Anti-Abortion Logic
11-10-2004, 05:56 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Bigot is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Actually a lot of people voted against civil rights for blacks does that make it right? No. You are mixing your faith with the law. And that is UNACCEPTABLE, simply because not everyone believes what you believe. You have stated in past threads how it effects your children and how its immoral. And I showed you how you are WRONG in each of those. And how this goes against the teachings of the Christian faith. You are misguided at best. But I guess I'll explain it to you once again.
Homosexuality is not immoral. And for the billionith time its not a choice, guess what its been scientifically proven. Again the Christian faith teaches acceptance of others. That is one of the greatest things about the bible, to me. Also morals CHANGE through time. Morals are not rigid. Morals confirm to societies needs. Just like 50 years ago it was frowned upon woman wearing pants now its acceptable.
I'll ask once more since you didn't respond to my comments on the last thread. How does gay couples getting married harm you in ANY way? It doesn't. You are imposing your views on them and that is immoral. Also just because the majority of the US are homophobic does not make it RIGHT. Might does not make right.
Actually a lot of people voted against civil rights for blacks does that make it right? No. You are mixing your faith with the law. And that is UNACCEPTABLE, simply because not everyone believes what you believe. You have stated in past threads how it effects your children and how its immoral. And I showed you how you are WRONG in each of those. And how this goes against the teachings of the Christian faith. You are misguided at best. But I guess I'll explain it to you once again.
Homosexuality is not immoral. And for the billionith time its not a choice, guess what its been scientifically proven. Again the Christian faith teaches acceptance of others. That is one of the greatest things about the bible, to me. Also morals CHANGE through time. Morals are not rigid. Morals confirm to societies needs. Just like 50 years ago it was frowned upon woman wearing pants now its acceptable.
I'll ask once more since you didn't respond to my comments on the last thread. How does gay couples getting married harm you in ANY way? It doesn't. You are imposing your views on them and that is immoral. Also just because the majority of the US are homophobic does not make it RIGHT. Might does not make right.
11-10-2004, 10:01 PM
#32
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
ericdared81:
While I must thank you for the deal on my STi (Shameless plug), I must tell you that no on is forced to say "under God" line or the Pledge, for that matter.
As for gay marriage, as it's not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, it's legal...in those places that don't a local law banning it.
I may not accept gay lifestyles, but I'll tolerate a person's "choice" to living a gay lifestyle. In all honesty, does any person's sexual preference have any bearing/impact on my life?
No.
As long as one doesn't force me to accept their lifestyle, I could really give two poops.
In any case, it's truly a shame that in the 21st Century America, people can't live free.
While I must thank you for the deal on my STi (Shameless plug), I must tell you that no on is forced to say "under God" line or the Pledge, for that matter.
As for gay marriage, as it's not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, it's legal...in those places that don't a local law banning it.
I may not accept gay lifestyles, but I'll tolerate a person's "choice" to living a gay lifestyle. In all honesty, does any person's sexual preference have any bearing/impact on my life?
No.
As long as one doesn't force me to accept their lifestyle, I could really give two poops.
In any case, it's truly a shame that in the 21st Century America, people can't live free.
11-11-2004, 09:57 AM
#33
Dirty Redhead
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Commuting? I don't know what that means anymore.
Posts: 7,204
Car Info: 05 WRX Wagon (Crystal Gray)
Originally Posted by Oaf
ericdared81:
While I must thank you for the deal on my STi (Shameless plug), I must tell you that no on is forced to say "under God" line or the Pledge, for that matter.
While I must thank you for the deal on my STi (Shameless plug), I must tell you that no on is forced to say "under God" line or the Pledge, for that matter.
It just kind of bugs me. Kind of like if we put "hail allah" in place how many people would lose their minds.
11-11-2004, 10:02 AM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ponder this:
If you were walking down the street with your buddies and came upon two male dogs going at it would you ridicule and/or poke fun at them and have a good laugh?
I am going to be honest and say-- yes; I would at the very least point and laugh and accuse one of my friends of being turned on by it.
My point is this-- It is abnormal or unusual to see two male animals interacting in this manner as it is with people(my opinion, sorry; not to say it can't be accepted). I can accept that there are gay people out there and that they want to have a happy and fofilling life and there is nothing wrong with that. But I do have a problem with people trying to change the definition of something I strongly believe in. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
If you are going to be part of a newly accepted way of life then come up with new definitions for defining that way of life-- call it a civil union and demand all the same benefits of marriage... hell, call it garriage I don't care. Two men/woman being together is not the same as a man and a woman being together so do not define them as so.
Remember-- it takes bread and meat to make a sandwich.
(as it takes a man and a woman to make a marriage)
This post may come off as harsh but that is not the intent. I have no problem with gays other than this issue.
If you were walking down the street with your buddies and came upon two male dogs going at it would you ridicule and/or poke fun at them and have a good laugh?
I am going to be honest and say-- yes; I would at the very least point and laugh and accuse one of my friends of being turned on by it.
My point is this-- It is abnormal or unusual to see two male animals interacting in this manner as it is with people(my opinion, sorry; not to say it can't be accepted). I can accept that there are gay people out there and that they want to have a happy and fofilling life and there is nothing wrong with that. But I do have a problem with people trying to change the definition of something I strongly believe in. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
If you are going to be part of a newly accepted way of life then come up with new definitions for defining that way of life-- call it a civil union and demand all the same benefits of marriage... hell, call it garriage I don't care. Two men/woman being together is not the same as a man and a woman being together so do not define them as so.
Remember-- it takes bread and meat to make a sandwich.
(as it takes a man and a woman to make a marriage)
This post may come off as harsh but that is not the intent. I have no problem with gays other than this issue.
11-11-2004, 10:07 AM
#35
Dirty Redhead
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Commuting? I don't know what that means anymore.
Posts: 7,204
Car Info: 05 WRX Wagon (Crystal Gray)
Do you think that people had a hard time accepting the marriage of interracial couples before it was common?
Don't you think that people would have said almost the same thing you just did about gays to them?
Don't you think that people would have said almost the same thing you just did about gays to them?
11-11-2004, 10:20 AM
#36
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Posts: 2,064
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
Originally Posted by sloppyjoe
Ponder this:
If you were walking down the street with your buddies and came upon two male dogs going at it would you ridicule and/or poke fun at them and have a good laugh?
I am going to be honest and say-- yes; I would at the very least point and laugh and accuse one of my friends of being turned on by it.
If you were walking down the street with your buddies and came upon two male dogs going at it would you ridicule and/or poke fun at them and have a good laugh?
I am going to be honest and say-- yes; I would at the very least point and laugh and accuse one of my friends of being turned on by it.
Realistically, though, you would laugh if it was a male dog and a female dog anyways so the "example" you use is not really a good one.
Originally Posted by ericdared81
Do you think that people had a hard time accepting the marriage of interracial couples before it was common?
Don't you think that people would have said almost the same thing you just did about gays to them?
Don't you think that people would have said almost the same thing you just did about gays to them?
Also I don't know why everyone is fighting to "ensure" the sanctity of marriage when the divorce rate in this country is almost at 50 percent now.
11-11-2004, 12:15 PM
#37
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,709
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
I love when religious and right wing nuts proclaim we must put a stop to gay marriage to ensure it's sanctity. (I said tity) check out this nice little list I found.
Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%
Here's another based on location. And to think that the south believes it knows more about values than the "coasts."
Area % are or have been divorced
South 27%
Midwest 27%
West 26%
Northeast 19%
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
-Chris
Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%
Here's another based on location. And to think that the south believes it knows more about values than the "coasts."
Area % are or have been divorced
South 27%
Midwest 27%
West 26%
Northeast 19%
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
-Chris
11-11-2004, 02:04 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 933
Car Info: Stock Legacy Turbo Wagon Silver
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Bigot is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Originally Posted by Unregistered
You are mixing your faith with the law. And that is UNACCEPTABLE, simply because not everyone believes what you believe. You have stated in past threads how it effects your children and how its immoral. And I showed you how you are WRONG in each of those. And how this goes against the teachings of the Christian faith. You are misguided at best. But I guess I'll explain it to you once again.
You've showed me I was wrong?! That will be the day!
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Homosexuality is not immoral. And for the billionith time its not a choice, guess what its been scientifically proven.
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Again the Christian faith teaches acceptance of others. That is one of the greatest things about the bible, to me. Also morals CHANGE through time. Morals are not rigid. Morals confirm to societies needs. Just like 50 years ago it was frowned upon woman wearing pants now its acceptable.
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Morals confirm to societies needs. Just like 50 years ago it was frowned upon woman wearing pants now its acceptable.
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I'll ask once more since you didn't respond to my comments on the last thread. How does gay couples getting married harm you in ANY way? It doesn't. You are imposing your views on them and that is immoral. Also just because the majority of the US are homophobic does not make it RIGHT. Might does not make right.
Last edited by deyes; 11-11-2004 at 04:23 PM.
11-11-2004, 02:12 PM
#40
Dirty Redhead
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Commuting? I don't know what that means anymore.
Posts: 7,204
Car Info: 05 WRX Wagon (Crystal Gray)
There is one problem with leaving marriage up to the churches. Not all marriages are done by churches. What about all the justices of the peace? They need to be able to marry people no matter what churches say.
11-11-2004, 02:49 PM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 933
Car Info: Stock Legacy Turbo Wagon Silver
Originally Posted by ericdared81
There is one problem with leaving marriage up to the churches. Not all marriages are done by churches. What about all the justices of the peace? They need to be able to marry people no matter what churches say.
11-11-2004, 02:51 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 933
Car Info: Stock Legacy Turbo Wagon Silver
Originally Posted by MVWRX
There is one thing that's ok to be intolerant of...and that's others intolerance.
11-11-2004, 02:57 PM
#43
Dirty Redhead
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Commuting? I don't know what that means anymore.
Posts: 7,204
Car Info: 05 WRX Wagon (Crystal Gray)
Originally Posted by deyes
I keep saying, we should not have to go to the government to be married! If you go to a justice of the peace and you are joined in a civil union that is legally binding and affords you the same rights as a marriage then wether or not you are joined in a church in a religious ceremony is of no consequence to your rights.
11-11-2004, 02:58 PM
#44
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by deyes
Like I said, what you view as ok is up to you. If your being intolerant of my intolerance then your a hypocrite. And if your ok with that then what does it matter what anyone else thinks right?
Hahaha, to be honest, I don't really care either way about the argument at hand. My point was that to be intollerant of other peoples intollerance actually isn't hypocritical. If you tollerate other peoples intollerance, then you are in a small way condoning intollerance, which is an intollerant thing to do...on the other hand, your point that being intollerant of intollerance is, in fact, intollerant is also true. So basically, no matter what, everybody is intollerant, no matter how hard they try to be tollerant. But by not tollerating other people's intollerance, at least you are taking the moral high ground by saying that all intollerance is bad, so therefore I do not tollerate anybody's intollerance.
11-11-2004, 02:58 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
just an interesting question
For the record, I'm for civil unions. I think it's silly that we're arguing over a word. Most people, even anti-gay-marriage types, will support legal rights for homosexuals that are identical as long as they're called "civil unions." Let the traditionalists have marriage, and give homosexuals civil unions at least for now. Fight over the words after you have the right secured, that's what I say.
Here's my question: For everyone who doesn't agree with people voting on moral questions, what about incest?
If a father waits for his daughter to turn 18, should he be allowed to marry her? Why or why not?
There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.
So, why shouldn't dads be allowed to marry their daughters at 18?
Here's my question: For everyone who doesn't agree with people voting on moral questions, what about incest?
If a father waits for his daughter to turn 18, should he be allowed to marry her? Why or why not?
There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.
So, why shouldn't dads be allowed to marry their daughters at 18?