Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bush vs Gay Rights

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by drunk

So i am not entitled to my own opinion am i?

besides i knew you would reply to my orignal post so hook,line and sinker i knew you supported Bush.



You are entitled to your own opinion what I just wanted to say is your apionion is not always true.

Also to tell you the truth I am now a independent.

I dont give a # about Bush.

I was really against his illegal alien thing.

That really ticked me off.

Out,
Russian

HAHAHAHA never said my opinion was true.

You are now an independant? that means you were a republican. And still have some republican blood running through you.


Try and shake it out.
Here have a beer or dont you drink.

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by drunk]




posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by drunk

HAHAHAHA never said my opinion was true.

You are now an independant? that means you were a republican. And still have some republican blood running through you.


Try and shake it out.
Here have a beer or dont you drink.

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by drunk]


Beer uh?

I need something harder?

Maybe vodka?

I got some i the frig.



I am independent but some of my views are still on the right side.

For example pro life.

Less taxes

etc.

Anyway have a nice night

Out,
Russian



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by drunk

HAHAHAHA never said my opinion was true.

You are now an independant? that means you were a republican. And still have some republican blood running through you.


Try and shake it out.
Here have a beer or dont you drink.

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by drunk]


Beer uh?

I need something harder?

Maybe vodka?

I got some i the frig.



I am independent but some of my views are still on the right side.

For example pro life.

Less taxes

etc.

Anyway have a nice night

Out,
Russian


What do you consider the right side then?

Maybe your right is wrong to some ppl.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK
TC, I have found there is a whole lot of stuff in the bible that is not followed, but it is "an abomination" in the eyes of God.

Every society, that I have seen/read about has some form of marriage. To say it belongs to religion is stupid. I do not fully agree with the gay marriage, but I at least would love to see some type of civil unions as I stated above.


Again, O)x, this nation was founded on the Judeo/Christian religion. IAW with this particular belief system, God created/defined marriage. What you consider stupid is none of my concern nor does it play a part in the scene. Don't feel bad, neither does my thoughts. The point is, this nation was created with a set of morals and ethics which underpin its society, and has since the beginning. What we have proven in the last several decades is that the further we stray from the moral discipline of our forefathers, the weaker we become as a civilization. The more we muddle the concept of "rights", the closer we come to retaining our actual rights and liberties.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific Bible laws and how to follow them:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality? I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.


There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse


Who are you talking to? I can hope not me because I have not once refered to God's law, since you seem to only know Lev.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
see this is why i am for gene modification and gene alterning therapy.

all this discussion about gays. Only man and a female can make children with out the use of technology (some times only with it) but gays male and male and female - female relations not.
So they are different from what humans supose to be.
This is being created by a fault in there genes and if you can detect the fault before birth are after you can alter it.
They are genetical misformed or genetical challenged.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I think most miss the point. Take religion out of it even. Lets argue as Athiests. Marriage and all of it's equivilents in other languages constitute a union with a man and one or more women. Even in the poligamist marriages the women aren't married to each other. This definition of the word "Marriage" that has a globaly accepted meaning that has been around for thousands of years is what is being challenged. I say NO! What's next redefining "Murder"?


Cival Union, Gay Couple, Gay Union or Gay Spouses works for me, but not Gay Marriage.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Publius
I think most miss the point. Take religion out of it even. Lets argue as Athiests. Marriage and all of it's equivilents in other languages constitute a union with a man and one or more women. Even in the poligamist marriages the women aren't married to each other. This definition of the word "Marriage" that has a globaly accepted meaning that has been around for thousands of years is what is being challenged. I say NO! What's next redefining "Murder"?


Cival Union, Gay Couple, Gay Union or Gay Spouses works for me, but not Gay Marriage.


I spoke as one because I don't believe in any god but ourselfs.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   

As noted so many times, this nation was founded upon the Judeo-Christian belief, and in that belief God gave us marriage. In that same belief, homosexuality is an abomination, and it has been unacceptable behavior across the globe for how long?



Saw that and had to respond - please read Treaty of Tripoli Article 11

Here ill quote it for you:


As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.



First line



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Stopping homosexuals getting married will not stop them loving each other, it just stops them being equal to 'normal' people who do everthing 'straight'. I know in my mind that there is nothing wrong with being into chicks if you're a chick, guys if you're a guy or being into all of it. Gay-haters, are you really going to achieve anything by stopping people being together as a real, legal binded couple? No, you are simply punishing others for you're fears and hates.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Again, "Call it union, gay couple, gay spouses, just not gay marrige." WHAT THE #ING #! We tried seperate but equal, and guess what? It is wrong! Hello, bigot, republican, christian, whatevr you call yourself, it is wrong!

Also, what is so wrong? Religously, well, THAT WAS GREAT! Good point though, should he kill his neighbor for working on the sabbath? Anyways, now that christianity has been taken out, that leaves bigots and republicans.

Bigots are wrong. Sure they were able to rule in the past, keeping anyone different down, but then they were shut out and the blacks, hispanics, women, jews, all made equal, without fearing for their lives if they sit at the counter or decide to not stay at home.

Republicans, well, since they christians, they covered already, but another thing, they seem to be corrupt. Some are morally corrupt, others, like Bush, just take bribes from their republican/christian freinds and make them happy.

Anyways, someone metioned the fact gays can't have kids. Well, here a deal, adopt every kid that is in a foster home, then worry about any new kids coming along, cause we certainly have enough. In fact, that could be a solution! If more people were gay or lesbian, it would cut down on the amount of kids born. Hell, China could have used this plan 50 years ago.

Hmmm, but what is so wrong with gays and lesbians? I bet 99.99999% of the people against gay marriges watch lesbian porn. Hypocrites.

Another thing, god, according to christians, has some big plan. Everything that happens is because of his plan. So the people who are gay are gay because of god. Take that and shine it up real nice, cause it' you christians who say it's god's plan.

Hmmmm, let's see, besides the fact that christians/republicans/bigots are ignorant/wrong/judgemental people, I don't really see what the problem is. Hell, if I didn't know Amber was a lesbian, I wouldn't know the difference. She isn't evil, she isn't a demon, or a democrat, so I don't get what christians/republicans have against her.

Ok, bring an arguement against gay/lesbian marriges that don't involve a book with giants, magic, or all powerful invisable people in it. No arguements with well, call it this, or call it that, just not marrige. And also, again, no christian sheep faith. Excuse me, sorry, blind faith.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Thinking something is wrong does not imply hate or fear.

Acceptance is different than tolerance.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Your thickheadedness is showing through again...the so called homosexuals who have 'converted' are really just bisexuals. It is pathetic to think they have somehow altered their brains natural attractions through a bit of praying.

I would like to see one credible study to disprove that gay people are not born homosexual, I do not want religious trash or polls, I mean real science like studying the genetic system. Even your own country which you claim follows religion has stated officially that homosexuality is not a psychological or psychiatrist decision, the America Psychiatrist Assosiation removed it from problems in the mind, or even something that counselling would 'help', recognizing its true nature, decades ago. You really should get with the times.

Now, for something to put it into perspective even for someone covered in wool...ah, I know. Could you have sex with another male? If you are really heterosexual the answer is no, your brain would not cause sexual attraction at the sight, and only with physical stimluli you could possibly go through with it, but it would be difficult and unpleasant. Just as true homosexuals cannot be attracted to women, only bisexuals can.

No, I am not a believer. If you really are so gung ho in following the bible why are you not killing homosexuals and bathing them in their own blood? Why is your government not following the rules, why are children not slaughtered with stones for disobeying parents? Perhaps because there is seperation of church and state for this very reason. Your arguement that since most people are religious is foolish, since religion has no place in state, their rights are the issue. Whether or not the religions will perform ceremonies, accept them or get angry is up to those religions, they have no business interfering in government business.

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuestForSafety
Your thickheadedness is showing through again...the so called homosexuals who have 'converted' are really just bisexuals.

You should talk to them. I doubt they would agree with you.


I would like to see one credible study to disprove that gay people are not born homosexual, I do not want religious trash or polls, I mean real science like studying the genetic system.

Very well, but don't have the time now. Will get it later tonight.

No, I am not a believer. If you really are so gung ho in following the bible why are you not killing homosexuals and bathing them in their own blood? Why is your government not following the rules, why are children not slaughtered with stones for disobeying parents?

Oh brother, you really have a twisted way of looking at religion friend. I can't say I blame you though, selective reading can cause that.

Perhaps because there is seperation of church and state for this very reason. Your arguement that since most people are religious is foolish, since religion has no place in state, their rights are the issue.

Ah, I agree with you there, but the fact remains that there is a large percentage of people that are religious in this country. Being that civil rights is not the issue here, everyones opinion must be accepted as the government serves all people.

Whether or not the religions will perform ceremonies, accept them or get angry is up to those religions, they have no business interfering in government business.

They sure do. Everyone has the right to interfer with the governments business, and for you to say otherwise is rediculous.

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
No, churches do not have any business interfering in government business, PEOPLE do, but not religion itself as a guideline.

They cannot deny being bisexual, having had relations with both men and women before, in pleasurable manners, as such they would be mistaken.

Selective reading? No, oh I suppose I just decided to hold the bible for what it writes for once, instead of playing to all its contradictions. You see, it says one thing then says another later on, this allow people to pick and choose which they like better, so it can seem peaceful. The bible does however clearly state what I made mention of. A child who refuses to obey their parents must be slaughtered in the town center by stoning, to teach other children lessons. Any religion that even states this, while contradicting it later is horrible. Even if later on it makes a contradiction that is not good enough, especially for a book people follow like such good sheep. After all, the lord is their 'shepard'.




[Edited on 18-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Bible=Bull# for the masses.
Science=truth for the masses.

Anyways, how come you follow some rules in the bible but not others? I bet you know someone who has worked on the Sabbath, yet haven't killed them like the bible tells you to. You haven't killed any kids who disobey like the bible tells you to. You haven't held slaves like the bible says you can. You haven't done anything the bible tells you, except the common sense stuff they stole from the jews and said was their own by saying god told them it was ok to plagerize the jews and accept it as their own. The ten commandments is about all you follow, and those were stolen from the jews, before they were slaughtered in a few Inquisitions. Sure, you chrisitians say god said you could steal the words and writings of the jews, but well, first you have to prove a all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds exist.

HA! There we go, saying god finds it wrong, when there is no proof god exists. How can a all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds find it wrong when they don't exist? And even if they did exist, can't use them, they a religon, and seperation of church and state.

Ok, so all religon and all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds has been thrown out for this is a legal case, not my all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds has a bigger dick than your all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds, if you believe in a all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds that is. If not, then you going to hell.

So, legal reason they can't, well hell, legally they can, Article 4 I think it was, have to treat the citizens equally, no well, you this, so you don't get the same rights. No, well, you black so you have to sit here, drink here, and ride here. Oh, you gay, then you have to sit here, drink here, and ride here. Sorry, that is discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

So, no religon/all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds/ignorance things, they either stupid, don't exist, or are not allowed to influence laws due to seperation of church and state.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Again, "Call it union, gay couple, gay spouses, just not gay marrige." WHAT THE #ING #! We tried seperate but equal, and guess what? It is wrong! Hello, bigot, republican, christian, whatevr you call yourself, it is wrong!

You resort to name calling because of a weak mind? Bigot? OK so lets redefine the word "Marriage" who gives a damn right? Then I can redefine any word that I want to suit my needs right? Liberals do it all of the time. Lets find out what the word "is" is. Sound familiar.?

I am a bigot why? Because I don't want to say GAY Marriage isn't it? History and past practice defines the word not me. I support gay spouse and the others I mentioned. What does that tell you ( i resort to name calling) dumb ass? I support Gays having unions. Did you not UNDERSTAND that or have you assigned randome meaning to all of my words to suit you? Looks like it. I might as well post in swahili. I will say it again, it ISN'T MARRIAGE. Can't be, but of course it will mean whatever it's deamed to mean, by those who bitch enough.

BTW, you have no idea that I am Christian or Republican, because I never said I was either, and you sure as hell are wrong about bigot. Of course bigot is slung by those who aren't agreed with 100%. Please define it for me, because I am ignorant.




[Edited on 18-2-2004 by Publius]



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   
How did you take me saying that religion can not be ignored into a battle on whether God exists and the validity of the bible.

Ah, who knows, who cares. Let's twist this debate some more when you run out of points.

Look, if you want to debate Mosaic Law and the change brought by Christ then fine, but this is about gay marriage, is it not?

So back to the topic.


Originally posted by James the Lesser
Bible=Bull# for the masses.
Science=truth for the masses.

Says you. But others disagree, but this is not the topic

Anyways, how come you follow some rules in the bible but not others? I bet you know someone who has worked on the Sabbath, yet haven't killed them like the bible tells you to. You haven't killed any kids who disobey like the bible tells you to. You haven't held slaves like the bible says you can. You haven't done anything the bible tells you, except the common sense stuff they stole from the jews and said was their own by saying god told them it was ok to plagerize the jews and accept it as their own. The ten commandments is about all you follow, and those were stolen from the jews, before they were slaughtered in a few Inquisitions. Sure, you chrisitians say god said you could steal the words and writings of the jews, but well, first you have to prove a all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds exist.

Again, off topic. Are you ADD?

HA! There we go, saying god finds it wrong, when there is no proof god exists. How can a all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds find it wrong when they don't exist? And even if they did exist, can't use them, they a religon, and seperation of church and state.

Again

Ok, so all religon and all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds has been thrown out for this is a legal case, not my all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds has a bigger dick than your all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds, if you believe in a all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds that is. If not, then you going to hell.

And yet again

So, legal reason they can't, well hell, legally they can, Article 4 I think it was, have to treat the citizens equally, no well, you this, so you don't get the same rights. No, well, you black so you have to sit here, drink here, and ride here. Oh, you gay, then you have to sit here, drink here, and ride here. Sorry, that is discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

You are right. Telling a person where to sit and where to drink is unconstitutional. But since this is not a civil rights issue, your point is moot.

So, no religon/all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds/ignorance things, they either stupid, don't exist, or are not allowed to influence laws due to seperation of church and state.

Of course seperation of church and state. But that does not mean that people give up their beliefs nor do we ignore where they come from when they hold public office or speak about issues so I don't know what your point is yet again.




Look, this is real simple, so if you respond to anything but my point, then I'll know you just like to read your own wonderful words.

This is an issue for everyone, not just gay people. Unfortunatly, we have to accomadate everyone, not just the religious or the gay folks. It would be EASIER to set up unions that recieve the same rights as other couples in the eyes of the government, which is all they are entitled to under the Constitution.

Then if they wanted to change the laws etc, it would be free (relatively) from religious interference.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
Stopping homosexuals getting married will not stop them loving each other, it just stops them being equal to 'normal' people who do everthing 'straight'. I know in my mind that there is nothing wrong with being into chicks if you're a chick, guys if you're a guy or being into all of it. Gay-haters, are you really going to achieve anything by stopping people being together as a real, legal binded couple? No, you are simply punishing others for you're fears and hates.


You will never achieve perfection in humanity, plain and simple. Does that mean you do away with laws? That line of reasoning makes no sense. Because their is a percentage of humanity that will violate all law or norm, do we do away with all laws and norms? Of course not.

I find it funny that you have no problem with chicks digging chicks! LOL! Spoken like a true male!!


I do, however, find offensive tha tyou insinuate that all who are against this are "gay haters". First off, I'm gay. Not in the hijacked sense, but in the true meaning of the word. So, let's use the proper word...homosexual. The offense is that you say we are homosexual haters, as opposed to haters of homosexuality. To clarify it for the shallow-minded, love the sinner while hating the sin. You are trying to lay an offense at our feet while dodging or rationalizing the real offense.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Oh, and since I forgot to post this last time for you science worshipers, here you go.

Enjoy.

"A study done in 1995 by a certain Dean Hamer of the U.S. National Institute of Health purported to find a homosexual gene. Hamer claimed that this "homosexual gene" was responsible for a persons sexual orientation. His study at the time was criticized within the scientific community for containing numerous flaws. In addition, the fact that Dr. Hamer himself was a practicing and an activist homosexual caused many to wonder about the objectivity of his research. At the time, he bragged about the ease with which a person could manipulate the press. According to Presbyterian Pro-Life News, he told a meeting of parents and friends of lesbians and homosexuals: "If you tell the press what to write about a scientific study, theyll write it."

"owever, since then another study has been done by Dr. Alan Sanders, also from the National Institute of Health. He replicated Hamers study in order to verify his conclusions, and Dr. Sanders found no evidence to validate Hamers findings or his theory. The study by Dr. Sanders did not reproduce Hamers results. Its a well-known scientific law that a finding must be replicated by other researchers before it can be considered valid. And on this one, Hamers claim was not replicated.

"n addition to Dr. Sanders findings, another study at the University of Western Ontario by neurologist Dr. George Rice has been published in the April 1999 edition of the Canadian Journal of Science. Dr. Rice also tried to reproduce Hamers study and researched homosexual brothers from 48 families. He found that they were no more likely to share similar genetic patterns than would have been the odds from pure chance."


Any questions?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join