Gay Marriage

[LunarRay]

LMK,


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF it is legal and especially if it is a protected Constitutional right one would think it to be moral, as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you have a right to get drunk, but to be an alcoholic is immoral.
Alcoholism is a disease. Is it immoral to have cancer or lupus or a virus?


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is legal to do then it is legal to do. If it is legal then one presumes it is not only just legal but moral. And, the converse would be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Law and morality, law and ethics, often diverge; this is why we argue over law from our various ethical and moral points of view.
So then there is more than one morality so long as there is more than one view. Who then decides which view and therefore, which morality to apply to the various issues? And, don't leave out the Athiest. They just don't share the religious view.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God didn't write the Constitution... We did.. all of us not just the believers of God. This is not heaven. This continues to be earth where the center is said to be molten rock not God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oh, don't misunderstand me. My argument in that case had nothing to do with gay marriage. If it did I?d have to be against athirst and agnostic marriage, which I?m not. I was just responding to 'deep thoughts' by Moonie Stardust.
Neither did mine. I'm saying that views is views and whilst it is logical and appropriate for a God Fearing Christian to have views consistent with that status and seek to have the law reflect those views there is one problem that must be overcome. And, that is all the rest of the folks who think differently. You must allow for the minority in this Nation. The Constitution forces you to do that as applicable but, even if we were without a Constitution and you could convert a super majority to a strict bible reading Christian view and then make law consistent with those views you'd have a real mess and a Nation just like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you group Bigots and Burned Out Hippies together as being myopic and arrogant?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

can't group anyone anyway.
and yes.
Oh.. heck.. I group folks all the time. Demographically. hehehehe
So that I may more reasonably understand your comments could you jot down a few traits one might be expected to find in a "Burned out Hippy" fully 30 years after that 'movement' ended.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

To CAD the cunning bigot, the wily weasel of the well turned wriggle, who has spent the last several days and paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to put a nice lawerly and legalistic face on his dead nuts desire to deny gay people the same simple access to the rights and priveleges ALL Americans should enjoy.

if all should enjoy it why do we limit it to 2 people? Why not allow all people access to the right of saying ?this person should be on my medical to? and ?we should be able to adopt??

Why draw lines around gays?

Because they are bigots. They want to limit people from the "right" to marry by limiting it to 2 people, or 2 people who aren't immediate family. How dare they trample the "rights" of these people only seeking the happiness and love the rest of us have.

:roll:

CkG

You still haven't explained to me, Caddy, my dear, why the courts should never have interfered with the states outlawing interacial marriage. How dare they. no?

I never said they shouldn't have. Race is not a choice - you can't change or choose that - it's not a lifestyle. As LMK stated -there are also Amendments that deal with racism. Now try to follow along here instead of trying to throw that racial turd into every discussion - it doesn't apply here. There is nothing that prevents a homosexual man from marrying a woman. The LAW even allows him to do it * gasp* :roll: So the only one "preventing" that homosexual man from getting "married" is himself. He could choose to marry a woman, but probably prefers a man. Well, the law doesn't allow for that choice if he wants the "marriage" to be recognized by the gov't.

Now I'm not sure why you are such a bigot but I'm sure you'll find some BS psychobabble to spew or just trot out your usual "mirror" tripe. You and others are guilty of what you claim others are based on your logic. Now again, why is it limited to TWO PEOPLE? Thought so...:roll:

Next...

CkG

Nobody has ever answered this question....

Why do people fear gays wanting to get married? And don't throw in that Christian babble either.

It's not a question of "fear" of them getting married. And you can't discount morality. Most of this nation's laws(if not all) are based on some standard of "morality".
Anyway, the reason they aren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex is because the law doesn't allow for for that. The law clearly states that a "spouse" is someone of the opposite sex. This isn't about taking something away, this is about homosexual advocates trying to change the definition of marriage and spouse. Courts don't write law so they have to push legislation changing how the gov't defines and recognizes marriage. They haven't put forth a good argument for that change yet. And no, "discrimination" or the "rights" argument don't work as I've stated before. A man(of any sexual orientation) can be "married" to a woman (of any sexual orientation).

It's really not that hard to understand.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Cad, when you have your gay affair please get back to me with that life-style crap. You are nothing but a bigot and a coward. You can instantly prove your case by having gay sex but you just won't do it. What a hypocrite. Homosexuality is choice for everybody but you. He he! Of course you have to believe that because it's all that keeps you from seeing your own evil. If race and sex were both immutable facts of life you would have to become conscious of the evil you do to those who, like you, only want to marry somebody they love. You place your bigotry above the happiness and equality of others.

And Cad, you can marry as many women as you like. You just can't marry them all at the same time. See the law is perfectly fair.

Umm, sorry - I don't swing that way and I think I'll stick with my wife thank-you-very much. Your little attempt is funny though...as if that would somehow change it being a "life-style" choice.:roll:
Yeah, I'm a bigot...because you say so...wow -that's rich coming from a bigot. A coward? Puhleeze. Who is the coward who hides behind his "mirror" and other psychobabble? Oh yeah...that's right...
Hehe, yeah the old "happiness" and "love" argument. So exactly why should the gov't change because two people of the same sex are in "love"? The gov't doesn't care about your "love" - it isn't charged with that duty. So again, please refrain from trying to base your argument on your emotion and instead focus on trying to present a case to the gov't as to why they should write new legislation changing the way marriage and spouse is defined.

Sure, I could marry many, but(using the "rights" and "love" argument of the homosexual advocates) who are you to restrict my right to marry those I "love" and find "happiness" with? Maybe it takes multiple women to soak up all my "love" and bring me ultimate "happiness"? Who are you to deny me that? - BIGOT!!!!

So please answer this, coward, why are those who wish to preserve the law as it is written - "bigots" when you wish to deny others of what you claim are "rights" to homosexuals? Will you admit your hypocrisy or will you support the enactment of legislation that allows for incest, polygamy, or other such things? Hmmm...

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

CAD,
It was just recently that we found out the placing a monument of the ten commandments on the foyer of a Court house was unconstitutional. Did the Supreme Court write a new law or interpret The Existing Law (the Constitution) and found that the Constitution did not provide a Right for the State to place that monument there and that a Right sought by the appellant not to have it there existed.
If you say they (USSC) interpreted the Constitution, then what is the difference between the Supreme Court finding a Right exists for Homosexual same sex marriage and that the Right of the States to deny it does not exist within the Constitution and the aforementioned Monument Issue?
If you say they (USSC) wrote law then how did they manage that?

 

[cquark]

They haven't put forth a good argument for that change yet. And no, "discrimination" or the "rights" argument don't work as I've stated before. A man(of any sexual orientation) can be "married" to a woman (of any sexual orientation).

You've almost got the point here, but your focus on sexual orientation has distracted you. The issue is same sex marriage. Ignore the opponents who twist the issue into one about gays or lesbians. The problem is that a man canot be married to another man and that a woman cannot be married to another woman, not that gay people aren't allowed to marry. After all, as you point above, they can get married, so it should be obvious to you that that's not what anyone is talking about.

The right that's been abridged by forbidding same sex marriage is the right to make a type of legal contract with a person you choose. People have the right to establish contracts under the US Constitution and section 1 of the 14th amendment guarantees the equal application of those laws to all people. In this case, men don't have a right that women have: the right to contract a marriage with a man, and women don't have a right that men have: the right to contract a marriage with a woman. That's what's unconstitutional.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
It was just recently that we found out the placing a monument of the ten commandments on the foyer of a Court house was unconstitutional. Did the Supreme Court write a new law or interpret The Existing Law (the Constitution) and found that the Constitution did not provide a Right for the State to place that monument there and that a Right sought by the appellant not to have it there existed.
If you say they (USSC) interpreted the Constitution, then what is the difference between the Supreme Court finding a Right exists for Homosexual same sex marriage and that the Right of the States to deny it does not exist within the Constitution and the aforementioned Monument Issue?
If you say they (USSC) wrote law then how did they manage that?

Because there is existing law that states such. The USSC hasn't even come into play(but I'm sure the activists will try) so I don't know why you think I say they wronte law. The fact of the matter is if the court strikes down a law because it finds it unconstitutional, that does not suddenly mean the opposite of that law is now law. It seems people think that is the case though. But the point still remains that there is no reason for the USSC to even deal with this issue because there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation. No where does it say a man(of any sexual orientation) can't marry a woman(of any sexual orientation), infact the law states exactly that. A man can marry a woman. There is no "sexual orientation" involved - it is stating that one gender can marry the other and be recognized by the state. It doesn't prevent a homosexual from having a "spouse" and thus being "married".

CkG

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

To CAD the cunning bigot, the wily weasel of the well turned wriggle, who has spent the last several days and paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to put a nice lawerly and legalistic face on his dead nuts desire to deny gay people the same simple access to the rights and priveleges ALL Americans should enjoy.

if all should enjoy it why do we limit it to 2 people? Why not allow all people access to the right of saying ?this person should be on my medical to? and ?we should be able to adopt??

Why draw lines around gays?

Because they are bigots. They want to limit people from the "right" to marry by limiting it to 2 people, or 2 people who aren't immediate family. How dare they trample the "rights" of these people only seeking the happiness and love the rest of us have.

:roll:

CkG

You still haven't explained to me, Caddy, my dear, why the courts should never have interfered with the states outlawing interacial marriage. How dare they. no?

I never said they shouldn't have. Race is not a choice - you can't change or choose that - it's not a lifestyle. As LMK stated -there are also Amendments that deal with racism. Now try to follow along here instead of trying to throw that racial turd into every discussion - it doesn't apply here. There is nothing that prevents a homosexual man from marrying a woman. The LAW even allows him to do it * gasp* :roll: So the only one "preventing" that homosexual man from getting "married" is himself. He could choose to marry a woman, but probably prefers a man. Well, the law doesn't allow for that choice if he wants the "marriage" to be recognized by the gov't.

Now I'm not sure why you are such a bigot but I'm sure you'll find some BS psychobabble to spew or just trot out your usual "mirror" tripe. You and others are guilty of what you claim others are based on your logic. Now again, why is it limited to TWO PEOPLE? Thought so...:roll:

Next...

CkG

Nobody has ever answered this question....

Why do people fear gays wanting to get married? And don't throw in that Christian babble either.

It's not a question of "fear" of them getting married. And you can't discount morality. Most of this nation's laws(if not all) are based on some standard of "morality".
Anyway, the reason they aren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex is because the law doesn't allow for for that. The law clearly states that a "spouse" is someone of the opposite sex. This isn't about taking something away, this is about homosexual advocates trying to change the definition of marriage and spouse. Courts don't write law so they have to push legislation changing how the gov't defines and recognizes marriage. They haven't put forth a good argument for that change yet. And no, "discrimination" or the "rights" argument don't work as I've stated before. A man(of any sexual orientation) can be "married" to a woman (of any sexual orientation).

It's really not that hard to understand.

CkG

Ok, why can't laws be changed? Plus, if it did change, would it affect you? Would it hurt anyone? I'd said no, not at all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Ok, why can't laws be changed? Plus, if it did change, would it affect you? Would it hurt anyone? I'd said no, not at all.

Didn't say it couldn't be changed. I just don't think the change is necessary.
No, not directly. I'm sure there would be some societal ramifications and possibly some other things but that doesn't change the fact that I don't think it should be changed.
Maybe not, but again that doesn't mean it should be changed.



CkG

 

[LordMagnusKain]

we ought to be able to deny fundie bigots from marrying too. They only reproduce and brainwash more bigots.

sounds good to me, and if your state would like to amend their constitution to keep marriage from being between one man and one woman, then that?s your prerogative.

I'm still trying to figure out just who it was that Cain married to start all of this... I mean there was Adam and Eve... Able is dead... So... who did Cain marry..

he mated with other humans that populated the land.

This situation is analagous to same sex marriage in some ways, and while there are some issues regarding benefits that would likely require changes to the law, I don't see a problem with this idea.

my argument isn?t that they are situations that are analogous in any way other than that polygamy, bestiality and gay mirage are based on the majority moral view.

you have a right to get drunk, but to be an alcoholic is immoral.
Alcoholism is a disease. Is it immoral to have cancer or lupus or a virus?

LOL! A ?life style disease? isn?t a disease, it?s just an excuse for not having self control. I?ll grant you this, screwing another guy is as much a choice as drinking that next beer.

Who then decides which view and therefore, which morality to apply to the various issues?

the population through the strong constitutional/representative system of democracy.

You must allow for the minority in this Nation.

I agree completely. The question is, do we allow the minority to repress the majority because the minority uses hate-speech against the majority and some buy into it: I?m thinking not.

Ok, why can't laws be changed?

Sure they can, which is fine by me, as long as they are changed via the electorate.

Would it hurt anyone? I'd said no, not at all.

I disagree, and have outlined it, numerous times.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
It was just recently that we found out the placing a monument of the ten commandments on the foyer of a Court house was unconstitutional. Did the Supreme Court write a new law or interpret The Existing Law (the Constitution) and found that the Constitution did not provide a Right for the State to place that monument there and that a Right sought by the appellant not to have it there existed.
If you say they (USSC) interpreted the Constitution, then what is the difference between the Supreme Court finding a Right exists for Homosexual same sex marriage and that the Right of the States to deny it does not exist within the Constitution and the aforementioned Monument Issue?
If you say they (USSC) wrote law then how did they manage that?

Because there is existing law that states such. The USSC hasn't even come into play(but I'm sure the activists will try) so I don't know why you think I say they wronte law. The fact of the matter is if the court strikes down a law because it finds it unconstitutional, that does not suddenly mean the opposite of that law is now law. It seems people think that is the case though. But the point still remains that there is no reason for the USSC to even deal with this issue because there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation. No where does it say a man(of any sexual orientation) can't marry a woman(of any sexual orientation), infact the law states exactly that. A man can marry a woman. There is no "sexual orientation" involved - it is stating that one gender can marry the other and be recognized by the state. It doesn't prevent a homosexual from having a "spouse" and thus being "married".

CkG

The first Para makes a statement. I assume the statement to be true. The second para asks a question. The question asked has not to do with anything but what the question asks.
Do you agree with the first para? If so, would there be a difference (see second para) and if not, how did they manage to write law?
You see.. we do have to start somewhere. Seems as good a place as any to me.
You say Courts write law.. I want to understand better what you mean.
cquark posted my next response to what I thought you may answer so I'll have to borrow it and ask do you agree with him or not?

 

[LunarRay]

LMK,

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still trying to figure out just who it was that Cain married to start all of this... I mean there was Adam and Eve... Able is dead... So... who did Cain marry..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

he mated with other humans that populated the land

That would mean one of four things.
Because we speak of the first book of Moses we must conclude the following:
God made other humans but it goes unmentioned;
Adam and Eve had a few daughters and Cain married one of them;
Cain and Eve produced offspring;
The mention of 'sons of man' and 'sons of God' are different and that Cain didn't produce from his direct family but, rather, fallen angels came down and created kids from the further issue of Adam and Eve and this is how we got to Sodom and all that.. and further, that Noah and family were the only reasonably pure issue from Adam and Eve... somehow.. or that they were the only ones God found to be worth his blessing for survival.
Edify me with your thoughts on this.. (not a trap) curious is all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The first Para makes a statement. I assume the statement to be true. The second para asks a question. The question asked has not to do with anything but what the question asks.
Do you agree with the first para? If so, would there be a difference (see second para) and if not, how did they manage to write law?
You see.. we do have to start somewhere. Seems as good a place as any to me.
You say Courts write law.. I want to understand better what you mean.
cquark posted my next response to what I thought you may answer so I'll have to borrow it and ask do you agree with him or not?

No, I don't buy into your premise or atleast your wording of it.
I didn't say courts write law. I believe I said that courts don't write law (meaning legislation) However most people think by courts ruling on the constitutionality of a particular law that instantly the opposite of the law struck down is now "the law" -which certainly is not the case.
The attempt in Mass. was about as blatant as it comes. The court telling the legislature what to write and how, and then demanding a timetable. THAT was definately out of their realm of power. Courts do not hold that power over the legislature.

cquark almost has a point except for the points I brought up alot earlier about how the gov't already sets limits on "marriage". The gov't has put for guidlines for those wishing to be recognized by the state as legally married and the gov't doesn't recognize those who don't follow or meet the requirements of said guidelines.
Now some will say that is "discrimination" -we sure, it most definately is, but it isn't the "bad" kind like most are accustomed to thinking of when people say "discrimination". Every law is "discriminitory" and includes or excludes people. In this case it includes those who fit the definition of "spouse" and "marriage" and excludes those who do not. The people excluded by those guidelines are more than just "homosexuals" though so you'd have to include everyone and everything if you wanted to rid it of "discrimination".

However, this country leaves the legislation avenues open for even us mere citizens to propose legislation - I suggest those of you who wish to change what the gov't recognizes as a "marriage" get together and write some legislation and get it passed.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

LMK,

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you have a right to get drunk, but to be an alcoholic is immoral.
Alcoholism is a disease. Is it immoral to have cancer or lupus or a virus?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL! A ?life style disease? isn?t a disease, it?s just an excuse for not having self control. I?ll grant you this, screwing another guy is as much a choice as drinking that next beer.

Well.. gee.. the same majority of society that seems to call Homosexual behavior immoral has called Alcoholism a disease. You don't seem to accept the one part but accept the other.
What authority would you need to accept that alcoholism is a disease just like all the other classified diseases? Would there exist an authority that you'd accept? And, if not why not? If so, then would you accept similar authority opinions on their area of expertise?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

eidt:

What authority would you need to accept that alcoholism is a disease just like all the other classified diseases?

the classification of something as a desase and saying it?s something you?ve got no personal choice about are two different things. There are many connotative meanings behind calling something a diseases, connotations that don?t apply to alcoholism. You tried to argue for alcoholism as a disease misusing those exact connotations.

God made other humans but it goes unmentioned;

Clearly the bible says that during the 6th day God created humans.

26God said, "Now we will make humans, and they will be like us. We will let them rule the fish, the birds, and all other living creatures."
27So God created humans to be like himself; he made men and women.

CEVbecause it?s often hard to tell what king-James was saying 400+ years ago, so this is re-translated from the oldest texts available in commonly spoken English.

Same day when clearly later Adam is around for a while before God gives him a woman. The creation and fall of the first man in his moving away from the perfect level of creation of God is something entirely different from the creation of our species.

I believe it to be the creation of our species as God's hand willed it through the history of the earth; Animals being the panicle of that creation, humans being the greatest of all animals.

I suggest those of you who wish to change what the gov't recognizes as a "marriage" get together and write some legislation and get it passed

definitely a good idea; And Utah should be able to have legislation allowing polygamy.

But then they aren?t, as per federal rulings and law making marriage between one man and one woman.

But it?d support a constitutional amendment making the definition something that can differ from state to state and something that the federal government has no hand in.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The first Para makes a statement. I assume the statement to be true. The second para asks a question. The question asked has not to do with anything but what the question asks.
Do you agree with the first para? If so, would there be a difference (see second para) and if not, how did they manage to write law?
You see.. we do have to start somewhere. Seems as good a place as any to me.
You say Courts write law.. I want to understand better what you mean.
cquark posted my next response to what I thought you may answer so I'll have to borrow it and ask do you agree with him or not?

No, I don't buy into your premise or atleast your wording of it.
I didn't say courts write law. I believe I said that courts don't write law (meaning legislation) However most people think by courts ruling on the constitutionality of a particular law that instantly the opposite of the law struck down is now "the law" -which certainly is not the case.
The attempt in Mass. was about as blatant as it comes. The court telling the legislature what to write and how, and then demanding a timetable. THAT was definately out of their realm of power. Courts do not hold that power over the legislature.
Supreme Courts can and often do suggest remedy when it is appropriate. It is suggestive in manner. Sorta like "'it is remanded and don't let it come back like this.. here, this would work." Fact is that when a law is found to be unconstitutional it is unenforcable, it is void... caput, finito. Don't know what the opposite might be but that would presume an enforcable opposite.. hehehhee Florida, had that occur in 2000 but, you'd not know about that issue you being from Iowa..

cquark almost has a point except for the points I brought up alot earlier about how the gov't already sets limits on "marriage". The gov't has put for guidlines for those wishing to be recognized by the state as legally married and the gov't doesn't recognize those who don't follow or meet the requirements of said guidelines.
That statement sounds like that once 'government' makes a law.. the part of government that makes them laws... that it is sacrosanct. The the body of government given the authority - final authority - to determine if that law is constitutional does not have that authority. I, of course disagree and opine that someone has to assert a right denied (in this case) and it is for the Court to determine this and not the legislature. If they, the legislators, don't like the decision they can try to Amend their Constitution to effect what their law could not.
However, this country leaves the legislation avenues open for even us mere citizens to propose legislation - I suggest those of you who wish to change what the gov't recognizes as a "marriage" get together and write some legislation and get it passed.
I don't have to CAD, I insist the right exists already and that the USSC will affirm this. Then the old shoe is on the other foot... YOU and YOURS go and Amend OUR Constitution to effect what YOUR law tried to do! hehehhehehehe We'll see in time one way or another.. and if you had the lawyers advising Bush you too would conclude it will take an Amendment to "Protect Marriage" from the immoral thwarters of societial norms.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

LMK,
Using your reference we find following in chapter 2 the following:
The Garden of Eden
5no grass or plants were growing anywhere. God had not yet sent any rain, and there was no one to work the land. 6But streams [1] came up from the ground and watered the earth. 7The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man. [2] God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing. 8The LORD made a garden in a place called Eden, which was in the east, and he put the man there. 9The LORD God placed all kinds of beautiful trees and fruit trees in the garden. Two other trees were in the middle of the garden. One of the trees gave life--the other gave the power to know the difference between right and wrong.
10From Eden a river flowed out to water the garden, then it divided into four rivers. 11The first one is the Pishon River that flows through the land of Havilah, 12where pure gold, rare perfumes, and precious stones are found. 13The second is the Gihon River that winds through Ethiopia. [3] 14The Tigris River that flows east of Assyria is the third, and the fourth is the Euphrates River. 15The LORD God put the man in the Garden of Eden to take care of it and to look after it. 16But the LORD told him, "You may eat fruit from any tree in the garden, 17except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"
18The LORD God said, "It isn't good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him." 19-20So the LORD took some soil and made animals and birds. He brought them to the man to see what names he would give each of them. Then the man named the tame animals and the birds and the wild animals. That's how they got their names.
None of these was the right kind of partner for the man. 21So the LORD God made him fall into a deep sleep, and he took out one of the man's ribs. Then after closing the man's side, 22the LORD made a woman out of the rib.
The LORD God brought her to the man, 23and the man exclaimed,
"Here is someone like me!
She is part of my body,
my own flesh and bones.
She came from me, a man.
So I will name her Woman!" [4] 24That's why a man will leave his own father and mother. He marries a woman, and the two of them become like one person.
25Although the man and his wife were both naked, they were not ashamed.

Edit... then read Genesis 6 from your reference and tell me if them Supernatural Beings are fallen angels.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The story of the spiritual fall of man, found in Gen2, is set outside of time. The account of the creation of life on earth found in Gen1 is part of a linear accounting of creation.

then read Genesis 6 from your reference and tell me if them Supernatural Beings are fallen angels

At very least they weren?t from earth.

If I where Moonie it?d say that the higher the spiritual level a life is created at the more of the greater creation it understands, as the inequity of existence is purified through self sacrifice and mutual cooperation a particular spiritual being finds it?s way into a greater understanding of that under it.

But I?m not, so I don?t have that kind of insight.

As for gays marrying, well that?s just impossible.

 

[0roo0roo]

I agree completely. The question is, do we allow the minority to repress the majority because the minority uses hate-speech against the majority and some buy into it: I?m thinking not.

being "offended" is not repression. white southerners would be offended by the very thought of black people having civil rights. and frankly it probably disgusted a great many that they existed at all. but this is not a valid reason for oppressing others in this country, especially when there is no scientific proof that it really affects them in any way that justifies repressing a minority. bigots have a tendency to try to spin the arguement in a way where they can play the victim, rather disgusting tactic.

as for hate speech, i guess the civil rights movement calling bigots what they were would be considered hate speech to you sometimes the truth is just the truth.

 

[Zebo]

nm

 

[LordMagnusKain]

i guess the civil rights movement calling bigots what they were would be considered hate speech to you

Proof would help your case and proving that holding to moral standards is bigotry is a whole lot harder to do than proving that keeping someone from bettering their lives because of the way they are born is bigotry.

bigots have a tendency to try to spin the argument in a way where they can play the victim, rather disgusting tactic.

yes what you a-moralists who are intolerantly devoted to your own prejudice in this issue try to do is disgusting.

 

[0roo0roo]

whats disgusting is people like you who spend their time trying to repress others, screaming that YOU are being repressed for not being allowed to repress others lol sad

 

[LordMagnusKain]

screaming that YOU are being repressed for not being allowed to repress others

the only repression going on is that of the moral majority by the a-moral minority and judicial activists.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
You guys still on this?

Go home, the movie's over.

This isn't going to go away just like Gays are not going to magically dissapear simply because they have been outlawed. They will be repressed and oprressed until their numbers are large enough and join forces with other represssed and oppresed groups by the Majority running the Asylum that they will be a significant reason for the U.S. plunging into Civil War II. Like I said they won't be the only reason just like Slavery was not the only reason for Civil War I.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

This isn't going to go away just like Gays are not going to magically dissapear simply because they have been outlawed.

gays haven?t been outlawed.

Making gross assertions of little consequence may work well as flame-bate thread starters, but it?s only worthy of a ?:roll: ? here.

Majority running the Asylum that they will be a significant reason for the U.S. plunging into Civil War II.

if i could legally shoot you to help put an end to abortion...
Well I wouldn't do it.

... but I?d be tempted.

but gay marriage, that isn't an issue worth fighting someone over.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

but gay marriage, that isn't an issue worth fighting someone over.

There you go, the REAL feelings of the Repressors and Oppresors comes out.

Gays are just low life scum, gotcha.