California Proposition 8

[Mare Tranquillity]

This entire post was very arrogant. You mockingly assume that everyone else is simply bigoted because they didn't reach the conclusions you reached, without actually debating anything said.

Finely you confirmed your arrogant position by saying that "learning can be dangerous because it requires one to change, and ignorance is static." Well I would agree, and you need to do a great amount of learning.

If you do not intend to actually debate the topic, spare us the prideful strutting around. You may impress those equally ignorant, but it does nothing for any of us.

Golly, Andy, the post was aimed at Sihouette who has claimed a major in biology, in fact anyone following the thread would know that it was directed to Sihouette specifically. I mockingly assume that anyone who majors in biology and then posts anecdotal-based stories to support theories applied universally is calling their own claimed expertise into question.

I'm deeply sorry that you felt belittled, but maybe it will help you understand how millions of Americans feel when people use their completely unprovable interpretation of ancient religious writings to disenfrachise them.

What an odd sense of proportion. Millions of people are denied the rights you accept for yourself and that's okay, but you are upset because someone seemed to be mocking you? Straining at gnats while swallowing camels, I'd say.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Thanks Andy. We don't always agree, but at least you nailed "Mare" on her/his arrogance.

That being said, I am simply using logic to get to the bottom of the gay marriage issue. That's why I presented the "Givens" and the "Conclusion" above. We have to weigh things logically, else we'll come back later and find a mistake we made that may not be able to be so easily undone.

Religion is fine, if you come to your beliefs as a result of weighing the edicts of that religion on your "logicometer". I think bringing religion into this discussion may actually be a clever device of a homosexual hellbent on swaying the topic away from the powerful tool of logic and towards the flimsy and defeatable platform of [implied] "I hate fags because the Bible says to."

Just a hunch?

Or it could be Leviticus 18:22, or maybe Leviticus 20:13, or maybe it's just that Christians burned Joan of Arc at the stake for being a transsexual.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You either believe what the bible says about Homosexuality which I do,
Or try to explain some kind of science behind it. But remember science
is complete human opinion.

The Bible is full of silly stuff like God saying it's okay to rape wives of vanquished enemies and kill their babies. And selling children or smearing feces in people faces, good stuff that and very God-like.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No, that was a very arrogant post. When you ASSUME that the only reason the other person is taking the position they are taking, is because of bigotry... you yourself are being a bigot.

Look at the end of his post, claiming that learning is dangerous because it requires us to change our views, and that ignorance is comfortable...

The comment did not exclude me, it's a universal truism. I had hoped that with a little encouragement the major in biology would kick in and provide something besides ONE human example from which all the conclusions seemed to have been drawn. Now I notice that she is suddenly referring to "scores" of people.

Realize that what he's saying is "I have it figured out. I learned. I know everything, and you don't yet, which is why you have a different view".

He is essentially saying that obviously we must not know anything to base our views on, because if we did, we'd obviously come to the same conclusion as our so brilliantly smart, and well informed Mare has.

Arrogant to the max.

Good summation of how I feel about the religious people who force their sect's tenets into law so they can hurt people they don't like.

 

[Andy]

Golly, Andy, the post was aimed at Sihouette who has claimed a major in biology, in fact anyone following the thread would know that it was directed to Sihouette specifically. I mockingly assume that anyone who majors in biology and then posts anecdotal-based stories to support theories applied universally is calling their own claimed expertise into question.

I'm deeply sorry that you felt belittled, but maybe it will help you understand how millions of Americans feel when people use their completely unprovable interpretation of ancient religious writings to disenfrachise them.

What an odd sense of proportion. Millions of people are denied the rights you accept for yourself and that's okay, but you are upset because someone seemed to be mocking you? Straining at gnats while swallowing camels, I'd say.

I was stating the truth of the post. My "feelings" on the matter are irrelevant.

Unprovable interpretations?
Mark 10:7 "That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Which part can I not prove? How do you interpret the word "man", "united" and "wife"?

Millions denied rights? Do tell how many men are denied the "right" to marry a woman? Or how many women, are denied the right to marry a man? Seems they have the exact same rights I do.

 

[Andy]

The comment did not exclude me, it's a universal truism. I had hoped that with a little encouragement the major in biology would kick in and provide something besides ONE human example from which all the conclusions seemed to have been drawn. Now I notice that she is suddenly referring to "scores" of people.

Well my first run in with a gay man, was a guy who had a bag with a tube shoved up his rear because it anal muscles had been torn to shreds by his choices, and without the rear end plug, his stool would dribble all over himself. That was ONE human example, but I found out that's actually a common problem for long term homosexual activity.

Good summation of how I feel about the religious people who force their sect's tenets into law so they can hurt people they don't like.

Funny, I feel like a sect of bigots is trying to enforce their views on me. Oh and by the way, I know of quite a few I do like very well. Holding an opposition view doesn't mean you don't like them. That's a lame strawman from the leftists.

I disagree with Sih on dozens of issues. Doesn't mean I have a low opinion of him personally. In fact, I have a fairly high opinion of Sih. I'd wager if given the chance, we'd likely get along very well is we met for coffee or something.

Back to the point. The domestic violence rate in a traditional marriage is roughly 5%. The violence rates among homosexual couples is 25% or 35% in some other countries. Nearly 75% of homosexual males admit to having over 100 partners with 28% claiming to have 10 times that. Over 60% of gays live alone. The average life span of a gay relationship for men is about 3 years, and about 2.2 for women. Traditional marriage by contrast, is over 10 years. 64% of men with AIDS report they have had sex with other men, regardless of if they are currently an active homosexual.

Even pro-gay magazines and web cites, as well as health journals, all conclude homosexuals have a much higher risk of: AIDS, Hepatitis A, B & C; many kinds of sexually transmitted diseases; anal cancer & other cancers; higher rates of alcohol dependence; tobacco use at 50% higher rates; eating disorders; high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts; debilitating health; and reduced life span (up to 20 years). The Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals.

Now... you claim I don't support gay marriage because I don't like these people? Here's my view. I do not support this life style because it's the most caring side I can take. The other option is to support the suffering these people are going through, and I can't do that. Sorry.

 

[Andy]

The Bible is full of silly stuff like God saying it's okay to rape wives of vanquished enemies and kill their babies. And selling children or smearing feces in people faces, good stuff that and very God-like.

Ha ha ha ha! Yeah ok Atheists support raping too.

If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion,Sam Harris explains, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.

 

[top gun]

The issue is now about law and democracy, in other words, majority rule. Homosexuals have a right to love whomever they want. They don't have the RIGHT to demand that California bend to their will. The voters of California have spoken, and they have as much right to have their voice heard as any special interest group. The fact that this decision was made according to the law of the land, votes, makes it a moot legal issue for now. They can try again when it comes up for another vote. In the meantime, they are cordially invited to move to a state where the laws are more to their liking.

Except this is a case where rights that were already granted were then taken away just to a particular group. One of two things will happen. The courts will either overturn it or the issue with it's new sense of urgency will be brought back up and the equal rights will be reinstated that way.

No one is hurt by a piece of paper giving legally binding marital rights to two adult individuals in love in a monogamous committed relationship.

Probably what should be done to really level the playing field for the Holy Rollers against a legal gay marriage is to have a vote making divorce and lying to God by breaking your vows illegal for the over 50% of heterosexual marriages that go belly up!

 

[Chip]

Except this is a case where rights that were already granted were then taken away just to a particular group.

There were no rights taken from homosexuals.

No matter what some previous court might have implied, homosexuals don't have the "right" to marry, as marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Thus all homosexuals had for awhile was a privilege granted by an erroneous activist court, not a right ... and that privilege was in violation of the time-honored definition of marriage.

So, rationally, that privilege was removed by the voters.

You don't have the right to bring a cat to a dog show. Cats are not dogs. And if those who produce the dog show want to allow a cat owner to bring his cat, they may grant that privilege, though understandably that improper inclusion will generate revolt among the dog owners at the show, and rightly so: cats just don't belong at a dog show by definition.

Likewise, homosexuals don't belong in a marriage, by definition. It is completely understandable that heterosexuals revolted at the thought of homosexuals marrying, just as it is completely understandable that dog owners would revolt against a cat being shown at the dog show.

This issue isn't about rights or religion or bias.

It's about definitive propriety.

 

[Sihouette]

Thanks Andy ...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Unprovable interpretations?
Mark 10:7 "That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Which part can I not prove? How do you interpret the word "man", "united" and "wife"?

Millions denied rights? Do tell how many men are denied the "right" to marry a woman? Or how many women, are denied the right to marry a man? Seems they have the exact same rights I do.

Same racist argument in a new guise: Every black man has the same right to marry a black woman as does every white to marry a white woman.

As far as your scriptures go, stop doing the easy ones, explain about rape, babie killing, selling children, owning slaves, tell us about the Jubilee years, tell us about God demanding that His children bake bread with their own feces and go out in public to eat it, tell us about the plague of emerods, tell us how God said that it was okay to kidnap virgins and rape them, and then turn them out.

 

[Sihouette]

Well my first run in with a gay man, was a guy who had a bag with a tube shoved up his rear because it anal muscles had been torn to shreds by his choices, and without the rear end plug, his stool would dribble all over himself. That was ONE human example, but I found out that's actually a common problem for long term homosexual activity.~ Andy

That is utterly disgusting, yet utterly true. I know of an old gay man in town who is also seen routinely hitting on adolescents and very young men who I've actually seen fecal stains and blood on the back of his trousers when walking into the Post Office. I almost threw up in my mouth.

That orifice was not intended for that type of activity and on this guy, it showed.

Sexual deviants just don't have a place modeling "normalcy" to society. He probably wants to adopt too...male babies likely..

It's sad because this same guy is a very bright man, a professor actually and has published some books on ecology. Yet there is this other side.... He was probably molested by a man as a child. I'd bet the house on it..

And that's the side that wants rights to "marry". I say no can do.

 

[Andy]

Same racist argument in a new guise: Every black man has the same right to marry a black woman as does every white to marry a white woman.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with race. Nor does the meaning of marriage apply to genetics or darwinism. You are trying to combine two things which have nothing in common.

As far as your scriptures go, stop doing the easy ones, explain about rape, babie killing, selling children, owning slaves, tell us about the Jubilee years, tell us about God demanding that His children bake bread with their own feces and go out in public to eat it, tell us about the plague of emerods, tell us how God said that it was okay to kidnap virgins and rape them, and then turn them out.

I've seen the laughable ranting on all these issues before. Thanks, but this thread is about California Prop 8, and the ability of people to marry, which everyone has.

If you want to talk about most of those willfully ignorant views of what the Bible teaches, that's great, but not in this thread. The plain answer is, it doesn't say that for most of those, and the ones that it does require you to believe in a G-d, and one who has the right to take life, as much as he has to give it.

 

[Andy]

That is utterly disgusting, yet utterly true. I know of an old gay man in town who is also seen routinely hitting on adolescents and very young men who I've actually seen fecal stains and blood on the back of his trousers when walking into the Post Office. I almost threw up in my mouth.

That orifice was not intended for that type of activity and on this guy, it showed.

Sexual deviants just don't have a place modeling "normalcy" to society. He probably wants to adopt too...male babies likely..

It's sad because this same guy is a very bright man, a professor actually and has published some books on ecology. Yet there is this other side.... He was probably molested by a man as a child. I'd bet the house on it..

And that's the side that wants rights to "marry". I say no can do.

Oh yeah. It's very common. While working at a caddy dealership, we had an old guy come in who was a big time CEO. But each time he drove in, he had a different young guy with him. Last I heard, he had aids. I wonder how many young guys he passed it on to before he died.

 

[Andy]

Or it could be Leviticus 18:22, or maybe Leviticus 20:13, or maybe it's just that Christians burned Joan of Arc at the stake for being a transsexual.

I don't see how the passage applies to Joan of Arc. Nor do I see credible evidence that Joan was transsexual. I'm also not surprised that you worry about what Christians did, when a vast number of other religious groups did the same.

That said, I agree with the passage. It is detestable. Maybe you don't mind blood and poop stains on your pants, or carrying a little baggy around with a hose shoved up your rear, but that's your choice, not mine.