0
   

Something for ya Liberal's too chew on.

 
 
Sanctuary
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 12:52 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Sanctuary,

Would you be satisfied with a civil union that granted the same benefits that marriage does now?


No - if only because the prejudice is still there. What is the point of difference in the unions? Why would there be a need to give a different title to the joining, if there is no homophobic agenda? I would be greatly relieved with a civil union, yes - but I would continue fighting for actual equality nonetheless.

I just don't understand how we can use the excuse of religion or "morals" in order to exclude an entire group of people from the freedom that you and I share.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 01:07 pm
I know of people that also enjoy sex with 10 year old girls, yet we use the excuse of religion, morals, and the law to exclude that class of people from forming the norms of our society.

My issue against same sex marriage is that group won't be satisfied with a civil union until everyone else is forced to have them. Perhaps if there was less heterophobia the issue wouldn't be as much of a flash point as it is.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 01:09 pm
Heterophobia, please.

How you have managed to twist the discussion so blows my mind, McG.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 01:19 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Sanctuary,

Would you be satisfied with a civil union that granted the same benefits that marriage does now?


would hetrosexuals be satisfied with the same as described by the religious right ?

my wife and i had a civil ceremony with no religious conotations, but we are still married with a legal license and certificate. gays don't have that right.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 01:20 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Heterophobia, please.

How you have managed to twist the discussion so blows my mind, McG.

Cycloptichorn



Watch it with that blow your mind talk boy. We don't cotton to that kind of thing.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 01:23 pm
damn hippies. Laughing
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 01:28 pm
Some rather well spoken people here on A2K are making some rather ignorant remarks about the state of Florida. I have no great allegiance to my state but would like to point out that despicable crimes do occur in other states. I've never had it in for Wisconsin just because Dahmer operated out of Milwaukee.

As far as the politicians here; no better or worse than other states. Perhaps more conservative as a whole but I'd put Graham up against many other senators.
Ironic that CG referred to Oregons Supreme Court decision and all the mud was thrown at Florida. Isn't Oregon supposed to be one of them there Blue states?
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 02:04 pm
ConstitutionalGirl, there was a time when people of your gender had even fewer rights than the people who's misfortune you gloat over. Keep in mind ,if their rights can be taken away, so can yours.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 02:43 pm
panzade wrote:
Some rather well spoken people here on A2K are making some rather ignorant remarks about the state of Florida. I have no great allegiance to my state but would like to point out that despicable crimes do occur in other states. I've never had it in for Wisconsin just because Dahmer operated out of Milwaukee.

As far as the politicians here; no better or worse than other states. Perhaps more conservative as a whole but I'd put Graham up against many other senators.
Ironic that CG referred to Oregons Supreme Court decision and all the mud was thrown at Florida. Isn't Oregon supposed to be one of them there Blue states?


hi pan. how are ya?

guilty... Laughing but i did point out that i was not addressing my snotty remarks to all floridians.

it could be worse dude. ya could be a californian Laughing we get it from everybody!

oregon just shows that the whole red state/blue state thing is more pr than truth, eh?

hey, did ya call my buddy down there about the keyboard gig ?
0 Replies
 
ConstitutionalGirl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 03:05 pm
Hey, Mc Gentrix, I can't PM you, and I wish to speak with you Privatily about something, "would you Email me or PM me ur Email Address?"
0 Replies
 
ConstitutionalGirl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 03:08 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I know of people that also enjoy sex with 10 year old girls, yet we use the excuse of religion, morals, and the law to exclude that class of people from forming the norms of our society.

My issue against same sex marriage is that group won't be satisfied with a civil union until everyone else is forced to have them. Perhaps if there was less heterophobia the issue wouldn't be as much of a flash point as it is.
And they could call an Adult marring a child a Civil Union.
0 Replies
 
ConstitutionalGirl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 03:14 pm
Sanctuary wrote:
ConstitutionalGirl wrote:
dora17 wrote:
Hederalsexual Marriages...


God, I hope you were joking...

What an ignorant, narrow-minded viewpoint I've noticed CG and Brandon have. It's quite entertaining.

Brandon, if we only gave rights to those who originally had them, then not even you would be able to sit there and typed out such biased and unintelligent responses. For I bet you are not 100% Native American blood (and if you are, please reassure me of this so that I can see you not so much as an ignorant man, but instead as a racist, hateful nativist), and have roots which were once immigrated into this country. If that's so, then darling you too would be stripped of your rights (which wouldn't have existed without protest and the demand for equality) just as 'the gays' are.

Why it is so hard for some people to turn the situations around, ever so slightly so that it portrays them in the footsteps of the innocent people being subjected to this bias, beats me. Tell me Brandon, CG, (and I beg of you, read this while keeping an open mind - don't feel anger and don't feel the need to type a long rebuttle - not until I'm done) you fall in love (with the opposite sex, mind you): You have found your other half (at least for now, right? :wink: ), your soulmate, your whole. However, the President of your country is a selfish, hypocritical man who involves religion in his decision making, even though it is in the Constitution not to do so. See, no one cares about this but a small few, because the majority of the country happens to follow the same religion that is put into practice in the administration. They are blind to the fact that people are harmed by their narrow-minded and contradicting ways, and instead go on supporting this President because it keeps them (their morals, their views, their opinions - all safegaurded and never questioned) in a saftey blanket. However, unfortunately for the two of you - happily in love with the opposite sex - their religion states that those who lay with members of the other sex are sinners. Think Christianity, but the rules reversed. You are now damned for having fallen in love, innocently and unintentionally, because you happened to do so in a way that seemed natural to you. However, being that the majority disagrees and just...doesn't like the idea of you being with that gender (I mean, it harms them in no way, and in all honesty, what are the chances of the people in office knowing about you specificly, let alone question their idea of marriage?), you are now commiting a sin, and are not allowed to legally be joined with that person in the same way that those who are in same-sex relationships are.

Think about it, guys. That is not America. No, I take that back - it is America and that's the problem. It shouldn't be America. However, we've devolved so much...

It's not a matter of being a gay-lover, or a homosexual ourselves. It's a matter of equality, FREEDOM - you know, that little motto of the good ol' U.S.? To me, you are no different from the white suprimacists who denied Blacks their rights at the start of this country. You're no different from the Nazis and their goal to create a group of people that mirror only themselves. You're no better than Pole Pot, terrorists, etc..anyone who aims to end a spacific group of people merely because of their differences...they're all the same. And while you may butter up your apearance with the homely words suxh as 'conservative,' or 'traditionalist,' you're all the same in my eyes. All the same...


So, are you saying that Hederalsexual's shouldn't marry?
0 Replies
 
coachryan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 03:25 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I know of people that also enjoy sex with 10 year old girls, yet we use the excuse of religion, morals, and the law to exclude that class of people from forming the norms of our society.

My issue against same sex marriage is that group won't be satisfied with a civil union until everyone else is forced to have them. Perhaps if there was less heterophobia the issue wouldn't be as much of a flash point as it is.


We don't use religion, or morals to exclude that class of people from society, we do use law and we should. No Intelligent person says: "Child Molesters are bad because the bible says so!" (Totally setting aside the fact that the bible doesn't say this, and in fact it was quite common for girls 10 to 12 years old to be married during the time of both the old and the new testament)

Child Molestation is wrong because we as a society have decided that anyone under the age of 18 (actually i belive it varies between 16 and 21 depending on state) is not mature enough to make those kinds of decisions for themselves.

I'm really kind of stumped her McG, I considered you as someone who, although I usually didn't agree with had more intelligence than to try to juxtapose homosexuality with child molestation.

I guess I was wrong Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
ConstitutionalGirl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 03:42 pm
watchmakers guidedog wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Oh, you mean those "claimed" rights they have never possessed at any time in any place in history?


Article 2. of the universal decleration of human rights.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 16. of the universal decleration of human rights.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
I don't think this applies to US Law's.
0 Replies
 
Sanctuary
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 05:02 pm
ConstitutionalGirl wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
ConstitutionalGirl wrote:
Hederalsexual Marriages...


God, I hope you were joking...

What an ignorant, narrow-minded viewpoint I've noticed CG and Brandon have. It's quite entertaining.

Brandon, if we only gave rights to those who originally had them, then not even you would be able to sit there and typed out such biased and unintelligent responses. For I bet you are not 100% Native American blood (and if you are, please reassure me of this so that I can see you not so much as an ignorant man, but instead as a racist, hateful nativist), and have roots which were once immigrated into this country. If that's so, then darling you too would be stripped of your rights (which wouldn't have existed without protest and the demand for equality) just as 'the gays' are.

Why it is so hard for some people to turn the situations around, ever so slightly so that it portrays them in the footsteps of the innocent people being subjected to this bias, beats me. Tell me Brandon, CG, (and I beg of you, read this while keeping an open mind - don't feel anger and don't feel the need to type a long rebuttle - not until I'm done) you fall in love (with the opposite sex, mind you): You have found your other half (at least for now, right? :wink: ), your soulmate, your whole. However, the President of your country is a selfish, hypocritical man who involves religion in his decision making, even though it is in the Constitution not to do so. See, no one cares about this but a small few, because the majority of the country happens to follow the same religion that is put into practice in the administration. They are blind to the fact that people are harmed by their narrow-minded and contradicting ways, and instead go on supporting this President because it keeps them (their morals, their views, their opinions - all safegaurded and never questioned) in a saftey blanket. However, unfortunately for the two of you - happily in love with the opposite sex - their religion states that those who lay with members of the other sex are sinners. Think Christianity, but the rules reversed. You are now damned for having fallen in love, innocently and unintentionally, because you happened to do so in a way that seemed natural to you. However, being that the majority disagrees and just...doesn't like the idea of you being with that gender (I mean, it harms them in no way, and in all honesty, what are the chances of the people in office knowing about you specificly, let alone question their idea of marriage?), you are now commiting a sin, and are not allowed to legally be joined with that person in the same way that those who are in same-sex relationships are.

Think about it, guys. That is not America. No, I take that back - it is America and that's the problem. It shouldn't be America. However, we've devolved so much...

It's not a matter of being a gay-lover, or a homosexual ourselves. It's a matter of equality, FREEDOM - you know, that little motto of the good ol' U.S.? To me, you are no different from the white suprimacists who denied Blacks their rights at the start of this country. You're no different from the Nazis and their goal to create a group of people that mirror only themselves. You're no better than Pole Pot, terrorists, etc..anyone who aims to end a spacific group of people merely because of their differences...they're all the same. And while you may butter up your apearance with the homely words suxh as 'conservative,' or 'traditionalist,' you're all the same in my eyes. All the same...


So, are you saying that Hederalsexual's shouldn't marry?


What?? Did you even bother reading what I said? I'm all for marriage - but when I say that, I mean for everyone.

When I said "I hope you're joking," I meant your spelling error, CG.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 06:18 pm
coachryan wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I know of people that also enjoy sex with 10 year old girls, yet we use the excuse of religion, morals, and the law to exclude that class of people from forming the norms of our society.

My issue against same sex marriage is that group won't be satisfied with a civil union until everyone else is forced to have them. Perhaps if there was less heterophobia the issue wouldn't be as much of a flash point as it is.


We don't use religion, or morals to exclude that class of people from society, we do use law and we should. No Intelligent person says: "Child Molesters are bad because the bible says so!" (Totally setting aside the fact that the bible doesn't say this, and in fact it was quite common for girls 10 to 12 years old to be married during the time of both the old and the new testament)

Child Molestation is wrong because we as a society have decided that anyone under the age of 18 (actually i belive it varies between 16 and 21 depending on state) is not mature enough to make those kinds of decisions for themselves.

I'm really kind of stumped her McG, I considered you as someone who, although I usually didn't agree with had more intelligence than to try to juxtapose homosexuality with child molestation.

I guess I was wrong Embarrassed


Hardly a juxtaposition so much as an example. I was not discussing molestation so much as actual relationships. You may remember the Mary Kay Laturno story...
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 06:26 pm
Hederalsexual's Laughing Laughing Laughing

Are those federal heterosexuals?
0 Replies
 
Sanctuary
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 07:55 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Hederalsexual's Laughing Laughing Laughing

Are those federal heterosexuals?


I guess so! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 08:52 pm
ConstitutionalGirl wrote:
Montana wrote:
dora17 wrote:
i don't understand how you couldbe totally unsympathtic to these people. what would it feel like to suddenly be told you were no longer allowed to be married to the person you had chosen as your spouse? i just feel bad for those who have had their rights trampled on again. i don't understand how this country has become so stodgy, judgemental, and so unable to allow people to be different. the religious right promotes their so-called "culture of life" and obsesses over the rights of Terri Schiavo and unformed fetuses, and yet denies rights to normal, loving, functional people. a culture of life and a culture of hate all in one.


I agree! People are people and I could care less who sleeps with who. They're not hurting anyone, so I don't get what the fuss is about. Some people just aren't happy if they don't have something to bitch about!
(From http://www.breakingchristiannews.com)

Canadians Publicly Reading Aloud the Word of God in Coast to Coast "Proclamation"
by Aimee Herd (BCN Exclusive) : Apr 11, 2005 : Canadian Bible Society

In the book of Nehemiah chapter 8, it describes the desire of the people for God's word and what happened when Ezra began to read it.

NEH 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:

NEH 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

NEH 9:3 And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the LORD their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the LORD their God.

Ministry These are the roots of the Canadian Bible Society's "Proclamation" events which have been happening each Spring across Canada, for over a decade in some provinces. True to the above passage, Proclamation is simply the public reading-aloud of the entire Bible. Readers usually encompass many different ethnic groups and denominations, the event being held in churches and other venues. Sometimes the Bible is read in other languages, the blind reading from a Braille Bible, and the deaf, signing the words. The readings are usually done over a 10-day period, 14 hours each day.

Denise Blouin, a participant in Proclamation explained, "When you read Scripture silently, you can meditate. But by reading together, I feel like I'm sharing in the faith of others. The Proclamation helped me appreciate how the Word of God addresses all people, regardless of their doctrines and practices."

Ministry The Power of the Word:Just by reading the Bible aloud in public, lives have been changed, as testimonies come in from various areas that have participated in the event. One of those stories surfaces from a Proclamation gathering in Montreal, and is posted on the Canadian Bible Society's website:

One evening last year while a men's group was reading at St James United Church in Montreal, there were several walk-ins, but one in particular stood out - a young "Goth" wearing a long black coat with heavy chains. He asked if he might sit and pray quietly but he soon became restless in the pew and began to weep. A minister approached him and they talked quietly.

The young man said he had been involved in satanic activities. "The power of the words being read crushed me and filled me with horror at the atrocities I'd committed." The minister privately counseled him. Eventually the tears gave way to smiles, then hugs. The minister offered his business card and the two agreed to meet again.

Ministry Another testimony from the website is from a pastor who was skeptical at first at whether the readings would hold people's interest.

Yet as the word got out and the momentum built, the Proclamation became "not only a spiritual discipline but also a moving spiritual experience for readers and listeners alike." One man wroteÂ…saying he had found a second home at the Proclamation soaking up Scripture.

Another discovery stemming from the public reading of Scripture is the unity it brings, crossing all denominational and ethnic lines. In Edmonton, the Bible was read in 23 languages including, Urdu, Maori, and Nepali. The Moncton, New Brunswick Proclamation involved 30 Catholic and 35 Protestant congregations and is being called by some, the greatest ecumenical event in the city's history.

Some of the Proclamations for 2005 in Canada, have already been held, yet some are planned for next month. A complete schedule can be viewed at the Canadian Bible Society's website.


Call me ignorant, but I don't even know what this means!
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 09:00 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
ConstitutionalGirl, there was a time when people of your gender had even fewer rights than the people who's misfortune you gloat over. Keep in mind ,if their rights can be taken away, so can yours.


Yup! Very good point Acquiunk!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/22/2021 at 11:15:26