Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 Damn. I thought Frist was one of the good guys. But it turns out he's slime, just like Santorum. He's slime because you disagree with him on one issue? But Verne would you disagree that most people who think that are motivated by religion? And why is that bad?
Guest EricMM Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 And why is that bad? The law isn't supposed to be based on one religion?
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 One issue is more than sufficient to determine a man's character.
Guest Ripper Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 (edited) Damn. I thought Frist was one of the good guys. But it turns out he's slime, just like Santorum. He's slime because you disagree with him on one issue? But Verne would you disagree that most people who think that are motivated by religion? And why is that bad? If I wanted to change the Constitution to say that...let's see...oatmeal is now illegal to make because I don't like it, no matter what we agree or disagree on, it would be fair to say that you can call me a idiot and not be wrong. He can go from good guy to slime easily on one issue. Never mind...wrong guy... um.... LOOK BIGFOOT!!!! [runs away quickly] Edited June 30, 2003 by Ripper
Murmuring Beast Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 Land of the free ... American is on the way to a right wing government. Get out while you still can and before they pull your trousers down and find out if you are circumcised or get an erection whilst looking at a naked man...
Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 And why is that bad? The law isn't supposed to be based on one religion? 1. People against gay marriage come from a variety of religions. 2. How can you demand someone remove their religious influences when coming to a decision? 3. The law isn't based on one religion. Many religions agree on basic principles that are then made into law... like "murder is bad". I think a lot of people confuse Separation of Church & State with Separation of Religion & State. One issue is more than sufficient to determine a man's character. I wouldn't expect that to come from you. This guy is a idiot for making one of the dumbest quotes I have ever seen saying that calling gay sex a crime is not discriminating against homosexuals because both homosexuals and heterosexuals would be charged with the crime if they had same-sex relations.... I wasn't attempting to defend Santorum.
Guest Ripper Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 I know...actually Antonin Scaila made that comment... And weren't you looking...BIGFOOT MAN!!! BIGFOOT [waits till spicy looks and runs again]
Guest Cancer Marney Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 Also, I can't remember whether or not the bible directly bans homosexuality or not. Yes it does. Leviticus 18:22. If so, shouldn't it be right that a homosexual Christian mariage under God remains illegal? No. It is not the government's job to enforce Christian doctrine. In fact the government is expressly forbidden from doing so.
Guest EricMM Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 I just don't get why some people can consider what they don't like acceptable to delegalize (word?) For example: I don't think driving SUV's is good for america. It is driving up oil prices, bad for the environment, causes lots of deaths, is bad for roads ET CETERA. But I wouldn't try to make driving them ILLEGAL? Why is keeping gays from marrying and enjoying tax benefits any differnet. Driving/Buying SUV's gets HUGE tax benefits...
Guest hardyz1 Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 This reminds me of something I saw on the 411 forum last year. Let's see if I can find it....ah, here it is: Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 Land of the free ... American is on the way to a right wing government. Get out while you still can and before they pull your trousers down and find out if you are circumcised or get an erection whilst looking at a naked man... Why because you don't agree with an amendment banning gay marriages? Just want to add, Frist saying he supports it doesn't mean it's anywhere close to being passed or even brought in front of congress, and like someone said it would never be ratified.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 Many people feel that the term marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Which is the traditional meaning of the word. Does it really matter what these people think? The fact is, allowing same-sex couples to get married doesn't hurt anyone. Why should it matter if people oppose it because of religious reasons? The law is secular (as it should be). Does it matter what people who are in support of gay marriages think? Popular opinions, and polls can't determine what's an amendment or law. That would include both sides of this argument.By the I'm against an amendment because, I don't feel it's necessary and feel states should decide laws like this.
Guest Ripper Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 My thing is that there is no bad that can come of gay marrige. I am against anything that could infringe on anyone else's life like legalizing drugs. But you will never hear of a car accident caused by two people hopped up on gay marrige. No one is getting hurt. To refuse someone the ability to get married is not going to affect anyones life differently. If millions of gay people got married today, how would that change your life. Its sad that I could marry the next woman I see without knowing anything about her and get all the benefits of marrige and a gay couple that has been together for years and love one another can't.
Guest EricMM Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 I don't anyone can actually give any examples of gay people getting married causing any harm. I'm still waaaiting...
Guest Cancer Marney Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 I am against anything that could infringe on anyone else's life like legalizing drugs. But you will never hear of a car accident caused by two people hopped up on gay marrige. How often do you hear of car accidents being caused by two people hopped up on marijuana? How often do you hear of car accidents being caused by two people hopped up on alcohol? Next.
Guest EricMM Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 are you implying that it just takes one or what?
Guest Cancer Marney Posted June 30, 2003 Report Posted June 30, 2003 (edited) No, I'm just saying that legalising drugs would have negligible negative consequences on the lives of those who don't use them - especially if you're using car accidents, of all things, as a criterion. Alcohol is legal, and drunk drivers cause one hell of a lot of accidents - something like 300,000 per year if I recall correctly, and almost half of all fatal traffic accidents involve alcohol. Why not ban alcohol instead of wasting our time arresting random teenage potheads and throwing them into prison alongside 30 year-old recidivist rapists, gang-members, and professional car thieves? If your only concern is reducing car accidents (this is hyperbole) then there's no excuse to not do so. But it isn't, is it? The argument for gay marriage isn't that it doesn't harm anyone. That's both obvious and a ridiculous argument to make. The correct argument for gay marriage is that the Constitution prohibits discrimination against any group, regardless of race, sex, religion, or sexuality. It's about personal freedom and civil liberty; it's about being equal under the law, and on that score straight people should be just as concerned about the current discriminatory laws as gay people. Edited June 30, 2003 by Cancer Marney
Guest Vyce Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 But you will never hear of a car accident caused by two people hopped up on gay marrige. I just had a good laugh at the rather absurd - and midly disturbing - image this sentence brought to mind.
Guest NoCalMike Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 The correct argument for gay marriage is that the Constitution prohibits discrimination against any group, regardless of race, sex, religion, or sexuality. It's about personal freedom and civil liberty; it's about being equal under the law, and on that score straight people should be just as concerned about the current discriminatory laws as gay people. Well that should put an end to this "debate" Well Said Marney.
Guest Jobber of the Week Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 2. How can you demand someone remove their religious influences when coming to a decision? Because it's not up to a public official to make his decisions like that? You're supposed to represent the public, not your own private feelings.
Guest JMA Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 Have those against gay marriage presented even ONE secular argument for their case? Anyways, the whole reason gays are discriminated against is because people fear the unknown. They just use things like religion to justify said fear.
Guest Ripper Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 Marney, I understand the true reasoning when it comes to why gay marriage should never be outlawed...I was pointing out how people act like allowing gay marriage would cause the country to crumble off into the sea. It has no affect on anyones life outside of those involved, so I don't understand why anyone would even make the argument for this blatant discrimination. And those commercials said that kids hopped up on pot are the cause of 4 out of every 10 accidents... Those commercials couldn't have lied or stretched facts ridiculously out of proportion to support their cause could it? I mean, they wouldn't LIE would they? So far we know that smoking weed supports terroist and gets you pregnant, I find it hard to believe that it doesn't cause 40% of car accidents. And alcohol only makes hot women fight in fountains and twins show up to your super bowl parties...check the FACTS lady. Harmless?
Guest Cancer Marney Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 So far we know that smoking weed supports terroist and gets you pregnant, I find it hard to believe that it doesn't cause 40% of car accidents. And alcohol only makes hot women fight in fountains and twins show up to your super bowl parties...check the FACTS lady. Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Guest DrTom Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 Damn. I need to refill my liquor cabinet and start hanging out around fountains.
Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 2. How can you demand someone remove their religious influences when coming to a decision? Because it's not up to a public official to make his decisions like that? You're supposed to represent the public, not your own private feelings. Wrong. A politician is elected by the public because the public feels his views will best represent the public's views.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 So, by representing a tiny proportion of the population (i.e. Religious fundamentalism), he is representing the majority's opinion? Err.
Guest Cancer Marney Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 All of you are talking utter rot. People are elected because the voters believe they are the best candidates for the job. Whether they represent a majority opinion is utterly irrelevant; whether they work to implement majority opinions as policy after the election is equally irrelevant. No elected official is obliged to do anything of the sort. That's what we suffered for eight years under President Clinton, for Christ's sake. Poll on a given issue, jump in front of the majority and "lead" it, poll on another issue. It is dishonest, degenerative, and demeaning. If the voters feel that an elected official is doing a bad job, they can do something about it at the next election.
Guest Ripper Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 Even if it were the majority, the majority's opinion does not out weigh the individuals rights. A majority of this country are Christian or Catholic. If all of a sudden the majority wanted it to be illegal to be Jewish, it wouldn't make it right. The admendment he is proposing (and the laws that prohibit gay marrige) is infringing on peoples rights as citizens.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now