State Laws/ Propositions

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

It doesn't offend me.

For not being offended, that's a pretty hostile reaction to a discussion that isn't even about whether the Bible is valid, only about what it is saying.

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

I find it humorous that people still believe this crap, that's all. And I find it pathetic that christians pick and choose what they want to follow from the bible.

Yada yada yada *standard statement about how all Christians are idiots and hypocrites*

Christians have fairly established standards on how to interpret the Bible. All the denominations you see around are usually the result of nit-picking over things like whether baptism means full-bodied immersion or whatnot. The exceptions - i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, liberal denominations - are usually the result of deciding to rely on something other than the Bible. Like the Pope, or the currently acceptable view of God, whatever. And they are perfectly free to do that.

But the Protestant tradition of Bible interpretation has remained unchanged. Perhaps you are confusing this with the failure of Christians to actually obey the Bible.

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Regardless of my personal views on christianity or religion in general, I'm not going to try dictating to anyone what they should or shouldn't believe religiously. That doesn't mean I'm not going to laugh at them for their simple-mindedness or lack of ability to think for themselves. If someone needs a centuries-old book of text written by a bunch of perverts whose primary goal was to come up with more ways to make people feel guilty about feeling good, in order to control the masses, then so be it.

You judgment of them as collectively simple-minded and unable to think for themselves ignores the rich tradition of Christian intellectuals and, worse, reveals that you are utterly assured in yourself that you are correct. In other words, you are what you claim them to be.

Notice that I don't go around calling atheists arrogant, insensible bastards who can't believe anything they cannot see.

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

I believe in a free society, where people should be allowed to do and think as they please, so long as it doesn't harm another individual, or deny any other individuals rights to live their life as they wish, with who they wish.

Such a society is an impossibility. What harms another is a subjective viewpoint.

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

I would like to hear one valid reason though, that does not pertain to any set of religious beliefs, as to why homosexuals should be denied their right to marry and share with whomever they choose. So far no one, here on these boards or anywhere else that I've found, has been able to accomplish this.

Personally, if government is going to be involved in marriage - which I wish it wasn't, thank you - it's going be forced to limit it at some point. I.e., polygamy, incest, whatever. I simply feel that the man-and-woman divide is a better spot than the "man-woman OR woman-woman OR man man BUT NOT man-woman-woman or man-man-woman or man-man-man or woman-woman-woman or man-child or woman-child or child-child etc. ad infinitum.

You don't like that? Too bad. I don't care what you like. Of course, if you want to get government out of the whole thing altogether, more power to you (and me). But if the government is going to be legislating who may or may not be married, I see no reason why one definition is ok but another is not.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

Lol, yes I would like some fries! That was an interesting article. I found another one at the bottom of the page that I thought was also interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

Hmmmm. This is also rather interesting.
Did you read the blowhole bit in the first one? Great stuff.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

It's actually not hard to argue that point. If you are Christian that means you follow the teachings of Christ which means you also believe "Judge not lest ye be judged." It's ok to think it is wrong, but passing judgment on someone is an entirely different story.

I'm NOT judging them, actually. I'm pointing out that the teachings of Christianity prohibit homosexuality, and that you can't technically be considered a Christian in good standing when you aren't actually obeying the rules of Christianity.

By your logic, I could claim that god is a zebra and that Jesus never existed and no Christian could state that I am not a Christian.

That's a bit different than going down to my local gay bar (if we have one) and wagging my finger at them.

If it's not even ok for me to think that homosexuality is wrong lest I be bigoted and intolerant, how far must I go? Seriously, it's rather interesting that it's perfectly fine to call Christians bigots, idiots, etc., as a group, but not ok for me to even make private moral judgments on the validity of certain behaviors as determined by my beliefs.

I disagree with the notion that, in order to be tolerant of your beliefs and actions, I must abandon all fidelity to mine.

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

I'm NOT judging them, actually. I'm pointing out that the teachings of Christianity prohibit homosexuality, and that you can't technically be considered a Christian in good standing when you aren't actually obeying the rules of Christianity.

By your logic, I could claim that god is a zebra and that Jesus never existed and no Christian could state that I am not a Christian.

In this second paragraph, you miss my point.

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

That's a bit different than going down to my local gay bar (if we have one) and wagging my finger at them.

Here you seem to get it.

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

If it's not even ok for me to think that homosexuality is wrong lest I be bigoted and intolerant, how far must I go? Seriously, it's rather interesting that it's perfectly fine to call Christians bigots, idiots, etc., as a group, but not ok for me to even make private moral judgments on the validity of certain behaviors as determined by my beliefs.

I disagree with the notion that, in order to be tolerant of your beliefs and actions, I must abandon all fidelity to mine.

I'm not asking that. I asked that they be respected. As previously stated, this thread is about State Laws and Props that did/did not pass. If we want to argue religious beliefs, it should be done in another thread.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

As long as we're stating our opinions without being considered judgmental, I'll join in the orgy.

Ionic_Angel, you're a closed-minded, conservative pain in the ass and your religion is utter shit.

But I'm not wagging my finger at you, just stating my opinion based on my beliefs.

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

As long as we're stating our opinions without being considered judgmental, I'll join in the orgy.

Ionic_Angel, you're a closed-minded, conservative pain in the ass and your religion is utter shit.

But I'm not wagging my finger at you, just stating my opinion based on my beliefs.

LOL Right on.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

LOL Right on.

I don't know if I'd be so quick to pat him on the back if I were you, after trying to sugar-coat your disapproval for homosexuality with "everyone's entitled to their beliefs" BS.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

LOL Right on.

Fuck off. You took Christianity, mixed it with a religion that was almost completely wiped out by Christianity, added some Zen Buddhism because, well I don't know I guess it's trendy because it doesn't make a fuckworth sense with Christianity, and then tried to make you seem like a sweet and understanding person while "disapproving" people's "lifestyles". At least that unsightly jock-itch known as Ionic_Angel has the conviction to stand up for his crooked beliefs.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Fuck off. You took Christianity, mixed it with a religion that was almost completely wiped out by Christianity, added some Zen Buddhism because, well I don't know I guess it's trendy because it doesn't make a fuckworth sense with Christianity, and then tried to make you seem like a sweet and understanding person while "disapproving" people's "lifestyles". At least that unsightly jock-itch known as Ionic_Angel has the conviction to stand up for his crooked beliefs.

Joker: 10
Opposition: -2

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Fuck off. You took Christianity, mixed it with a religion that was almost completely wiped out by Christianity, added some Zen Buddhism because, well I don't know I guess it's trendy because it doesn't make a fuckworth sense with Christianity, and then tried to make you seem like a sweet and understanding person while "disapproving" people's "lifestyles". At least that unsightly jock-itch known as Ionic_Angel has the conviction to stand up for his crooked beliefs.

You just clearly don't get it. Maybe you should study my previous posts, particularly the one to Saya that explains where my beliefs come from, and then try to post and intelligent and mature response. Whether you believe in Karma or not, what goes around comes around and stating that my beliefs are "trendy" is going to bite you in the ass one day sooner or later. I hope you remember this conversation when it does.

Originally Posted by viscus

I don't know if I'd be so quick to pat him on the back if I were you, after trying to sugar-coat your disapproval for homosexuality with "everyone's entitled to their beliefs" BS.

Here's an idea: Why don't you both learn some fucking manners? There's absolutely nothing wrong with being polite and disagreeing with someone. Obviously that level of maturity doesn't exist in this forum, as most people I see posting on the Politics board are consistently trying to prove that they have a "superior intellect" compared to someone else's. Or- they are being assholes for the sake of being assholes. Hiding behind a computer screen doesn't make your balls any bigger.

You don't have to understand my beliefs-or agree with them and furthermore I don't care if you do or not. My beliefs not your decision to make. Neither is it your decision for me to agree with homosexuality or not.
Moreover, there is a giant difference between disapproval, and disagreeing. I DISAGREE with homosexuality, but I do not condem nor judge people who agree with it, or engage in it.

Honestly I have had this conversation with my gay friends and they completely understood. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that they are happy about it, but they accept me for who I am. If they didn't we wouldn't still be friends now would we?

MOST OF ALL: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CAN'T RESPECT DIFFERENCES, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SIT HERE AND ARGUE THAT MY OPINION IS "WRONG."

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

Whether you believe in Karma or not, what goes around comes around and stating that my beliefs are "trendy" is going to bite you in the ass one day sooner or later.

Karma is a trendy bullshit belief.
And bourgeois as fuck.

My beliefs not your decision to make. Neither is it your decision for me to agree with homosexuality or not.

And neither is your decision for homosexuals on whether their identity is right or wrong.

I DISAGREE with homosexuality

Rather than telling me there's a difference, tell us what is that difference.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that they are happy about it, but they accept me for who I am.

And yet you don't reciprocate.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by JCC

WOAH
BACK UP
THE GAY GENE IS A THEORY
THE-OR-Y
IT IS NOT FACT, DO NOT PARADE IT AS FACT

Damn.

The gene is a theory, but I didn't say that it was based in genes, I said that there was a biological base. In multiple studies it was found that the brain cells of gay men are different than the same cells in heterosexual men (in fact they were much more similar to those of heterosexual men) and in an ongoing study that looked at the brain cells in children it was found that the same cell differences were apparent in even the youngest participants (the study plans to revisit those same people, who were never given knowledge of what their cells were like, once they have reached a predetermined age but that data is not yet available). There have also been multiple twin studies on the subject and the findings also point to a biological factor.

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Karma is a trendy bullshit belief.
And bourgeois as fuck.

I believe in it. I don't see how it is "trendy." Maybe someday you will believe in it too.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

And neither is your decision for homosexuals on whether their identity is right or wrong.

I DON"T tell them that they are right or wrong. AS I HAVE STATED NUMEROUS TIMES, TO EACH HIS OWN.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Rather than telling me there's a difference, tell us what is that difference.

Disagree: To fail to correspond; To differ in opinion
Disapprove: To have an unfavorable opinion of; condemn

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

And yet you don't reciprocate.

I do. Not in the way that you might think I should, but I do. More importantly, that's not how they feel at all. I don't tell them to stop kissing or holding hands. I don't tell them that they shouldn't be together or that they are "committing a mortal sin and God's wrath will be brought upon them." Please. Seriously? If that's what people think I'm talking about...that's just fucked up.

Honestly, Jillian you are the only one so far that has responded with a remote amount of respect for what I believe (save the first comment, but then again, Suum cuique pulchrum est- to each his own is beautiful) and show some interest in understanding where I'm coming from. I just don't understand why the people in this forum feel the need to come across like complete dicks (not directed at you, Jillian) in order to prove a point? There's no sense in it. In order to effectively communicate one must first listen (or read), and understand that each person has a point of view for a reason. I have no qualms about being asked why, but when I try to explain why, it consistently gets taken many steps too far. You don't have to act like an ingrate to disagree with someone. It's disrespectful and states much about the integrity and character of the person that chooses to act that way. I have experienced more hatred in this forum because I am largely Christian than in any other aspect of my life...including being goth.

[Godslayer Jillian]

You can't see how it's trendy?!
You said "what comes around goes around"
That's fucking not what karma is!!
Karma is the alineation of Samsara! The totality of cause and effect!
It says nothing on the percieved value of causes.

Your view of "what comes around goes around" is the trendy Western understanding of Karma, not the real Karma. I wonder where you got that erroneous definition of Karma if it wasn't by those trendy westerners who use that definition.

[raggedyanne]

Isn't the main rule in all Abrahamic religions acceptance? So by denying people the right to marry or the benefits of marriage because of who they love, the Christians are going against their faith. There is nothing in the bible that preaches against homosexuality. As a friend jokinly pointed out, the line "man shall not lie with man" could mean they should be getting busy instead of wasting their time arguing about whether or not it was right. And the original argument against homosexuality was that it "wasted sperm" (same with masturbation but everyone can do that without getting persecuted) because the ancients thought that male sperm contained all parts of life and the female merely acted as a vessel.

I know I will get flamed for this, but the reason that Prop 8 passed was because of California's hispanic population. They are mainly Catholic and therefore strongly homophobic. They also supported Obama which made many who wouldn't normally vote register to do so. If they hadn't voted, my best friend would be getting married next weekend. Thank you homophobic religious freaks. Thank you SO much for ruining someone else's happiness and domestic stability because you can't justify to yourself a union that doesn't follow your poorly interpreted antiquated moral code. may you meet god one day, and may he be a homosexual.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

Honestly, Jillian you are the only one so far that has responded with a remote amount of respect for what I believe (save the first comment, but then again, Suum cuique pulchrum est- to each his own is beautiful) and show some interest in understanding where I'm coming from.

I resent that.

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

I resent that.

Sorry AM- didn't mean to leave you out of that!

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You can't see how it's trendy?!
You said "what comes around goes around"
That's fucking not what karma is!!
Karma is the alineation of Samsara! The totality of cause and effect!
It says nothing on the percieved value of causes.

Your view of "what comes around goes around" is the trendy Western understanding of Karma, not the real Karma. I wonder where you got that erroneous definition of Karma if it wasn't by those trendy westerners who use that definition.

Karma is actually defined as: An action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation; The cosmic principle according to which each person is rewarded or punished in one incarnation according to that person's deeds in the previous incarnation; fate; destiny; the good or bad emanations felt to be generated by someone or something; The doctrine of fate as the inflexible result of cause and effect; the theory of inevitable consequence.

How is this different than "what goes around comes around?" It's like saying the same thing in different words...

[viscus]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

You don't have to understand my beliefs-or agree with them and furthermore I don't care if you do or not. My beliefs not your decision to make. Neither is it your decision for me to agree with homosexuality or not.
Moreover, there is a giant difference between disapproval, and disagreeing. I DISAGREE with homosexuality, but I do not condem nor judge people who agree with it, or engage in it.

Honestly I have had this conversation with my gay friends and they completely understood. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that they are happy about it, but they accept me for who I am. If they didn't we wouldn't still be friends now would we?

MOST OF ALL: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CAN'T RESPECT DIFFERENCES, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SIT HERE AND ARGUE THAT MY OPINION IS "WRONG."

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

You disagree with a practice but accept people who engage in it? That seems paradoxical to me. By accepting them, you're tacitly approving of their behavior, are you not?

Why should I accept someone's beliefs, when they run counter to reason and basic morals? If someone's beliefs are so obviously flawed, why shouldn't I tell them that they're just straight up wrong?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

Karma is actually defined as: An action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation; The cosmic principle according to which each person is rewarded or punished in one incarnation according to that person's deeds in the previous incarnation; fate; destiny; the good or bad emanations felt to be generated by someone or something; The doctrine of fate as the inflexible result of cause and effect; the theory of inevitable consequence.

How is this different than "what goes around comes around?" It's like saying the same thing in different words...

Its not. Karma literally means "action." Karma is that for every action, there is a reaction, and every action is also a reaction to another action. Its not like fate like your definition included, because you are free to change it, however it is easy to submit to it and get stuck in a cycle (samsara). Its cause and effect, not reward and punishment.

However when Western people got hold of the idea, they did water it down to "You do good you get good, you do bad you get bad.", that is the common understanding of it in our society.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Want fries with your education?

You really think that because a portion of the brain in a few sheep that were selected as having engaged in homosexual activity immediately proves that homosexuals are biologically different even though there is absolutely no basis for it in the human animal and the theory is constantly derided?

Want some fries with your stupidity?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by JCC

You really think that because a portion of the brain in a few sheep that were selected as having engaged in homosexual activity immediately proves that homosexuals are biologically different even though there is absolutely no basis for it in the human animal and the theory is constantly derided?

Want some fries with your stupidity?

Sheep? I don't think you even clicked my link, did you? Creatures ranging from some of the most primitive lifeforms on Earth to our closest living 'relatives' has been observed displaying homosexuality. Also, another member also replied to your post. As far as actual scientific research goes, studies are overwhelmingly in favour of the idea that homosexuality is physiological. Now if you want to use a single study you happen to have glimpsed once or twice to "debunk" it, go ahead.

[JCC]

I never debated that animals have displayed tendencies of homosexuality. However, there is NO evidence that homosexuality is biological in humans. I read your link and picked one of the instances of 'proof' of biological predeterminism regarding homosexuality in animals.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Genes are a very complex and subtle thing. The many ways they can be expressed is Amazing.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by JCC

I never debated that animals have displayed tendencies of homosexuality. However, there is NO evidence that homosexuality is biological in humans. I read your link and picked one of the instances of 'proof' of biological predeterminism regarding homosexuality in animals.

Look for the other guy's reply. I recall it had a study about humans. Also, considering it's most of the animal kingdom and our closest relatives, not just one species, it's much more relevant than you make it out to be. For instance, a mouse might be immune or susceptible to some disease that virtually the whole rest of the animal kingdom isn't. Since virtually the whole animal kingdom (atleast the ones capable of movement, anyway!) has been observed with homosexuality on the physiological level, it's a whole different case.