S.F. Gives finger to Feds, Ok's same sex marriages...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Reverend Love, Feb 14, 2004.

  1. train The Wildcard!!!...

    I'm just wondering why this all really matters...

    the bible was put together by a council to start with, and plenty of writings were left out - I don't know all of them, but I don't recall one, or any condemning homosexuality....
  2. mythosx Legendary Creature-Human

    Welcome back Istanbul. First off name calling means you already lost. Secondly no, you didn't sum it up correctly. The underlying problem here is that everyone is working under the assumption that homosexuality is a genetic quality. And without seeing any evidence for it. I don't see why you all do. Secondly, I haven't oppresssed anyone. If given the oppurtunity I would vote against it. I don't agree with it, just like you would all vote against higher magic card prices if you ever got the oppurtunity to vote. I don't protest or get in homosexual peoples faces. Heck I hang out with some homosexuals and they don't even have a problem with me the way some of you people have.

    You claim that I oppress them, Please explain how. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I don't like them.

    And sefro, It's not addressed means its a definite no no. so no you cant urinate against church buildings. It leaves a bad smell. I guess you could if you really wanted to...But I think its frowned upon.

    As far as your comment goes train. Homosexuality is addressed in the bible in the manner of sexual perversion. Which of three things I am sure are grouped under there. A)Homosexuality B)Sex with animals C)Marital infedility. None of this matters to you if you aren't a Christian though. If you aren't please feel free to ignore any religious arguments.

    However, I will say this. I have the right to believe what I want. I have the right to teach my children when I have them as I see fit. And to call me a "Jackoink" (Istanbul) is an infringment of my rights. I hope you see the irony in that.

    Let me ask you all this one question. Would you vote for letting anyone marry anything? I mean Why can't some poor lonely guy in the middle of Hicksville USA marry a cow for tax and sex purposes?
  3. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    Calling you a jackoink isn't a violation of your rights in any facet, way, shape, or form. And whether homosexuality is hereditary or environmental has nothing to do with this topic, so stop trying to skirt the topic.

    You say that you wouldn't oppress homosexuals, but you would deny them the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. That's called oppression.

    Please, by all means, quote to me where the Bible specifies that homosexuality is a 'perversion'.
    [EDIT: No, don't bother. Even if you can find it, it still boils down to "MY faith says this, so YOU can't have these rights.]

    I will never attempt to deny you the right to believe what you believe. In fact, I will fight to make sure you have it. What I *will* attempt to do is promote equality, something that you have said that you are against.

    I would not vote for allowing anyone to marry anything. I consider consent to be an integral part of marriage. As a result, people should not be allowed to marry young children or animals. But people SHOULD be able to marry anyone able to consent to it, and that includes anyone of the other *or* the same gender. Trying to refuse that to anyone is nothing short of trying to force your views on someone else, and that's just unfair.
  4. Reverend Love New Member

    I'm reminded of that Star Trek episode where Spock is in like mating season or whatever and begins to battle Kirk (I think Kirk was going to do his old lady) with the "dunt dunt daa-daa-daa-daa dunt dunt dunt" music playing.....now the question is whose in mating season here...

    Mythosx or Istanbul?
  5. mythosx Legendary Creature-Human

    Apparently I can have any view as long its the same view as you. You are being a hypocrite because you are saying who can give consent and who can't. By your arguement, I can say homosexuals can not give consent because they are of ill mind. You can't prove an animal doesn't give consent. You can't say a child can't legally give consent. By your own logic you are discriminating.

    Here's the bottom line Istanbul, I know what you believe. Give me some why's.

    Why should I support them?

    And give me reason's don't keep stating your beliefs. All this time you haven't even given a single reason yet. You dog my faith, but you don't even have that to stand by.
  6. chocobo_cid Thyme Devourer

    No. It is important to prove, in the specific instance, that they do give consent. A child is not legally permitted to make decisions on its own without the consent of a legal guardian. If proof is impossible to prove, then the benefit of the doubt is not granted.

    By the way, nice job double posting. :rolleyes:
    [Double post removed - TomB]
  7. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Okay, enough with the name calling. It may not have trampled anyone's rights but it's rude and unnecessary.

    mythosx: It's just plain discrimination based on sexual preference, that's all. That's pretty much the basic "why". If you don't agree with that, then there's nothing else.

    You haven't really come up with a good "why not", aside from religion. And we've already shown that marriage isn't based on religion right now, so to me, that's not a very good "why not". You obviously have a personal view for it which no one could or should change, but objectively, you haven't really come up with a "why now".
  8. train The Wildcard!!!...

    mythosx - in facets of religion I am a Christian... Catholic born, raised, then split through baptist, and church of christ...

    currently I don't attend - why family reasons (though this may change...)

    I'm a big believer in the Gospel of Saint Thomas, and why the church buries it as fake, makes it that much stronger...


    sexual perversion is not a group of things - it is a term - whose definition is differed by perspective...

    I agree - and what shall you do if your children change their thinking on this issue...

    I have no problem with this what-so-ever... seriously... It's no different than itemizing for tax purposes now anyhow...
  9. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    Man, you really are seeing only what you want to see, and not what I'm actually saying.

    #1) I never ONCE dogged your faith. Not once, in everything I've said. I have respect for Christianity. What I don't have respect for is bigotry and oppression. Get it straight.
    #2) According to your argument, I could say that Catholics shouldn't be allowed to marry, because they're of ill mind. You can say that anyone is of ill mind. But no one has ever proven that homosexuals are 'of ill mind' because of their sexual preference. In fact, it has been proven that most homosexuals are sane, which completely destroys your argument.
    #3) I'll never ask you to like it. THAT is a violation of your rights. But I *am* telling you that attempting to refuse other people rights based on your beliefs is oppressive and intrusive.
    #4) Reasons? Simple. I believe that black people should have the right to vote. I believe that women should be able to drive. I believe that homosexuals should have a right to marry, and I believe that Asians and Hispanics should have the same chance to get a job as anyone else. I believe in EQUALITY for all people because it is fair and just. And if you can't understand that, well, that's sort of like saying that you don't understand why murder should be illegal. Some things are just self-evident.
  10. DÛke Memento Mori

    I am so afraid to say that "self-evidence" is, like anything else, a matter of opinion. No, not at all in fact, is it self-evident that it is only "fair and just" to have equality for all people. How is it fair? How is it just? I am asking, apparently I am a little naive and also a little stupid. But I am asking. It is so self-evident, then please, let me hear this simple evidence. Nevertheless, I do concede that there are indeed some things that are, perhaps, more "appropriate" than others - to judge a man based solely on his skin color or sexuality is not as "fair and just" as judging him based on his mental capacity, dreams, and desires. On the other hand, to simply hand-out rights here and there just because they gave become necessary or "appropriate" or "common" is just as discriminating and ignorant as any prejudiced act.
    This is simply outrageous. Let me get this right - to refuse other people rights based on my own personal beliefs and principles, ideals and values is oppressive? So I guess a better, more suiting and appropriate scenario would be this: me having principles, albeit, without actually acting upon them; perhaps you are right - in our modern world it is in fact better to have no opinion, much less, no principles or values; at the end, having no personality gets you everywhere these days - the inability to discriminate is just as bad as the attitude to discriminate strictly and constantly against anything and everything that does not fit into one's own paradigm; the inability to say Yes and No, and mean Yes and No, is just as bad as saying No to everything, or Yes to everything. At the end, the inability to make a preference in regards to people, their morals, their values, the inability to set some as superior and others as inferior, is rather poor, and indicative of a poor character, amongst many other poor things.
  11. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Has anyone pointed out that most religions are oppressive?...

    great example - Catholicism...

    from the lord through pope and on down to the priests - it's all about how high you are on the chain...
  12. chocobo_cid Thyme Devourer

    I won't take that personally, train, but don't try your luck.

    I can agree with that part, at least, as Istanbul, in concept, stated a paradox of sorts. Someone believing that he has the right to refuse something to someone, out of his own beliefs, is not always illegal. However, when rights are introduced, this changes.

    Were I a shoppkeeper, I can reserve the right to refuse service for any basis, assuming I don't provide a reason. Were I to refuse a government-provided service (hetero marriage) for my own motives, that is illegal, but not apparently wrong for my code of ethics. The problem in DUke's statement is that he also says:

    (Notice, not taken out of context.)

    To refuse rights is opressive. Yes, it is. I won't dwell on the fact that he called homosexual marriage a right, as that was probally a slip of the keyboard or something. Any more name-calling and grammar correcting will send this thread in a tailspin into chaos. ;)
  13. mythosx Legendary Creature-Human

    Discrimination based upon prefrence isn't discrimination. We discriminate and make laws against poor decisions all the time. We discriminate against druggies, alcholics, violent criminals. As long as any thing you do is a decision, we can "discriminate" against it. The government makes rules against poor decisions all the time. Jay walking, Drug intake and possession. Criminals can say your oppressing them by not letting them steal. Ted Bundy can say you are oppressing him by not letting him eat human flesh. This is of course an extreme end. It's not discrimination if its a choice. Everyone can understand this, even the homosexual community. That's why they fight so hard to say it is a genetic trait. That's why their opponents fight so hard to say its not. Why is it that people on this site can't seem to understand that?
  14. mythosx Legendary Creature-Human

    I wouldn't say religions are oppressive. I would agree that religious orginizations are somewhat oppressive.
  15. mythosx Legendary Creature-Human

    Your why here is the fact that it is self evident. Apparently, it isn't. That's your "faith". Because it's not self evident to me or to the countless others who don't see it your way. I could say the same for my arguement and we would be spinning in circles for hours.
  16. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    You're actually telling me that the reason that equality and justice for all people is good is NOT self-evident?

    You win.

    I guess I'm simply assuming a certain level of moral character, that people would generally want to do what is fair and right. If you remove that, I guess I really don't have an argument.
  17. mythosx Legendary Creature-Human

    The law isn't forcing anyone to marry anyone. It is saying they can't marry a certain category. The issue here isn't equality. We have equal rights, we all can marry anyone we want as long as they are of the opposite sex. We all have that equal right. Your use of the term justice is a bit odd. What is so just or injust about marriage?
  18. chocobo_cid Thyme Devourer

    That won't help your argument, as many people have a very pessimistic view of humanity as a whole. :cool:

    Mythosx: (Triple Posting! A New Record!)

    Do you realize what you're saying? Everyone can marry whoever they would like to as long as I would like them to. Homosexuals might not want to marry members of the opposite sex, so that right to marry the opposite sex is a moot point.

    Needless to say, that is probally a purposeful and [dun dun DUNN!] oppressive moot point.
  19. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    *snicker* Uh, mythosx? I'm afraid that argument doesn't exactly help your case. Falls under the same category as "everyone's equal, as long as they're white" or "every man was created equal, sorry ladies".

    Marriage itself is neither just or unjust. It simply IS. What's unjust is telling people that because they're not like you, they can't have the same rights and protections that the government gives you.
  20. DÛke Memento Mori


    Actually, there is no need to argue anymore. What's done is done. Now that it has become legal somewhere, it will certainly catch like wildfire in the rest of the world. I give it few years.

    All opinions from this point on are superfluous; and are, at best, only intellectual activities.

    But, at the end of it all, there is no way in hell to prove that homosexuality is inferior or ill compared to heterosexuality. Everyone will tell you that "they are humans, like everyone else." And against that, all arguments fail. Suppose there is a race exactly like humans - in fact, is human - but rather had a bent for violence more than any human to have ever existed - what then? They are humans after all - why deny them rights?

    Actually, if anyone dares to think about it for a second - the very fact that there is a such thing as "rights" contradicts completely the other supposed fact, that we are all worthy of those rights. If we have these rights so naturally, so perfectly, so innately, perhaps, then, we need no permission, or law, or constitution to do what is only a privilge to us: nature tramples over all rules and laws. If I was a free human being, I will not ask you or anyone for permission, but rather I will act on my freedom, despite you and your laws. If I were an equal human being, I would not demand equality, but rather act like I claim I am: that I am equal - not even that! But if I were even better than you are, than I would certainly act on that. But no, look at me, I am trivial fool who has talents, no abilities, no personality, no opinions, materialistic to the point vomiting, lustful like no human ever was, and here I am, unequal to you, demanding, merely on the basis of my "humanity," to have rights exactly like you, without having proven anything as such, but merely basing the demand on my appearance, my biological make up, my so-called "potentiality." So you pity me, and you give me rights - now I’m even good enough to be a president! Even though, in reality, I have nothing of it, not the brain, not the character, and not even the potentiality. Here I am, now, trying to liberate every living accident and so-called “human” so that they can vote for me, kneel for me, respect me, so that I may have my true equals! As for the better human beings, at this point, they are only history...

Share This Page