posted on September 10, 2004 02:14:26 PM new
Linda,
You have just proven what I said. You seem to be an educated person. However you can't counter the issue of the women's voting rights prior to 1920, and you know it. The reason is what I said and you know it too. It was how greater society wanted to view them as a segment of society.
twelve has tried with no success to side step the issue with some rather unremarkable answers too.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on September 10, 2004 11:05:16 PM new
Sorry, yeager, I didn't clam up: I work in an industry (nursing) that on occasion demands a lot of my time. Just because you may have a cushy 40 hr a week job doesn't mean everyone else does. I also go to school (for my RN as well as taking writing classes) and do eBay, while taking care of my disabled wife and 2 youngest children (12 and 14, my 26 year old is married and helps out when she can). I have not clammed up while you were asking your silly questions, and I will not now. I just don't have the time or energy to discuss this with you: but in the near future (after my long work weekend) I will post replies to your assumptions.
In Christ,
Rick
Luke 12:48
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God." That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic....or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
C.S. Lewis: "Mere Christianity"
posted on September 10, 2004 11:10:23 PM new
Sorry, I don't have a cushy 40 hour a week job. In fact, I am one of Bush's victims. I don't have a job at all.
But please do respond when you find time. I am looking forward to your answers.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
Also, I don't think that my questions are silly in any degree. You have said very clearly that you and logan won't end up in the same place because he is gay. I have simple asked whether pedophile priest will end up their too. That's all.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on September 11, 2004 06:46:53 AM new
No job at all... that explains alot...
I have side stepped nothing, you refuse to understand and comprehend homosexuals and women are two separate issues, by linking them is the only possible irrational justification you can come up with, it is not worth talking about...
You and logansdad have refused time and again to see how wrong homosexuality is, how marriage is not a right, how the people of the US do not want homosexual marriages and in fact do not really accept homosexuality...
It is in fact you two that are blinded and refuse to look at society for the greater good... trying to link homosexuals to anything other than the deviant behavior it is, is an insult to those who actually carried forth the fight for women to vote and for black civil rights...
The good people of MO have spoken just as many other states have... congress now has legislation that will keep the federal govt out the states decisions in this issue...
Some states will allow it some won't... it will be like the drinking laws of the past... just because you could drink in WV didn't mean you could drink in OH...
But then again letting the states decide is not really what the homosexuals want... La will vote on the 9/18 should be interesting to see how it turns out...
In the future most states will vote on it... and then the decisions will be over and done... homosexuals will have to move to get married or not... easy enough.
posted on September 11, 2004 07:21:54 AM new
Twelve: I have side stepped nothing, you refuse to understand and comprehend homosexuals and women are two separate issues, by linking them is the only possible irrational justification you can come up with, it is not worth talking about...
You fail to comprehend how this country was formed on the basis of excepting different people and their beliefs. This country's history also shows how we believe in equality of all people. THAT IS THE THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM. I guess you are not a Republican since you do not even believe why your party was formed.
It is in fact you two that are blinded and refuse to look at society for the greater good... trying to link homosexuals to anything other than the deviant behavior it is, is an insult to those who actually carried forth the fight for women to vote and for black civil rights...
You are blinded by the fact that there are people in this country that are different than you. You keep talking about deviant behavior. I don't here you condeming women who have abortions and the doctors that perform them. Why are you saying they should be exiled to another country. How does abortion or divorce benefit society? Does abortion help control the population?
You and logansdad have refused time and again to see how wrong homosexuality is, how marriage is not a right, how the people of the US do not want homosexual marriages and in fact do not really accept homosexuality...
As I had said before, I do not need no damn marriage certificate to show my love. So I don't care what happens. It will not change the fact that I am gay and love my partner. I also asked you straight people if you could live with a ban outlawing divorce and all you do is laugh. Divorce is againt some religious teaching and so is divorce so until these are banned these are no more deviant than homosexuality.
Oh by the way, please show me a study that says the American people are against homosexuality.....
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 11, 2004 07:27:49 AM new
I am not obligated to show you anything... you fail to realize that if people REALLY accepted homosexuals, then this marriage issue would not be an issue... If you believe deep down that people just don't want homosexual marriage but accept homosexuals, you are more ignorant than I think you are...
BTW I am anti-abortion... nor a registered Republican....
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Re-Elect President Bush... the only true choice.
[ edited by Twelvepole on Sep 11, 2004 07:30 AM ]
posted on September 11, 2004 07:28:48 AM new
twelve,
You are soooooooooo right on the fact that homosexuals and women are different and the issue are different.
The simple fact remains that even before the Gay Marriage issue came into the news recently, women weren't allowed to vote prior to 1920? Long before there was even a thing called the gay rights movement, in the year 1919 women in this country weren't allowed to vote.
I could start another thread asking why women weren't allowed to vote prior to 1920, without even mentioning any gay rights issue. It wouldn't even be considered a part of the thread. The complete topic would be about women's voting rights, and the absence of them prior to 1920. How would you respond to that?
So the question remains for you to answer. Why didn't women have the right to vote prior to 1920?
For you to say, by linking them is the only possible irrational justification you can come up with, it is not worth talking about... is nothing more than a escape mechanism for you.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on September 11, 2004 08:46:44 AM new
Again, logansdad, since you have given your approval to any sexual act people wish to engage in....like sex with animals...I more clearly see your morals and find them VERY lacking. Then you tell us how you're a Christian and will be forgiven. You aren't practicing the Christian belief system...you are selectively practicing the parts you wish to and then dismissing the rest. I obviously won't be the one judging you....but I think you're very mistaken to hold the belief that anything you do is okay.
----------------
yeager - Imo there's a huge difference between the civil rights issue of black people/slaves and women who were in essence treated the same way as slaves by their fathers/husbands before getting the right to vote. Neither were treated as equal human beings under our laws - gays are.
Homosexuals don't have these issues today. There are already laws that protect them against discrimination that weren't there for the slaves/blacks nor women. Homosexuals have the right to vote. Lesbian women aren't under their father's control. Employers can't discriminate....matter of fact there's already 'partnership laws' given to those who live together. Gay could use those same laws to get the benefits they want.
They do not have to get 'married'.
Marriage has never been meant for two of the same sex. It's always been about a stable environment for the rearing of children. One man and one women.
And logansdad is always referring to the divorce rate. SO WHAT? I ask. Since marriage is becoming something fewer people are willing to work out - to commit to - should we now totally open up the institution for ALL? Gee...my brother doesn't have medical insurance so maybe I should marry him so he will have coverage. What? You don't agree with that? Why should two men/women who want to marry have those 'benefits' and not my brother. That's not fair to him. So what if my brother and I want to have sex. It's our business...not yours. And who are you to tell us we can't decide to have a child if we choose to. Stay out of our lives/our business...and live your own.
Get my drift? No...not good for our society, imo. And to open it up for ALL will only lead to more type of 'arrangements' being allowed the benefits of marriage. Notice logansdad doesn't thing those who religious convictions approve of multiple spouses should be allowed to marry. WHY? Just cause he says so. Well....dearhearts it works the same way with those of us who don't want gay marriage allowed.
posted on September 11, 2004 09:05:58 AM new...nothing more than a escape mechanism for you.
You mean like your avoidance of answering if you are homosexual?
Something that took place 84 years ago means nothing to me... I have no desire to discuss something prior to 1920 or for that matter before I was born... to make it simple for you... I just don't care.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Re-Elect President Bush... the only true choice.
[ edited by Twelvepole on Sep 11, 2004 09:22 AM ]
posted on September 11, 2004 09:47:03 AM newThen you tell us how you're a Christian and will be forgiven. You aren't practicing the Christian belief system...you are selectively practicing the parts you wish to and then dismissing the rest. I obviously won't be the one judging you....but I think you're very mistaken to hold the belief that anything you do is okay.
That's a bunch of BS. As I said I do stand behind my prior statements. If you want to have sex with a mountain goat go ahead. That is your preroagtive. I do not care what you do. IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO JUDGE you. I never said I found that type of behavior acceptable. HOWEVER you and your religious righties keep wanting to judge others and define what is and is not acceptable behavior for the rest of society. THIS IS WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. It appears that you want to selectively follow certain Christian teachings.
And logansdad is always referring to the divorce rate. SO WHAT? I ask. Since marriage is becoming something fewer people are willing to work out - to commit to - should we now totally open up the institution for ALL?
It seems as if you care alot more about marriage than you are trying to say. If that was really your attitute then opening up marriage to anybody could not make the sanctity of marriage any worse than what you "breeders" have done over the past 30 years. You are still in denial for what has lead to the state of marriage today.
Gee...my brother doesn't have medical insurance so maybe I should marry him so he will have coverage. What? You don't agree with that? Why should two men/women who want to marry have those 'benefits' and not my brother.
Since you live in the South Linda, I am sure you can marry your brother since that type of activity is quite frequent there. OOOPS Don't like the sterotype that people in the South are hillbillies and like to sleep with other family members.. AWWW I am sorry. Perhaps you can get Bush to draft a constitutional amendment legalizing incest after all it would still be between a man and a woman. That is all that matters in a marriage.
Your brother is still free to marry. If he can't get insurance by marrying a woman, tell him to move to Massachusettes and marry a man or you can go and marry a woman if you. You are free to do that. As I have already stated, I don't care what you do because it will have no impact on my life.
Notice logansdad doesn't thing those who religious convictions approve of multiple spouses should be allowed to marry. WHY? Just cause he says so. Well....dearhearts it works the same way with those of us who don't want gay marriage allowed.
Polygamy was allowed in the bible. If you religious conservatives go by what the bible says then why are you cheering for that? Oh wait we only believe the things that we want to accept from the bible. Never mind abortion is wrong, never mind the death penalty is wrong, never mind that divorce is wrong. LISTEN TO US (THE BIBLE THUMPERS) AND WHAT WE SAY BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS AND HOW YOU SHOULD BE LIVING YOUR LIFE. WE LIKE TO JUDGE OTHERS EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS AGAINST WHAT JESUS TAUGHT.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 11, 2004 11:42:05 AM new
logansdad -
If you want to have sex with a mountain goat go ahead. That is your preroagtive. I do not care what you do.
As I stated we obviously have quite different moral standards.
I never said I found that type of behavior acceptable.
Imo, when it doesn't matter to you then you ARE accepting of that behavior. Just in a passive way.
HOWEVER you and your religious righties keep wanting to judge others and define what is and is not acceptable behavior for the rest of society.
First of all I am NOT a 'religious rightie'....and yes, that's how morals and values are formed in a society...everybody making up their own minds on what behaviors are allowed and which one's aren't allowed.
THIS IS WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.
Oh, so it's that darn double standard again, huh? If you don't have a problem with anything, then no one else should have a problem with it. But if I have a problem with certain things....that's just not allowed.
It seems as if you care alot more about marriage than you are trying to say.
Yes, I VERY MUCH value the institution of marriage and family and don't want it changed.
You are still in denial for what has lead to the state of marriage today.
No, not at all. I see the gay marriage issue as being the cause of it's further deterioration - further weaking - making the institution even less important.
Since you live in the South Linda, I am sure you can marry your brother since that type of activity is quite frequent there.
How sad that you have your own set of prejudices and sterotypes of people living in the South. Just as you work to convince others your lifestyle choice is not well represented by the gay parades....yet you, yourself, apply sterotypes to people in the South.
As I have already stated, I don't care what you do because it will have no impact on my life.
What people 'do' has a very direct effect on our society. It's becomes less moral....more accepting of any vice. Slip, sliding away, until there are NO moral values at all....and it's 'just do whatever you want' season. Not good in a civilized society.
Polygamy was allowed in the bible. If you religious conservatives go by what the bible says then why are you cheering for that?
I'm NOT cheering that. I brought it up because it was one of the things when you were asked, in one of our 100 or do gay marriage threads] if it was okay by you...since you want gay marriage to be allowed....and you said no, you didn't agree it should also be allowed. I thought that you, again, were ONLY willing to all behaviors that YOU approved of...but you weren't open to others doing/practicing their religious beliefs in the newly defined institution of marriage - as you'd like to see it become.
LISTEN TO US (THE BIBLE THUMPERS) AND WHAT WE SAY BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS AND HOW YOU SHOULD BE LIVING YOUR LIFE. WE LIKE TO JUDGE OTHERS EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS AGAINST WHAT JESUS TAUGHT.
Screaming, are we?
Here's a touch of reality for you. I'm not a 'Bible thumper' I just have different moral convictions than you do. AND there are many who are not at all religious who also have moral convictions that don't want to see gay marriage. It's not JUST/ONLY a religious issues....it's a moral decision we each make in our lives.....in many areas of our decision making processes.
-------------------
Here's probably the best argument I've ever read about this subject. So I'm posting the whole thing. I very much explains how I see these moral issues we face.
----
Gregory Koukl
On the heels of President Clinton's address to a homosexual group, Greg points out that homosexuality is a moral behavior rather than the kind of innate characteristic (like race) that justifies special protections.
Morally-minded people are losing their liberty to speak out against homosexuality as a moral issue or follow their consciences on it in the public square.
The President addressed a group of homosexuals at a dinner in Washington over the weekend, spawning a conservative backlash. The White House responded by pointing out that the President also spoke at the Italian-American Foundation dinner, so this was not to be viewed as anything special.
Now, I have some difficulties here, ladies and gentlemen, but not at all with the President addressing this group. I think the President is president of every citizen in this country, and if he chooses to address a homosexual group, he is welcome to do so.
What I'm bothered by is a couple of distortions I think came out of this. There are two thoughts that are important to keep in mind whenever discussing the issue of homosexuality in the public square. Be alert to this whenever you're entertaining discussion or debate, or reading about such debate on the issue of homosexuality in America-- or whenever the Ellen issue comes up.
First of all, there's a difference between skin color--ethnicity--and behavior. It seems to me this is so self-evident, so obvious, that it should go without saying, but there is much confusion on this point.
When the issue of homosexuality comes up in the public square, it isn't uncommon to equate the concerns for homosexual liberty with the concern for racial equality.
This is a faulty parallel because with homosexuality we're not talking about something morally benign like skin color or ethnicity. I don't know of anybody who has made a genuine case for the moral relevance of the pigmentation of someone's skin or for the moral relevance of his ancestry, per se. Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality.
So this is not the same situation as President Truman's endorsement of equal rights for African Americans that the President cited in his address. This is not the same as the Italian American foundation dinner. We're not talking about morally benign qualities that are innate to one's birth.
With homosexuality we're talking about something different. Although some will argue that homosexuality is constitutional, the evidence is not good that homosexuality is in the genes, that they were born that way. But even if it were, we're talking about a particular behavior that most American's consider strange and unnatural, and many Americans consider deeply immoral.
Let me make a point here, friends. These attitudes are not the result of blind prejudice, as is often represented. Most Americans don't think this is unnatural because they haven't been educated properly. Most people who consider homosexuality deeply immoral don't do so because they hate homosexuals. They have principled moral objections.
Good arguments can be garnered for the unnatural nature of homosexuality.
If you saw the movie "In and Out"-- though it was kind of a spoof on homosexuality, and especially a shot at those who think that homosexuality is odd-- there was a pretty funny line about there being "in" holes and "out" holes in human bodies. Some openings are to receive things and other openings are to get rid of things, and you ought not get the two confused. It was meant to be funny (it was), but it also makes a valid point. There is a natural law argument against homosexuality. And guess what? As silly as it was made to sound in the movie, there is a fundamental sensibility to it. Now, it might be that those who hold such a view are mistaken. My point is, however, this isn't just raw prejudice. It's a principled point of view. A principled and intelligent argument based on natural law can be made against homosexuality that has nothing to do with ignorance, prejudice, or hatred.
There are good reasons to think that homosexuality is immoral, too. Even if I'm mistaken on that fact-- I don't think I am, but even if I were-- at least I could say I'm not simply making my position against homosexuality based on some bizarre, irrational, unreasoning prejudice like those who are prejudiced against a skin color. Instead, it's a principled position and I'm capable of giving good reasons for it.
I can anticipate an objection here. Someone says, "You may think that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, but you have no right to force your view on us." Well, whether I have the right to force it on you or not is a debatable question, actually. All laws force someone's moral view on another. Regardless, that's not what is happening here.
And this is my second point. This is not about equal rights. This isn't about us forcing our view on someone else. This is about the legitimacy for us to even hold our point of view. We're being faulted for even making a moral distinction here.
More and more laws are being passed in this country to protect people from even the hint of censure about their actions. And so, it was either in Wisconsin or Minnesota, a woman handed a tract to a homosexual-- a Christian tract regarding homosexuality-- and she was convicted under the city's "hate crime" laws. That Christian was forced to go to re-education classes. Why? Because she expressed her politically incorrect view.
You see, this isn't about us forcing our view on them. This is about conservatives and morally-minded people being allowed to express their moral point of view and act on it. This isn't about homosexual liberties; it's about our liberties.
Friends, homosexuals have every right any other American has. I don't have the right to live anywhere I want. I don't have the right to be employed by anyone I want. I don't have the right to marry anyone I want. There are laws and rules and moral restrictions that govern all of those things.
This is not about rights, ladies and gentlemen. This is about approval. This is about a small group of people working to force the majority to approve of behavior that the rank and file believes is morally objectionable.
Yes, I think the President was within his rights to address this group, just like he would address any other group of Americans. But I think he should have put the issue in its proper perspective. He should have said, "Homosexuals as Americans should have the very same rights and protections every other American has."
By the way, they already do. The law affords them all the same protections I have.
"But I can't marry whomever I want," they say. Well, neither can I.
"But, I can't marry the person I love." Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I. I can't marry any person I love. If I fell in love with my sister (Perish the thought!), or if I fell in love with my daughter, I couldn't marry them. If I fell in love with my first cousin I can't marry her. You see, I'm restricted in the same fashion. I have the right to marry any woman of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship. Homosexuals have that very same right.
But they say, "I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry a man." Well, what you *want* is a different issue. The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't *want* to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.
As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn't have any special standing by law.
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl.
posted on September 11, 2004 12:48:29 PM new
Until abortion and the death penalty are declared illegal I am still going to fight for what I believe in.
You women claim you want the right to choose to kill your baby even though killing is wrong. The governement says it has the right to execute another human being yet that person was executed for killing someone else...how ironic is that.
As long as you women can force your views of having the right to have an abortion I can express my views to have gay marriages.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 11, 2004 01:16:15 PM new
Linda this is what Gregory Koukl had to say about abortion: To be honest with you,....We're not interested in getting into people's bedrooms and telling them how to have sex and how to live. We're not interested in restricting choices because we are bigoted and want to make people's lives miserable. We're interested in human rights just like those who argued against slavery.
He is interested in human rights.....but this is what is view is on homosexuality :I think homosexuality is evil and I don't think it is evil to call evil by its real name.
His entire argument is based on homosexuality being a choice. That has yet to be proven one way or the other. Until it is, his speech you posted above is just another opinion from the religious right who already has their mind made up about homosexuals and what they consider is right and wrong.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 11, 2004 03:30:35 PM new
The only one that refuses to see anything is you, Twelve. All the things you say about Logan and Yeager are things you're guilty of yourself. Can't you see that?
posted on September 11, 2004 03:50:14 PM new
kraft as you side with yeager and logansdad I will give your words the thought for what they are worth... ok done
Anyone that supports homosexuality is wrong thinking and are enabling these people to continue to make the wrong choice.
This is going to get nasty before all is said and done, but I guess we can thank the homosexuals for their indirect helping of getting President Bush re-elected.
posted on September 11, 2004 04:02:20 PM new
All for it... take a life lose your life... I would also like to see rape and child molestation added to capital punishment crimes...
Unlike the murder of unborn children which is currently protected under the law, people who commit murder also make the choice to do so...
posted on September 11, 2004 06:09:43 PM new
But killing is wrong. Why should the government have the right to take a life just because some one else did. The death penalty has not acted as a deterrent. Two wrongs do not make a right.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 11, 2004 06:14:09 PM new
But Twelve, nobody can come up with a reason why homosexuality is bad, other than they agree with the Bible's interpretation against it. Nobody - not even you! It's pathetic that there are intelligent people out there who don't have a clue how they're suppose to feel unless they read it in a book.
posted on September 11, 2004 07:15:38 PM new
There is a difference between killing and punishment...
kraft you and the others discounting of peoples morals and convictions is becoming rather tiring and makes you all look like the fools you are... give it a rest, you are not going to change anyone's mind...
Homosexuality is wrong... whether you accept that or not... that is your choice... I have made mine.
posted on September 11, 2004 08:04:26 PM new
Morals and convictions? Based on what? The Bible - no other reason. Hating or dissapproving of another person that breaks no law and contributes to society the same as everyone else, is wrong. I don't need a book to tell me that, but if some do, it's there to instruct you.
I'm not trying to change you Twelve. I just think it's too bad you choose to carry around so much added baggage.
posted on September 11, 2004 10:25:27 PM new
twelve,
Were you ever molested as a child, maybe by a relative or a priest. This is the only reason I can think that you have such hatred towards a group that has otherwise done nothing to you.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
Now I am really wondering on this. When you referred to logan and his afterlife, you stated, No, logansdad, we will not end up in the same place
That's 11 whole words used in a very direct sense to make your point.
Now, when I asked you about the pedophile priest, and then claimed that you clammed up on this issue, you said,
Sorry, yeager, I didn't clam up: I work in an industry (nursing) that on occasion demands a lot of my time. Just because you may have a cushy 40 hr a week job doesn't mean everyone else does. I also go to school (for my RN as well as taking writing classes) and do eBay, while taking care of my disabled wife and 2 youngest children (12 and 14, my 26 year old is married and helps out when she can). I have not clammed up while you were asking your silly questions, and I will not now. I just don't have the time or energy to discuss this with you: but in the near future (after my long work weekend) I will post replies to your assumptions.
You used 128 words to reply on how difficult and busy your life is. In your wording, you didn't mention the pedophile priest once. You could have used the same 11 words that you used when referring to logan, but you didn't. I am thinking that you will have some drawn out biblical reasoning for their behavior. Otherwise you would have been very clear on it in the first place.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on September 12, 2004 04:37:05 AM new
Quote, "You aren't practicing the Christian belief system...you are selectively practicing the parts you wish to and then dismissing the rest. "
That is exactly what EVERY member of EVERY religion does .
posted on September 12, 2004 04:51:01 AM new
linda says,
Again, logansdad, since you have given your approval to any sexual act people wish to engage in....like sex with animals...I more clearly see your morals and find them VERY lacking. Then you tell us how you're a Christian and will be forgiven. You aren't practicing the Christian belief system...you are selectively practicing the parts you wish to and then dismissing the rest. I obviously won't be the one judging you....but I think you're very mistaken to hold the belief that anything you do is okay.
Linda, what do you think on the pedophile priest issue? Will they be going to heaven?
yeager - Imo there's a huge difference between the civil rights issue of black people/slaves and women who were in essence treated the same way as slaves by their fathers/husbands before getting the right to vote. Neither were treated as equal human beings under our laws - gays are.
If there was a huge difference in them, then why were they being in essence treated the same way as slaves by their fathers/husbands before getting the right to vote. You can't be the same and then be different. Also, who decided that blacks and women would be treated that way? Would it have been society?
Homosexuals don't have these issues today. There are already laws that protect them against discrimination that weren't there for the slaves/blacks nor women. Homosexuals have the right to vote. Lesbian women aren't under their father's control. Employers can't discriminate....matter of fact there's already 'partnership laws' given to those who live together. Gay could use those same laws to get the benefits they want. They do not have to get 'married'.
You are kidding, right? Since gay men and women aren't a recognized segment of society, they don't have rights. In many states, landlords can and do discriminate against gays. So do employers. There is nothing the gay community can so about it in the fact the law doesn't recognize them as a protected group of people as it does women, black, the handicapped, people of any religious backgrounds and many others.
Marriage has never been meant for two of the same sex. It's always been about a stable environment for the rearing of children. One man and one women.
Says who, the bible? I think that you may be able to understand when this all boils down to a final court hearing, nobody will be using the bible for any reference point. They will be using existing laws and deliberating the fairness of existing laws. Nothing emotional or biblical about it.
Gee...my brother doesn't have medical insurance so maybe I should marry him so he will have coverage. What? You don't agree with that? Why should two men/women who want to marry have those 'benefits' and not my brother. That's not fair to him
Gee...Linda. Weren't you the one (in the WIC thread) who quite frankly suggested that people who wanted to have children should not have them until they are able to feed them without the need of the taxpayer's help? Didn't you say that people should get an education and better themselves and get a good job? Is it possible that your brother could do this too? What's stopping your brother from getting married and having insurance benefits of his own? Why would you have the need to compare the Gay Marriage issue to your brother's lack of insurance?
If you and your brother want to have sex, then go for it. You can do it once a day and twice on Sunday if you want, I don't care. The reason I don't care is simple. IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS, THAT'S WHY. But if you want a free trip to Chicago, then do it and call Jerry Springer and tell him about it. ok?
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on September 12, 2004 05:06:35 AM new
twelve says,
nothing more than a escape mechanism for you.
You mean like your avoidance of answering if you are homosexual?
Why would you have the need to know if any person is gay or not. There is nothing you can do about it. If I answered yes, I could be lying and you wouldn't know. If I answered no, I could be lying and you wouldn't know. I think that I have pointed this out to you in the past. I could tell you that I am married to a 25 year old woman and she is hot, or I am married to a fat old ugly woman. I could tell you that I am married to an educated woman or an illiterate woman. No matter what I told said, you would have no way to validate or invalidate it. Plus you are the type of emotionally weak person that uses personal statements against the person who made them. Sorry, not going to fall into your childish trap.
Something that took place 84 years ago means nothing to me... I have no desire to discuss something prior to 1920 or for that matter before I was born... to make it simple for you... I just don't care.
Wow, that is quite the flip flop. You seem to the status quo for society that was created more than 84 years ago, including the bible. I will say it again, just an escape mechanism for you.
First it was the issues weren't related, then you didn't want to discuss it, now you says it's too old an issue to care about.
Just an escape mechanism for you to avoid a simple direct question.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
Prevent Bigotry through Education.
