WTF!!!!??? Our country needs to get with the times!

by **Kurith** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:57 pm

well thats what the 5th thread jeffro's started that will end up locked?

by **PudriK** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:06 pm

Sigh... "Turn the other cheek." Just because someone rants at you, ranting back will only escalate. In forums, as in life, the best way to answer someone who has become heated is with calmness.

Sonar, the Puritans were only one of several predecessors to the US. The Jamestown colony was founded to make money. But during the writing of the Consitution, it was deemed so important that the nation should not establish a state religion that it was put in the 1st amendment. The only reason it was an amendment was that several delegates didn't think it was necessary because it was already assumed and written into many state constitutions.

It is the interpretation of this amendment which is at issue in this regard. What consitutes the "establishment" of a religion? Does teaching the ten commandments in school? Does passing a law based on the laws in a religious document? Isn't this the sort of thing we decry in the Middle East?

And since you brought Leviticus up, I wonder, do you also follow all the other laws in the book, including:

Leviticus 11 - Foods Permitted and Forbidden
Leviticus 15 - The Law Concerning Bodily Discharges
Leviticus 20 - Penalties for Breaking the Law

Do you think they should be a basis for US law? Should pork be illegal?

PS These discussions are not pointless... Unfortunately, it is the inability of people to have civil discussions which leads to the increasing factionalism and ignorance in modern society. Every time I have a civil discussion with someone, I come away having learned more, appreciating another's perspective, and better developing my opinions. (Like my uncle says, I'm always right, because when I'm wrong I change my mind.)

It is tragic that people are unwilling to expose their ideas to challenge, face the challenge with civility and thoughtfulness, and be willing to let their ideas evolve. Instead, the modern idea of debate is two people shouting their opinons at each other for five minutes, then going their separate ways. Where would we be if the Consitutional Convention had operated on such grounds?

by **Jeffro** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:48 pm

Originally posted by -HaVoC-
We know how it is savage. Getting a rise is the reason, just fking great. The human race loves animosity. It loves wars and fighting. Shit our pathetic little species would be bored to death if their wasn't someone to hate and/or fight.

These topics are retarded and the aholes that start em are sick.

So I am a savage?

I guess heated politicial discussion is not allowed on the forums anymore...

Pudrik youre last half (P.S.) was right on the button too!

by **Evan** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:56 pm

Originally posted by PudriK
Sigh... "Turn the other cheek." Just because someone rants at you, ranting back will only escalate. In forums, as in life, the best way to answer someone who has become heated is with calmness.

Sonar, the Puritans were only one of several predecessors to the US. The Jamestown colony was founded to make money. But during the writing of the Consitution, it was deemed so important that the nation should not establish a state religion that it was put in the 1st amendment. The only reason it was an amendment was that several delegates didn't think it was necessary because it was already assumed and written into many state constitutions.

It is the interpretation of this amendment which is at issue in this regard. What consitutes the "establishment" of a religion? Does teaching the ten commandments in school? Does passing a law based on the laws in a religious document? Isn't this the sort of thing we decry in the Middle East?

And since you brought Leviticus up, I wonder, do you also follow all the other laws in the book, including:

Leviticus 11 - Foods Permitted and Forbidden
Leviticus 15 - The Law Concerning Bodily Discharges
Leviticus 20 - Penalties for Breaking the Law

Do you think they should be a basis for US law? Should pork be illegal?

PS These discussions are not pointless... Unfortunately, it is the inability of people to have civil discussions which leads to the increasing factionalism and ignorance in modern society. Every time I have a civil discussion with someone, I come away having learned more, appreciating another's perspective, and better developing my opinions. (Like my uncle says, I'm always right, because when I'm wrong I change my mind.)

It is tragic that people are unwilling to expose their ideas to challenge, face the challenge with civility and thoughtfulness, and be willing to let their ideas evolve. Instead, the modern idea of debate is two people shouting their opinons at each other for five minutes, then going their separate ways. Where would we be if the Consitutional Convention had operated on such grounds?

Anyone catch the shows on the KKK and Neo-Nazi's on the History Channel today? That is some fucked up shit I listened to, excuse my language..

by **Rule of Wrist** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:47 pm

No worries parrot, calling someone a bigot is not the worst thing you can do, and you were basing that on my opinions.

Actually, by the dictonary definition, I probably am a bigot in many ways: opinionated, stubborn and inflexible... but hey, it's a strength and a weakness.

The way most people mean bigot though, is racist. Which I'm not, since gay people are not a race.

I state this because, even if some people are born gay(of which I am highly skeptical) some make the choice freely, for whatever reason. This taints all of them IMO. How do you separate the two? Is there really any separation at all? Such questions cannot be answered, since they are so subjective.

Damn, look at that, I said to myself that I had said my piece, but then that comes out... sigh

Oh well, I'd just like to say that my opinions are not based on any others' opinions I've read or been told, but on my own observations and conclusions. They have nothing to do with religion, which I won't get into, since that's the biggest can o worms there is...

If people disagree with them, fine. But I'm still allowed to have them and not be labeled a racist, since there is no gay race to my knowledge.

And that's all I have to say about that.

by **[ECGN] Mulligan** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 3:46 am

We are arguing, not debating. I only enjoy a debate, not an argument. You can tell it is an argument, because we are completely off of the subject. And those of us with rational, calm post get completely ignored. The issue at hand is gay marriage. Also, how people got arrested for performing this simple ceremony. The issue has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. Marriage should be a sacred, relgious ceremony. That's my opinion. However, whether or not we like it, it has been seperated into two forms.
1.Marriage through the eyes of religion, and
2. marriage through the eyes of the government.
People who don't believe in any sort of Religion, can still get married.

The only thing this issue has to do with is allowing people to get a simple document, and for some reason, having this document will mean the world to them, because it makes things "official." And for some reason, people are passionately against this, and they go as far as to arresting people because of it.
Denying them to be seen as married is one thing, but arresting people because of it? That is where the line should be drawn, because it was a religious ceremony, no idea what religion, and these people got arrested for it? That just doesn't set right with me. What if they start arresting Jewish people because they don't believe Jesus was the messiah? Yes, I know, this would never happen, but if we start arresting people based on the laws of the Bible....then there are going to be a lot of people arrested. It would wipe out the entire "Star Wars religion" clan.

by **SavageParrot** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:27 am

Originally posted by Jeffro
So I am a savage?

I think you'll find he was talking to me

by **Ryan** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:17 am

Please keep in mind here people, this is a *debate*.. not an *argument*. Two very different things. In a debate, there usually isint a 'right' and 'wrong' answer.. simply opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions wihout being completely and utterly bashed for it. In a debate, people state their opinions, and then DEBATE about them. They DONT tell the other person they are wrong, and they don't tell the other person how to think, act, etc.

And another thing, I see people talking about 'trying to hold back,' etc. Remember, I said it earlier, if you don't like whats in the thread, DON'T READ IT. Its that simple.

by **Ryan** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:22 am

I also suppose i'll add my view.

I think same sex marriage is wrong. Personally, I think gays are marrying for all the wrong reasons. Sure, some are in love with each other, but I know a lot of them are simply 'marrying' for the legal benifits of Marriage. Tax Deducations, etc.

I think its just wrong. Again, a marriage is between a guy and a girl. While I know some people have extreme views on this subject, mine is simple. If you're gay, I don't hate you, and its not that I don't want to be around you.. its when you take it to the next level is when a problem occurs, IMO.

I wasn't raised to hate gays, nor has anyone told me how to view the subject. I am capable of forming my own opinions, and I think its just simply wrong.

by **SavageParrot** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:58 am

Noob alert... Can someone tell me what IMO stands for? In fact could you post a list of common abbrevialtions because there are a few others i am unsure about.

The shame of having to ask is unbearable.

Edit: I am guessing it is 'In My Opinion' but all the same a list would be useful.

by **JimmyTango** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:25 am

Originally posted by Ryan

I think its just wrong. Again, a marriage is between a guy and a girl.

And that is only because hetrosexuals impose that rule.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

Even the definition defines it as same sex.

Originally posted by Ryan

Personally, I think gays are marrying for all the wrong reasons. Sure, some are in love with each other, but I know a lot of them are simply 'marrying' for the legal benifits of Marriage. Tax Deducations, etc.

Those are some of the equal rights they are fighting for. Numerous hetrosexuals use the same reasons, and other reasons(green card) for marrying.

by **Murgatroyd** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:52 am

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

by **[ECGN] Mulligan** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:43 am

Originally posted by Ryan
Please keep in mind here people, this is a *debate*.. not an *argument*. Two very different things. In a debate, there usually isint a 'right' and 'wrong' answer.. simply opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions wihout being completely and utterly bashed for it. In a debate, people state their opinions, and then DEBATE about them. They DONT tell the other person they are wrong, and they don't tell the other person how to think, act, etc.

And another thing, I see people talking about 'trying to hold back,' etc. Remember, I said it earlier, if you don't like whats in the thread, [b]DON'T READ IT. Its that simple. [/B]

For many it's just a debate. Like for me, and you Ryan, and even Pudrik, it's just a debate. Unfortunately for some it has become an argument, because like you said, it becomes an argument when people start getting bashed for their opinions. And there are some pretty sharp tongues on this forum right now, and for most people, pride is a hard thing to swallow when it comes to apologies.

by **Jeffro** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:33 pm

Originally posted by SavageParrot
I think you'll find he was talking to me

well ima

Nothing to see here! MOVE ALONG~!

by **PudriK** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:41 pm

Mulligan, to address your point, gays don't want marriage just because it makes their companionship "official." There are a whole host of benefits which go along with marriage, and tax breaks aren't the biggest one. In fact, it used to be that getting married would cause you to pay higher taxes (the so called "marriage penalty").

Neal Boortz had a good example... let's say you are in a commited relationship with another man. You devote your whole life to him, you are exclusive to each other, you share your income, you live together, for 40 years. Then you pass away--and you want your life partner to have rights to your property, to your life insurance, estate, etc. Right now, you would have to make sure your last will, account beneficaries, etc. put everyting in your partner's name. Say you adopt a child. When you die, you want that child to be taken care of by your partner, who is his other dad. But by currrent laws, that child would be tied to you only, and so your family would have rights to the child first. Even still, your family could make a strong legal case for your stuff and your kid, based on family rights. And for some people, their family is the last place they'd want it to go.

With one document, a marriage certificate, a heterosexual couple can usurp family rights to each other. Call it marriage, call it "civil union," call it "broccoli," I don't care, but in the 21st century we should be willing to recognize the commited relationship of two people, no matter what their gender.

What do I think should happen? They should throw the whole thing out, "marriage" should be a religious institution, and survivorship rules, beneficiaries, etc should be handled for both hetero- and homosexual couples by a separate document, like a prenup, that is customizable for the numerous "convenience" marriages us straight people like to get in to.

Lastly, all this should be a STATE issue. It has no place in the Constitution, and that way, if the law doesn't recognize your relationship in Ohio, you can move to California.

WTF!!!!??? Our country needs to get with the times!

Who is online