Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network

Go Back   Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network > FORESKIN RESTORATION > Le Bistro
Register FAQ Members List Calendars Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Le Bistro Off-topic discussion among members

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 12th, 2012
bsidney bsidney is offline
bsidney
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Posts: 54
Default Re: North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban

First, if gay people want to get married who cares. I say let them. I think some sort of designated partner would be better for everyone, gay or straight. Marriage is the only contract that we willingly sign onto without reading the whole contract, because the contract includes laws from 50 states and even federal laws. Try getting the whole contract and then see if you really want to be married. Any other contract would be easily declared void by the courts if all of the clauses were not disclosed to both parties and a contract that is so unevenly beneficial to one party.

Second, 50% of married men and women get divorced. That means that 50% of the men want out and have to pay a very big penalty in most cases. If you are gay you should count yourself lucky that you don't have to get married to have a loving lasting relationship. Many more men want a divorce, but can't take the financial hit. When you get a divorce the women gets half of your retirement even though she may not have worked a day in her life. And don't believe that bull about being entitled to it. Often times that puts a man into a very uncomfortable retirement instead of a comfortable one.

Finally, the only reason to get married is to have children. I envy gay people because they are not forced into marriage and threatened to be kept in line by their partner. I feel bad for gays who want marriage since they really don't know what they are asking for. The lawyers can't wait for gay marriage since too many straight couples are not getting married. They make a lot of money on divorces.

But hey, I'm all for gay marriage, why should gays be treated better than straights?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old May 12th, 2012
Them Boots Them Boots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 212
Default Re: North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsidney View Post
Marriage is the only contract that we willingly sign onto without reading the whole contract, because the contract includes laws from 50 states and even federal laws. Try getting the whole contract and then see if you really want to be married. Any other contract would be easily declared void by the courts if all of the clauses were not disclosed to both parties and a contract that is so unevenly beneficial to one party.
It's interesting that you bring up marriage in contractual terms, marriage is in fact the only contractual situation that allows unilateral recission without penalty, better known as the no-fault divorce. In any other contractual situation there is always a penalty if one party wants to break the contract. I worked in real estate sales for some time and if a buyer wants to break a purchase contract, he or she will lose the earnest money deposit without fail. If a seller is in escrow and wants to cancel the deal, he or she may have to fork over damages to the buyer as consideration for being released from the deal, or possibly be sued by the buyer for specific performance (being forced to sell the house as per the terms of the contract.)

Maybe this is a problem or maybe it isn't, depending on how you look at it, but what definitely is a problem is how one party to the marriage, usually the woman, is left much better off than the other party at the end. How many divorce situations have you seen where the man has full custody of the kids, the house, the boat, and most of the money and the woman is left with one car and a suitcase full of clothes, and a huge monthly alimony/child support bill? Usually it's the other way around, and if the woman is especially vindictive she can hang a series of restraining orders and felony accusations around the man's neck that were taken out based on her word alone, even if there was never any physical threat to begin with. Look up laws like VAWA, many states mandate that if there is a domestic violence call, the police are REQUIRED to arrest the MAN, regardless of the circumstances they find when they get to the house.

I would love nothing more than to be in a secure, trusting, long-term relationship, but I have seen the ugly side of marriage growing up and the possibility of having to go through that again scares the shit out of me. There is an entire industry in this country that profits from divorce and has every interest in creating as much turmoil and conflict as possible every time it happens. I've been in courtrooms as a spectator and watched crooked lawyers being cut off by judges because they were trying to argue over who gets the exercise bike and the stack of firewood for the fourth or fifth time in order to pad their billable hours.

Look at http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-21.htm for some interesting reading and also see if you can get a hold of Stephen Baskerville's books.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old May 13th, 2012
bsidney bsidney is offline
bsidney
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Posts: 54
Default Re: North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban

I want you all to know that I love gays and support their rights. Don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I would like to see some laws to allow people to select another person to be treated as their mate. I have seen cases where the gay partner is not allowed to be in the room as their mate dies and that is totally wrong. If gays want to marry I certainly support them. However, I just think they have a great thing going and are killing it. With current laws as was mentioned the male in a marital dispute is required to be arrested. So they will have to arrest both men in a gay marriage? What do they do for gay women? Marriage is only about 10% at best about love and commitment. The rest is a financial arrangement and forced slavery usually of the man. In some states a husband can't be charged with raping his wife. Imagine being a gay married guy raped in the behind without consent. If gay people keep pushing they will get marriage and I really feel sorry for them. Their money will be taken by so many lawyers it almost makes me want to go to law school. The bonanza is almost here!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old May 13th, 2012
Sephardi8Dad's Avatar
Sephardi8Dad Sephardi8Dad is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Texas (west Texas to be sure)
Posts: 7
Default Re: North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban

Mr. Doodles, I thank you for the courteous discourse, but apparently I was not specific enough in my communications. Either you misunderstood or misrepresented my points. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.


What you read:
You infer that marriage should not based on just sexual urges and here I agree, but the point you were trying to come off as is that homosexuals are only in favor of marriage due to these sexual urges [...] and say they solely base "marriage" on sexual urges

What I wrote:
The principal function of marriage is to form the foundation of society via the family. It's purpose is not merely to vindicate our sexual urges.

I ran the gamut on foundations for sexual unions. My point - as you correctly identified by agreeing that unions based solely on sexual urges are not to be preferred - is that there IS a preferred basis for marriage. My basis comes from Biblical history as enshrined in Genesis and as recognized the world throughout, viz. procreation.
Sir, what is your basis for your judgement?


What you read:
Now you also say that the purpose of a marriage is just to make a family. (Emphasis mine.)


What I wrote:
The principal function of marriage is to form the foundation of society via the family. (Emphasis mine.)

Far be it from me to ascribe intentions, but your actions missed my text.
The rest of your argument is thus a moot point.


What you read:
Can you blame some homosexuals feeling outraged and being "militant" as you say.(sic)


American Blacks, under the guidance of Dr. Martin Luther King , Stokely Carmichael (initially with SNCC in case you don't know the reference) and others advocated for non-violent protests in gaining equal rights. They followed the lead of Gandhi, and he followed the lead of Jesus.
You can vote, I want to vote. You can drink at this fountain, I want to drink at this fountain. You can get this job, I want to get that job.

Two differences to point out here.
Firstly, in Texas, I , a male, can legally marry a female not related to me by blood.
My homosexual friend, Michael, also has the legal right to marry a female not related to him by blood.
His aspiration (and he has none) to marry a male not related to him by blood is not an EQUAL right, it is a SPECIAL right.

Secondly, I have not tried to forcefully have him accept my viewpoint. I have not sought to have him fined or incarcerated for his views or actions stemming from his beliefs. I have not accused him of a "hate crime." I cannot say that about the photographers in New Mexico nor the T-shirt company in Kentucky. How would YOU protect the LIBERTY of such individuals (who may face fines, imprisonment, or both) from the HAPPINESS of militant homosexuals? It seems increasingly that rather than debate, some homosexuals would rather silence any opposition. Quite unAmerican if you ask me.

You failed to address those points and instead presented the red herring of job discrimination. Let's stay focused instead.


Now what do you think is better for a child in a scenario like this. Foster children who go from home to home with no stability vs. a stable couple who can care, love, and provide for that child. (sic) Note that I left sexuality aside in this scenario.

Here you just presented another logical fallacy, viz. false dilemma. Those are not the only choices. That said, the best choice is that of a loving father and mother. It's sad that our egocentric society has degraded to the point where 1) such children are abandoned and 2) where such children are not taken into homes where the balance and roles between a married man and woman are present. Shouldn't we try to HELP marriage rather than dilute it's influence?
Look at the plague in the Black community where over 70% of children are born out of wedlock. Can anybody argue that bolstering traditional marriage in the black community, as it once was, WOULDN'T help?

I adopted my oldest son as a single man. I'll spare you the details, but suffice to say at the time, I was the most expedient and stable alternative for him. That said, if a married couple (man and woman) had been available and willing, I would have joyfully advocated for such placement because that would have been BEST for him, despite any of MY feelings. Would you thus oppose regulations that prefer married couples to homosexual unions? Just answer this question as asked - your answer will be most telling.



In the interest of brevity, I will dock my subsequent counter points.

Regarding the studies, and in particular the one you cited:
There are a multiplicity of shortcomings with so many of the current studies.
If this alone is enough to convince you, I will gladly engage tête-à-tête.
Suffice to say that lack of longitudinal data, sampling size, self-reporting, demographic disparity, parametric controls, and researcher COI are all issues.

Regarding marriage being redefined, in NONE of your examples was the proscription for homosexual unions in question, ergo your contention regarding redefinition is suspect.

Regarding the perversion of marriage where you say "But we already allow 2 people to marry and surely enough it did not lead to marriage between 3 or 4.", obviously you have not heard about the case in Canada where polygamists are using ruling in favor of homosexual marriage as a defense of their practice. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ogamy-polygamy) Some activists in the US are considering the same strategy now.

My point was this: there is ONE standard.
Once somebody wants an exception, there is NO standard.

Regarding "consenting adults", but your first post just said "couple".
Thus my extrapolation of your arguments to its end of men marrying girls was legitimate within the criterion you first set. (Glad we can agree on that!)

Homosexuality is a disease: this was the consensus of the psychiatric community until 1973. The weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

What are your thoughts regarding paedophilia?
What are your thoughts regarding polyamory?
In Spain, the age of consent is 13. Is that good enough for you?
In Britain, there is a movement to lower the age of consent to 12.

Do you consider ANY of this disturbing? If so, why?
Factions are now lobbying for removal of paedophilia and polyamory as mental disorders. NAMBLA's slogan is "Sex before 8 or it's too late."
Their model? you ask: Homosexual activists.

You MAY have missed the influences of that.

Regarding...your beliefs tell you that marriage should only be between a man and woman is fine. Keep and hold onto that, but why push that onto others?

Do you not realize the hypocrisy of homosexuals forcing ME to adopt THEIR view?


Regarding ... The constitution is here to protect people rights
Last time I checked freedom of religion is NUMBER one, dear sir.
Homosexual unions are not.

So WHY exactly are people's right to live out their faith being curtailed by homosexual activists? Why are people of faith forced to shut up and accept something that violates their beliefs?

And lastly regarding my sincerely held (religious) beliefs...sincere and true to yourself, but should not dictate the beliefs or laws of this nation.

No.

Allow me to repeat that: No.

So MY beliefs are just fine to have so long as they don't affect policy?
YOU on the other hand, or militant homosexuals, ARE allowed to affect policy?


I want you to know a little bit more about me.
One of my ten nephews is a homosexual. I love him, and he knows it. He also knows that I do not support "gay marriage." He could care less.

One of my co-workers is homosexual. He would one day like go have a "gay marriage." Though many suspected it and some of his friends knew it, nobody said anything about it. When one of the workers in a particular sector started making derogatory remarks about "working with fags", I was the only one to stand up and defend him. I reminded that worker that everybody needs to be treated as they would like to be treated - with respect. (Recognize the Golden Rule?)

So although I absolutely disagree with homosexual marriage, I will absolutely recognize the Imageo Dei residing in each one of us.


Oh, and admin, you could have just said "Excuse me for being vulgar. Even though this is a Bistro, I'll keep it PG."

Awaiting your reply to my sixteen questions,
I am Respectfully Yours.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old May 13th, 2012
admin admin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,495
Default Re: North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad View Post
Awaiting your reply to my sixteen questions
Hi,

I think you'll have a better time getting responses to your questions if you stick to the quoting format provided by the forum. When you see a post and want to comment, click Quote. The forum generates a quotation Tag around the material you're replying to. But you don't have to leave it lookiung like that and you may copt and paste that quotation tage multiple times to set off certain passages and reply to each.

Some Users will read your note in an emailed daily digest format. This is plain text and the material within the quotation may be omitted so they only see what you wrote. But they won't see different fonts or colors.

Regards,
-Ron
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old May 13th, 2012
Doodles's Avatar
Doodles Doodles is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 41
Default Re: North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad View Post
Mr. Doodles, I thank you for the courteous discourse, but apparently I was not specific enough in my communications. Either you misunderstood or misrepresented my points. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.


What I wrote:
The principal function of marriage is to form the foundation of society via the family. It's purpose is not merely to vindicate our sexual urges.

I ran the gamut on foundations for sexual unions. My point - as you correctly identified by agreeing that unions based solely on sexual urges are not to be preferred - is that there IS a preferred basis for marriage. My basis comes from Biblical history as enshrined in Genesis and as recognized the world throughout, viz. procreation.
Sir, what is your basis for your judgement?


What you read:
Now you also say that the purpose of a marriage is just to make a family. (Emphasis mine.)


What I wrote:
The principal function of marriage is to form the foundation of society via the family. (Emphasis mine.)

Far be it from me to ascribe intentions, but your actions missed my text.
The rest of your argument is thus a moot point.




American Blacks, under the guidance of Dr. Martin Luther King , Stokely Carmichael (initially with SNCC in case you don't know the reference) and others advocated for non-violent protests in gaining equal rights. They followed the lead of Gandhi, and he followed the lead of Jesus.
You can vote, I want to vote. You can drink at this fountain, I want to drink at this fountain. You can get this job, I want to get that job.

Two differences to point out here.
Firstly, in Texas, I , a male, can legally marry a female not related to me by blood.
My homosexual friend, Michael, also has the legal right to marry a female not related to him by blood.
His aspiration (and he has none) to marry a male not related to him by blood is not an EQUAL right, it is a SPECIAL right.

Secondly, I have not tried to forcefully have him accept my viewpoint. I have not sought to have him fined or incarcerated for his views or actions stemming from his beliefs. I have not accused him of a "hate crime." I cannot say that about the photographers in New Mexico nor the T-shirt company in Kentucky. How would YOU protect the LIBERTY of such individuals (who may face fines, imprisonment, or both) from the HAPPINESS of militant homosexuals? It seems increasingly that rather than debate, some homosexuals would rather silence any opposition. Quite unAmerican if you ask me.

You failed to address those points and instead presented the red herring of job discrimination. Let's stay focused instead.


Now what do you think is better for a child in a scenario like this. Foster children who go from home to home with no stability vs. a stable couple who can care, love, and provide for that child. (sic) Note that I left sexuality aside in this scenario.

Here you just presented another logical fallacy, viz. false dilemma. Those are not the only choices. That said, the best choice is that of a loving father and mother. It's sad that our egocentric society has degraded to the point where 1) such children are abandoned and 2) where such children are not taken into homes where the balance and roles between a married man and woman are present. Shouldn't we try to HELP marriage rather than dilute it's influence?
Look at the plague in the Black community where over 70% of children are born out of wedlock. Can anybody argue that bolstering traditional marriage in the black community, as it once was, WOULDN'T help?

I adopted my oldest son as a single man. I'll spare you the details, but suffice to say at the time, I was the most expedient and stable alternative for him. That said, if a married couple (man and woman) had been available and willing, I would have joyfully advocated for such placement because that would have been BEST for him, despite any of MY feelings. Would you thus oppose regulations that prefer married couples to homosexual unions? Just answer this question as asked - your answer will be most telling.



In the interest of brevity, I will dock my subsequent counter points.

Regarding the studies, and in particular the one you cited:
There are a multiplicity of shortcomings with so many of the current studies.
If this alone is enough to convince you, I will gladly engage tête-à-tête.
Suffice to say that lack of longitudinal data, sampling size, self-reporting, demographic disparity, parametric controls, and researcher COI are all issues.

Regarding marriage being redefined, in NONE of your examples was the proscription for homosexual unions in question, ergo your contention regarding redefinition is suspect.

Regarding the perversion of marriage where you say "But we already allow 2 people to marry and surely enough it did not lead to marriage between 3 or 4.", obviously you have not heard about the case in Canada where polygamists are using ruling in favor of homosexual marriage as a defense of their practice. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ogamy-polygamy) Some activists in the US are considering the same strategy now.

My point was this: there is ONE standard.
Once somebody wants an exception, there is NO standard.

Regarding "consenting adults", but your first post just said "couple".
Thus my extrapolation of your arguments to its end of men marrying girls was legitimate within the criterion you first set. (Glad we can agree on that!)

Homosexuality is a disease: this was the consensus of the psychiatric community until 1973. The weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

What are your thoughts regarding paedophilia?
What are your thoughts regarding polyamory?
In Spain, the age of consent is 13. Is that good enough for you?
In Britain, there is a movement to lower the age of consent to 12.

Do you consider ANY of this disturbing? If so, why?
Factions are now lobbying for removal of paedophilia and polyamory as mental disorders. NAMBLA's slogan is "Sex before 8 or it's too late."
Their model? you ask: Homosexual activists.

You MAY have missed the influences of that.

Regarding...your beliefs tell you that marriage should only be between a man and woman is fine. Keep and hold onto that, but why push that onto others?

Do you not realize the hypocrisy of homosexuals forcing ME to adopt THEIR view?


Regarding ... The constitution is here to protect people rights
Last time I checked freedom of religion is NUMBER one, dear sir.
Homosexual unions are not.


So WHY exactly are people's right to live out their faith being curtailed by homosexual activists? Why are people of faith forced to shut up and accept something that violates their beliefs?

And lastly regarding my sincerely held (religious) beliefs...sincere and true to yourself, but should not dictate the beliefs or laws of this nation.

No.

Allow me to repeat that: No.

So MY beliefs are just fine to have so long as they don't affect policy?
YOU on the other hand, or militant homosexuals, ARE allowed to affect policy?



I want you to know a little bit more about me.
One of my ten nephews is a homosexual. I love him, and he knows it. He also knows that I do not support "gay marriage." He could care less.

One of my co-workers is homosexual. He would one day like go have a "gay marriage." Though many suspected it and some of his friends knew it, nobody said anything about it. When one of the workers in a particular sector started making derogatory remarks about "working with fags", I was the only one to stand up and defend him. I reminded that worker that everybody needs to be treated as they would like to be treated - with respect. (Recognize the Golden Rule?)

So although I absolutely disagree with homosexual marriage, I will absolutely recognize the Imageo Dei residing in each one of us.


Oh, and admin, you could have just said "Excuse me for being vulgar. Even though this is a Bistro, I'll keep it PG."

Awaiting your reply to my sixteen questions,
I am Respectfully Yours.
You lost a lot of credibility the moment you wrote that homosexuality is a disease. If you truly believe that then fine, I am not here to persuade you otherwise (but if I can, then that is great). I may go out of order here but I will try to point out most of the concerns.

You made it a big point that why am I not in favor of civil unions instead of marriage. Clearly you skipped out/misinterpreted some things form my last post as well. The main reason I did not mention civil unions is because again it is unequal treatment. A civil union is not recognized from state to state, not fully recognized under the federal law, will provide no tax advantage, no provisions for insurance for the people in a civil union/family, etc. The main reason why I added the discrimination during a job is to show that again a person who may have a different sexual preference will have NO protection under the law. But if we are strictly talking about marriage then I suppose you may ignore that part... but it still shows how "fair" this country is.

You initially state that the principle of marriage is to have a family. Again this is your view and you are more than happy to hold onto that. People marry for various reasons and certainly having a family may be an important step. But again this is a very subjective view point as you already stated that you get your view form the bible and marriage is simply to procreate. Marriage to me may mean something different to you. Marriage to someone of XYZ religion may see it different from a Christian. So what do you tell those people of XYZ religion? That since their principle of marriage is not the same as yours, they should not be allowed to married? You did put "emphasis mine" and that is exactly my point. It is your view.

I applaud you however, that you stood up to someone else who was name calling. No one should deserve any derogatory marks in a professional environment or anywhere else. Now you keep bringing up cases like the T-shirt company or the photographers, etc. Luckily I am taking my law class right now. If someone is working for a particular company, say a professional photography company, and a particular employee was asked to be the photographer and that employee declines because of their religion, then that employee has failed to perform the duty required for that company. Let me explain that last part, to be able to work at any place, you must meet certain requirements. Failure to do so is a breach of duty of the work requirements. In the case of a photographer who refuses to take pictures because of their religious beliefs means that that particular photographer breached their duty of meeting a requirement for their job. Now religion is protected by law and everyone is free to share their belief system. However, if a job has certain requirements that are applied equally to everyone, and your religious belief system hinders those requirements, then that company will not have to hire you.

Now freedom of religion is protected under our constitution. But that just means that YOU are free to believe in any religion you want with no penalty. Why should everyone else of a different belief system mold to your religious beliefs? Surely we should ban all shellfish for everyone to eat because the bible has told you so and we should make that law because only your religion is the right religion. Again, separation of church and state. Can't you see the hypocrisy you are trying to say here?

You also state the age of consent is of different ages in other countries. Again I said marriage should be between two consenting adults. Again I said adults, not just consenting children or teens. Not what defines an adult is the maturity of the brain, experience, etc. and we all know that the brain is not fully developed at a much later age than an 8 year old. However, the age of consent is different for many countries for marriage, and again marriage itself is different everywhere! This again brings in my point of forced marriages, dowries, etc. because marriage to you will mean something totally different to someone else.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up that homosexuals are so militant and we are forcing something that violates your beliefs. If you have not noticed, people of many other religions, cultures, and of other beliefs will be violating your belief system already. Refer back up to the paragraphs above in this case. Again, homosexuals in general should have the right to not feel like a second class citizen in general (not just marriage) because homosexuals are not treated equally under the law. Wouldn't you also fight for equal treatment if only Christians were the only group who would not get hospital visitation rights? Now that was just one example.

To make this a bit more clear, your religious beliefs should not have any impact on policy. Everyone in this country IS entitled to basic human rights. Amendment 1 protects your right to believe in any belief system YOU want, and that does not mean that it gives you the right to make only your beliefs right and everyone else wrong.

Just to summarize:
1. The first Amendment entitles you to believe in any belief system, but not to push your beliefs onto others.
2. You are still free to believe in your beliefs even if homosexuals get married.
3. You state that your belief system will be so hindered and damaged if homosexuals were allowed to marry because it goes against your religious beliefs. First, this applies to every religion and cultural belief system already that goes against yours. What do you tell all of them?
4. If a job has certain requirements, and an employee fails to meet those requirements and they are already hired, that employee has breached their duty to do that job.
5. Civil unions =/= marriage for the simple fact that they do not share the same qualities. Ie. a civil union does not have the same benefits or statute as marriage.
6. Adults =/= children or teenagers, however, marriage to you has many different meanings to everyone else. If family is your main principle to marriage then that is fine, but that does not apply to everyone.
7. Most of your argument is mostly based on your religious belief system.
8. Homosexual who are actively trying to change the law is because it is a civil rights issue. Under the 14th Amendment everyone is entitled to fair and equal treatment under the law. That is already breached is many cases with homosexuals and not just marriage. All homosexuals of this nation are still citizens of this nation. We are all fighting for EQUAL and Fair rights that everyone else seems to enjoy. Personally I think that sexual orientation should be classified as a protected class and hopefully it will be one day.

Last edited by Doodles; May 13th, 2012 at 15:59.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old May 13th, 2012
Sephardi8Dad's Avatar
Sephardi8Dad Sephardi8Dad is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Texas (west Texas to be sure)
Posts: 7
Default Re: North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban

Mr. Doodles,

You keep missing my point. It is astounding. Must need I communicate as with the Sheliak Corporate?

Was asking you to answer my 16 questions too much?
It appears to be so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodles View Post
Personally I think that sexual orientation should be classified as a protected class and hopefully it will be one day.
That is not the case now, yet you predicate your entire response in an emotional appeal to your desires rather than the arguments at hand.
I tried delineating cogent, logical arguments. The fact that my basis is biblical appears anathema to you as corroborated by your kerfuffled reply.

There are none so blind as those who wish to be:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

SELF-EVIDENT
Apparently, everybody KNEW that our rights come from G-d.
Yet here you are, antagonistic to religion, the very one which served as the basis for the founding of our government, the one which you attack today.

Your hypocrisy is rank. You claim to be open-minded yet fail to even answer my questions. Your ability to twist arguments, evade questions, and follow rabbit trails is amazing.

I cannot debate a person who refuses to abide by even the simplest confines of civil discourse.

I will pray for you, and I wish you well.

What you see is what you get,
Sine cera and Shalom.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old May 13th, 2012
Doodles's Avatar
Doodles Doodles is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 41
Default Re: North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad View Post
Mr. Doodles,

You keep missing my point. It is astounding. Must need I communicate as with the Sheliak Corporate?

Was asking you to answer my 16 questions too much?
It appears to be so.



That is not the case now, yet you predicate your entire response in an emotional appeal to your desires rather than the arguments at hand.
I tried delineating cogent, logical arguments. The fact that my basis is biblical appears anathema to you as corroborated by your kerfuffled reply.

There are none so blind as those who wish to be:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

SELF-EVIDENT
Apparently, everybody KNEW that our rights come from G-d.
Yet here you are, antagonistic to religion, the very one which served as the basis for the founding of our government, the one which you attack today.

Your hypocrisy is rank. You claim to be open-minded yet fail to even answer my questions. Your ability to twist arguments, evade questions, and follow rabbit trails is amazing.

I cannot debate a person who refuses to abide by even the simplest confines of civil discourse.

I will pray for you, and I wish you well.

What you see is what you get,
Sine cera and Shalom.
That last line of mine was in response to the "homosexuals are so militant". Emotional, of course. It is a subject that is dear to me. However, I have refuted many of your tactics, which frankly are very loosely put together all while keeping my emotional side at bay.

Your entire argument and reasoning is based solely on "my religion is the right religion, and every other way is wrong". No debate can form from such a line from a person not willing to look at facts and not base such arguments on just religion.

You brought up a case about religion in the workplace, I explained the law about that. You bring up religion as your principle belief, yet I explained why one religious belief should not dictate the belief of the others. You bring up why homosexuals feel so "militant", and I explained the overall inequality homosexuals of this nation face (and not just marriage). You say homosexuality is a disease, and that proves your ignorance.

If you truly look at what I wrote, I answered most/or all of your questions with actual fact. I explained to you with examples of the inequalities homosexuals do face. I explained how our constitution is suppose to protect all of its citizens with fairness and equality. I explained actual laws related to this topic. Yet you constantly just bring in religion as your main source to refute everything I say.

I have nothing against religion, as I was raised in a Catholic household. I do however, will refute back with facts that go beyond just my religious beliefs, if it concerns an ethical issue that is especially important to me.

By the way... I think you are losing more credibility to everyone else by saying "everybody knew that our rights come from g-d". Again this proves my point that you can ONLY argue based so loosely on your religious beliefs. Sure I will agree that religion itself teaches moral and ethical values. However, morals and ethics go beyond religion and I have grown into a person who has built my own morals and ethics as with many other people.

Thanks for your prayer though, I am hoping it will help me pass my finals =).
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old April 22nd, 2013
MajesticMusic MajesticMusic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Posts: 76
Default Re: North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban

I'm anti-religious and I can't stand it when religions are afraid of everything. Marriage is just a legal agreement between to people. It allows for more legal benefits. Everyone should be allowed to marry or love who every they want. I also believe that marriage isn't a measure of love. People can also know how long they been together without marriage and know if they truly love each other.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old April 24th, 2013
alex-oh's Avatar
alex-oh alex-oh is offline
intact partner
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 479
Default Re: North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban

Why is marriage a government institution? It's primarily religious, isn't it? Why do gays want access to this government-religious institution? If we take government out of marriage and make marriage a purely religious institution (again), then different religions can and will do as they like--including allowing gay marriage in those religions that respect everyone.

I can't see how any of that really matters much one way or the other. It doesn't matter to me.

About the interrelated issue of family, no one should act like gay couples can't be adequate parents. They can certainly do as well as anyone else.
__________________
Foreskin is human. Involuntary skin amputation/penis scarification is a particularly barbaric expression of tribalism. Aesop rejected amputationism millennia ago with The Fox Who Lost His Tail. None of amputationist's public health arguments are likely applicable to America because intact hetero American men reported using condoms more frequently (Crosby 2013).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.