Prop 8?

@Lightwizard,

This friend and I meet up on a semi-regular basis, sometimes for a drink or sometimes to play cards. She and her partner are pretty good Pinochle players.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Well, I guess then that I will have to live with the fact that you believe my attitude is insulting. As of this date, gays are treated like everyone else in respect to marriage. They cannot marry someone of the same sex. Talk all you want about how they somehow are not treated "equally", the fact is that they are.

Gays are most specifically not treated like everyone else, and once again, it's highly insulting that you would even claim that. Gays are not allowed to marry the people they are in love with. Surely you can agree with me that marriage is supposed to be a relationship based upon love, not on the base needs of biology.

'Pursuit of happiness' demands that everyone be given the opportunity to pursue happiness. By denying gays the right to marry the people they love, based on nothing more than religious beliefs you happen to hold, you are denying them that opportunity, and the only word for that is bigotry.

Quote:

You have a mistaken view of christianity if you believe it is unchristian to point out sin and to resist it. Please explain how that is unchristian.

But, you aren't talking about resisting sin; nobody is forcing YOU to be gay or engage in gay marriage. You are trying to outlaw other people's ability to engage in 'sin.' That's not what Christianity is about.

Quote:

I do not try to force my christian beliefs on anyone.

Other than gay folks, that is, who you don't want to see be able to marry due to your Christian beliefs.

Quote:

You and everyone else are free to live your life as you see fit.

Unless you're gay, in which case, you don't want them to be free. How can you keep making comments like this?

Quote:

My saying a particular lifestyle is sinful is just stating what I believe to be correct. You may not think it is sinful and that is fine by me. Sure won't stop me from calling you a friend and sitting down with you for a drink or two.

I'm sure you can understand how those who have a more personal dog in this fight get offended, when you continually seek to deny the rights of others based on your personal morality. It is entirely akin to being a racist. Now, we might be able to enjoy a beer together; I know many people with different beliefs who are not bad people. But don't think for a second that you are not being unchristian and morally wrong in the extreme. You are passing judgment on things that it is not your right to pass judgment upon, and what more, trying to make social policy and keep people down based on those judgments.

If I remember my Christian teachings correctly, it's God's duty to judge, not ours. It isn't our duty to make laws to enforce morality which some claim stems from god.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

So I'm guessing this doesn't upset your wife.

I have two male friends who have been together for over 40 years and are devout Catholics, and I mean devout -- I would venture to say more devout than thou. They bought their TV's and other electronic gear from me and I visit them both at their home in Monterey Park and Laguna Beach. I would not swear around them at all nor tell any off-color jokes as they would likely be offended. I have to be careful what I E mail them even though they are both liberals. They attend church every Sunday. They've also invited me to join them to see an opera (they love Wagner). They are both school teachers in grammar schools. This is only one example.

2 Replies

It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues.
- Abraham Lincoln

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Well Cyclo- Norman Mailer, not noted for his Christian beliefs, wrote-

Quote:

Virility implies more than the stamina of a stud. It offers power, strength, the ability to command, the desire to alter life. So its consequences in life are often to increase responsibility or danger. A virile man can be afraid of more virility. If he's driving his car too fast already, he may look for cream of chicken or malted milk. So with feminine man. He may not want more virility because he has no habits for it. What's the use of commanding women he could not command before, if he does not know how to fight off other men, and is not ready to learn. What freezes the homosexual in his homosexuality is not fear of women so much as fear of the masculine world with which he must war if he wishes to keep the woman.

One might imagine that the members of the Cal. SC had read this passage on the grounds that who on earth have they read if not Mailer and might have thought that to give official sanction to homosexual unions carries a strong implication that the virility of the men of that state is being impugned.

The fact that the writer once took a knife to one of his series of wives has no bearing on the words as written. Or that he was a piss head, pot smoking, battled hardened ex marine who was the best reporter the world has ever seen.

The matter might have nothing to do with Christian teaching as such. That teaching having been derived from the sort of views expressed in the quote.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Well Cyclo- Norman Mailer, not noted for his Christian beliefs, wrote-

Quote:
Virility implies more than the stamina of a stud. It offers power, strength, the ability to command, the desire to alter life. So its consequences in life are often to increase responsibility or danger. A virile man can be afraid of more virility. If he's driving his car too fast already, he may look for cream of chicken or malted milk. So with feminine man. He may not want more virility because he has no habits for it. What's the use of commanding women he could not command before, if he does not know how to fight off other men, and is not ready to learn. What freezes the homosexual in his homosexuality is not fear of women so much as fear of the masculine world with which he must war if he wishes to keep the woman.

One might imagine that the members of the Cal. SC had read this passage on the grounds that who on earth have they read if not Mailer and might have thought that to give official sanction to homosexual unions carries a strong implication that the virility of the men of that state is being impugned.

The fact that the writer once took a knife to one of his series of wives has no bearing on the words as written. Or that he was a piss head, pot smoking, battled hardened ex marine who was the best reporter the world has ever seen.

The matter might have nothing to do with Christian teaching as such. That teaching having been derived from the sort of views expressed in the quote.

Immaterial to the discussion, disregarded.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Why would it upset my wife since she is my partner in our Pinochle games.

Again, my point in even mentioning my friend was to show that people can be friends and have a relationship and respect the beliefs of the other without resorting to name-calling or trying to make a case that the other person is a bigot, homophobe, etc.

Not sure what the point is you wish to make in your example of your friendship with your two male friends, but I'll assume based on your others posts directed toward me that it is meant to be sarcastic. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Have a good day LW.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Do your friends take communion LW?

Catholics are not noted for being over-sensitive to jokes. That you use the term "off colour" suggests you are a bit prissy yourself.

Anybody can "attend" church. You just walk in the open door even if you have no money unlike those science gatherings where they have tickets and guards on the door checking them.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Immaterial to the discussion, disregarded.

You can bet on that. The softest out known to man.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Immaterial to the discussion, disregarded.

One might easily gain the impression from many wildlife programmes that the females require the males to fight for them in order that the survival of the species is more certain. Males who don't fight for them are thus, from a Darwinian point of view, unsuccessful genetically.

That the relationship between two non-combatants in this struggle for existence should be dignified by the same title as that between a female and a male who does fight for them is stretching language beyond its container. The two things are of a different order biologically.

It is very odd that the same people who approve of Darwinian science being taught in schools are the same people, generally, who support homosexual unions being given official approval. And abortion and birth control neither of which figure in the evolutionary process. It is very odd.

So odd indeed that one is forced to wonder what is their real reason for supporting teaching Darwin to all the kids. Perhaps they don't understand its implications.

Marriage is an institution designed to guarantee reproduction. It's for nothing else.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

Here is what I don't understand CR.

One word: Why?

Offer us some reasoning that your pinochle friend and her lover should not be able to get married? Explain it? If not from fear, then from what? Fill that void. For what reasons do you deserve to be called married?

Do you believe that your relationship deserves some sort of greater privilege because you are straight? Yes or no. Simple question.

If no, then why deny the LGBT community the right to have their marriage recognized? If no, then you have no more right than the homosexual to claim the title. You don't own it. It does not belong to you, or anyone else. You certainly never had to ask permission to use it.

If yes, then you need to come to terms with what that means. The belief that you are superior to another is bigotry. Of course you would not like the title, but it would not be used inaccurately to describe this belief. If yes, then you need to come to terms with that.

I believe you when you say that your pinochle friend is truly your friend, but relationships are based on dynamic interactions. Perhaps she is more tolerant of this due to other good characteristics you have. I don't believe however that simply because you have a gay friend that it changes what the word bigot means.

Let us reverse the situation a little. If you had to make a choice what would be more important?

a) Your friendship with this person.
b) Your view on gays using the word married.

I suspect that human relationships are more valuable than views on things that will not effect you. If you can consciously choose to fight against something that won't hurt you, then you aren't that good of a player.

You should learn when to fold your cards.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Marriage is an institution designed to guarantee reproduction. It's for nothing else.

Incorrect assertion on your part; you have no authority with which to make such statements and the evidence does not bear out your statement in the slightest, for many married couples have no children.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Offer us some reasoning that your pinochle friend and her lover should not be able to get married? Explain it? If not from fear, then from what? Fill that void. For what reasons do you deserve to be called married?

This is where all these conversations break down; I doubt he'll answer, or any of those here who hold bigoted attitudes. It is too embarrassing for them to give name to their actual fears, to write them out. They just stick to nebulous statements.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

It's not too embarrassing or frightening to me Cyclo.

I'm not bothered if in Cal. you can marry a hedgehog. Or have lesbian and homosexual orgies in the parks on sunny afternoons. They all have the right to be happy and if that's what makes them happy and the right to be happy is guaranteed under the constitution why not?

Diogenes went in for wanking off of market stalls and other podia. What's up with that? It made him happy I'm sure. It didn't do anybody any harm did it?

It is you who are scared. That's why you have bolted from the Mailer quote and the evolution connection.

I have no doubts about you addressing those matters. It is your failure to do so that loses you the argument. I wrote them out.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Incorrect assertion on your part; you have no authority with which to make such statements and the evidence does not bear out your statement in the slightest, for many married couples have no children.

That a small % of married couples have no children is neither here nor there. Your use of "many" is devious and exposes your methods. Most of them are infertile and cannot help it.

Marriage as an institution exists for no other reason that for reproduction and upbringing.

Those societal needs could be met in other ways but we have chosen to do it with male/female marriage.

I cannot understand why homosexuals wish to be associated with a word which everybody knows as the ball and chain and a euphemism for a ring in the nose. Only the importance of reproduction and nurture justifies such terrible sacrifice.

It's a joke and if Cal. wants the world to laugh at it it's okay by me.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It's not too embarrassing or frightening to me Cyclo.

I'm not bothered if in Cal. you can marry a hedgehog. Or have lesbian and homosexual orgies in the parks on sunny afternoons. They all have the right to be happy and if that's what makes them happy and the right to be happy is guaranteed under the constitution why not?

Diogenes went in for wanking off of market stalls and other podia. What's up with that? It made him happy I'm sure. It didn't do anybody any harm did it?

It is you who are scared. That's why you have bolted from the Mailer quote and the evolution connection.

I have no doubts about you addressing those matters. It is your failure to do so that loses you the argument. I wrote them out.

You didn't mention what the specific problem with gay marriage is. That would have been an appropriate response, but once again, the bigot crowd has failed to provide one.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The specific problem is that Christian teaching is based on evolutionary principles and not on what the theologians say as if they started from a prejudice.

They started from nature. They would approve of shagging hedgehogs, orgies in the park and wanking off of Nelson's column if they produced better competiveness.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Spendi - It is truly amazing that you never seem to find a sensible thought or make a reasonable argument. One would think that statistically, you'd have done it by accident by now.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Pure assertion. Means nothing.

Except of course it saved you answering the points I raised.

If you don't want to debate why do you come on? Any twat can snort.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

The specific problem is that Christian teaching is based on evolutionary principles and not on what the theologians say as if they started from a prejudice.

They started from nature. They would approve of shagging hedgehogs, orgies in the park and wanking off of Nelson's column if they produced better competiveness.

...

There is no response to this which can match the feelings I have inside right now. Truly one of the most incomprehensible things I've ever read.

I will repeat that nobody had put forth a cogent basis for their belief that gays should not be allowed to marry, that is not based in an inherent fear of gays and said marriages.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know