HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › Did the Republicans just get handed the Nov Election?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Did the Republicans just get handed the Nov Election? - Page 4

post #61 of 146
5/17/08 at 6:11pm
To clarify a point:

Up until about 100 years ago, marriage records
throughout the world - including large parts of
the USA - records were held and ciphered by the
churches. Ceremonies at the justice of the peace,
hard to say if a record was taken - depends on if
busybodies were involved.


.
Reply
Reply

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

e-mini S&P Futures Trading
thinkorswim Trading platform
Educational videos for new investors!
post #62 of 146
5/17/08 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techunter View Post
Y'Mean like your hate of "Christians"? Don't tell me
dissing them makes you feel superior?




.
Well, it's easy to make the blanket statement that I hate "Christians". And it is my fault. For I have been making the blanket statements myself.

But make no mistake. I don't hate Christians because they are Christian. I "dislike" the Christians who use religion as a guise to fool people into thinking they are a better person than they actually are. There are a lot of wonderful Christians who have bleeding hearts and would do anything for a stranger, regardless of the consequences to them, their well-being, their finances, etc. Conversely, many Christians are hypocrites. But, one does not have to be a Christian to be a hypocrite. Gays are equally susceptible to this character flaw. I know of gays that cannot play well with heteros. They have a chip on their shoulder that is ready to fall off on it's own and they'll pick a fight with any hetero in the vicinity. I "dislike" them equally.

But, being gay does not automatically make them wrong. Being a hypocrite and a bigot makes you wrong, regardless of whether you're Christian or gay. Or Martian for that matter...
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 146
5/17/08 at 6:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techunter View Post
To clarify a point:

Up until about 100 years ago, marriage records
throughout the world - including large parts of
the USA - records were held and ciphered by the
churches. Ceremonies at the justice of the peace,
hard to say if a record was taken - depends on if
busybodies were involved.


.
Papyrus doesn't last forever...
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 146
5/17/08 at 6:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmm...Jaz View Post
If you truly believe in the Bible... NO, what's your point, bigot

There was never this stage in man's history.
Commonly referred to as Neanderthal peoples
Now, I'm not sure what you meant by qualifying your statement with "(not technical)", but I assume you're making the conjecture that man has always been intelligent and had the capacity to philosophize. To ponder his existence and the possibility of life after death.

Science would disagree. This "belief" you have that religion has always been with us is based on taking faith that the Bible is an account of historical events. Which you have the right to believe. Science and anthropology shows us that, first of all, there was a period in human history where we were really not all that smart. And that we were not always on the top of the food chain. The tools we had created in our very distant past were very rudimentary, but did serve them and were ingenious for the times. There are also records that show if you go back far enough, there is an absence of any form of religion. No artifacts that indicate worship. Heck, at one point, all we were interested in was drawing these:

Recognizing the things immediately surrounding them and caring only for the things that got them by on a daily basis. Survival. A God, or Gods, had no place here. I'm more worried about not becoming a Sabretoothed Tiger's lunch, not that I shouldn't mess with the wife of the caveman living in the cave next door.

But I digress...this is about gay marriage.

What is the true bottom line of it? If they are allowed to marry, you will be unhappy. If they are not allowed to marry, they will be unhappy. Who is the one that deserves to be happy?
READ A BOOK, JEEZ YOUR FULL OF NONSENSE. Nobody
said Organized religion - you seem hung up on it.

Different Forms of Marriage has been around a hell of a
lot longer than the written word. Primatives always felt
their existence and well being was governed by a higher
being, a rock with a spirit, a god on a mountain top or
whatever.

If you're gay and pissed that anybody believes marriage
is even remotely tied to RELIGION then get over your
ulterior bigotry - move to California - get married - hump
your brains out until you develop a distended colon.
NOBODY CARES.



.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 146
5/17/08 at 7:23pm
I'll get back to this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techunter View Post
READ A BOOK, JEEZ YOUR FULL OF NONSENSE. Nobody
said Organized religion - you seem hung up on it.

Different Forms of Marriage has been around a hell of a
lot longer than the written word. Primatives always felt
their existence and well being was governed by a higher
being, a rock with a spirit, a god on a mountain top or
whatever.

If you're gay and pissed that anybody believes marriage
is even remotely tied to RELIGION then get over your
ulterior bigotry - move to California - get married - hump
your brains out until you develop a distended colon.
NOBODY CARES.



.

In the meantime:

Quote:
12 Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 146
5/17/08 at 7:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by enickma View Post
Baggi...are you crying?

Guys.. he figured us out...ok Baggi... you got us. Every morning at 7:22 we all gather in HSM live chat for an evil tree hugging liberal coalition meeting. We talk about how to turn everyone into gay athiest communists, and how to best counter your powerful arguments.



All victimized whining aside... you cited the following:
Well, at least we're keeping the discussion mature.

Quote:
Allowing gay people to marry isn't a law respecting an establishment of religion, nor does it prevent anyone from exercising their religion.
We take the opposite position on this, I assume.

But what ive been asking you and for some reason you've failed to answer on several occasions now is, if my position is the correct one and it does prevent people from exercising their freedom to practice their religion, is that then a compelling argument?

Why have you not answered that question that ive asked you several times now?
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 146
5/17/08 at 7:53pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Now, back to the question which you still have not answered. How does allowing gay marriage infringe upon your first amendment rights? In a debate, you can't just expect people to assume your whole argument. If I could, I would pass a law against begging the question.
In case I have not yet been clear i'm going to make another attempt.

I will not answer the question until I find out if it matters.

If a majority of Americans believe that allowing gay marriage will infringe upon our first amendment rights, is that then a compelling argument against gay marriage?

If the first part of the question is troubling for you, feel free to rephrase it to make it more palatable. If allowing gay marriage will infringe upon my first amendment rights, is that then a compelling argument against it?

Why should I answer your question if, when I do, you could then just move the goalposts and say, "Well, some rights are more important than your first amendment right."
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 146
5/17/08 at 7:57pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
This, however, is completely ridiculous. You are again making the assumption that two gays who want to get married have the ulterior motive of bringing down the prevailing establishment. When, in fact, all they want to do is be able to publicly display their devotion and commitment to each other, and given the same legal rights that are extended to those who are married. Which include, but not limited to, dual ownership of property, tax advantages, inheritance, and all the things that married couples take for granted.
Ah, but in California they already have all those rights.

But I wasn't referring to two gay men who want to be recognized as married.

I was referring to the activist judges who form an opinion, "Gay marriage ought to be legal" and then bend the law around that opinion to make it happen.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 146
5/17/08 at 7:58pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by amohedas View Post
Baggi you have yet to be specific as to HOW gay marriage infringes on your right to worship.

There are now 2 states that allow gay marriage. There are plenty of married gays, has your ability to worship been infringed upon since these laws were passed? Has it affected your life in any measurable way?

I'd dare to guess the answer is, "No", but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Again, what's the point in answering the question unless you first concede that in doing so, it will then be a compelling argument against gay marriage?
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 146
5/17/08 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Ah, but in California they already have all those rights.

But I wasn't referring to two gay men who want to be recognized as married.

I was referring to the activist judges who form an opinion, "Gay marriage ought to be legal" and then bend the law around that opinion to make it happen.
OK....now I am confused. But might be seeing a little light shedding on the subject.

Are you infuriated that the effort is being made to legalize gay marriage? Or are you infuriated that the "judges" circumvented the popular vote in order to sanction it?

Knowing the answer to this may completely change the rhythm of the thread.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 146
5/17/08 at 8:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Again, what's the point in answering the question unless you first concede that in doing so, it will then be a compelling argument against gay marriage?
You're asking us to label something as compelling that we've never heard. Tell us how allowing gay marriage infringes on your right to worship and you'll have an argument against gay marriage. Whether or not it's compelling remains to be seen.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 146
5/17/08 at 8:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Again, what's the point in answering the question unless you first concede that in doing so, it will then be a compelling argument against gay marriage?
Nevermind...I can see that you are wholeheartedly against gay marriage. Regardless of whether or not it directly affects you, you have the mindset that it is wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 146
5/17/08 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techunter View Post
READ A BOOK, JEEZ YOUR FULL OF NONSENSE. Nobody
said Organized religion - you seem hung up on it.
While no one implicitly stated "organized" religion, the whole basis of this thread is the rationalization (or irrationalization) that by bestowing marriage to same sex couples it would impede on the rights of one's religious liberties. No where in the thread have I found evidence to support this. With perhaps the exception of this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
So we've come pretty far in just a few short years from being told we need to "be tolerant" of homosex to now we must "be accepting" of homosex. So accepting that we must give up our religious liberties to their preference.

So now, sexual liberty is more important than religious liberty.

The fact that my religious liberties will be removed to make way for their sexual liberties is a compelling argument. Replacing the second amendment guarantee of religious liberty with sexual liberty is a compelling argument against same-sex marriage.
Which I still fail to see what the basis of that argument is.

The idea that it infringes on one's "religious liberties" can be interpreted as an infringement on the religious establishment, i.e. organized religion. One could simply practice their religion in their own home which is one way to express religious faith. But that is not what is at stake here. Those who oppose gay marriage are not opposed to it because it represents the breakdown or disestablishment of religion, it represents what Christians view to be as a sin. And, if gays are given the right to marry, then we have essentially given the "sinners" seats to the same table that the righteous Christians eat at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techunter View Post
If you're gay and pissed that anybody believes marriage
is even remotely tied to RELIGION then get over your
ulterior bigotry - move to California - get married - hump
your brains out until you develop a distended colon.
NOBODY CARES.
For the record, I am not gay. But I am not a homophobe either. I believe they have all the same rights as anyone else, including the right to marry.

And, the idea that a gay should "move to California" to "hump your brains out" obviously follows the same dangerous thinking that there should be segregation. Let's ship all the gays off to an island.

Do you believe they have any rights at all? Really, if it were up to you, would you ban/outlaw homosexuality altogether?
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 146
5/17/08 at 8:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Not sure if Enickma was serious in his reponse to me or not and didn't want to derail the other thread anymore than it already was by Mmm.
Well...I didn't realize that I had "derailed" this thread. It was not my intent to hijack it. I simply was trying to make the point that not everyone is homophobic, and that you were, in essence, imposing your own beliefs on people much in the same way you felt those judges and activists were.

I guess I have said my piece and I will leave this thread be.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 146
5/17/08 at 9:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmm...Jaz View Post
For the record, I am not gay.

Let's ship all the gays off to an island.

ever been to the Castro district in San Francisco?
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 146
5/17/08 at 10:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmm...Jaz View Post
Well...I didn't realize that I had "derailed" this thread. It was not my intent to hijack it. I simply was trying to make the point that not everyone is homophobic, and that you were, in essence, imposing your own beliefs on people much in the same way you felt those judges and activists were.

I guess I have said my piece and I will leave this thread be.
I don't see any issues, nor do I see you as having derailed this thread...as long as you're staying somewhat on topic you've just as much right to discuss the subject at hand as anyone....unless you're gay.... J/K
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 146
5/17/08 at 10:12pm
I find it quite revealing that the libs around here have so much to say in -support- of homosexuals and their beliefs, yet have so much disdain and contempt for Christians and theirs. In fact, a well known fact is that 1 out of every 10 men is homosexual. So...when are the homosexuals around here going to 'out' themselves? It's a shame to live a lie after all.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 146
5/17/08 at 10:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Again, what's the point in answering the question unless you first concede that in doing so, it will then be a compelling argument against gay marriage?

I'll bite. It would be a compelling argument if you can demonstrate how a gay couple being married infringes in a measurable amount you right to practice religion.

Ok, now your turn.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 146
5/17/08 at 10:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by moderndayprofit View Post
I find it quite revealing that the libs around here have so much to say in -support- of homosexuals and their beliefs, yet have so much disdain and contempt for Christians and theirs. In fact, a well known fact is that 1 out of every 10 men is homosexual. So...when are the homosexuals around here going to 'out' themselves? It's a shame to live a lie after all.

I'm gay for myself...does that count?
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 146
5/17/08 at 11:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by enickma View Post
I'm gay for myself...does that count?


Some religions frown on "self-love", too....
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Politics

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

e-mini S&P Futures Trading
thinkorswim Trading platform
Educational videos for new investors!
HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › Did the Republicans just get handed the Nov Election?