Vulchor's Views from the Nest

This is a little something I wrote a little shy of a year ago now. Figured I would just bring it back and put it here for discussion on how much and how little out country has changed in that time. I dont know if this could be as good as Puro's rants, and it is dated----but lets see what happens. And please taking nothing I say personally or have it change the way we deal with cigars on here---because cigars, trading, games, bombing, ect. are certainly the most important:)

So writing a blog on political issues at this time of year seems a bit overplayed. However, since everyone else is doing it I feel undermined and underappreciated if I were not to put my own 2 cents in…or 3 cents considering inflation. I could do a blog on why I am a Republican and voting for Obama, but I will resist said temptation and give simply reasons why I think the last 8 years of this country are totally fucked…as we all will be as well if you give 4 more years to McBush. Granted, there was a time when I considered myself the main source of political understanding and intelligence amongst those around me. Now admittedly, I may no longer have the most informed opinion. Nevertheless, feel free to respond (EVERYONE I HOPE) and if you agree with me I will laud your courage. If you disagree, I will kindly take your attack as personal and defend myself with jabbing insults at both your character and sexual orientation.

Ok Sarah---teenagers get pregnant. We understand your daughter is a filthy gutter $lut and you don't want that in the public mouth (like something she had in hers). I respect this. HOWEVER, please do not tout the "heroism" of your son in the military. First, he is not a hero as he signed up to do this as a job. Second, he will see as much combat as a UPS worker flying rubber cat $hit out of Hong Kong. ALSO, do not tell us how wonderful you and your family are for raising a retard. Yes Downs Syndrome is tough because the kids are demanding, and you can never tell one from another----however, if you want your family out of it----DO NOT pick and choose what we can discuss. Because if we talk about your great parenting with a deformed child and a military mental midget-----we damn sure better be able to talk about your lack of supervision when your daughter was getting the meat whistle in her oven and the fact you are exploiting your family for your gain and further separating your time from them.

Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Win the War, Pro-Anti Terror-------we're all over it. I am pro life, let's get that clear. However, no one is overturning Roe vs. Wade and that's a fact. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN, give up Falwell and O'Reilly, and Rove….not gonna happen. How the hell can the party of Guillani (the Nazi), Craig (the guy in the airport trying to get a handjob), and Gingrich (the slob)---ever preach to me about family values?????? Last time I checked I haven't cheated on my wife, haven't tried to get blown in a bathroom of an airport, and haven't fucked over half of New York. Not to mention I don't think I believe in God but I do believe in stem cell research. Yet somehow----my morals are the ones that are off kilter.

As far as the war….what does wining it mean?? Bringing people who are 1000 years behind us socially and technologically to our level? Does it mean ending violence in a place where violence has been continuous since the real life Fred Flintsone was using his fat feet to get away from that fucking boss of his? Or does it mean until we like what we see and all our contactors make as much money as they want while we rape and pillage the land of a once sovereign nation??? Ive heard you cannot be happy with defeat. I wouldn't call this defeat, I would call it maintaining our own interests for once and doing what the people of that country want-----watch us pack up and leave. There may be no honor in defeat, but there is a great deal of honor in respecting a people's wishes and doing as they request when we have invaded their land. LET US NEVER FORGET, this war had NOTHING to do with Sept. 11th. This war had NOTHING to do with freeing Iraq from dictatorship and terror. This war had EVERYTHING to do with weapons of mass destruction, which were either not there (at best) or a total lie fed to the American public to serve an administrations self serving wants (at worse). The conversation on Iraq really need not go any further that that.

How much longer can people blindly accept the bloviating about the terror threat, that the economy is "fundamentally sound", and that things are going to be shaken up in Washington. The only shaking that might take place is the fucking seizures I have from hearing this pile of cockamamie bullshit. You are no more or less safe that you were before 9/11, the only difference now is your perception. If the economy was sound, unemployment would not be at 6.1%, stocks would not be down 20%, foreclosures would not be up 80%, and I would not be saving my j!zz in jars for a "rainy day". Oh yeah, by the way while I am not the biggest fan of universal healthcare-----Since we are still the wealthiest nation with the most freedoms on earth---how could anyone in the right fucking mind think it would do any great damage to anything other than Blue Crosses profit margin----goddamn ignorant fucking assholes.

In closing folks here are some simple ideas to understand that just about everyone with a brain agree with. Hell, even those like Terry Schiavo could understand, and maybe even Sarah's retarded son. ---The Earth is getting warmer, and we have something to do with that-----Stem cells CAN save human lives----Was does not decide who is right, only who is left---Marriage may be between a man and a woman, but health care should be for everyone---There is STILL a separation between church and state in this country---Someone makes 250,000 per year is NOT middle class---Judge not lest ye be judged---THINK, THINK, THINK—its not illegal yet.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

fla-gypsy

Beyond a shadow of a doubt neither of you are truly interested in conferring the same equal rights on homosexuals but attempting to make it acceptable to those who find it not so. That will never happen, everyone makes moral judgments based on their value system and every Govt establishes laws that make moral judgments, you just happen to not like this one. That's OK, my Govt makes moral judgments I don't like either albeit different than yours. That doesn't make me the boogeyman that you would like me to be. I don't go around acosting homosexuals, threatening people who disagree with me like JDH was doing or pushing my belief system off on others. Having an opinion that differs from you or you don't agree with is really your concern, not mine. As far as no speech capabilities go or no brain function, I will refer you to the "unhinged" thread.

beatnic

Its a big circle argument by now. But its good to see liberals arguing for freedom of Religion and the Constitution.

JDH

fla-gypsy:
Beyond a shadow of a doubt neither of you are truly interested in conferring the same equal rights on homosexuals but attempting to make it acceptable to those who find it not so. That will never happen, everyone makes moral judgments based on their value system and every Govt establishes laws that make moral judgments, you just happen to not like this one. That's OK, my Govt makes moral judgments I don't like either albeit different than yours. That doesn't make me the boogeyman that you would like me to be. I don't go around acosting homosexuals, threatening people who disagree with me like JDH was doing or pushing my belief system off on others. Having an opinion that differs from you or you don't agree with is really your concern, not mine. As far as no speech capabilities go or no brain function, I will refer you to the "unhinged" thread.

It is a shame that you cannot present a credible argument without attacking the character of those with whom you disagree. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot. I have threatened nobody, and your repeating this fantasy makes you more threatenig than I have ever been. Additionally, if you continue to attack my character in this way, I will, in future, refer to you simply as THE LIAR, because that is exactly what you will be if you continue to make this accusation.

Amos Umwhat

beatnic:
Its a big circle argument by now. But its good to see liberals arguing for freedom of Religion and the Constitution.

Well, since freedom of religion, as well as the Constitution are both ideas/products of Liberal thinking, what else would you expect?
.

beatnic

Amos Umwhat:
beatnic:
Its a big circle argument by now. But its good to see liberals arguing for freedom of Religion and the Constitution.
Well, since freedom of religion, as well as the Constitution are both ideas/products of Liberal thinking, what else would you expect?
.

The liberals of 250 years ago. Those today (their leaders) seem to want to throw away the Constitution.

JDH

beatnic:
Amos Umwhat:
beatnic:
Its a big circle argument by now. But its good to see liberals arguing for freedom of Religion and the Constitution.
Well, since freedom of religion, as well as the Constitution are both ideas/products of Liberal thinking, what else would you expect?
.
The liberals of 250 years ago. Those today (their leaders) seem to want to throw away the Constitution.

That's just Rush talking, but it's not reality.

JDH

beatnic:
Its a big circle argument by now. But its good to see liberals arguing for freedom of Religion and the Constitution.

No circle, just a straigth line of linear logic.

A) Congress can make no law respecting religion or religious establishments.

If an established Church chooses to conduct same sex marriages, Congress can do nothing to stop it.

C) Therefore, the only way to prevent established Churches from conducting these marriages will be by amending the Constitution to prevent them.

It does not matter if some religions or established churches or church members disaprove of these marriages. The only way to stop them will be by Constitutional amendment restricting religious liberty.

No circle - just straight line logic.

fla-gypsy

JDH:
fla-gypsy:
Beyond a shadow of a doubt neither of you are truly interested in conferring the same equal rights on homosexuals but attempting to make it acceptable to those who find it not so. That will never happen, everyone makes moral judgments based on their value system and every Govt establishes laws that make moral judgments, you just happen to not like this one. That's OK, my Govt makes moral judgments I don't like either albeit different than yours. That doesn't make me the boogeyman that you would like me to be. I don't go around acosting homosexuals, threatening people who disagree with me like JDH was doing or pushing my belief system off on others. Having an opinion that differs from you or you don't agree with is really your concern, not mine. As far as no speech capabilities go or no brain function, I will refer you to the "unhinged" thread.
It is a shame that you cannot present a credible argument without attacking the character of those with whom you disagree. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot. I have threatened nobody, and your repeating this fantasy makes you more threatenig than I have ever been. Additionally, if you continue to attack my character in this way, I will, in future, refer to you simply as THE LIAR, because that is exactly what you will be if you continue to make this accusation.

I gave you page after page of of "argument", truth is thats all you really want anyway. You are the first one to come unhinged around here on every thread and start suggesting people are haters or racist. Your argument that No law can be made affecting the establishment of religion has been proven wrong by 230+ years of history. Many laws have been made that do just that and are still the law of the land today and your proclaiming them unconstitutional means nothing. Since that didn't work you are going to now start calling me names? How adult of you. Grow up. Whats next Nanananana, Liar Liar pants on fire? I guess you don't think saying "You wouldn't say that in front of me" wouldn't be construed as a threat? Attacking your character? LOL, that would be impossible! It is about time for me to cut my ties here as so many others have done recently, it used to be a nice place to visit. See ya

beatnic

JDH:
beatnic:
Its a big circle argument by now. But its good to see liberals arguing for freedom of Religion and the Constitution.
No circle, just a straigth line of linear logic.

A) Congress can make no law respecting religion or religious establishments.

If an established Church chooses to conduct same sex marriages, Congress can do nothing to stop it.

C) Therefore, the only way to prevent established Churches from conducting these marriages will be by amending the Constitution to prevent them.

It does not matter if some religions or established churches or church members disaprove of these marriages. The only way to stop them will be by Constitutional amendment restricting religious liberty.

No circle - just straight line logic.

Where did you get "B"? And who determines, and what are, "Established Religions".?????

kuzi16

beatnic:
JDH:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Oliver Cromwell and the British government made war on Irish Catholics, and outlawed their ability to practice their religion. This was done with great loss of life and much brutality. The Founding Fathers did not want any one Church to be able to persecute everyone, or anyone else. That's why Congress cannot outlaw the free exercise of religion.

If an establishment of religion freely chooses to provide same-sex couples with marriage rites, there is nothing you, or the Congress, or the President, or any other Church, or individual can do about it unless the Constitution is amended.

I find it odd that people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.

Then You answer my question. If a religion chooses to marry 3 people, should we allow it to be legal under our laws?

whos rights would it violate if we did allow that?

beatnic

fla-gypsy:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
Beyond a shadow of a doubt neither of you are truly interested in conferring the same equal rights on homosexuals but attempting to make it acceptable to those who find it not so. That will never happen, everyone makes moral judgments based on their value system and every Govt establishes laws that make moral judgments, you just happen to not like this one. That's OK, my Govt makes moral judgments I don't like either albeit different than yours. That doesn't make me the boogeyman that you would like me to be. I don't go around acosting homosexuals, threatening people who disagree with me like JDH was doing or pushing my belief system off on others. Having an opinion that differs from you or you don't agree with is really your concern, not mine. As far as no speech capabilities go or no brain function, I will refer you to the "unhinged" thread.
It is a shame that you cannot present a credible argument without attacking the character of those with whom you disagree. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot. I have threatened nobody, and your repeating this fantasy makes you more threatenig than I have ever been. Additionally, if you continue to attack my character in this way, I will, in future, refer to you simply as THE LIAR, because that is exactly what you will be if you continue to make this accusation.
I gave you page after page of of "argument", truth is thats all you really want anyway. You are the first one to come unhinged around here on every thread and start suggesting people are haters or racist. Your argument that No law can be made affecting the establishment of religion has been proven wrong by 230+ years of history. Many laws have been made that do just that and are still the law of the land today and your proclaiming them unconstitutional means nothing. Since that didn't work you are going to now start calling me names? How adult of you. Grow up. Whats next Nanananana, Liar Liar pants on fire? I guess you don't think saying "You wouldn't say that in front of me" wouldn't be construed as a threat? Attacking your character? LOL, that would be impossible! It is about time for me to cut my ties here as so many others have done recently, it used to be a nice place to visit. See ya

Hey Gypsy, take a chill pill. They would like nothing else than to silence you. Name calling, guilt by association, and ridicule are their weapons. Did you see where JDH cited Oliver Cromwell? Man, that's a stretch. They'll be pretty silent on November 7th.

beatnic

kuzi16:
beatnic:
JDH:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Oliver Cromwell and the British government made war on Irish Catholics, and outlawed their ability to practice their religion. This was done with great loss of life and much brutality. The Founding Fathers did not want any one Church to be able to persecute everyone, or anyone else. That's why Congress cannot outlaw the free exercise of religion.

If an establishment of religion freely chooses to provide same-sex couples with marriage rites, there is nothing you, or the Congress, or the President, or any other Church, or individual can do about it unless the Constitution is amended.

I find it odd that people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.

Then You answer my question. If a religion chooses to marry 3 people, should we allow it to be legal under our laws?
whos rights would it violate if we did allow that?

Would there be a certain number for a cut off point of people entering into a marriage that would bother you? Can a village marry? Do they all get legal rights?

Vulchor

fla-gypsy:
Beyond a shadow of a doubt neither of you are truly interested in conferring the same equal rights on homosexuals but attempting to make it acceptable to those who find it not so.

This is patently false. I am interested in conferring the same equal righs to homosexual couples. I do not personally feel "warm and fuzzy" about two men or two women together, but I am able to look at this and realize it is my own personal bias and upbringing coming into the equation. In turn, I am able to admit that my thinking is wrong or at least discriminatory, so I try and favor equality because I believe it is due and just at the end of the day. The main reason for this being my ability to separate my personal feelings from the rational view that no one's rights are being violated and no one is being forced into something----where is the reason to make it illegal here?

Vulchor

beatnic:
kuzi16:
beatnic:
JDH:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Oliver Cromwell and the British government made war on Irish Catholics, and outlawed their ability to practice their religion. This was done with great loss of life and much brutality. The Founding Fathers did not want any one Church to be able to persecute everyone, or anyone else. That's why Congress cannot outlaw the free exercise of religion.

If an establishment of religion freely chooses to provide same-sex couples with marriage rites, there is nothing you, or the Congress, or the President, or any other Church, or individual can do about it unless the Constitution is amended.

I find it odd that people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.

Then You answer my question. If a religion chooses to marry 3 people, should we allow it to be legal under our laws?
whos rights would it violate if we did allow that?
Would there be a certain number for a cut off point of people entering into a marriage that would bother you? Can a village marry? Do they all get legal rights?

A corporation gets legal rights as an individual....so why cannot a village when it comes to marriage?? But I digress;)

kuzi16

beatnic:
kuzi16:
beatnic:
JDH:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Oliver Cromwell and the British government made war on Irish Catholics, and outlawed their ability to practice their religion. This was done with great loss of life and much brutality. The Founding Fathers did not want any one Church to be able to persecute everyone, or anyone else. That's why Congress cannot outlaw the free exercise of religion.

If an establishment of religion freely chooses to provide same-sex couples with marriage rites, there is nothing you, or the Congress, or the President, or any other Church, or individual can do about it unless the Constitution is amended.

I find it odd that people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.

Then You answer my question. If a religion chooses to marry 3 people, should we allow it to be legal under our laws?
whos rights would it violate if we did allow that?
Would there be a certain number for a cut off point of people entering into a marriage that would bother you? Can a village marry? Do they all get legal rights?

you are speaking of such an insignificant fraction of a percent of the population that would wish to enter such a marriage that i hardly think it matters. i mean, how many of your wives want to share you? or you, your wives? I guess not too many. but if you all wanna share, so long as you arent hurting anyone who am i to tell you how to run your life.

in a way i guess im ok with polygamy
thats awfully bigamy

ba da dum ch!

Vulchor

kuzi16:
beatnic:
kuzi16:
beatnic:
JDH:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Oliver Cromwell and the British government made war on Irish Catholics, and outlawed their ability to practice their religion. This was done with great loss of life and much brutality. The Founding Fathers did not want any one Church to be able to persecute everyone, or anyone else. That's why Congress cannot outlaw the free exercise of religion.

If an establishment of religion freely chooses to provide same-sex couples with marriage rites, there is nothing you, or the Congress, or the President, or any other Church, or individual can do about it unless the Constitution is amended.

I find it odd that people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.

Then You answer my question. If a religion chooses to marry 3 people, should we allow it to be legal under our laws?
whos rights would it violate if we did allow that?
Would there be a certain number for a cut off point of people entering into a marriage that would bother you? Can a village marry? Do they all get legal rights?
you are speaking of such an insignificant fraction of a percent of the population that would wish to enter such a marriage that i hardly think it matters.

Which is actually my point to both Beat and Gypsy when they keep bringing up these absurd questions instead of talking about the topic at hand which is very real to people.

beatnic

Vulchor:
kuzi16:
beatnic:
kuzi16:
beatnic:
JDH:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Oliver Cromwell and the British government made war on Irish Catholics, and outlawed their ability to practice their religion. This was done with great loss of life and much brutality. The Founding Fathers did not want any one Church to be able to persecute everyone, or anyone else. That's why Congress cannot outlaw the free exercise of religion.

If an establishment of religion freely chooses to provide same-sex couples with marriage rites, there is nothing you, or the Congress, or the President, or any other Church, or individual can do about it unless the Constitution is amended.

I find it odd that people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.

Then You answer my question. If a religion chooses to marry 3 people, should we allow it to be legal under our laws?
whos rights would it violate if we did allow that?
Would there be a certain number for a cut off point of people entering into a marriage that would bother you? Can a village marry? Do they all get legal rights?
you are speaking of such an insignificant fraction of a percent of the population that would wish to enter such a marriage that i hardly think it matters.
Which is actually my point to both Beat and Gypsy when they keep bringing up these absurd questions instead of talking about the topic at hand which is very real to people.

I admit I have posed a lot of absurd questions, trying to understand what principles you use to make your points. Mostly, I get attacks back. I said at the beginning of this conversation that I think gays should be given all rights due them. Just call it something else. I've explained that my positions are based on long held moral principles. What I gathered is that some of your's (collectively) are not based on morals, yet you will use Religion to make your argument? And that's a bit hypocritical. The other arguments are based on Constitutional constraints, another vehicle that you use when it suits your arguments. And moving on to the question of 3 or more, well at least 2 of you have said its' of no importance because it isn't an issue. That's not consistent with your positions and arguments on just 2 loving people. Yes, I ask absurd questions. But a principled thinker has no problem in answering what he really means. Peace brothers!

Marker

JDH:
beatnic:
Its a big circle argument by now. But its good to see liberals arguing for freedom of Religion and the Constitution.
No circle, just a straigth line of linear logic.

A) Congress can make no law respecting religion or religious establishments.

If an established Church chooses to conduct same sex marriages, Congress can do nothing to stop it.

++Totally correct. The marriage you are referring to is religious marriage, not govt recognized marriage++

C) Therefore, the only way to prevent established Churches from conducting these marriages will be by amending the Constitution to prevent them.

++The govt is not trying to prevent a religion from marrying homosexuals. They are saying their definition of marriage is heterosexual.++

It does not matter if some religions or established churches or church members disaprove of these marriages. The only way to stop them will be by Constitutional amendment restricting religious liberty.

++Again, they are not trying to stop a religion from conducting homosexual marriages. They are saying that a homosexual marriage will not get the piece of paper saying the government recognizes it. Govt recognized marriage.++

No circle - just straight line logic.

Answers above in the ++stuff++

JDH

fla-gypsy:
JDH:
fla-gypsy:
Beyond a shadow of a doubt neither of you are truly interested in conferring the same equal rights on homosexuals but attempting to make it acceptable to those who find it not so. That will never happen, everyone makes moral judgments based on their value system and every Govt establishes laws that make moral judgments, you just happen to not like this one. That's OK, my Govt makes moral judgments I don't like either albeit different than yours. That doesn't make me the boogeyman that you would like me to be. I don't go around acosting homosexuals, threatening people who disagree with me like JDH was doing or pushing my belief system off on others. Having an opinion that differs from you or you don't agree with is really your concern, not mine. As far as no speech capabilities go or no brain function, I will refer you to the "unhinged" thread.
It is a shame that you cannot present a credible argument without attacking the character of those with whom you disagree. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot. I have threatened nobody, and your repeating this fantasy makes you more threatenig than I have ever been. Additionally, if you continue to attack my character in this way, I will, in future, refer to you simply as THE LIAR, because that is exactly what you will be if you continue to make this accusation.
I gave you page after page of of "argument", truth is thats all you really want anyway. You are the first one to come unhinged around here on every thread and start suggesting people are haters or racist. Your argument that No law can be made affecting the establishment of religion has been proven wrong by 230+ years of history. Many laws have been made that do just that and are still the law of the land today and your proclaiming them unconstitutional means nothing. Since that didn't work you are going to now start calling me names? How adult of you. Grow up. Whats next Nanananana, Liar Liar pants on fire? I guess you don't think saying "You wouldn't say that in front of me" wouldn't be construed as a threat? Attacking your character? LOL, that would be impossible! It is about time for me to cut my ties here as so many others have done recently, it used to be a nice place to visit. See ya

"...I guess you don't think saying "You wouldn't say that in front of me" wouldn't be construed as a threat? ..."

That's not what I said. I said I was glad he wasn't standing in front of me. If he had been, I might have SAID something to the man that I would later regret.

I went on to explain that it is very easy to hurl insults from a keyboard onto a screen, but usually, when two people are face to face, even when they disagree, they don't hurl insults like he did. There was no threat, and I did not insult him. He called me a hypocrite, and I said I was glad he wasn't standing in front of me when he said that (for the reason I have just explained).

The only threat is imagined in your mind. To paraphrase Lincoln, "If you expect to find the worst in people, you surely shall." That is exactly what you do when you read my posts. You look for the worst possible meaning, and accept that as truth.

You have my pity.

jthanatos

Marker:
JDH:
beatnic:
Its a big circle argument by now. But its good to see liberals arguing for freedom of Religion and the Constitution.
No circle, just a straigth line of linear logic.

A) Congress can make no law respecting religion or religious establishments.

If an established Church chooses to conduct same sex marriages, Congress can do nothing to stop it.

++Totally correct. The marriage you are referring to is religious marriage, not govt recognized marriage++

C) Therefore, the only way to prevent established Churches from conducting these marriages will be by amending the Constitution to prevent them.

++The govt is not trying to prevent a religion from marrying homosexuals. They are saying their definition of marriage is heterosexual.++

It does not matter if some religions or established churches or church members disaprove of these marriages. The only way to stop them will be by Constitutional amendment restricting religious liberty.

++Again, they are not trying to stop a religion from conducting homosexual marriages. They are saying that a homosexual marriage will not get the piece of paper saying the government recognizes it. Govt recognized marriage.++

No circle - just straight line logic.

Answers above in the ++stuff++

Pretty much this. The underlying issue is we have one word with two uses. Government should just stop talking marriage, period. Call it civil union, call it joint tax buddies, call it people who share their crap. I don't care. Government should have no say in marriage, whether banning or promoting it. It should remain silent on the issue.

jgibv

jthanatos:
Pretty much this. The underlying issue is we have one word with two uses. Government should just stop talking marriage, period. Call it civil union, call it joint tax buddies, call it people who share their crap. I don't care. Government should have no say in marriage, whether banning or promoting it. It should remain silent on the issue.

Big +1 to that James.

Might be the best thing I've read on this entire thread. (no offense to the rest of y'all)
Wife & I feel the same way

kuzi16

beatnic:
I said at the beginning of this conversation that I think gays should be given all rights due them. Just call it something else.

separate has never been equal. if it was equal then it would be called the same thing.

beatnic:
I've explained that my positions are based on long held moral principles. What I gathered is that some of your's (collectively) are not based on morals, yet you will use Religion to make your argument? And that's a bit hypocritical.

i am not asking you to change your morality. you do what you gotta do when it comes to the rights of gays.

... so long as you dont violate them.

as far as being hypocritical...
religion is the base of the argument. my first post on this topic stated that i was for religious rights and that is why i am for gay marriage. this means that the US will legally let Gays get married in a religion that is accepting of Gay marriages. I am not asking any Christians to change their morals or for any church to marry two men if they dont want to. I am asking the US to recognize that a religion can accept gay marriage and the US will uphold that union they way that they would uphold the union of a man and a woman.

you are viewing this through the eyes of your religion not a religion that accepts gay marriage. you are asking us to accept your religion as the one that is morally correct even though two men getting married does not violate any rights.

it is not hypocritical to use religion as a basis for legalizing gay marriage because some religions accept it. yours doesnt. and thats ok too. your religion has a right to do so.

beatnic:
Yes, I ask absurd questions. But a principled thinker has no problem in answering what he really means. Peace brothers!

not sure if this was directed at me, but i feel that i have answered them. if you feel i have not, please ask me about what part and we can discuss this further.

MTuccelli

I will first say that religion is not the basis for the point I want to make...religion is man made and honestly with issues like this it has been whored by many "so called" faiths and clergy. Any church that accepts and performs same sex marriages is in fact disregarding what God had to say about man laying with man.

I do not agree with same sex marriage nor support as you would say "Gay Rights" not because of my faith or religion but by what the Bible says and it says in Leviticus 20:13 and if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ASV (American Standard Version).

No where else does it say in the Old Testament or the New Testament that same sex anything is OK. For anyone that calls themselves a Christian and follower of Christ and agrees with same sex marriage or gay rights or any church leader/pastor that performs same sex marriages is not standing on the word of God and is in my book a Hypocrite...yes a Hypocrite

I also do not buy into any gay person saying they are a Christian and born again and still stays in the life style of homosexuality because they are knowingly committing a sin. So for those that consider themselves Christians and agree with same sex marriage and gay rights or if there are any clergy here that feel the same show me in the Bible where it says same sex marriage or same sex anything is permitted by God.

Vulchor

MTuccelli:
I will first say that religion is not the basis for the point I want to make...religion is man made and honestly with issues like this it has been whored by many "so called" faiths and clergy. Any church that accepts and performs same sex marriages is in fact disregarding what God had to say about man laying with man.

I do not agree with same sex marriage nor support as you would say "Gay Rights" not because of my faith or religion but by what the Bible says and it says in Leviticus 20:13 and if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ASV (American Standard Version).

No where else does it say in the Old Testament or the New Testament that same sex anything is OK. For anyone that calls themselves a Christian and follower of Christ and agrees with same sex marriage or gay rights or any church leader/pastor that performs same sex marriages is not standing on the word of God and is in my book a Hypocrite...yes a Hypocrite

I also do not buy into any gay person saying they are a Christian and born again and still stays in the life style of homosexuality because they are knowingly committing a sin. So for those that consider themselves Christians and agree with same sex marriage and gay rights or if there are any clergy here that feel the same show me in the Bible where it says same sex marriage or same sex anything is permitted by God.

The bible is the greatest tale of fiction ever told, and told my many generations prior to the guys who wrote it too. Good rules to live by, nice stories....not exactly reading a history textbook Im afraid. If the god character didnt want people to be gay, btw, why did he make them that way? Or if God also gay, since people were made in his (or her) image?

JDH

MTuccelli:
I will first say that religion is not the basis for the point I want to make...religion is man made and honestly with issues like this it has been whored by many "so called" faiths and clergy. Any church that accepts and performs same sex marriages is in fact disregarding what God had to say about man laying with man.

I do not agree with same sex marriage nor support as you would say "Gay Rights" not because of my faith or religion but by what the Bible says and it says in Leviticus 20:13 and if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ASV (American Standard Version).

No where else does it say in the Old Testament or the New Testament that same sex anything is OK. For anyone that calls themselves a Christian and follower of Christ and agrees with same sex marriage or gay rights or any church leader/pastor that performs same sex marriages is not standing on the word of God and is in my book a Hypocrite...yes a Hypocrite

I also do not buy into any gay person saying they are a Christian and born again and still stays in the life style of homosexuality because they are knowingly committing a sin. So for those that consider themselves Christians and agree with same sex marriage and gay rights or if there are any clergy here that feel the same show me in the Bible where it says same sex marriage or same sex anything is permitted by God.

Personally, I don't disagree with any of this. However, as I have said before, and will say again, it does not matter whether or not you agree or disagree with gay marriage, or why you have done so. If any Church, or "establishment of religion" chooses to sanctify same sex marriages, our Constitution prevents any legal actions from being taken against that Church or establishment of religion. That is how freedom of religion is defined in our Constitution. Therefore, it does not matter why you may disagree with the practice. If a Church chooses to conduct these marriage ceremonies, it cannot be stopped without an amendment to the Constitution.

"...For anyone that calls themselves a Christian and follower of Christ and agrees with same sex marriage or gay rights or any church leader/pastor that performs same sex marriages is not standing on the word of God and is in my book a Hypocrite...yes a Hypocrite..."

That's all well and good, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you aint God, and we'll all find out the answer to this riddle in good time, but not from you or me, or anyone else of mortal flesh. In the meantime, why not just chill out a little bit?

MTuccelli

JDH:
MTuccelli:
I will first say that religion is not the basis for the point I want to make...religion is man made and honestly with issues like this it has been whored by many "so called" faiths and clergy. Any church that accepts and performs same sex marriages is in fact disregarding what God had to say about man laying with man.

I do not agree with same sex marriage nor support as you would say "Gay Rights" not because of my faith or religion but by what the Bible says and it says in Leviticus 20:13 and if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ASV (American Standard Version).

No where else does it say in the Old Testament or the New Testament that same sex anything is OK. For anyone that calls themselves a Christian and follower of Christ and agrees with same sex marriage or gay rights or any church leader/pastor that performs same sex marriages is not standing on the word of God and is in my book a Hypocrite...yes a Hypocrite

I also do not buy into any gay person saying they are a Christian and born again and still stays in the life style of homosexuality because they are knowingly committing a sin. So for those that consider themselves Christians and agree with same sex marriage and gay rights or if there are any clergy here that feel the same show me in the Bible where it says same sex marriage or same sex anything is permitted by God.

Personally, I don't disagree with any of this. However, as I have said before, and will say again, it does not matter whether or not you agree or disagree with gay marriage, or why you have done so. If any Church, or "establishment of religion" chooses to sanctify same sex marriages, our Constitution prevents any legal actions from being taken against that Church or establishment of religion. That is how freedom of religion is defined in our Constitution. Therefore, it does not matter why you may disagree with the practice. If a Church chooses to conduct these marriage ceremonies, it cannot be stopped without an amendment to the Constitution.

I am not looking to amend or challenge the Constitution, I shared what I believe in and when the matter comes up for a vote I will always vote NO. Whether you or anyone else agrees with me or disagrees is no matter to me, what matters to me is to keep others that are committing a sin from going to hell. then again if they don't care or those like many here don't care then all I have done is take up a little bandwidth expressing my opinoin.

JDH

"...what matters to me is to keep others that are committing a sin from going to hell. ..."

We are given free will for a reason. We are also given Religious liberty in this country, so that we may all find Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness for ourselves. Whether or not somebody is "going to hell" is not your decision to make, and frankly, after the information has been made avaliable to those "sinners" you've done your job. I don't think you have the right to run their lives for them, or to beat the crap out of them so they will stop doing what you don't want them to do, or to prevent them from living their own lives, even if you have the best of intentions. A lot of people are in prison (for pot crimes) because some people wanted to protect them from themselves, and all they did was to destroy their lives. Leave them alone, and leave the judgement to God.

MTuccelli

JDH:
"...what matters to me is to keep others that are committing a sin from going to hell. ..."

We are given free will for a reason. We are also given Religious liberty in this country, so that we may all find Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness for ourselves. Whether or not somebody is "going to hell" is not your decision to make, and frankly, after the information has been made avaliable to those "sinners" you've done your job. I don't think you have the right to run their lives for them, even if you have the best of intentions. A lot of people are in prison (for pot crimes) because some people wanted to protect them from themselves, and all they did was to destroy their lives. Leave them alone, and leave the judgement to God.

What is going on with you? No matter what I or anyone posts or replies to, you always seem angry and argumentative. You want me to leave others alone then why can't you leave me alone to pursue what is important to me. My caring for someone as to what will happen to them is far more of a benefit to them then the beating and berating you give to me and others on this forum.

JDH

MTuccelli:
JDH:
"...what matters to me is to keep others that are committing a sin from going to hell. ..."

We are given free will for a reason. We are also given Religious liberty in this country, so that we may all find Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness for ourselves. Whether or not somebody is "going to hell" is not your decision to make, and frankly, after the information has been made avaliable to those "sinners" you've done your job. I don't think you have the right to run their lives for them, even if you have the best of intentions. A lot of people are in prison (for pot crimes) because some people wanted to protect them from themselves, and all they did was to destroy their lives. Leave them alone, and leave the judgement to God.
What is going on with you? No matter what I or anyone posts or replies to, you always seem angry and argumentative. You want me to leave others alone then why can't you leave me alone to pursue what is important to me. My caring for someone as to what will happen to them is far more of a benefit to them then the beating and berating you give to me and others on this forum.

There is absolutely no anger in my thoughts. Truly. I'm really sorry if that's what you think. However, I think that you are determined to beat the crap out of the ones you are trying to "save" from themselves. Leave 'em alone, let God judge. I find it so ironic that people who are so concerned with "personal liberty" are so willing to force others to conform tho their way to living. that's not liberty, or freedom, it's freedom to conform.

beatnic

kuzi16:
beatnic:
I said at the beginning of this conversation that I think gays should be given all rights due them. Just call it something else.
separate has never been equal. if it was equal then it would be called the same thing.
beatnic:
I've explained that my positions are based on long held moral principles. What I gathered is that some of your's (collectively) are not based on morals, yet you will use Religion to make your argument? And that's a bit hypocritical.
i am not asking you to change your morality. you do what you gotta do when it comes to the rights of gays.

... so long as you dont violate them.

as far as being hypocritical...
religion is the base of the argument. my first post on this topic stated that i was for religious rights and that is why i am for gay marriage. this means that the US will legally let Gays get married in a religion that is accepting of Gay marriages. I am not asking any Christians to change their morals or for any church to marry two men if they dont want to. I am asking the US to recognize that a religion can accept gay marriage and the US will uphold that union they way that they would uphold the union of a man and a woman.

you are viewing this through the eyes of your religion not a religion that accepts gay marriage. you are asking us to accept your religion as the one that is morally correct even though two men getting married does not violate any rights.

it is not hypocritical to use religion as a basis for legalizing gay marriage because some religions accept it. yours doesnt. and thats ok too. your religion has a right to do so.
beatnic:
Yes, I ask absurd questions. But a principled thinker has no problem in answering what he really means. Peace brothers!
not sure if this was directed at me, but i feel that i have answered them. if you feel i have not, please ask me about what part and we can discuss this further.

Nothing was directed at you. And as soon as I posted it, I knew someone would quickly use the phrase "separate but equal". Still, all of your religious positions rely on legal positions, and visa versa. My positions are more firmly grounded on a religious foundation.

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered
Best Of