Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The politicization of homosexualityFollow

#102 Feb 23 2004 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
sigh. no, and once again someone takes an analogy and uses an aspect not involved in the comparison to try and make the analogy seem something other than it was meant.


So it's the reader's fault that they misunderstood you and not your fault for not using a hopelessly flawed analogy? You know I have nothing against you or your opinions, and whether I think you are wrong or right is really quite immaterial. I just think that you should probably pick better analogies in the future.
#103 Feb 23 2004 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Jophiel, what happened to your guru-dom?
Jehovah struck me down for supoorting the evil Sodomites.

Luckily, a quick prayer to Freya, goddess of.. umm.. tacky theme resturants with chipper waitresses, managed to restore me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#104 Feb 23 2004 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,291 posts
I know you are not talking to me now, Empyre, but HOW is it more unsafe than a blatant public safety violation? HOW?

____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#105 Feb 23 2004 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
But the issue of driving 140 mph is applicable to this situation. Each of you in favor of homosexual marriage are in effect using the "no harm, no foul" rule as a basis for overturning something which is tradition and law. Yet based on that reasoning a brother and a sister should be allowed to be married or a man and his granddaughter. They only have to be cicumspect and not have children, right? But really, it's their choice. A safety issue is what it boils down to is what each of you are saying.

In the same I should be able to drive 140 in a residential neighborhood as long as I don't inflict any damage on other individuals or property. For that matter, we don't need any laws providing nobody get hurt in the process of living, because laws just get in the way of me living my life to the fullest.

Again, good luck with that line of thinking when your kids want to throw over the traces and disobey your house rules. Coming in at 4 AM doesn't hurt anybody, mom and dad. Lay off me, alright? Getting D's on my report card doesn't hurt anybody-- get off my back! Why should I clean my room? It's the way I like to live my life. Butt out of my business, old man.

Totem
#106 Feb 23 2004 at 4:01 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,291 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Jehovah struck me down for supoorting the evil Sodomites.


Dem Sodomites are a good time. Smiley: wink2
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#107 Feb 23 2004 at 4:03 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Incestual marriage = public safety issue

Not according to your line of logic. They just need to not have children and "normal" married couples do that all the time, right? Like hemophiliacs or diabetics. You wouldn't stop them from getting married, right?

And I'm sure you wouldn't any trouble with your kid at 16 dating, say, a 50 year old, right? It's their choice after all.

Totem
#108 Feb 23 2004 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
I'm not turning it into a race debate. I didn't even bring race into it, just simply showed that the debate as it stands has nothing to do with race,


Neither am i Empyre which is why i qualified it so that no one could make the mistake of thinking i was thats all.

Quote:
so as silly as the chicken statement was, it was no inaccurate in relation to this institutions definitions as between man and man or woman and woman. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.


we are having this debate because Homophobe like yourself see Gays and lesbians as lesser people than yourselves, which is kinda funny since the ammount of gay pastors in the christian church is rather high.

Equal rights should mean exactly that.
#109 Feb 23 2004 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Butt out of my business, old man.


Dude, you're a f'ckin ****.

:)



Edited, Mon Feb 23 16:13:20 2004 by MoebiusLord
#110 Feb 23 2004 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Regardless of whether or not you hit someone, the potential for harm by driving 140MPH down Penny Lane is considerably greater than that of allowing Bob and Joe to get legally hitched. I fail to see where homosexual marriage is an actual issue of public safety. Most states have already struck down their antiquated anti-sodomy laws so we've already determined that there is nothing innately illegal about homosexuality itself, correct? Exactly how would allowing them legal marriage rights cause more of a safety issue?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#111 Feb 23 2004 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
And surely if you object purely on a 'gays might transmit HIV' line then having them married and therefore commited to one partner would reduce that risk not raise it.
#112 Feb 23 2004 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem, please stop babbling about incest or marrying cats or whatever. You're putting yourself into the ranks of of debating retards who come up with amazing arguements like:
"Hey, more people die from hamburgers than guns! How come they don't make you register to get a hamburger!"
"Man, I got to pay a buck to enter this city zoo? Why don't they just charge me for breathing, too? I mean, it's the city's air, right?"
--and even--
"WTF? Bush said he attacked Iraq because Saddam is evil. Well, China is evil too so how come Bush ain't attacking them Chinese, huh??"

If you want to discuss the pros and cons of incestual marriage, driving over the speed limit or even letting your kid gets D's in school, we can do that later. Right now, it's about homosexuals and if they should be allowed to marry. If your only concern is that allowing gay marriage might lead to mothers and sons getting hitched, maybe we should cut those gays a break and concentrate our efforts on preventing incest.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Feb 23 2004 at 4:24 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Totem, please stop babbling about incest or marrying cats or whatever. You're putting yourself into the ranks of of debating retards who come up with amazing arguements like:...


Your jedi mind tricks have no power here.
#114 Feb 23 2004 at 4:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Ok, since this is getting confusing as hell trying to follow all these quotes, a brief primer

Adding an = and the persons's name to the quote as so, without the space

personsname wrote:


[quote=personsname]

yelds this, clearly identifying the name of the person as the author of the quote. Simple, easy, everyone can do it right?


[/quote ]

I hereby officially declare that anyone failing to use the name portion of the quote at least once in their posts to be the loser of whatever point they were arguing from this point forward by default.
#115 Feb 23 2004 at 4:37 PM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
Quote:
So it's the reader's fault that they misunderstood you and not your fault for not using a hopelessly flawed analogy? You know I have nothing against you or your opinions, and whether I think you are wrong or right is really quite immaterial. I just think that you should probably pick better analogies in the future.


well yes, its your fault if you take it wrong. there are people (some on this board) who purposely take everything a person says as wrong as they can for the sheer sake of argument. THATS not my fault..if you take it wrong, I am sorry..I try to explain in many cases until I'm blue in the face...but if you just don't get it, I'm gonna give up after a bit.

Quote:
I know you are not talking to me now, Empyre, but HOW is it more unsafe than a blatant public safety violation? HOW?


seriously Tare..your gonna hurt yourself. you couldn't argue so you tried quoting, now someone else is responding so your resorting to "yeah! what they said! HA in your face!" your like that annoying little dog in the dog food commercial..maybe a little funny at first, but after a while its just annoying.

Quote:
we are having this debate because Homophobe like yourself see Gays and lesbians as lesser people than yourselves, which is kinda funny since the ammount of gay pastors in the christian church is rather high.

Equal rights should mean exactly that.


are you blind, not reading or just plain ignorant? If I'm a homophobe, i'm some sort of ****** because I have gay friends and even visit gay clubs at times with friends. you people really need to learn to read before you post. and gay pastors in the christian churches? sure..one religion even allowed gay priests in NH. But I never said I supported them, so I'm not really sure how you think this possibly fuels your argument past the point at feeble childish swats at some sort of character your trying to depict me as having contrary to what I've displayed or even better *gasp* actually live.

I know the church is corrupt. Personally I believe that Jeremiah, Isaiah and Revelation speak of todays day seeing the end of the church age. That like the days when God stopped moving in the synagogs (sp?) and started in the churches, the same has now moved FROM the churches to individuals. All your showing me with that statement is that the bible is correct and judgement day is not far away..which means I can finally stop defending my views on a freakin messageboard and you can all see for yourself when your standing in front of God himself. Smiley: wink

EDIT: just to let ya know, however..don't want to mislead. the view of the end of the church age I'm still researching on to find complete truth in myself. I do believe we are seeing end times...just not completely sure of the age we are in.

EDIT2:
non-loser wrote:
I hereby officially declare that anyone failing to use the name portion of the quote at least once in their posts to be the loser of whatever point they were arguing from this point forward by default.


I'm a loser.

Edited, Mon Feb 23 16:42:54 2004 by Empyre
#116 Feb 23 2004 at 4:46 PM Rating: Decent
I find it ironic that we have returned in this thread to incest as the Bible is so clear on it:

Genesis 19:30 to 19:38 follow:

30: And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31: And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33: And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34: And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father.
35: And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36: Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
37: And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
38: And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.


From http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvGene.html

I don't have a hardcopy handy, but this falls along the lines I recall from memory.

Further, recall both the bible and the US constitution institutionalize slavery. We have to use our (God given - if you believe in that) powers of reason to help us decide right and wrong, which is why discussion such as this is great - unless our powers of reason are limited to "well that is what the book says!" in which case this is just a waste of time.
#117 Feb 23 2004 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Jophiel, it's called incrementalism. It is the same concept as giving an inch and taking a mile or a camel getting its' nose under the tent.

Right off hand marrying my cat sounds outrageous. But when viewed from the perspective of inching your way towards a political goal-- and not for the publically stated goal* --then the "slippery slope" argument applies. The basis for homosexuals getting state recognised marriges is ostensibly for civil rights, yet somehow it is unjustified when I bring up siblings who want to get married. What, is that so preposterous or unthinkable? And once we allow siblings, why not animals? PETA would have you believe that animals have the same equal rights as humans. Why is their political position so much more unpalatable than what homosexual marriage proponents are saying?

If everything is negotiable, then what is the point of having a law anyways? Do away with all laws but one: No Harm, No Foul. Anything goes as long as nobody gets hurt. That is what incrementalism equates to.

There is nothing unreasonable or refutable in my argument.

Totem

*This is in reference to the political goal of achieving marriage and then not actually taking advantage of it as is supposedly happening in Toronto

Edited, Mon Feb 23 16:49:45 2004 by Totem
#118 Feb 23 2004 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,291 posts
The Great Empyre wrote:
seriously Tare..your gonna hurt yourself. you couldn't argue so you tried quoting, now someone else is responding so your resorting to "yeah! what they said! HA in your face!" your like that annoying little dog in the dog food commercial..maybe a little funny at first, but after a while its just annoying.


Lol. I was quoting for fun on a completely different thread and you got your knickers in a twist about it. Boo frickin' hoo.

I responded to you in that manner because you have not addressed a single thing I have asked you in this thread. Ask another question, still no response. I shall try again.

Please, do tell, how is a marriage between two gay persons is equally as dangerous to public safety as driving 140 mph through a neighborhood?

I am actually trying to have a discussion with you, Empyre. Don't blame me if you can't keep up. See, this is how "discussions" work. I ask a question, you respond (maybe with a few questions yourself) and we debate. If you are going to get all upset everytime anyone challenges what you have to say, go back to the main EQ forum. I am not at all upset; just trying to get you to back up what you say or at least argue it, without resorting to "you're annoying, Tare" or "you suck, Tare."

My bad, I underestimated you.












____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#119 Feb 23 2004 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Empyre wrote:
are you blind, not reading or just plain ignorant? If I'm a homophobe, i'm some sort of ****** because I have gay friends and even visit gay clubs at times with friends. you people really need to learn to read before you post


1. I have never seen you post that infomation maybe it was on a different thread, but given that you have a gay friend what would you say to that friend if he was in a longstanding monogamous<sp?> relationship?

would you say :- ' your relationship is evil in the eye's of god and i will not support it, even though as a friend i should wish you happiness <which i think is the christian thing to do, you know wish people happiness>. Your friends must value you so much you hypocrite.

as for God's judgement:- I do not believe in god but i would stand in front of him if there where with no fear that i treated my fellow man with unseeming hatred and lack of charity, that i treated all gods people with equal respect regardless of race, sex and sexual preferance. Can you say the same?

Edited, Mon Feb 23 16:54:53 2004 by tarv
#120 Feb 23 2004 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
Quote:
I find it ironic that we have returned in this thread to incest as the Bible is so clear on it:

Genesis 19:30 to 19:38 follow:


tell me. was this before or after God sent moses from the top of Mt Sinai with the 10 commandments for us to live by? We quote and revisit a time in history when Hitler murdered many, but most of us don't condone his behavior nor believe it was right.

besides that, we can't even decide where the heck we came from, let alone understand what life was like that long ago. nice try.

and for the record, I am agreeing with Totem. Do a search for bestiality and see what people will do for attention and money. Do we want to pollute our system even further than it already is by allowing yellow stickies to be added to our system and pave the way for anyone with a special interest to give themselves special rights?

Quote:
1. I have never seen you post that infomation maybe it was on a different thread, but given that you have a gay friend what would you say to that friend if he was in a longstanding monogamous<sp?> relationship?


I happen to have many gay friends. 2 of which live closeby and are 2 males in a relationship that has lasted quite some time now. They know how I feel about it, and also know that I do not judge them because I do not have that right. I am able to respect their decision to do what they wish as they respect my decision to believe in what I believe. Which is more than I can say for most people here that just like to hear themselves talk.

EDIT:

Quote:
as for God's judgement:- I do not believe in god but i would stand in front of him if there where with no fear that i treated my fellow man with unseeming hatred and lack of charity, that i treated all gods people with equal respect regardless of race, sex and sexual preferance. Can you say the same?


Rom 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Rom 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way.

believe what you want man..thats your choice. arrogance is an easy virtue to maintain here..i get the feeling it wont matter much standing in front of the one that created you.

Edited, Mon Feb 23 17:13:26 2004 by Empyre
#121 Feb 23 2004 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
"Please, do tell, how is a marriage between two gay persons is equally as dangerous to public safety as driving 140 mph through a neighborhood?"-- Tare

Let me turn that around, Tare, and answer your question with a question. As long as I hurt no one while driving 140 mph through a neighborhood, why shouldn't I be allowed to do so? Your statement has several assumptions in it which have not been proven or validated except by sketchy anecdotal evidence at best: Homosexual marriages do not harm to the community at large and children specifically. And while adoptions by gays are allowed, that is not in any way a slam dunk as to any long term effects on the children.

So what the question boils down to is this: What are we as a society willing to negotiate on? And if one standard is mallable why should it not be mallable for another particular "minority" (I use that word cringingly, since gays are not a minority in my opinion as defined by the common understanding of it)?

Social experimentation and change which is based on trendy and expendable political issues is not a valid reason to reverse millenia of tradition.

Totem
#122 Feb 23 2004 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
There is nothing unreasonable or refutable in my argument
By your logic, there should never be another law passed in the United States ever. Each law either takes away or grants some sort of rights or abilities. So to pass a law is to push us towards one extreme or the other. Each No Parking sign is a step towards a police state, each sign taken down is a lurch towards anarchy and chaos.

Whatever.

Again, give some real reasons why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Do you even have any? Or do you rely totally on the threat of incestual boogiemen to make sure your moral agenda is kept?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Feb 23 2004 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
no one said we should never change laws. the nation has spoken and said as a majority not to touch the institution of marriage. we are stating why, and the government apparently supports this. Blame the SF mayor and the handful of judges that took the law into their own hands and spoke differently misleading thousands of gay people in the country if you want to blame someone.

you fools keep asking us why and we are telling you why. you just dont like our answers because they don't make you feel all warm and fuzzy. don't ask the question if you don't want an answer.

and for Tare, don't ask the question if you don't understand whats coming out of your mouth.
#124 Feb 23 2004 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Quite simple, Jophiel, because homosexuality is wrong. Is it a terrible wrong as many people would have you believe? I think not, certainly no more than any other venal sin to use the Catholic measure of wrongdoing. It's no more wrong than lying, laziness, or gluttony.

I can accept that some people think that homosexuality is OK, normal, or just different. But there are plenty of people who think gorging themselves to morbid obesity is fine too, regardless of the dangers (sins) involved. After all, just go to your nearest McDonalds and look at the pigs eating at the trough.

But just because fat people are everywhere in society doesn't mean that that is acceptable behavior. And these people --homosexuals and fatties alike --should take steps to stop engaging in the wrong that they are participating in.

If you disagree with me, that's fine, but homosexuality being sin is the basis for my reasoning. For me to explain why I think homosexuals are not deserving of marriage is as apparently obtuse to some of you as you understanding my position that there are moral absolutes in this world. I would think this goes without saying, but obviously not.

:/

Totem
#125 Feb 23 2004 at 5:28 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem Said:
Quote:
If everything is negotiable, then what is the point of having a law anyways?
Each time you pass a law, you're negotiating. When you pass a law banning hanguns, the question inevitably arises why not rifles? When you allow some concealed carry, the question arises why not have everyone packing heat? Totem's fear is that people think if a little is good, a lot is better. You can say that about every situation; on its own it doesn't discount the original little bit being good.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126 Feb 23 2004 at 5:28 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
well yes, its your fault if you take it wrong.


That deserves a response akin to the ones given to gamers seeking advice here, Empyre. It is one of the most retarded things I have seen in quite some time that didn't come out of Katie's keyboard.

That you are tired of losing in your attempts to convert all here to your way of thinking is no reason to be lazy. Use good analogies and people will not be able to twist them. Throw some ill-conceived half-assed attempt at a gross over-simplification up there and you will get what you got. It is incumbant on you, the person making the point, to make that point accesible, and not so totally far-fetched *** to incite Totem to dog matrimony. Thank you, that is all.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 329 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (329)