. I'd be interested in hearing more (Play, you've followed SAR longest) if he does.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

I think the problem is that Straight people just don't understand what it is to be Gay. Straight people don't have sex with the opposite sex because God told them to. They have sex with the opposite sex because they WANT to, plain and simple. Even if they NEVER had sex, for whatever reason, they would still spend their entire lives wanting to have sex with the opposite sex.

I'm gay. I want to have sex with the same sex. It's actually even deeper than that. My sexual drive and attractions are towards the same sex. Even if I never have sex with any men my entire life, my homosexuality is still a BIG part of who I am. To say that my homosexuality is wrong would be like saying that the fact that I have two legs is wrong. Call it what you will, but it's what I have to work with.

The only way I can explain this Straight people is to ask them to please reverse the experience in their mind. What if you felt you like you do towards the opposite sex, but most people were Gay and told you that being Straight was wrong? What if people told you that the Bible said Being Straight was wrong?

Now, being Straight, it's easy for you to say "Well, I'm not wrong. And the Bible says so."

Well, that what am I, the Gay man, to do? Was I just built incorrectly? Did God make me wrong?

"But homosexuals have a very aggressive agenda. They want kids in public schools to read books like "Johnny has 2 Daddies,"- Talkhard.

Talkhard- What's wrong with children reading a book to explain the REAL WORLD. Some children have no mother. Some children have no father. Some children have two mothers. Some have two fathers. This is a fact of life. Why not have children read this book? It accomplishes two things:

1) If the child is raised by two parents of the same sex, he will relate to the character of Johnny and feel better about who he is.

2) If the child has a CLASSMATE who is raised by two parents of the same sex, he mind will be open to understand what it's like in his classmate's household.

Any book that either A) gives you a character that you can relate to or B) opens your mind to the world outside your own home is a book worth reading for ALL CHILDREN.

Go Blazers


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

TalkHard-

God is against killing.

Bush has ordered that people be killed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bush chose to be evil, right?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> 
> "But homosexuals have a very aggressive agenda. They want kids in public schools to read books like "Johnny has 2 Daddies,"- Talkhard.
> 
> ...


Great post, NathanLane. Especially explaining the value of such materials that are often scorned as "homosexual propoganda."


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: now reading these replies*

As I promised, I would return and so I have.



> Originally posted by <b>pumkinhead</b>!
> {play} if i read you right you tend to believe that you can create a god in your own image and in the same breath say that we are little gods? would you assume this is correct>?


No, I do not create God in ANY image. As the Dao so aptly states "To attempt to describe God, would be to NOT describe God". 

God IS. That is the only unversal constant and why the universal truth holds, in my belief.

IF God is an all-powerful, infinite being (which I believe he is, and most Christian's believe), then there is NO ROOM for anything that is not God. 

By the definition of infinite, there is no beginning and there is no end to god. By your definition, God IS. Therefore, god is everything. There is nothing that is not god. The space between the protons in the atom is god. The stars. The rocks. The guy who murders some woman tonight. The blade that stabs her. The blood. This act is an expression of god. A perverted expression, but an expression of god nonetheless. 

God IS.

Either god is everything or it is not. If it is everything, then you are god and you are perfect. 

What do you think it meant when your bible said "you were created in his image"? 

Therefore, if you are god, either god is fallible or you are infallible by definition. Take your pick. Just because a human makes a mistake or choses to go right instead of left does not indicate fallibility, but rather that they are refusing to acknowledge what they truly are. 

You will always be grounded in reality and not understand your creator unless you understand that you are the creator. God is the force, but you are too. You are one and the same... no difference. All perceived difference is illusion, thus the illusion of reality.

We aren't pieces of God, we are God. All of us. Infinite things cannot be subdivided and individually labelled except through an illusionary method (which is our ultimate reality).

You are me and I am you as we are both the computer we sit in front of. 



> that if we are all little peices of god and interconnected as pieces, so if you have the power and mind of god. through the piece theory then please make dale davis 23 years old and the most dominant power foward in the leauge.


I could, if we all decided this was the reality we chose to experience. 

One cannot "take the Lord's name in vain" or ask for things vainly. The creation of "WANT" will return to you the desire to "WANT". We have to experience it. Thus, the understanding of faith. You just have to ... "walk as if".



> I for one would never exult myself as equall to god or say his divine word "take whith a grain of salt".


There is nothing but the book itself that says it is divine law or the word of God. 

If this book is the word of God there would be no inconsistancies, but there are. The whole thing is chock full of them. This isn't an insult but a statement of fact. 

Which is why I chose to look at it as a picture book rather than some divine script. 

You may chose NOT to exult yourself to be the best you can be, and it is truly unfortunate. I think you missed Jesus's teachings and the point of our existence, which is to become our true selves again. 



> but in your religous theory yes why not create your own divine word and better yet, whatever you do, their is no repercussion. Becuase if it" feels good do it".{60s mantra}


There are repercussions, just not repercussions in the sense that we humans would like to think. We evolve and learn what is and is not our true selves through experience. 

The line of thought you describe is Buddhist and I agree with it to a point. The Buddhists believe that one can/should live the way they chose. Indulge all one's desires, because eventually we will realize there is something more that we want and desire. We will tire of the illusion and seek our true self. We will seek God. 



> our jails are brimming full of these kind of thoughts. Yes to be interconnected in the "Many piece plan" whith every rapist and thug and social perverse human. {wow } as far as crimminals then we should set them all "free" becuase they dont need good or evil to follow. OR assimilate a proper code of sociatle restraint. becuase their is no absolutes. right?/ no mores or right or wrong.


Because there are no UNIVERSAL rights and wrongs does not mean that there are not SOCIETAL rights and wrongs. I have stated this plainly for all to see. 

At this point, and our understanding, we need laws to govern our actions as they can be detrimental to society as a whole. But, outside of our "illusion" these choices mean little. 

Do you really believe that people die? Do you really believe Jesus would have attempted to stop me if I went to slice off his ear?



> you argument is full of holes and if homosexuality was a great lifestyle


I haven't seen any holes you have exploited, but I can start to gnaw on your Bible if you would like? 

No one has said homosexuality is a "great" lifestyle. Some say it was bred into them, some say it is a choice. I care less. What is, is. It goes back to the fact that THESE PEOPLE are God, just as you are God.



> why is the millions of years of human kind every sociaty that has embrasssed this, As ok failed, fallen to ruin. I have examples: greek society as wonderful it was. EMBRASSED this lifestyle wholly and if" fell" "never to be resererected again". the medo- persian allowed temple prostitutes who were gay service men it also fell. babolynian " the start of unversall religon" they too as greeks medes,romans held temples were men could have sex whith temple male prostitutes. and again it" fell" never trully to be reserected. it was a great part of these kingdoms.


I find this line of thought abhorrent. 

For every society you name that ebraced homosexuality and "fell", I can name some that did not embrace it and "fell" as well. Aztecs, most Indian tribes, Inuit culture ... 

The simple fact is, the "falling" of each of these societies had more to do with times changing and cycles then anything else. 

Most of those societies fell to the Romans and the Romans "fell" from being stretched too thin. 



> dont fool yourself. the civil union thing though not as politicalised, as the current form the USA has allowed. Has always been allowed in each of the six great empires yet "it"[ homosexual common law or cival union} whithin the power struggle. whithin its ranks and a then destruction. not includeing a biological reason for this. in every society this eventualy was universally accepted. "fact" yet. somehow it destabilised the great empires. { and this isnt revisionist history}


Again, I hardly believe the true reason for the "destabilization" of these societies has ANYTHING to do with homosexuality. 

Right now, the most macho society in the world is killing itself out. Not from homosexuality but because the sons don't leave the house and are attached to their mother. This is in reference to Italians. By 2010 their population will be halved at this rate. 

Homosexuality has as much to do with the destabilization of those societies as drinking Milk or eating Cheese... because they all did that too. Or maybe it's beef. Every society that fell also embraced eating BEEF! ACK!



> I too studied comparitive religons. bibical art and have a degree in world history. i see a coralation of "cause and effect". I have many homosexuall freinds but they also know my conservative veiw, i stiill love and care for them just the bedroom is never to be political issue."ever". Yet these issues and a push for "speacial rights " has got our country in a uproar. and its not gonna quite down. as long as we dont assertain our past.


Special rights? You mean like being equal and having constitutional law apply to them also. The heathens.

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap: Bonzi!

Schilly: Stackhouse!

Ed: Bonzi!

Howie: Stackhouse!

Hap: Bonzi!

Schilly: Stackhouse!

Ed: Bonzi!

Howie: Stackhouse!

Hap: Bonzi!

Schilly: Stackhouse!

Ed: Bonzi!

Howie: Stackhouse!

Hap: Bonzi!

Schilly: Stackhouse!

Ed: Bonzi!

Howie: Stackhouse!

(12 pages later)

Hap: Bonzi!

Schilly: Stackhouse!

Ed: Bonzi!

Howie: Stackhouse!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> *Playmaker -*
> 
> I appreciate your intelligent dialogue in this thread. But I must take exception of some of your arguments in regards to Biblical commentary on homosexuality.


Thank you. I am sure I will take great exception to your thoughts as well.



> WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! Peter says that Paul's writings can be misinterpreted because some ignorant people (amatheis in Greek) distort his writings (streblousin in Greek) and suddenly Paul is open to mass misinterpretation???


Do we know what ignorance means? Ignorant - someone with the lack of knowledge or uninformed. 

Using our definition: Would you say that most of society is informed or uninformed?

I'm leaning uninformed, which would lead me to think MASS MISINTERPRETATION.

Peter mentions to try to understand Paul's writings like we do the other testaments is done so TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.

I'm guessing Petie wasn't a fan.



> I could say the same thing about your posts - that because some people don't understand what you're saying, that makes your posts unclear and subject to various meanings. I would be absolutely wrong in saying so, but you get the point.


I would tend to agree. Most people won't be able to understand a lot of what I write. 

Just as a LOT of people were unable to grasp the concepts that Jesus tried to teach (and are still fumbling with them, I believe).



> The two words used in the text are epithumiais (desires) and akatharsian (unclean/impure). The first word is used several other times in the NT to refer to "lusting after a woman". The second is used in other NT passages in association with adultery and fornication - talking about how those activities make a person unclean.


Unclean was always reserved for ritualistic ceremonies. My argument stands as stated.



> As for the context - there is absolutely no internal evidence to suggest that Paul is referring ONLY to Pagan cult practices. In fact, there are a number of places in Paul's writings where he defines his context when he is addressing something in particular (eg, idol food sacrifices). This tells me that when he is referring to a particular cultural context, Paul establishes itself within the text itself. He does nothing of the sort in Romans 1.


Nor does he delve right into and say 'homosexuality". 

If he did, it wouldn't matter much to me anyways. I find a lot of the Bible to be in err.



> This, he says, is the natural orientation of human beings, one which can be changed and abandoned.


If homosexuality is bred into someone, is it not natural? Should they fight the urge and be "alone"?



> There are many other "natural" impulses that we all have - to lie, to cheat, to steal, etc. Should I assume that you would have me completely abandon any restraint when it comes to these impulses? That you would have no problem with me coming to your house and enabling my impulse to take any and all of your possessions? I find that hard to believe.


I don't care if you abandon all rational behavior. This is your choice and something you will eventually have to deal with yourself.

I assume that you mean all people. Should all people abandon rational behavior because it is natural? I don't necessarily agree that lying, cheating and stealing are natural behaviors. So, the point is moot.

But this text that we are referring to is not a broad statement about allowing natural impuses where ever we find them. So, again, the point is moot.

Furthermore, if I were to follow Jesus's teachings ... I WOULD allow you to rob my house, and in fact I would help you to your car with the heavy objects. You will eventually come to trial with your own judge, which is yourself.



> It's the same word, but it doesn't equate to marriage. The word is used in Genesis to describe the conscious decision of a man to be close to his wife to facilitate the becoming of one flesh. That is the phrase used to describe marriage - becoming one flesh.


I think becoming one flesh SPEAKS for itself. 



> In this case, there is no external or internal evidence pointing to anything in Ruth and Naomi's relationship being romantic or erotic in any way. In fact, Naomi seems extremely interested throughout the story in helping Ruth to find love again with another man.


If they cleave, or become one flesh ... I would think it does. 



> To reduce the idea of "loving with your soul" purely to a romantic level is, IMO, a classic case of proof-texting.


Possibly. But when taken in with the other scripture, I doubt it.



> And in English, the phrase actually means "a second opportunity to become my son-in-law."


Actually it doesn't. But, we can disagree here, I think the other arguments speak for themselves.



> Interesting. I've never heard this interpretation. However, I do know that gadal is often used adverbally (Gen. 16:10, Gen. 31:30). It's used of David in this way in I Chron. 29:9. This would allow a use of "greatly" in this passage rather than "became great". That allows for the interpretation of "both men wept and David greatly (or more so)."


Glad I could offer something new. 



> Oh, and I kissed my grandfather the last time I saw him. How do you interpret that?


Did you get a chubby?



> That's OK - I'm not going to put you on my ignore list or anything.


Good. Because that would just be ... odd. If we don't agree on something and we talk, maybe one of us comes to a different/higher understanding.



> But it's very clear to me that the Bible speaks against homosexuality as a practice. That it's sin. And that it is wrong, just like lying and stealing and cheating are wrong. People have "natural impulses" to do all those things, but it doesn't make them right.


Whether it does or doesn't speak against these thing is irrelavent to me. I fight with the sword that you use. 

But, my guess is that if we use the Bible as our yardstick we would have all sorts of issues! To me, the Bible is a giant book of errata that can only be explained away using apologetics. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Play's remarks about the Bible, for example, are extremely offensive to Christians.


And which comments would that be? 



> When people like me stand up to defend our beliefs we are charged with hostility, while those with a more liberal sensibility are allowed to sling mud freely.


I am standing up to defend my belief and have been met with the same hostility that i have dished back. 

No one has slung mud until this post, and as such ... let me be the first.

Your primitive thinking is laughable. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>SLAM</b>!
> In a completely different note, is SAR a practicing Muslim? I remember Hakeem talking about adhering to the fast during the season, and I wondered if SAR does as well. I'd be interested in hearing more (Play, you've followed SAR longest) if he does.


Yes, Reef has always been a practicing Muslim. 

In fact, his father is an Imam (or leader of a Mosque). 

The strange thing is Reef tends to play better during Ramadan.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

You know what the problem is, Talk:

Your problem is that in a battle of wits, you show up unarmed. 



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> What I have is the ability to sniff out B.S. when I see it. Maybe Play's arguments are new to you, but I have seen them before in many different guises. I know the rap.


HAHA! You know the rap, eh?

I guess, I have a super-duper-BS detector since I've heard your rhetoric more times then I can count. 

You schtick is the same. Never changing, I can almost guess your next words before you say them and can bait you down a path that will crumble your faith. 

Sheep, like you, are easily led.

(And to all of those that believe in the Bible, this is just a throwdown to Talk, not an admonishment of the Bible)



> Play claims to know the Bible very well, yet his statements show otherwise. When Paul talks about men burning up with unnatural desires for each other, he's not referring to "orgies." If you believe Play's interpretation of this text, Paul is saying it's okay for men to have sex with each other as long as it's not in the setting of an orgy. This is plainly not what Paul is saying.


Hence the difference in interpretation, not my knowledge of the Bible. I think your word choice is wrong.

How about I help you along:

Play and I disagree on interpretation of certain passages and thus this is the crux of why I feel Play's argument is invalid. 

That sounds more correct then: Play doesn't know the Bible. That is just... well... wrong. 



> What Play is doing is trying to divert attention from the real meaning of the text, simply because he doesn't like what it's saying. People do this all the time when they disagree with something the Bible says.


Maybe I am. Maybe I am not. 



> Play also wants us to believe that Bin Laden's attack on the WTC was not evil because he thought he was doing the right thing. Well, the attack may or may not have been evil, but I will guarantee you that what bin Laden thought about it is not the point. Just because someone THINKS his actions are not evil does not mean he is right. If that were true, we wouldn't prosecute anybody for any crimes. All a murderer would have to do is say, "Your honor, I didn't think killing my wife was evil," and the judge would let him go.


So, our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two completely civilian locations was what? Good? 

We thought it to be the right move to end the war, so we did it.

Laden thought it was the right move to push his agenda. 

The difference is semantics.

Yet somehow I am sure you have justified one action as good or nuetral, while the other is just evil and spiteful.



> Play's use of Luke 6:29 to justify the value of pain being inflicted on us is also a misinterpretation of the Bible. The text reads, "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." What Christ is telling us is to love one another, to be selfless, to give unto others, because that is what he did. But he sure as hell is not telling us that getting our tongues hacked out or our ears cut off is some kind of blessing that will help us "evolve spiritually" as Play claims. Torturing others in that way is evil, and un-Christlike, and is something that Christ would condemn as wicked. Play is unable to do.


I never advocated going out and getting hacked up. But, if you need that experience for growth or someone else does -- you'll probably agree to doing it. Whether your conscious mind is aware or not is completely irrelavent.



> And so on. Play is doing what his moniker suggests: he is "playing" with the Bible. He needs to really study it, instead of trying to find ways to deconstruct it. Otherwise, he will become one of those people who, as the Bible says, "think they are wise, but are really foolish."


Please explain something to me, how can I deconstruct that which I have not studied. 

Doesn't one need an understanding of something to deconstruct it? 

How are you so certain it is not you who are missing the message of the Bible?

I may be playing with passages from a text I find to be outdated and less than accurate, but only because it is the only weapon you brandish. It is the only voice that you adhere to, and if I cut you with your own weapon, you may realize the truth of it.

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "God IS. That is the only unversal constant and why the universal truth holds, in my belief.
> 
> IF God is an all-powerful, infinite being (which I believe he is, and most Christian's believe), then there is NO ROOM for anything that is not God.
> 
> ...


What a fallacy. YES, we were created in God's image, but that does not mean we ARE God. Only God is God. We are his creations. How can the being that is created by God be the same thing as God? Anything that is powerful enough to create something else will always be superior to it.

If you're going to quote the Bible, then surely you know the Bible says man fell from his sinless state in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, even though man was originally created in God's image, he has fallen from that sinless state to a sinful mortal state. 

Now, I'm sure you don't believe this Biblical story of the "Fall," and that's fine. But you can't quote a text from the Bible as some kind of authority, and then ignore the part of the Bible you don't like. The same book that tells us we were created in God's image also tells us we fell from that state of grace. Surely you understand this basic point?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 1) If there is no universal good or evil, then where did the concepts come from? Why do we label any activity as good or evil? Call it Biblical morals or Platonic forms, there must be absolutes in order for us to be able to differentiate between behaviors. It doesn't make sense.


Simple. They concepts came from mankind. Absolutes were created by man to measure things. 

Man's mind is very similar to fuzzy logic. We know a sky scraper is tall, a human can also be tall, but not as tall as a sky scraper, to a sky scraper a human is small, but so is an ant, an ant is small to a human and to a building but not to an atom. 

It goes on. 

The concept is the same as the concept for time. We created it so that we could explain our existense and what we experience.

As for absolutes? Who says I don't believe they exist in a rational world? 

But, really, What are they? Absolutes are just degrees of the same thing. 
Hot is the same as cold(a temperature), but of a different degree. 
For, where does hot end and cold begin? 
Where does sharp end and dull begin? 
Where does light end and dark begin? 
It is a judgement based on the observer. It is through the observer that the distinction is made. 

But, as for the absolutes of these opposites: 
There is really no difference between positive and negative infinity, there is a reconciliation as the parallel lines get closer together. 

There is no difference between the absolute hottest, and the absolute coldest, both will burn you in the holy flame. 

Absolutes are beyond our measurement, and manifest in our minds as concepts, and little else. But it is the existence of concepts in our minds that allows us to make leaps of logic and have an intuitive understanding of things that we logically couldn't. 

Absolutes are human. 

Like the understanding that murder is not beneficial as a doctrine to live by(unless you are a soldier or a president or an oil company executive).




> 2) If there is no universal good or evil, then there is no reason (spiritually speaking) for me to be "good". Why resist temptation? Why help one another? No moral basis at all for behavior that we seem to all know intuitively is the way we should act.


Spirtually speaking, no, there is no reason to be "good". Does there need to be? Does this reason give you purpose?

If so, roll with that.

To me, we are ALL expressions of God's infinite being. Thus we are created perfect and are infallible spiritually. In this existence, we want and hunger for something and sometimes miss what it is. 

We try to fill this "void". The void is the LACK of God. The lack of our understanding of that which we are. We are caught up in the physical and try to find substance in it. Eventually, that too will pass. 

That is the purpose. To discover that which you are. You are God. You are attempting to display his perfect image in all you do. We innately search for this connection. 

There is NO NEED. There are NO CHECKS & BALANCES. There doesn't need to be. 

Nothing you can do to me/you/anyone here has ANY meaning. Our kingdom is not of this Earth. 

But, we will eventually seek for understanding. We will need and hunger for more. Avoiding that desire creates more suffering in the long run, as you feel the "absense of God". 

That is the punishment. The step away from that which you are. 




> No offense, but you're putting all moral decisions/behavior on the level of Baskin Robbins, aren't you? Choose one flavor or choose another or choose none at all - in the end, it just doesn't matter.


In the end, it doesn't. 

One flavor or the other, once you eat it ... it all bases itself out to energy for your body and waste for the toilet. 



> And if there's nothing inherently wrong with doing "bad", then why put people in jail? They're just making one decision instead of another. Sure, their decisions have consequences that might make life a little less convenient for me, but you've just taken away any right that society has for judging behavior, other than arbitrary laws that don't mean anything in the long run anyway.


Societal and universal truths are not one and the same. 

Our Earth has not come to the point that we truly understand or believe the teachings we have received through our many holy teachers and philosophers and science.

Thus we fear what things have happened.

If we really understood, we wouldn't need jail. 

Until we do and we all accept it, then society has need for order and the way to create order is through checks and balances.


Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> What a fallacy. YES, we were created in God's image, but that does not mean we ARE God. Only God is God. We are his creations. How can the being that is created by God be the same thing as God?


Okay, I will address your antagonistic approach to my post, but do me a favor - read The Tao of Physics. It could really broaden your understanding, regardless of your religious orientation. 

The parallels to science and eastern thought is astonishing.

Anyhow, how can the being that is created be the same as God? Let me explain it this way: If YOU believe that God is infinite there is no way that we are NOT God.

IF God is infinite, which I believe him to be, there is only one substance that makes up everything that is and everything that is not. This is purely factual understanding of principles of infinite.

Something cannot be INFINITE and have things exist that are NOT of it. Anything that exists outside of the infinite does not and cannot exist. Can you understand this concept? 

Okay, thus, if something infinite creates something, it is creating itself because it cannot be anything else. Nothing else can exist.

Using modern physics we have learned that ALL THINGS can be broken down to energy. Thus, let us call God - Energy. The energy can be thought of a LOT like Star Wars' force.

It permeates everything. The space between atoms to the tallest skyscraper to the largest star. Our bodies and the thoughts that are stored. It is all made of the same substance.

Let's look at your concept of God where: ONLY God is God. Can't you see you are putting limits on God. 

This is why the Dao says to "desribe God is to NOT describe God."



> Anything that is powerful enough to create something else will always be superior to it.


Is that so? In what respect? 

Are machines not more powerful then us? Can they process things quicker? 

Can we not clone a human being if we tried? Are we now superior to ourselves? 

How about sex? When we procreate we create a new life ... are we now more powerful then this life? 

Two ants can create a mound of dirt. Are you saying that ants are now more powerful then the Earth?



> If you're going to quote the Bible, then surely you know the Bible says man fell from his sinless state in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, even though man was originally created in God's image, he has fallen from that sinless state to a sinful mortal state.


Quoting the Bible and understanding the Bible and believing all the teachings within the Bible are three separate and completely distinct things.

I can quote. I understand. But I don't believe all the teachings, especially this one.

The only sin, or mark we miss, and I am sure it saddens God, is that we strive so hard to forget what and who we really are. We delve so deep into the illusion, and I am guilty of it too, that we forget. 

Nothing brings greater happiness to God then when we realize that which we are. It alleviates or fear and pain. We realize the joy in the grand design of the whole thing. 



> Now, I'm sure you don't believe this Biblical story of the "Fall," and that's fine. But you can't quote a text from the Bible as some kind of authority, and then ignore the part of the Bible you don't like. The same book that tells us we were created in God's image also tells us we fell from that state of grace. Surely you understand this basic point?


Sure I do. But I can still quote from it and use it as a broadsword against you. 

Just because I can quote it doesn't mean I have to agree with all its teachings. 

You are saying that the Bible says we fell from grace. Okay, I agree (to an extent, I have a different interpretation of the fable). So, what of it? Does this make the parts I quoted any less valuable to you? Does it invalidate my quotes? 

I don't believe the Bible to be infallible and in fact, consider it to be quite fallible and one of the most butchered documents in the history of the world. But, that is my opinion on it.

It doesn't mean that there isn't truth hidden amongst its verses.

What my understanding of the Garden of Eden Fable has to do with my understanding/interpretation of another passage completely confounds me.

You can't use the Bible as a weapon against me, it is not my source of truth. You will have to use logic. 

Play.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Do I get some kind of award for starting the longest thread ever?

Or is this not even close?

How about the longest thread that the person who started contributed only the first post? (Okay, and this one...)


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "God is against killing.
> 
> Bush has ordered that people be killed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Bush chose to be evil, right?"


Well, let's think about that.

Saddam Hussein was one of the cruelest tyrants in history. Over the course of his bloody reign he killed approximately 1.5 million of his own people. That averages out to about 200 people per week. So, even when you factor in the number of U.S. troops killed since the war started, Bush has effectively saved over 6,000 lives in Iraq in the last 9 months. Does that sound "evil" to you? 

And that doesn't even include the economic benefits the U.S. is providing to Iraq. Rep. Joe Wilson, S.C., who recently returned from Iraq, reported that U.S. troops "have trained over 60,000 new Iraqi security forces and initiated over 6,000 community development programs for hospitals, schools, electrical transmission, business development and road improvements.''

Other positive developments:

*	The formation of an Iraqi national army is well under way.
*	An Iraqi civil defense corps is being formed.
*	The Iraqi Central Bank has been made independent.
*	Iraq has returned to the world oil market. 
*	All of Iraq's universities have reopened.
*	Power and water are, in most places, at prewar levels.
*	All of Iraq's 240 hospitals and 1,200 clinics are open.
*	Over 100 newspapers have begun publishing.
*	In all major cities and in 85 percent of the towns, municipal councils have been formed of Iraqis. 

The liberation of Iraq has also had enormously beneficial results for some 12 million Iraqi women. For the first time in history, they can now vote, and go to college, and work outside the home. This is "women's liberation" on an unprecedented scale.

Children are no longer being thrown in prison, families are no longer being executed for disloyalty to Saddam, prisoners are no longer having their arms, and tongues and ears chopped off by Saddam's barbaric Republican Guard. There are no more mass graves being dug, and no more "rape rooms" and no more constant fear of Saddam.

The country has changed for the better, and the Iraqi people know it. U.S. soldier Jacob Cristea, who recently came back from Iraq, says that "Whenever we drove anyplace, it was like we were in a parade." Iraqi kids jumped up and down whenever they saw his convoy. In Baghdad, people would crowd the barbed wire perimeter of his unit's compound and call out "USA! USA! Bush! Bush!" 

A soldier named Josh Ingram says "People absolutely loved us everywhere we went. There were big parades. We'd just roll down the streets, or sometimes be on foot patrol, and kids would run out of their houses just to wave at us, just to get a wave back from us. People would give us flowers; they'd give us flowers and gifts and Pepsi -- all kinds of stuff. I'd have people come up to me and say, "What took you so long? You should have done this in '91!"

Another soldier said, "ALL the Iraqis-- while they grumble about things being better under Saddam-- have NO desire to see the US go."

Under Saddam, according to a study by 3 University of Chicago economists, Iraqi personal income fell by at least 75 percent--"a truly catastrophic decline in living standards." Already, just a few months after the U.S. took control of the country, teachers now make 8 times what they used to, and doctors make 12 times as much. 

In short, the U.S. has given 25 million Iraqi people a new life which is infinitely better than the one they had for almost 30 years under Saddam Hussein. They will have a representative form of government, a better standard of living, and a chance to join the 21st century after all. 

You tell me. Does all of that make George Bush evil?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Saddam Hussein was one of the cruelest tyrants in history. Over the course of his bloody reign he killed approximately 1.5 million of his own people. That averages out to about 200 people per week. So, even when you factor in the number of U.S. troops killed since the war started, Bush has effectively saved over 6,000 lives in Iraq in the last 9 months. Does that sound "evil" to you?


Don't forget to mention the vast number that we murdered in the war, which the number is quite large. Larger then what we lost at the WTC. 

Also, double the number of US soldiers lost.

Then we can compare figures.



> You tell me. Does all of that make George Bush evil?


Hehe. I'm not even gonna touch this one. 

Play.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I have to say, Play, that as an ex-Baptist who just couldn't reconcile all the contradictions and failures of the supposed written word of God, some of the things you've written really make sense to me. 

it's always troubled me that God created the world, God created man, God created free will, and God is infinite, yet we somehow have decided to put a limit on God by saying man is independent of God due to his free will. 

if there was nothing before God and God made everything, isn't God everything? and if God is indeed everything, isn't free will part of God?

if God is everything, I am part of God in the same was as the keyboard in front of me is, or a church or a murderer. if this is not so, then God is limited. He is not infinite. 

I remember reading that towards the end of his life, Einstein felt that time itself may not really exist. the older I get, the more I wonder if all of reality is merely energy reshuffled.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> I remember reading that towards the end of his life, Einstein felt that time itself may not really exist. the older I get, the more I wonder if all of reality is merely energy reshuffled.


Indeed. He felt time was merely a human construct and dependant purely upon our perception; that it was just something we created to order things...there was no *real* flow of time, beyond that.

In fact, he (correctly) chalked reality, itself, up to human perception, stating, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistant illusion."


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> I have to say, Play, that as an ex-Baptist who just couldn't reconcile all the contradictions and failures of the supposed written word of God, some of the things you've written really make sense to me.


And they say nothing good can come from discussions of this nature. I disagree. P

I'm glad that I could help your understanding, even if that wasn't my original intent. This stuff isn't for everyone, as everyone is at a different place spiritually. I am sure some of my ideas, I will eventually toss aside as they are no longer valuable or sensible.

I always look at my spiritual growth as well as other's spiritual growth as a giant river. There are ALL sorts of ways to cross this river. You could build a raft, you could swim, you could build a steamship, you could buy a canoe, you could fly. But once you get to the other side, does it matter how you get there? Of course not. Would you grab your steamship and carry it with you? No. The other side of the river is enlightenment. The different ways across the river are the many religions and ideals and concepts and philosophies that people create. But, they create them to attain the ultimate purpose of enlightenment. 

Most religions are woven into each other - teaching the same truths. In order to get these truths, people go to different sources. Some people need picture books (ie. The Bible), some people need teachers (ie. Buddha), some people just get it (ie. Jesus the Christ).



> it's always troubled me that God created the world, God created man, God created free will, and God is infinite, yet we somehow have decided to put a limit on God by saying man is independent of God due to his free will.


Most freethinking people come to this conclusion as well. Not to say that freethinkers don't read the Bible, but there is a lot of stuff in there that doesn't reconcile. 

The message is the key. If you are receiving the right message, then you are at the right point for you.



> I remember reading that towards the end of his life, Einstein felt that time itself may not really exist. the older I get, the more I wonder if all of reality is merely energy reshuffled.


Very true. In fact, Einstien quit study altogether and left some of his toughest equations unsolved. He realized that everything is nothing and nothing is everything. It is all one thing. 

Time was merely a created instrument to measure our own existence. 

Further, he concluded (quite correctly, if you ask me) that life is an illusion.

Play.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> How about the longest thread that the person who started contributed only the first post?


We were minting the trophy...



> (Okay, and this one...)


And then you had to ruin it 

I don't have the time to read through all the posts; I hope that no one got TOO upset at my arguments earlier. I just can't argue on this because of time constraints as much as I'd like to.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Someone recently sent this to me, and I found it fairly amusing.



> On her radio show recently, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
> 
> The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
> 
> ...


----------



## pumkinhead (Jan 30, 2004)

*ok play, since you have tightly wraped your eastern theology around your thinking*

just answer this question simple and painless. who do you say jesus was is? and do you give him his right and his place AS king or do you deny his authority? by the way if the bible is fallible why would you quote it? its either truth or not . ok one more thing play if ya had a glass of water and it was half water and half poison but the water was so pure you knew it would be refreshing. yet you knew also that the poison was so bad, that to drink it, it would kill or damage you. would ya still drink it? And no matter what you added to it it wouldnt truly change it. would ya drink it? it proves my point of scripture purity if it only had a little poison you chuck the glass and find another drink right? well to walk the faith of the word of god it have to be whithout impurities or your life would be in danger. And if you belived in something that has impurities you would be in danger of your life right? so why qoute something you find impure or fallable. becuase couldnt it all be fallable? or do you trully play russian roullette whith your spiitual life? its like believeing half truths if you led your life by half truths youd be in trouble fast right? well id say the bible is unfallable their is no condrictions none not one. i believe in christ as the messiah.{savior of the world}. I also believe in his godhead. i believe he did die and rose. really i do i believe he is" the only way" "not just one of many" i also yes believe in his return to judge and rule. as he said he would. those bible "thumpers" as a non religous people call us evengelicals" i can answer all inquiries on these items offline if ya like. but as a blazer fan im glad we have you to root for our team:} best wishes PG:yes: :grinning:   :dead:


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Minstrel, that made my day.

0wn3d? Yes. 0wn3d.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: ok play, since you have tightly wraped your eastern theology around your thinking*



> Originally posted by <b>pumkinhead</b>!
> just answer this question simple and painless.


Answer the question simply and plainly or the question is simple and plain? 

Either way, I will do my best.



> who do you say jesus was is? and do you give him his right and his place AS king or do you deny his authority?


Jesus is Jesus. That IS a simple question.

Do I deny his place as king? I cannot deny anything that someone is, just as you cannot. 

A proper phrasing is: Do I believe him to be a king? 

Jeez, I want to be a sarcastic brat on this one, but I will refrain. It's early, so my logic hasn't really set in. Okay, let me handle it this way:

I do not and cannot deny what Jesus is. It is you who seem to want to define him and make him that which he cannot be. How can Jesus, a man, be King of himself? Jesus is God. 

I do not deny him that "right". He is what he is. He has no more control over that fact then an ant on the ground. 

It is you who seem to want to limit this and call him king. 

What authority does Jesus have that I could possibly deny him? He is all there is, thus there is nothing I could do to deny him that which he wants. What authority are you referring to? 

I believe Jesus was trying to say that there is no way to enlightenment/heaven/understanding (whatever your term) except through my teachings. His teachings can be summed up in one line: "Believe and love in God, as God cannot do wrong to you. Believe his plan. Love others as you would like to be loved". 

Simple ain't it. 

The Bible should really consist of a pamplet. Cut it all down. Rip away the geneologies and there you have it. The Biblical Core. 



> by the way if the bible is fallible why would you quote it?


I quote it for a plethora of reasons. The two chief reasons are:

(1) To demonstrate that I know and have studied that which I say to you. 
(2) It is the book which you believe to be written by God. THUS, in your belief it is correct. More to the point, in your belief, it HAS to be infallible. If I can use your "book of right" to teach you a lesson or show you how you may contradict yourself and possibly pervert Jesus's teachings then I will use it. Chiefly in the hopes that you come to a new realization about the meaning. 

Basically, follow this equation:

Bible = Truth
Truth in scripture interpretations.
Your scripture interpretation might be wrong. 
You hear a new one. 
You think about whether or not you might have gotten the right message.

That's why. 

To me, the only truth one will find is when one seeks it. 

Matthew 7:8
_"For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."_

To me, it takes more then a book to understand God. 



> its either truth or not


You mean, in your eyes, no truth was uttered by those who have sin? Then why go to church? 

One can have partial truth and be enough to get you on the right path. One can give you enough truth to open your eyes. 

It is up to you to understand what is true to you. What makes sense and rings correct to you. Then you keep that truth and assimilate it and act accordingly. 



> ok one more thing play if ya had a glass of water and it was half water and half poison but the water was so pure you knew it would be refreshing. yet you knew also that the poison was so bad, that to drink it, it would kill or damage you. would ya still drink it?


I don't really know what you are driving at.

I guess my answer is --- I would purify and filter that which might contain poison or I would allow it to settle (one liquid is bound to be more dense than the other). 

Then if I still felt thirsty, I would attempt to drink.




> do you trully play russian roullette whith your spiitual life?


I don't see it like I am. 



> well id say the bible is unfallable their is no condrictions none not one. i believe in christ as the messiah.{savior of the world}.


Chew on these:


James 1:17: "there is no variableness in god". 

The Bible has a multitude of places where numerical calculations are inaccurate. Poor addition, erroneous measurements and fallacious counting are all too evident. Several examples are noteworthy: 

(a) "... and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, Jusha-bhesed, five." (1 Chron. 3:19-20). How can there be five sons of Zerubbabel when 7 males and one female are listed? 

(b) "And it had for its inheritance Beer-sheba, Sheba, Moladah, Hazar-shual, Balah, Ezem, Eltolad, Bethul, Hormah, Ziklag, Beth-marcaboth, Hazarsuah, Beth-lebaoth, and Sharuhen- thirteen cities with their villages" (Josh. 19:2-6 RSV). Fourteen cities are listed, not 13. 

(c) "The cities belonging to the tribe of the people of Judah in the extreme South, toward the boundary of Edom, were Kabzeel, Eder, Jagur, Kinah, Dimonah, Adadah, Kedesh, Hazor, Ithnan, Ziph, Telem, Bealoth, Hazor-hadattah, Kerioth-hezron (that is Hazor). Amam,Shema, Moladah, Hazar-gaddah, Heshmon, Bethpelet, Hazar-shual, Beer-sheba, Biziothiah, Baalah, Iim, Ezem, Eltolad, Chesil, Hormah, Ziklag, Madmannah, Sansannah, Lebaoth, Shilhim, Ain, and Rimmon; in all twenty-nine(29) cities, with their villages" (Josh. 15:21-32 RSV). Thirty-six cities are listed, not 29. 

(d)"...and the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal and Barial, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six" (1Chron. 3:22). Five names don't total six. 

(e) "...the sons od Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six, under the hands of their father Jeduthun,..." (1 Chron. 25:3). Again, five names do not total six. 

(f) "And in the lowland, Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah, Zanoah, En-gannim, Tappuah, Enam, Jarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah, Sha-araim, Adithaim, Gederah, Gederothaim: fourteen cities with their villages" (Josh. 15:33-36 RSV). Fifteen cities are listed, not 14.Bibical authors not only counted inaccurately but often added with comparable precision. 

(g) "The whole congregation together (those who returned from the Captivity-Ed.) was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore (42,360)" (Ezra 2:64). The number of people in each tribe that returned from the Captivity are listed from Ezra 2:3 to Ezra 2:60. One need only total the figures to see that 29,818 returned, not 42,360- an error of 12,542. 

(h) A similar problem is encourntered in Neh. 7:66, which says, "the whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and three-score (42,360)." One need only add the figures between Neh. 7:8 and Neh. 7:62 to see that the total for all the tribe should have been 31,089, not 42,360-- an error of 11,271. Besides adding inaccurately, Ezra and Nehemiah can't agree on what the total should be. The former supports 29,818 while the latter asserts 31,089. 

(i) "And this is the number of them: Thirty (30) charges of gold, a thousand (1,000) charges of silver, nine and twenty (29) knives, Thirty (30) basins of gold, silver basins of a second sort four hundred and ten (410), and vessels a thousand (1,000). All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred (5,400)" (Ezra 1:9-11). Even if all these items were composed of silver and gold, they would not total 5,400 (30+ 1,000+ 29 + 30 + 410 + 1,000=2,499 not 5,400). 

(j) "And these were the sons of Levi by their names; Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari" (Num. 3:17) and "Those that were numbered of them (the Gershonites-Ed.)...were seven thousand and five hundred (7,500)" (Num. 3:22) and "...these are the families of the Kohathites...eight thousand and six hundred (8,600)" (Num. 3:27-28) and "...these are the families of the Merari. And those that were numbered of them,...were six thousand and two hundred (6,200)" (Num.3:33-34), versus "All that were numbered of the Levites,...were twenty and two thousand (22,000)" (Num. 3:39). The author of Numbers added inaccurately, since 7,500 + 8,600 + 6,200 equals 22,300, not 22,000. 

Besides fallacious counting and adding, biblical authors had difficulty measuring and computing. 

(k) "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" (1 Kings 7:23). How could a circle be 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference? Since pi is 3.14, the circumference must be 31.40 (3.14 x 10) cubits. 

(1) "Thirty and two years old (32) was he (Jehoram-Ed.) when he began to reign, and he reighed in Jersalem eight (8) years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David,... And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king is his stead:... So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old (42) was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." (2 Chron. 21:20). If Jehoram began to reign at age 32 and ruled 8 years, he died at age 40. Yet his son took over immediately and was 42 years old. The son, Ahaziah, was two years older than his father, Jehoram. 

(m) Ezek. 40:27 is translated as followed in three different versions: "...and he measured from gate to gate the south an hundred (100) cubits" (KJV). "He measured from gate to gate one hundred and seventy-five (175) feet" (Modern Language). "And the distance between the passageway was 175 feet" (Living Bible). If 100 cubits equals 175 feet, then one cubit equals 1 3/4 feet. On the other hand, these versions translate Gen. 6:15 as follows: "...The length of the ark shall be three hundred (300) cubits, the breadth of it fifty (50) cubits, and the height of it thirty (30) cubits" (KJV). "...The length of the ark four hundred and fifty (450) feet; its width seventy-five (75) feet and its depth forty-five (45) feet" (Modern Language). "Make it 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high" (Living Bible). If 300 cubits equals 450 feet, then 1 cubit equals 1 1/2 feet. The authors of the various versions of the Bible can't agree on the length of a cubit. Is it 1 3/4 or 1 1/2 feet long? 

Sorry, your statement offended me enough to really search for this. 

Explain away. Some have answers, some do not. Can you get them all.



> I also believe in his godhead. i believe he did die and rose. really i do i believe he is" the only way" "not just one of many" i also yes believe in his return to judge and rule. as he said he would.


Different interpretations to the same wording would idicate differently.



> those bible "thumpers" as a non religous people call us evengelicals"


I understand the term, but refrain from using it. It isn't a very endearing term.



> i can answer all inquiries on these items offline if ya like. but as a blazer fan im glad we have you to root for our team:} best wishes PG:yes: :grinning:   :dead:


I like this open forum discussion. It allows the free-form of ideas and many people are afforded to opportunity to refute them or accept them into thier own thinking. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Someone recently sent this to me, and I found it fairly amusing.


I found it similarly amusing. 

Although, I can understand how a Christian can explain most of those away - I do not know how an orthodox Jew would. 

Jesus was the symbolic "sacrificial lamb" and paid all of our debt "in his blood" so that we no longer needed to sacrifice or kill or maim in the name of God.

But, I can honestly say, I am ignorant on how Jewish people reconcile it. Perhaps they believe that those were different times. I don't know.

Play.


----------



## pumkinhead (Jan 30, 2004)

*I read your reply and just like a misguided and foolishd*

thinker you do seem to relish in your miscaculations. You appearently use a version of scripture that hasnt latin- hebrew original text. or "arabic" {that i have} These are originals. you sent me texts and scripture that is wrong. i used my latin translation and your not close in your assumption or caculation. but to check your assumptions. I will need you text and print to give to my hebrew torah scholor freind becuase your text are old testement in origin .And im sure a scholor in the feild i know would love to refute your claim i would enjoy that banter. you deny christ kingship, deny and deminish his place, as lord of all and call him a lier in that you exsplain that man was only involved in the writen word. But it would be easy to live your life blind. Then to actualy study the bible as truth than as a critic of his inspired word. Just believe your lie. thats easy?:} but its not gonna keep you from his judgement. . and he is king over all. That does sum up his place even over you :} though being your {own god} HAS gotta be tough. truly examine your credentials and see your "a son of hell". untill you give control to christ. you are born into sin "ADAM" and remain in it and more till you are forgiven "jesus" death and his call in the gospels. all will be judged {all by him} he said it i believe his words. so to dismiss it it to blaspheme and turn away. and against his kingship.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: I read your reply and just like a misguided and foolishd*



> Originally posted by <b>pumkinhead</b>!
> your a son of hell


You're a loon.


----------



## pumkinhead (Jan 30, 2004)

*thanks keep it coming. im sure you got more:}*

ya were all looney right play:} sure ya know i think you should publish that . and tell christians and jews your belief oh better tell your muslim freinds they are wrong as well. tell them your ideas bwaaaaah.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: thanks keep it coming. im sure you got more:}*



> Originally posted by <b>pumkinhead</b>!
> ya were all looney right play:} sure ya know i think you should publish that . and tell christians and jews your belief oh better tell your muslim freinds they are wrong as well. tell them your ideas bwaaaaah.


I love that you automatically assume I am attacking you and calling you a loon because of your belief. 

No, I don't think you are a loon because of your beliefs - but rather because you attacked me and basically told me I am going to burn in hell. 

Better yet, I'm a "son of hell". 

Furthermore, you completely ignored my post and told me I was reading a "fake" version of the Bible. I'd love to know where you pick one of those up ... I mean, last time I checked the KJV was the KJV from all publishers. I didn't know the publisher had authoritative control over the Bible. 

Even if they did, wouldn't that prove the inauthenticity and fallibility of the Bible? If I have a copy that is "incorrect" then cannot ALL versions be incorrect?



> you deny christ kingship, deny and deminish his place, as lord of all


Please tell me where I did such a thing? 

In fact, I took it a step further and said that there is nothing that is not Jesus. There is nothing that is not God. Jesus is a perfect being that can be denied nothing.

How am I denying him anything?



> call him a lier in that you exsplain that man was only involved in the writen word.


Is not all text - inspired? 

If God is "infinite" then hasn't all possible thought, word and deed already been done? Thus, aren't all authors divinely inspired? 

Outside of being snide, I DO truly believe the Bible to contain very important messages. I just think the messages went through each individual's filter and thus it was subject to receiving their particular slant.

Imagine a perfect ray of light. This we can "imagine" to be God's message or voice. But, it hits a light filter ... some people have very opaque filters while others are transparent. For some the message comes right through, others it does not. 



> But it would be easy to live your life blind. Then to actualy study the bible as truth than as a critic of his inspired word.


Are you telling me that it is "MORE BLIND" to not question and not critique then to actually put thought into something?

Is your assumption truly that I did not read the Bible hoping to find the truth I was seeking? Do you honestly believe I read it searching for flaw? 

I studied the Bible as I studied everything in my life - unjaded. Either the message touches me or I reject it. I SEARCH for truth. 

Truth cannot be spoon fed to me. 



> but its not gonna keep you from his judgement. . and he is king over all.


Bring it.

I am judge of myself. I believe that I answer to only one source, and that is the source of all. Call it God, call it Jesus, call it Dao, call it spirit, call it energy ... call it whatever you want. I believe it to be the same.



> truly examine your credentials and see your "a son of hell".


What credentials do I need? 

Did not a carpenter (or better yet, a son of a carpenter) grow to an understanding above you?

I didn't know I needed credentials to reach truth. I'll have to check into this. 

Jesus came and opened the eyes of many. His teachings weren't of the realm that the Jews had been practicing. He changed many things. The next level of truth might be at your doorstep, but you reject it as many did Jesus at that time.... they were afraid to open the door and remove their filter. They were afraid to seek. 

Son of hell, eh? Like I said -- You are a loon.



> untill you give control to christ. you are born into sin "ADAM" and remain in it and more till you are forgiven "jesus" death and his call in the gospels.


Nice that you clarified and added this bit here, because this is NEW to your original post. 

Go read the gospel of Quelle. Go read works from Borg. Go read the Gospel of Thomas. Go study on these things that you espouse. 

As for what is contained in YOUR Bible, the one I believe to have been altered more times then history has years, it is all about translation, man. Translation. 

If you truly read all the things in the Bible and truly studied the parts RIPPED out by the church and the Romans, then you might have a different opinion. 

It is YOU who have the closed mind and stumble around like a man in the dark. If one does not question, one cannot reach truth. The only people that would tell you not to think - do so for their own gain. 



> all will be judged {all by him} he said it i believe his words. so to dismiss it it to blaspheme and turn away. and against his kingship.


Blaspheme? Do you have even an ounce of understanding of what this word means? 

I do not blaspheme by reading something different then you. I do not blaspheme for having a different understanding then you.

To blaspheme is to speak about a spiritual entity in an impious manner. Basically, to speak in a disrespectful manner. I have not done this. 

Believe his words all you want. It shall be your experience since you so desire it. You will get that which you so desire. But, it doesn't hold true to me, I don't believe.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> 
> 
> Not when the amendment is religion based. Ever heard of separation of church and state?
> ...



this is one of the most fundamentally misunderstood sentences in the constitution. It was put there by the forefathers to keep Gov't from interfering with the formation of public churches and also to nullify any attempt by the Gov't to establish a "State Church" (as was done in England, at the expense of the Protestants and many other non-England-sanctioned churches of the time).

it has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state. It does not say anything about the sitting President talking about religion or asking for a religious ethics based amendmant to ban gay marriage. It merely and succinctly says the Gov't cannot establish a state religion nor can it interfere with the practice of religion of any kind in this country.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

wow, having had some time to breeze through this entire thread, all I can say about the bible is its written by man, therefore is NOT the word of God. It is some of the words of God, and some of the words of man. God probably said some things to a few people along the way, then that guy told that other guy, who then told another guy then told another guy who told another guy and so on for a couple hundred years until finally some dude wrote it down in his book. Then it got published as God's words. However, as you all know that when you tell a story to someone, and then hear that same story told back to you some time later by about the 20th person that heard it, the story is changed. Details are different, bigger, smaller, brighter, duller...you get the picture.

Furthermore, the New Testament...the majority of it was written down 50 to 150 years after Jesus death in a period of great political and religious turmoil. It is not a verbatim recording of Jesus life. 

That being said, I still believe that Jesus was/is the son of God and is himself God. Therefore, I put most of my faith in the things that were attributed to him actually saying, even if they are paraphrases of his actual words. The rest of the bible is kind of filler in my mind. 

remember at the end of the day Jesus said love God above all others and love your neighbor as you would yourself and those are the two most important commandments. If all you ever did in your life was follow those two simple commands, you'd be a pretty happy person and issues like gay marriage wouldn't mean much to you. And I really don't think they mean much to God. Besides, even if gayness is the holy abomination to God that some folks want you to believe it is, its going to be up to God to work out the punishment. What we do to each other here on Earth is God's test. Making laws discriminating against groups of people based on skin, hair, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference is really anti-Jesus.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Society makes laws governing all kinds of human behavior. It would be nice to leave everything in God's hands, but we also have to rule ourselves in the way that we deem is best for the culture. Marriage is a holy union blessed by Christ. Some people feel it's worth fighting for.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

correction. Christian (or any religious based custom of marriage) is a holy union between a man, a woman and God.

however, there is this troubling reality of there being another form of "marriage", that being the legal gov't definition of civil "marriage". This is NOT a holy union between a man, a woman and God. This is merely a certificate the state issues recognizing a union.

the problem with marriage is the religious folks (myself included) think of marriage as a holy union whereas many other non-religious folks never do. As far as the state is concerned, I could care less what they call a marriage, because it will never be equivalent to my marriage. 

I think Christians are wrong on this issue. Real wrong. I actually think if Jesus were alive right now he'd say the issue is irrelevant.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I think Christians are wrong on this issue. Real wrong. I actually think if Jesus were alive right now he'd say the issue is irrelevant."


I would love to know what Jesus would say about gay marriage. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that it runs counter to his plan for humanity. In Genesis, it says that God saw that Adam was alone, and he needed a companion, so he created Eve. He didn't create another man for Adam, he created a woman. He also told them to be fruitful and multiply, something that two men, or two women, cannot do. And let's point out the obvious: The male and female body are designed to fit together. Anatomically, they are designed to be joined. This was also part of God's plan. 

The other question is, where is all of this heading? If I understand it correctly, homosexuals are arguing that any two adults who want to marry should be allowed to. Does this include a sister and brother, or two sisters, or two brothers? Howard Stern recently had on his radio show two lesbian sisters who are sleeping with each other. They mentioned that their step-mother sleeps with them on occasion, too. What if these two sisters want to marry each other--or one or both of them wants to marry the step-mother? Would Jesus bless that kind of a union, as well? Does it absolutely make no difference to him who joins up in marriage, even when it is incestual?

Just wondering.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> I would love to know what Jesus would say about gay marriage.


So would I.



> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that it runs counter to his plan for humanity.


Does it? Is there a plan for overpopulation included in the section where it says to multiply like bunnies?

I hope so, because we might need to pull out that clause soon.



> In Genesis, it says that God saw that Adam was alone, and he needed a companion, so he created Eve. He didn't create another man for Adam, he created a woman.


Back to quoting are we.

How about this one:

Genesis 2:19 - 2:20:
_And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an *help meet* for him._

So, God's plan involved trying to see if any of the animals were going to catch Adam's fancy. Wow. God must have just jotted that plan of his on a napkin if he thought that was going to work. Great plan God. 

Let's parade all the animals in front of good ol' Adam and see if he takes a liking. I wonder if he had a hankering for a chimp... maybe a sheep... a goat maybe? 

If it was planned, why weren't women already part of God's "infallible" plan? Looks to me like he made a mistake.



> He also told them to be fruitful and multiply, something that two men, or two women, cannot do. And let's point out the obvious: The male and female body are designed to fit together. Anatomically, they are designed to be joined. This was also part of God's plan.


Anatomically, a sheeps vagina is almost exactly the same as a human females. Does that mean that God intended men to have relations with sheep? Was this part of his plan?

Yes, God "said" to be fruitful and multiply. 

In many passages.

But he never said all of "mankind" must procreate. He was specific. He said YOU. 

Genesis 9:7:

_"As for *you*, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." _

Genesis 1:28:

_God blessed *them* and said to *them*, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." _

Both those statements were made to specific people. Not for each and every one of the species.

If it were for every species then how do you account for infertile people, hermaphrodites, celibacy (do not holy people choose a VOW against this), homosexuality among others. 

All these things break this "plan" of his... yet he created it so, in your opinion.



> The other question is, where is all of this heading? If I understand it correctly, homosexuals are arguing that any two adults who want to marry should be allowed to. Does this include a sister and brother, or two sisters, or two brothers?


Who cares where it is heading. If two brothers wish to marry, let them. If two sisters wish to marry, let them. It is their right. Is it gross? To me, yes it is. 

The only reason it is illegal now is because we worry about the children. It is a proven fact, through genetics, that children from the same genetic lineage have a higher percentile chance of inheriting two recessive traits which can lead to deformity or retardation of some kind. 



> Howard Stern recently had on his radio show two lesbian sisters who are sleeping with each other. They mentioned that their step-mother sleeps with them on occasion, too. What if these two sisters want to marry each other--or one or both of them wants to marry the step-mother? Would Jesus bless that kind of a union, as well? Does it absolutely make no difference to him who joins up in marriage, even when it is incestual?


It is none of your affair what they choose to do. Can you think it is gross or morally reprehensible ... sure. But, that doesn't give you authority to govern their actions in private. 

Do you think these people will stop because they can't get married? I'd be willing to bet, most of them could care less about the idea of getting married. 




> Just wondering.


Well, I'm just answering.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> this is one of the most fundamentally misunderstood sentences in the constitution.


Is it? By what authority do you make such a bold claim, I would like to differ with your opinion and challenge you to find where this holds true.



> It was put there by the forefathers to keep Gov't from interfering with the formation of public churches and also to nullify any attempt by the Gov't to establish a "State Church" (as was done in England, at the expense of the Protestants and many other non-England-sanctioned churches of the time).


It was put there to fight religious prosecution and to fight the creation of a "state church", I grant you that, but it was also there chiefly to avoid the government from making laws based on religion. Religion is NEVER to inferfere with other's rights.

The proof is in the "historical" pudding:

Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read:

_"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of 
religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be 
established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in 
any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''_

After the proposal, the provision had to go through the house. At this point the language was altered to read: 

_"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to 
prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of 
conscience.''_

The next step is the Senate. The Senate chose to rewrite it thusly: 

_"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of 
faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of 
religion, . . .''_

Since the wording was so DRASTICALLY altered by Senate, the two governing bodies chambered in a conference committe, which was chaired by Madison. In this session the present language was written and ratified. It took on the more indefinite "respecting" phraseology. 

Congress debate has lent little assistance in interpretation of the religion clauses. But, Madison's position, and that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear. The problem remains that the intent, insofar as there was one, of others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the states who voted to ratify will forever remain in speculation.

Thus, the "founding fathers" intent is quite obvious. They did not want ANY religious foundation to be contained within the government. It can only lead to problems, and they knew this. 

That is why in 1802, President Jefferson, in a letter writtent to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build _"a wall of separation between Church and State.''_ This is where we get the common phrase and this phrase was declared by the courts as "almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment." (Chief Justice Waite)

Interpretation has long since been abandoned by the courts, beginning with Everson vs. the Board of Education. In this case the court, unanimously declared that the "Establishment Clause" strictly prohibits not only practices that "aid one religion'' or "prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that "aid all religions.'' "Establishment Clause" jurisprudence since this ruling, has maintained this view.

Thus, by our own legal rulings, NO LAW can be made that is wholly inspired by a religious agenda. It must come from a point that protects society insomuch as it does not infringe on others rights. 

Amending the constitution to make a religious influenced statement on marriage is counter to everything the document stands for. 



> it has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state. It does not say anything about the sitting President talking about religion or asking for a religious ethics based amendmant to ban gay marriage. It merely and succinctly says the Gov't cannot establish a state religion nor can it interfere with the practice of religion of any kind in this country.


The first amendment was written to be more than just a stop-gap for Government established religion, but also to stop all laws that promote religion - as is the case with the marriage clause.

So, in effect, based on the above facts - it is WRONG of the President to propose a "religious ethic based amendment". The Supreme Court is now in position to strike, let us see how they protect our rights. 

They are our last line of defense.

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Who cares where it is heading."


Everyone who cares about the health of our society, it's norms, and its customs--that's who. Marriage forms the foundation of a culture. The family is where behavior is learned and taught, and where we begin to form our ideas of right and wrong. If brothers and sisters are sleeping with each other, or children with step-parents, this creates a terribly corrosive effect on family structure, to say the least. When such a fundamental principle is so casually violated, it leads to a breakdown of standards in every area of life. 

I would debate all of this with you further, Play, but it seems pointless. If you really don't care where all of this is heading, then you and I are coming from such different places that we might as well be speaking two different languages.

I wish you peace and blessings, my friend.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

You have no ability to debate or answer any question proposed that runs counter to your limited thinking. 

Again, in a battle of wits - you come thoroughly unarmed.



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Everyone who cares about the health of our society, it's norms, and its customs--that's who.


To say this would insinuate that I do not care about the health of society. This is as wrong as saying abortion advocates are pro-CHOICE & anti-LIFE and abortion opponents are pro-LIFE & anti-CHOICE. One does not proclude the other. 

I am sure abortion advocates love life, but they do not see the fetus as a life yet. While I am sure that abortion opponents are not against choice, they just don't agree that this is not a life and thus we don't have the choice to end it on this matter. It is semantics, but the naming conventions were chosen with this in mind. 

Back to the point, I care very much where society is headed and its general health. I fail to recognize where this can injury society.



> Marriage forms the foundation of a culture. The family is where behavior is learned and taught, and where we begin to form our ideas of right and wrong.


Actually, it forms the foundation of YOUR society but not ALL society. In some societies, relatively spiritually advanced ones, the infants are raised by a community. Hence the expression that "it takes a community to raise a child". These communities have zero crime. Explain that one. 

In our society, the family is an important unit. I agree. As such, it is up to the INDIVIDUAL FAMILIES to install THEIR morals and values to their children. NOT the government's or society's or yours Talkhard. 

Each family is responsible for themselves and teaching values to their children. The government is there to make sure that in teaching these morals we do not interfere with other's ability to survive. Thus, the admonishment of murder, theft and rape. 

Are you saying that the only reason you are opposed to gay marriage is because the government told you so? I highly doubt that. You came to this opinion through personal experience, parental guidance and your religious faith among others. 

IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT TO RAISE OUR CHILDREN!



> If brothers and sisters are sleeping with each other, or children with step-parents, this creates a terribly corrosive effect on family structure, to say the least. When such a fundamental principle is so casually violated, it leads to a breakdown of standards in every area of life.


Drinking is legal, but I don't drink. Gambling is legal, I don't gamble. Prostitution is tolerated is some places (and legal in places I have been) and I have not been a part of it. I can cuss in public, at sporting events, but I refrain. I can wear offensive shirts, but I chose not to. 

Why?

My own personal choices. Instilled in me by a plethora of things. 

Do you think because it is legal that every mother, child, father, daughter will be involved in nightly familial orgies once the children are of an adult age? I don't think so. 

Why? Because we were raised differently.

So, you are saying that your inability to govern your own children should thusly direct the government to govern my ability to govern my children. Great, and where does it end? 



> I would debate all of this with you further, Play, but it seems pointless. If you really don't care where all of this is heading, then you and I are coming from such different places that we might as well be speaking two different languages.


It isn't that I wouldn't care if it made all of society become a bunch of hedonistic/incestual characters, but this will not be the case.

The same argument was made for the abolishment of alcohol. 



> I wish you peace and blessings, my friend.


No, you just ran away, but that's okay too. It is hard to debate from a shaky pulpit with a shallow concept. 

Play.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Is it? By what authority do you make such a bold claim, I would like to differ with your opinion and challenge you to find where this holds true.





> Establishment Clause Is Misunderstood
> Letter to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal.
> By Tom Krannawitter
> Posted April 18, 2000
> ...



as for the rest of your lengthy post, suffice to say the gov't cannot impose a limit to the right of free speech the President has, as he is also a free citizen of this country. Nor can the gov't impose a restriction on Congress considering a law about limiting the eligibility of marriage. This would interefere with the freedom of expression and freedom of thought that all of us are granted at birth, which is an absolute and non-negotiable natural right granted by our constitution.

however, if congress does then pass a law which under later scrutiny is deemed to be of a religious nature showing preference to religion of any kind then at that time the Supreme Court will deem the law unconstitutional. This is the seperation of church and state at work. The limiting of the Presidents right of thought, speech and the limiting of the Congress right to consider those thoughts and speech and propose and enact legislation (even if later deemed unconstitutional) is not part of the seperation of church and state, it is part of the federal system of checks and balances between the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Let's tackle the letter first. 

Before I begin, I will admit I have not given the letter much thought as it is not a matter of truth, but rather abject opinion. Further I don't have time to critique it line by line, like I do most other posts.

I deal with factual information. The quotation in this letter are based chiefly on opinion. 

While it is valid opinion, it is not substantiated by anything other than words.



> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b> in regards to a letter to the Wall Street Journal!
> In his March 27 "Rule of Law" column "Supreme Court Tackles School Prayer at Football Games," law professor Douglas Kmiec argues that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been given such an expansive reading by the Supreme Court that it now is seen to be in conflict with the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses of the same amendment: In order to prevent an establishment of religion, we must restrict the speech of citizens (such as prayers delivered at high school graduations and, perhaps, football games as well). Prof. Kmiec thinks this reading of the First Amendment is wrong, and so do I.


I'm very familiar with Douglas Kmiec as a leading authority of constitutional law and ex-advisor to Reagan and Bush. 

Anyhow, this is not the same thing in the least. One is talking about making a law, passing an ordinance or an amendment. This letter is talking about freedom of expression.

In as much, the right to your belief and to voice them is correct. 

BUT - this country is NOT a democracy. We cannot put to vote any flim-flam, willy-nilly thought that we so choose. We are a republic, governed by documents put forth years ago. All laws and ideas and votes must follow the guidelines set forth in said document.



> But he goes on to demonstrate that his understanding (or misunderstanding) of the meaning of the First Amendment is fundamentally the same as that which led the court to its current position. He writes, "If speech advancing religion is attributable to the government, the Establishment Clause requires the government to stop." It is difficult to imagine an opinion further removed from the original meaning of the First Amendment, which is why the court finds it challenging if not impossible to reconcile the Establishment Clause with Free Exercise and Free Speech.


There is no difficulty recognizing the difference. A person in a position such as the Presidency can advocate and discuss his religion openly. But, he cannot create laws that have will have no basis in legislative gains, but are proposed out of his religion.



> First is the massive fact that the First Amendment was meant to place restrictions on the actions of Congress only, not states, counties or cities. Thus, on its face, it does not require local governments to stop advancing religion. But even if one accepts the dubious doctrine of incorporation, Prof. Kmiec's opinion is unsubstantiated.


I am not so sure my understanding of Constitutional Law agrees with the assertation that the First Amendment only applied to Congress. 

If this is true, then you have no freedom of speech, except that which each state grants you.

Each state is GOVERNED by the constitution and everything outside of the Constitution is allowed and governed by the state, but must conform to the original document. 

I don't see Kmiec's opinion as unsubstantiated.



> Under pressure from groups such as the ACLU, the courts have decided that government, at all levels, must remain neutral toward religion and "irreligion." In this, the ACLU would agree with Prof. Kmiec's assertion that government must not advance religion at all. But the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was never intended to prohibit government from advancing religion and morality. On the contrary, the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights, believed only a moral people capable of self-restraint can be free, and thus they thought it essential that government take an active role in promoting the moral character of the American people.


Morals and religion are separate. 



> For example, the first Congress (which adopted the First Amendment) passed the Northwest Ordinance, which stated, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." And George Washington, in his first speech as president, appealed to the "Almighty Being who rules the universe" for the success of the government of the United States.


If you remember, Congress is the one that altered the original amendment. 

They did NOT pass the Amendment as it was meant. Rather they altered it, and no one quite knows what the heck they meant.



> The Establishment Clause was meant to do one thing: prevent the establishment of an official religion, so that sectarian differences could be taken out of the political realm, thus securing the possibility of a free government that operates by majority rule, while protecting minority rights. In principle the Establishment Clause does no more than the Article VI prohibition of religious tests for national office.


Again, I am not sure that this reconciles with true history and current interpretation.



> If the "laws of nature and of nature's God" are the source of our rights, then public recognition of God, religion and morality is in the service of the rights of all men, including atheists. If the purpose of government is to "secure these rights," then promotion of such recognition is the duty of government.


God is a many faced entity. Is your God the same as mine? It was common term. 



> Tom Krannawitter is the Vice President of the Claremont Institute.


Did you write this letter? While it was craftily written, the logic contained does not jive with anything I ever learned on Constitutional Law.




> as for the rest of your lengthy post, suffice to say the gov't cannot impose a limit to the right of free speech the President has, as he is also a free citizen of this country. Nor can the gov't impose a restriction on Congress considering a law about limiting the eligibility of marriage. This would interefere with the freedom of expression and freedom of thought that all of us are granted at birth, which is an absolute and non-negotiable natural right granted by our constitution.


Again, we are a NOT a democracy. All laws proposed must jive with the constitution.

Furthermore, when it comes to religion it must pass the three standards of Establishment Clause validity:

There are three standards, stated in objective fashion, that emerged and are used to judge law and test Establishment Clause validity. 

The first two standards were part of the same formulation. 
<i>"The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is 
to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a <b>secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.</b>''

The third test is whether the governmental action results in "an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . the questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.''</i>

In 1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger's opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, and are frequently referred to by reference to that case name.

Our President is not adhering to the BOLD FACED type when he is trying to advance this amendment.



> however, if congress does then pass a law which under later scrutiny is deemed to be of a religious nature showing preference to religion of any kind then at that time the Supreme Court will deem the law unconstitutional. This is the seperation of church and state at work. The limiting of the Presidents right of thought, speech and the limiting of the Congress right to consider those thoughts and speech and propose and enact legislation (even if later deemed unconstitutional) is not part of the seperation of church and state, it is part of the federal system of checks and balances between the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches.


Again, we are NOT a DEMOCRACY! We can't just enact or try to pass laws willy-nilly. The laws must adhere to the constitution first and foremost. It must adhere to the spirit, not the letter.

I am running low on time, so I can't delve too deeply on this post. But it seems like you have skirted all the pertinent points in my post that disagree with your thinking (regardless of the fact that they are rooted in historical fact and current jurisprudence).

Play.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Again, we are a NOT a democracy. All laws proposed must jive with the constitution.



first off, don't talk down to me. I know this is a republic. Second. you are wrong. Any law can be "PROPOSED".




> Our President is not adhering to the BOLD FACED type when he is trying to advance this amendment.


in your opinion that is so. However a good lawyer could make a compelling argument that the question of gay marriage is of a moral and not religious nature. Considering that virtually all common law is of a moral origin, your argument is therefore invalid. And beyond that, your contention that the president is 'not adhering' to a constitutional test when he proposes an idea for a possible law is false as well. The president could propose anything as an idea. The president cannot magically wave his wand and deem it to be law. He can propose that every citizen of the United States is required to build and maintain their own spaceship if he wanted to. You also are confusing constitutional tests of already enacted laws to constitutional ambiguity of potential laws. Seperate issue.






> We can't just enact or try to pass laws willy-nilly. The laws must adhere to the constitution first and foremost. It must adhere to the spirit, not the letter.


what law? There is no law yet. You are arguing the wrong thing. If there was a law already then you'd be correct.



> I am running low on time, so I can't delve too deeply on this post. But it seems like you have skirted all the pertinent points in my post that disagree with your thinking (regardless of the fact that they are rooted in historical fact and current jurisprudence).


ditto.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

REDUNDANT DUPE POST!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> first off, don't talk down to me. I know this is a republic. Second. you are wrong. Any law can be "PROPOSED".


First off, I wasn't. Read my last line in this message, and you will know that I wouldn't do that to you. 

If you understand, as you puport, to know that this is a republic, then you understand that as a republic certain things must be maintained. 

The thing to maintain is consistency with the outline presented, and our case it is the Constitution.



> in your opinion that is so. However a good lawyer could make a compelling argument that the question of gay marriage is of a moral and not religious nature.


A good lawyer can also prove that OJ didn't kill his wife. 

A good lawyer can cast doubt on anything and try to convince anyone of anything. Hence being good.

Thus, you point is?

Of course, I would like to read a compelling argument wherein they outline how marriage is "moral" and non-marriage is "amoral". That would be a VERY good read.



> Considering that virtually all common law is of a moral origin, your argument is therefore invalid.


Which argument is invalid?

I have made plenty. 

Again, I don't see a morality issue with marriage. If someone can prove otherwise, I would be so inclined to listen. 



> And beyond that, your contention that the president is 'not adhering' to a constitutional test when he proposes an idea for a possible law is false as well.


No, that is law formation in and of itself. The President, as leader of our country, should have the for-knowledge (if there is such a word) of our legal system and what can and cannot be deemed a Constitutional law.

This, would not be one of them.



> The president could propose anything as an idea. The president cannot magically wave his wand and deem it to be law.


Disagree with point one. Agree on point two.

A President cannot propose ANYTHING. He can propose ANYTHING based on the limits/boundries of the Constitution. (Republic vs. Democracy) 

I may be confused on the issue, and forgive me if I am, but I do not believe the President can propose things wholly contrary to the constitution. 



> He can propose that every citizen of the United States is required to build and maintain their own spaceship if he wanted to.


I wouldn't put it past Bushie Poo.



> You also are confusing constitutional tests of already enacted laws to constitutional ambiguity of potential laws. Seperate issue.


I agree that it is a separate issue. See above, wherein I state that the President of the United States should be wholly aware and cognizant of things BEFORE proposal. 



> what law? There is no law yet. You are arguing the wrong thing. If there was a law already then you'd be correct.


Semantics. I am discussing the right and wrong of the proposal and forsight. 





> ditto.


I have not skirted your points. Not once, not ever. Nor shall I.

In fact, I very thoroughly enjoy picking bones with you and hope we can continue. I can definitely pick things up in a conversation with you, as you obviously know your stuff. I appreciate and respect that.

Play.

____________________________________________________
_"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."_ --- Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course, I would like to read a compelling argument wherein they outline how marriage is "moral" and non-marriage is "amoral". That would be a VERY good read.


Personally, I think it would only right if, down the line, folks were allowed to marry, say, their golden retriever. Heck, then the restaurant, or other public businesses would be _forced_ to allow each of them into their respective establishments. :clap:


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> No, that is law formation in and of itself. The President, as leader of our country, should have the for-knowledge (if there is such a word) of our legal system and what can and cannot be deemed a Constitutional law.



the president should, yes, common sense would suggest that. But that doesn't mean he is forbidden to propose anything, anything at all. That right is protected by the first amendment freedom of speech and thought. Indeed many types of so-called whacky things have been proposed as constitutional amendments.

SEE FOR YOURSELF 

any lawmaker (including the Pres), even ordinary citizens of the US federal gov't can propose constitutional amendments on any issue. Whether they stand the test of constitutionality is irrelevant. We all have the right to propose our thoughts. Just because you disagree with them because you see them as religious arguments is also irrelevant. It is the free-flowing of ideas, even the ones you hate the most, that makes freedom real in this country.


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

Gays are getting married in Oregon 



> A new front in the battle over same-sex marriage opened Wednesday in Portland, where county officials issued dozens of licenses to gay couples after deciding that Oregon law allowed the unions.
> 
> Board of Commissioners Chairwoman Diane Linn directed Multnomah County to begin issuing the licenses late Tuesday, after consulting with the county attorney. She did so without an official vote, but with the support of three of the county's four other commissioners.
> 
> ...


Thoughts?

Oregonian Articles


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

eh..who really cares.

my only complaint is the very very VERY open interpertation of the oregon law. 

other than that, I dont really care if they get married.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Play- I think I just PMed you. Did you get it?


----------

