New York state just passed same sex marriage bill

page: 24
50
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
Don't really give a damn either way. Doesn't affect me one way or the other.

I think the polygamists will be clamoring next to "legally" marry their 19 wives. After all, who are we to judge their choice of lifestyle?


Absolutely. And what about incest? It's no one elses business.




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I didn't mixed your words with the word's of anyone else. I continued the string of quotes which your post elaborated upon. You replied to a post where another poster made that argument. Follow the quotes if you forgot. I took your post to be a clarification of that other person's argument.

But even then what you're claiming is just as vague. Any enemy group can use any number of "controversial" issues as an element to destabilize a foundation. The issue isn't necessarily the problem, however. The problem rests in the society's inability to adapt to change. It is a common and natural occurrence even in nature. I don't see how human development is somehow exempt from evolutionary change within a society.

If people fear destabilization, then adapt.

The 50's were indeed a very moral and ethical time. Black Americans were treated as inferiors, same as women but only worse. White men ran the United States and it was okay to claim women as property and it was okay to slap around once in a while if they got out of line.

What you're implying is that only through some type of discriminatory subjugation can a diverse population remain stable and morally righteous by the control of the majority. The majority in this case would be Caucasian males.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 





Ironically, Progressives seem to accept Sharia Law, which allows for polygamy. Anything goes in their Utopian society.


Homosexuality is illegal under sharia law, anyone that supports gay rights cannot accept sharia law. That said, I believe it is not the role of government to regulate marriages, and this applies to polygamy, too.
edit on 25/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
So when are we going to legalize '___' and '___'?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


I didn't forget. I just thought I would clarify. Let me say this one more time. We have testimony from Ex KGB that this technique is being used by the Soviets to break down our society through destabilization. I want less govt, not more. I personally don't care what other people do behind closed doors, unless it affects children. It is morally reprehensible for Progressives to use the educational system to push radical agendas, and to supplant and subvert the parental discretion and replace with Statist values. I also object to Obama's agenda to teach sex ed in kindergarten. In fact, that was the first thing he said that turned me off. It is clear that he is Statist and intends to replace parental discretion with Statist values.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by Ghost375
 


What good argument has ever been posed against same-sex marriage?


What good argument has ever been posed against legally changing the name of red to green?


That's a poor argument. It makes little sense and really can't even be compared. Red has always been red and green has always been green, unless the person is color blind.

Marriage, however, has evolved and changed over time. Marriage has never always been about just one thing. Static physical colors cannot reasonably be related to intangible concepts that are in a state of flux, and which have been shown to change and evolve over time. Marriage is such a concept, while red and green are physical colors that were given names. Take for instance how in the United States marriage is a legal institution that is more befitting of a contract than that of a symbolic and ceremonial practice meant to unite man and wife based on love.

Maybe I'm just blind to sexual attraction when it comes to legal consenting adults engaging in relationships with each other and marriage with each other. I don't see how a consenting adult engaging in a relationship with another consenting adult is any of your business to begin with.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 





Ironically, Progressives seem to accept Sharia Law, which allows for polygamy. Anything goes in their Utopian society.


Homosexuality is illegal under sharia law, anyone that supports gay rights cannot accept sharia law. That said, I believe it is not the role of government to regulate marriages, and this applies to polygamy, too.
edit on 25/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



What can I say. Progressives cherry pick what they like, and think it's all going to even out in the end.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by goodday123
 


You're intentionally shifting the burden of proof which in this case is also a red herring because you don't want to take responsibility for your claim by providing proof of it. I'm guessing it's because you can't.

I'm certain that man wrote the Bible. And I'm certain that no one can provide evidence that God had a direct contribution to the Bible or any of the substance within it.

I can provide you proof of how man wrote and pieced together the Bible, is that what you're asking me for? I can even do you one better, I can provide you how man can be traced back to everything related to the Bible. But sadly, I cannot prove that the Bible was not inspired by God anymore than you can prove that the men who created the foundation of the Bible had a direct association with God, and same as how you cannot prove that my message to you earlier wasn't inspired by God.

And if you believe their word, then why don't you believe my word? Prove that the men in the Bible who claimed to have witnessed God in some way is more valid than my claim to have witnessed God in some way.

What makes the Bible so valid? Because the Pope (who is another man appointed by men) said it's valid?


Anyone with any experience in this field is largely aware that religion is based upon belief. While their are many accounts from the Bible and outside of the Bible of how miracles took place - how events changed history. The biggest evidence is what belief in God does to a person's own life. That to you will not be enough testimony, but for many of us it is the biggest and most significant evidence...



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 





Ironically, Progressives seem to accept Sharia Law, which allows for polygamy. Anything goes in their Utopian society.


Homosexuality is illegal under sharia law, anyone that supports gay rights cannot accept sharia law. That said, I believe it is not the role of government to regulate marriages, and this applies to polygamy, too.
edit on 25/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



What can I say. Progressives cherry pick what they like, and think it's all going to even out in the end.


I think that's rather hilarious coming from you, considering your obvious circular reasoning.

Why haven't you addressed my replies to your nonsense, exactly?

What was that about "cherry picking"?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
reply to post by goodday123
 


There is no point in arguing with some sad excuse for a human being who thinks that rape was the lesser of evil in Sodom and Gomorrah. You continue to regurgitate this crap after acknowledging that Jesus' primary message was not to judge? I feel sorry for your fictional afterlife 'rewards'.

It's pure blaspheming anti-logic. We'll just have to wait for "your type" to die off and allegedly go to the Hell that Jesus proclaims for blasphemers. Then we can make the world a more accepting place like Jesus intended.


You obviously know little about Jesus.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by goodday123

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
reply to post by goodday123
 


There is no point in arguing with some sad excuse for a human being who thinks that rape was the lesser of evil in Sodom and Gomorrah. You continue to regurgitate this crap after acknowledging that Jesus' primary message was not to judge? I feel sorry for your fictional afterlife 'rewards'.

It's pure blaspheming anti-logic. We'll just have to wait for "your type" to die off and allegedly go to the Hell that Jesus proclaims for blasphemers. Then we can make the world a more accepting place like Jesus intended.


You obviously know little about Jesus.


Says the person pushing hate.

You don't have a relationship with Jesus at all.

I assume you are Kosher? Otherwise you are just as guilty of sin as homosexuals.
edit on 25-6-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emeraldprophet
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


My personal opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with love, or who cares for whom, or consenting adults. It all has to do with government. I have absolutely no problem with 2 guys going to a church and having a "wedding" or commitment ceremony. I do have a problem with the government endorsement of a same-sex relationship. What the legislatures in NY and other places have done is to say, "(1 Man + 1 Woman) = (1 Man + 1 Man)". It's not true, and it never will be, no matter how much the gay couple loves each other, or however many babies they adopt or bake up in a lab.
1M+1W will always be superior, because it is the joining of 2 different things. That same male/female relationship is the best possible foundation upon which to build a stable family. Having their mother and father cohabiting is the highest ideal for bringing up a child (if anyone disagrees with this, then we just have completely different worldviews and any further discussion will go nowhere). Additionally, that Father+Mother+Child relationship, the family, is the foundation of a decent society. It is one of the the most basic forms of government. When this relationship breaks down, so does the moral fiber of society.

Before casting aspersions on opponents of same-sex marriage, at least consider the possibility that it doesn't come from bigotry, homophobia, religious intolerance, or outright stupidity.
Consider that there may be wisdom in our institutions and traditions and logical reasoning behind them.
When considering homosexual behavior, ask not whether it is their right, or how they got to be that way. Ask "is it good for our society?"


Finally, an intelligent response!

While I disagree with you concerning the act of "marriage" between 2 men in a church, you bring up interesting and intelligent arguments. Makes me also consider the family unit itself and how it has fragmented into so many various collections. Wonder if the problem with our youth stems from the lack of proper family structure, lack of morals, misdirection of parenting or a combination of everything?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorusI didn't forget. I just thought I would clarify. Let me say this one more time. We have testimony from Ex KGB that this technique is being used by the Soviets to break down our society through destabilization.


So what? China, Iran, terrorists are all probably trying to find ways to destabilize America all the same. It's still a vague argument that has little relation to same-sex marriages outside of the fact that the issue can be used to create distractions and destabilization. However, other issues can be used to destabilize the US as well.

Just replace same-sex marriage with rap music or the legalization of marijuana and you have the same distraction, just a different issue.


Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorusI want less govt, not more.


As do I, but as long as the government is given the authority to dictate personal relationships on a legal level, I'll support and advocate the legalization of same-sex marriage.


Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorusI personally don't care what other people do behind closed doors, unless it affects children.


Straight marriage effects children. Religion effects children. Television effects children. War effects children. Video games effect children. People smoking effects children. Motorists effect children. Health and nutrition effects children. Children are effected by a broad many things, what's your point?


Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorusIt is morally reprehensible for Progressives to use the educational system to push radical agendas


That's respectable to some degree. I feel the same way in that I feel it is morally reprehensible for any group to use the educational system to push radical agendas. But what you and I consider radical are probably different.


Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorusand to supplant and subvert the parental discretion and replace with Statist values.


I don't really understand that part of the statement.


Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorusI also object to Obama's agenda to teach sex ed in kindergarten.


I do too. Although I didn't even know about it.


Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorusIn fact, that was the first thing he said that turned me off.


I'd be turned off by that too.


Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorusIt is clear that he is Statist and intends to replace parental discretion with Statist values.


That depends on what the values are. The subjects that are commonly taught in school usually follow a statist-like curriculum. I consider these matters to be on par with what's already in place. But of course they're opened to be scrutinized and are open to disapproval.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by goodday123
 


That still relies on faith in the word of someone else. You really don't know one way or another, which was my point.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I wasn't putting forth an argument. I was commenting on how humans can be unnecessarily violent and sadistic, and how they can justify that violence and sadism by unjustly claiming that it is in the name of God, or that God said they had to act in that way.

But when have lions developed the level of consciousness and thought process that is comparable to humans, and when did lions develop a civilized society where they try to restrict violence as much as possible and debate the ethics of their own actions?

Are you seriously comparing the violence that an animal displays when eating prey for survival to the effects of unrestrained religious discrimination and violence in a supposed civilized human society? Is that an example that you really want to make?

Primitive humans who are out in the wilderness and who are hunting for survival can be closely related to lions hunting for survival, and the violence and gore inherent in such actions can be reasonably compared and contrasted. But religious violence in a "civilized" human society is violence of a different, more unnecessary breed that can't really be related to the violence that lions exhibit when they're attacking and eating their prey. Lions do it for survival, humans do it because they stupidly believe in something when they have the capacity to act civilized and when the have the capacity to make a choice.
edit on 25-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)


Its a debate I have with an atheist friend of mine...I say we are more civilized due to the laws of our religion - based upon the restrictions, moral code etc while he debates that religion is the main divider between people...and without it people would resort to common decency.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Good for them.
At least now they can also share in the miseries of marriage and divorce.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by goodday123
 


Old laws as in levitivus, the same book where shaving is a sin, women having periods is a sin, wearing two kinds of fibers is a sin, and owning a mule is a sin.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiggersTheMan
I don't know why, but the amazing amount of hate, bigotry and intolerance never ceases to amaze me. I really, *really* can't comprehend it. I just don't understand hating people for such superficial things as race, religion or sexual orientation. Those things impact you personally, how, exactly? Because they don't impact me, I don't know why they would.

Hate serves no good purpose. Not only does it hurt those it's being spewed at, it hurts those spewing it. I can see it in these posts, just eating you up inside as you post hurtful, hateful comments. Nothing to be proud of.

For those who keep commenting "it's bad for society." Please explain to me, exactly how it's bad for society. I don't see it, love is simply love. Love is more desirable than hate. Has "society" really been so fantastic prior to this decision? I think there are far more societal ills than you care to acknowledge.

*shrug* I don't have the time or inclination for hatred or intolerance, it doesn't serve me well.


If your parents weren't divorced, did that effect you personally? Did it change your society?
If your a parent, the decisions made by other parents in society and how they raise their children didn't effect you personally...so being a parent does that effect how you raise your child.

I can't see how changes in your society can't effect you...unless you live in the mountains or elsewhere. Public opinion change ideas, laws and attitudes...and you have to live with it



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
I don't even know why I read through 20+ pages of obvious bigotry and hatred. I expected nothing less from an extremely right-wing board. Kudos for everyone who had the patience to try and reason with the unreasonable. I know I can't. Equal rights is a GOOD thing, that should be the end of the discussion.


Funny how there is no "hatred" in your posts...thanks for that!



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by goodday123
 


Those same laws can be applied without religion. So religion really is irrelevant in that case.

Also, there have been studies that have shown how religion correlates in some fashion to immoral and poor behavior, while atheism has been shown to correlate to moral and positive behavior.

Religion is fine. Atheism is fine. Society doesn't need to be met by either extreme to peacefully co-exist with one another. People can find differences in anything and use that as justification to act in an adverse way to someone else. They don't really need religion for that.
edit on 25-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
50
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant