California Proposition 8

[Andy]

You brought up anal sex... go back a post and look.

How does that make your comment of any value? Would it make a difference if 50 other people brought it up? How does that change the effects of it? Or the long term dangers? Or anything? It doesn't. Just like your post doesn't have a point. Moving on.

Andy I've told you before I only care about your 82 Buick when you tell me what a wonder machine it is. I only care about your 13K per year income when you complain about taxes (of which I know your bracket is paying almost none)... or when you try and give deep economic advice with great certainty.

Andy I'm 51 years old. Graduated college on a business degree. Have owned and operated two separate successful small businesses (Body Shops) and after selling the last on off at an excellent profit have been in the Property Management business for the last 12 years.

I don't mean to upset you but I think it's fair that I call 'em like I've seen 'em. That's not judging you.

This entire section does not deal with the fact that you judge people based on their income. That is prejudice, and it's arrogant. I'm calling it like I see it.

Well I hope you someday understand that you are homophobic. The fact that some people flip flop around in their sexual preference means nothing in regard to those who do not. Some people never really were gay... and some people were bi-sexual all along.

I could as easily post for days (and have) the studies that show no harm in sexual preference. I've actually posted a lot on studies showing conclusively no negative impact on children (as a father & a coach effects on children are especially important to me).

And I know you have a religious angle but so ya know I'm not buying (and nobody else should either) that you can pray your way straight. I know when Conservatives like Ted Haggard get caught having crystal meth sex with gay prostitutes that's the preferred treatment... but it's silly!

Another straw-man. I hope someday you see you are shallow and arrogant, and prejudice. That doesn't change the lack of point to your posts.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I look at it as not being brow beaten by someone who in my opinion is almost alway wrong.

How I feel is irrelevant. How you act on this forum, and likely in person, is of more concern. You should change your ways before your pride causes you to fall.

I'm always amused that someone thinks I'm always wrong when I make reference to data and research, when they themselves never do.

 

[Andy]

The native Americans refered to people who spoke with a forked-tongue, it's always nice to see a good example of it. The rules don't apply to all the people all the time, but to some of the people some of the time, and mostly to the people you think the rules should apply to, and that's one more reason why the people with the Word of God have splintered into more than one new sect every year since the purported death of their holy joe.

I think you are probably a decent human being, Andy, but I don't think you are entirely truthful with yourself.

Oh so G-d doesn't have the right to make rules or change them? I see. So the G-d of the universe must abide by your views or he's wrong. Well, I'll let him know you think so.

Of course I suppose if I believed as you do that G-d doesn't exist, then I would be forced to assume that everyone who followed him, was in fact following their own choices. So I suppose I can see why you would say that.

However, if you did believe in G-d, and did study the his word, you'd understand that it's his prerogative to say the Israelites are to follow these set of rules. Or that, as Jesus said, we are set free from the law.

Nevertheless, it's this view that has been consistent since the early church. Of course I suppose there is no further point in wasting your time when you are unable to understand a concept depending on a G-d that has the right and authority to make rules. Right? Be well.

 

[Sihouette]

I still think bringing religion into this thing is not a good idea.

The argument anti gay-marriage is much stronger from a human behavior standpoint. We simply shouldn't model gay sex as "normal" by legitimizing it via marriage (an implied sexual relationship). And I think so because our youth will see that going outside the body's normal functions to seek pleasure, even to the point of damaging the body (as in the case with older gay men so graphically described in previous posts) is actually a gateway mentality to justify drug use to seek pleasure, even if it harms the body..

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Oh so G-d doesn't have the right to make rules or change them? I see. So the G-d of the universe must abide by your views or he's wrong. Well, I'll let him know you think so.

God has the right to change His mind, but going from rape, genocide, kidnapping, and all the rest of the Mosaic Law to the love everybody and turn the other cheek is quite a "mind change". It would be good to note that most of the Christians have never been able to make the change, the Mosaic Law is still applied widely and the teachings of Jesus get short shrift.

Of course I suppose if I believed as you do that G-d doesn't exist, then I would be forced to assume that everyone who followed him, was in fact following their own choices. So I suppose I can see why you would say that.

It's always puzzled me that Christians assume that anyone who doesn't accept the Bible does not therefore believe in God. What a weird leap of nonsense.

However, if you did believe in G-d, and did study the his word, you'd understand that it's his prerogative to say the Israelites are to follow these set of rules. Or that, as Jesus said, we are set free from the law.

If the Bible was the word of God, another assumption without the tiniest amount of proof, then I suspect that it would not be as violent, contradictory, ambiguous, and scatalogical as it is.

Nevertheless, it's this view that has been consistent since the early church. Of course I suppose there is no further point in wasting your time when you are unable to understand a concept depending on a G-d that has the right and authority to make rules. Right? Be well.

There was interesting book called THE PREVALENCE OF NONSENSE which looked at the common things that people have consistently believed but for which there is not only no proof, but for which there is much disproof. The Bible paints God as being a capricious monster demanding the fear and adulation of human beings, it then goes on to say that this same monster demanded blood payment from an innocent man to ransom all the guilty ones. Hello? Guilty of what? Original sin! This is god-like justice? God could just as well have forgiven everybody without the torture/murder of anybody. He makes the rules, right? So He could just let it go. The Bible is mostly nonsense and blasphemy with a few good things thrown in to make it have a little social value.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I still think bringing religion into this thing is not a good idea.

The argument anti gay-marriage is much stronger from a human behavior standpoint. We simply shouldn't model gay sex as "normal" by legitimizing it via marriage (an implied sexual relationship). And I think so because our youth will see that going outside the body's normal functions to seek pleasure, even to the point of damaging the body (as in the case with older gay men so graphically described in previous posts) is actually a gateway mentality to justify drug use to seek pleasure, even if it harms the body..

"A lie told often enough soon gains the substance of truth," quote by a famous Nazi propagandist.

 

[Sihouette]

Originally Posted by Sihouette
I still think bringing religion into this thing is not a good idea.

The argument anti gay-marriage is much stronger from a human behavior standpoint. We simply shouldn't model gay sex as "normal" by legitimizing it via marriage (an implied sexual relationship). And I think so because our youth will see that going outside the body's normal functions to seek pleasure, even to the point of damaging the body (as in the case with older gay men so graphically described in previous posts) is actually a gateway mentality to justify drug use to seek pleasure, even if it harms the body..

[Mare Tranquility response:]

"A lie told often enough soon gains the substance of truth," quote by a famous Nazi propagandist

So now I'm a nazi because I have a differing opinion than you about deviant sexual behavior seeking "legitimate" status?

You my friend are an intellectual bully. Bullying is no substitute for a lucid and civil rebuttal. The fact is becoming ever more evident that you have no lucid rebuttal [in the arena where secular debate on this matter is concerned..there will always be valid rebuttals to subjective religious interpretations..]. I've made good and compelling points. It is always at the point in a debate where one person stoops to name-calling and bullying where the opposing party has an implied win.

You have nothing left to offer but snide remarks...

Pity.

I guess I'm a "nazi" because I consider that you can love someone deeply without mixing hormonal drives and humping into that pure state.

What a nazi I am...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So now I'm a nazi because I have a differing opinion than you about deviant sexual behavior seeking "legitimate" status?

You my friend are an intellectual bully. Bullying is no substitute for a lucid and civil rebuttal. The fact is becoming ever more evident that you have no lucid rebuttal. I've made good and compelling points. It is always at the point in a debate where one person stoops to name-calling and bullying where the opposing party has an implied win.

You have nothing left to offer but snide remarks...

Pity.

I guess I'm a "nazi" because I consider that you can love someone deeply without mixing hormonal drives and humping into that pure state.

What a nazi I am...

No one said you were a Nazi. Do you drink milk? Nazis drank milk. Do you put your pants on one leg at a time? Nazis do too. Stop the hysteria, lots of people have used pieces of the Nazi propaganda programs to push their ideas. Look at Anita Bryant for God's sake. However, we should bear in mind that you are the one repeating the same flawed argument over and over with no supporting evidence.

"I consider that you can love someone deeply without mixing hormonal drives and humping into that pure state."
Comments like this tend to reinforce the perception that you have some deep emotional issues with your own and other's sexuality.

 

[Sihouette]

You implied I was a nazi. Now you're just lying, as if people cannot read and interpret your meaning. And then you try to siderail by probing my sexuality as cause for my points. You do have quite a bag of tricks don't you? ...lol..

You have no lucid rebuttal left. I have won the debate.

 

[Andy]

God has the right to change His mind, but going from rape, genocide, kidnapping, and all the rest of the Mosaic Law to the love everybody and turn the other cheek is quite a "mind change". It would be good to note that most of the Christians have never been able to make the change, the Mosaic Law is still applied widely and the teachings of Jesus get short shrift.

I don't see any of those in the Mosaic law. Again, we are discussing the Biblical view of Christian faith, not some specific sect somewhere that had a problem.

Again, I know there are some who hold that you shouldn't eat pig. That's fine. But as far as it being a sin, the apostles and Jesus himself, stated clearly the New Testament did away with the old law. If you choose to follow it on your own accord, peachy.

As for the rest, the Israelite laws are no longer valid. What is valid is what Jesus and the apostles said, which as it relates to the topic at hand, a MAN shall leave is mother and father, and UNITE, with his WIFE.

It's always puzzled me that Christians assume that anyone who doesn't accept the Bible does not therefore believe in God. What a weird leap of nonsense.

Allow me to clairfy then. The G-d of the Bible.

If the Bible was the word of God, another assumption without the tiniest amount of proof, then I suspect that it would not be as violent, contradictory, ambiguous, and scatalogical as it is.

The prophecies tend to lend proof of the claims. As does it's historical accuracy.

The Bible paints God as being a capricious monster demanding the fear and adulation of human beings, it then goes on to say that this same monster demanded blood payment from an innocent man to ransom all the guilty ones. Hello? Guilty of what? Original sin! This is god-like justice? God could just as well have forgiven everybody without the torture/murder of anybody. He makes the rules, right? So He could just let it go. The Bible is mostly nonsense and blasphemy with a few good things thrown in to make it have a little social value.

You should fear the almighty naturally. As far as demanding adulation, I think the fact he created us, and allows us to live while denying him, while cursing him, while lying, murdering, and generally being evil, is reason enough to adore him for being so merciful.

How could a just and fair G-d, just let it go? If someone killed your brother, or your wife, or someone close to you, would you have high respect for a Judge that just... let him go? Justice requires punishment for wrong doing.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Great post Sil! I agree with so much of it. You've laid the problems out very clearly.

There are many examples of "gay" people being straight, then gay, then straight again. This alone proves that at least in some, gayness is psychological in nature.

In recent years, younger folks have gotten the impresion (from hollywood) that gayness is cool.

 

[Chip]

The California Supreme Court will have to decide whether gays and lesbians are being discriminated against by Proposition 8.

The Court won't care whether some gays and lesbians can love another without having homosexual sex.

The Court won't care whether some people have practiced homosexuality, then heterosexuality, then homosexuality, then heterosexuality ... .

What the court will care about is the definition of marriage (being between a man and a woman as husband and wife) and whether they should appeal to it saying no discrimination exists in Proposition 8 or revise it saying that discrimination exists in Proposition 8.

Though I am amused by the substance of all the divertive digressions , my question is what do you think the court will do, and why?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You implied I was a nazi. Now you're just lying, as if people cannot read and interpret your meaning. And then you try to siderail by probing my sexuality as cause for my points. You do have quite a bag of tricks don't you? ...lol..

You have no lucid rebuttal left. I have won the debate.

You think I implied that you were a Nazi just because I noted that you (and many other people) use that specific technique perfected and talked about by the Nazis.

Your emotional issues around sexuality and love have been cropping up since you started making posts in which you exhibitied those issues with derogatory remarks about sex in general (mud in clear spring water, for instance).

Ignoring a lucid rebuttal is not the same thing as giving scientific evidence to refute it. You cannot really win an argument by restating the same thing over and over again without addressing the volume of scientific evidence presented to refute your assertions--unless, of course, you are trying to use a common propaganda techinque sometimes used by people with no hair.

Losing your temper and becoming hysterical won't win the argument either.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Great post Sil! I agree with so much of it. You've laid the problems out very clearly.

There are many examples of "gay" people being straight, then gay, then straight again. This alone proves that at least in some, gayness is psychological in nature.

In recent years, younger folks have gotten the impresion (from hollywood) that gayness is cool.

Not if they are born bisexual, as many people are. Don't fall into the black and white pigeon-holing of sexual orientation, because it's not supported by any science in this century.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The California Supreme Court will have to decide whether gays and lesbians are being discriminated against by Proposition 8.

The Court won't care whether some gays and lesbians can love another without having homosexual sex.

The Court won't care whether some people have practiced homosexuality, then heterosexuality, then homosexuality, then heterosexuality ... .

What the court will care about is the definition of marriage (being between a man and a woman as husband and wife) and whether they should appeal to it saying no discrimination exists in Proposition 8 or revise it saying that discrimination exists in Proposition 8.

Though I am amused by the substance of all the divertive digressions, my question is what do you think the court will do, and why?

Judges are notorious for doing what they want to with little regard for things like the Constitution, shoot, even the Supreme Court ignored it when they made the Dred Scott ruling that reduced black people to less than human. Fetuses aren't human, maybe Andy will win and the Court will rule that gays aren't human either. Whoopee! God, you just gotta love Christians.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Mar, your statement about people being born bi is interesting. What scientific evidence can you give me to back the statement? I've read numerous articles about the Gay Gene being found...but nothing about bi.

We are in total agreement about the Courts! Sad, but true.

As far as I know, Christians have never said that a person who is gay is not human. Where have you seen this?