Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: Now if you want to argue about the rights of gay couples to be acrued the same benefits as "legally" married couples, then I would have to argue against that. Why should a gay couple gain a benefit that straight roomates would not? Why would they gain better benefits than a committed couple that cohabitated instead of getting "legally" married?
The gay couple that wants to enter into a legally binding union to gain the benefits you listed above, cannot. If they are given this opportunity, than they wouldn't need a system workaround.
And don't assume that marriage is the same thing as it was when the bible was a pamphlet. Bringing religion into this is absurd. I would guess that there are more marriages each year that take place in someplace other than a church. You can't enter your religious beliefs into this because not everyone is the same religion.
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Voron, marriages only exist because of religion.
what religion? certainly not christianity as marraige pre-dates christianity by thousands of years.
the concept of marraige has absolutely nothing do to with christianity, which is the religion that dictates the morals of most people in america that think gay marraiges are against the will god.
bringing religion into this debate isn't valid. it has nothing to do with religion. even if you get married in a church before god and all that crap, you still have to sign the legal docs and register it with the local government, because marraige is 100% a government institution and 0% religious.
well since when did taking it up the ass have to do with morals? i don't see the connection there ... unless you bring the bible into the shit ... other then that i don't see the connection. please explain it to me because is anal sex has to do with morals ... then do poking some girl in the vagina take morals to do?
I'm making a point you jackass (personal attack fyi).
My point is that if you take your above sentences, and replace the word homosexual with heterosexual, they reamain moral judgements. If you follow through with that line of thought, you'll see that if there are no laws that determine the sexual morality for consenting heterosexual adults, there should be no laws that determine the sexual morality for consenting homosexual adults. This was the exact line of thought that caused Justice O'Connor to come to her decision.
I think the Supreme court provides a wonderful check to the legistlative branch of our government. Sorry you don't agree.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
Interesting things I found online that most people are NOT taught. Most of us are brought up in one religion, but then again are any of them different? In the end I think they aren't, but that is just my opinion. I just think that the judgements made against gays and lesbians were based on Religion in general at the time the laws were made. Hell, even today, people bash 'em.
Sodom, Creation And The Law:
Hebrew Scripture tells an exciting story of epic scope and includes many books and writings. It was the Bible Jesus knew and studied. For Christians, it continues to serve as the foundation of faith history. It also contains some of the most popular quotes used against lesbians and gays.
What was the sin of Sodom in Genesis 19:1-28?
This Old Testament passage is often wrongly used as "biblical proof" that God is displeased with homosexuals. According to many people these cities were destroyed because residents committed the "sin of homosexuality." To suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality is to misinterpret Scripture.
The prophet Ezekiel, in an equally inspired book of the Bible, tells that God was displeased with Sodom for very different reasons: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did detestable things before me (literally, 'committed idolatry'). Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50, New International version".
In every other reference in the Bible
(and there are several) the condemned "sins of Sodom" are such things as pride and inhospitality. The people of Sodom broke the law of hospitality to strangers which was so religiously observed in their culture. Use of the expression "bring these men out to us, that we may know them" (Genesis 19:5) is the basis for most of the misinterpretation. The Hebrew verb yadha ("to know") used here is found 943 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and in only ten places does it mean sexual intercourse - each time referring to heterosexual relations. But even if the people of Sodom did attempt a "homosexual" attack upon the angels, the passage would serve as a clear condemnation of rape (certainly an extreme form of inhospitality). Rape, either heterosexual or homosexual, is sin under any circumstances.
Other Hebrew scriptures are selectively used
to show the Bible condemns a gay lifestyle. Two are found in the book of Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13: "Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou would like with a woman." Anyone who quotes these prohibitions should read the entire chapters or the whole book of Leviticus. Levitical law demands no eating of pork, lobster, shrimp, oysters, or rare meat; no intercourse during the menstrual period; no interbreeding of cattle; and a whole host of others laws, including the law to kill all people who commit adultery.
The Law Of Love:
What is the fundamental message of the Bible and Gospel of Jesus?
As Christians, we believe the Hebrew Scripture is a divinely inspired revelation of God's covenant with God's chose people, and a relevant study of Hebrew history. Above all, it is part of a continuing story and promise of redemption. Additionally, as Christians, our law is from Christ and that law is the Law of Love. Its cornerstone is the two-fold commandment to "love God and love your neighbor as yourself."
Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any of the New Testament Scriptures imply that Christians are held to the cultic or ethical rules of the law of Moses. Paul clearly taught that Christians are no longer under the Old Law (Galatians 3:23-25); that the Old Law is brought to completion in Christ (Romans 10:4); and its fulfillment is in love (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14). Jesus did deal with human sexuality in an open and unthreatened manner. He affirmed on one hand the goods of marriage, but also declared marriage is not for everyone (Matthew 19:3-12). Furthermore, the Bible does not record one word spoken by Jesus condemning homosexuality.
It Sounds Greek To Me!
In the New Testament there are three scriptures often cited to show the "sinfulness of homosexuality." There are many English translations of the Bible and each of them uses different English words to translate the passages from ancient Greek, so some words will depend upon which version or translation is used. Two Greek words are used by Paul in two similar passages. They are malakos and arsenokoitai. These words are used in I Corinthians 6:9 and in I Timothy 1:10. Literally translated, malakos means "soft" and arsenokoitai means "male-bed."
Neither word meant "homosexual" in the Greek used during Paul's time. Unfortunately, Biblical language scholars disagree on what these words really did mean in the context of these two passages or to the people to whom Paul wrote. There were many Greek words for same-sex activity or "homosexuals," but Paul did not select them. Somehow translators have attached various "homosexual" meanings to these two words.
Notice the following versions of an excerpt from I Corinthians 6:9 . (I Timothy 1:10 is very similar):
-King James: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
-New International: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders,
-Revised Standard: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
-Jerusalem Bible: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites,
-New English: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion,
Which version is closest to what was intended when the original words did not mean "homosexual"? It is strange that some preachers confidently condemn gays and lesbians when scholars and different translations of the Bible do not even agree upon what certain words actually mean!
Adex_Xeda wrote:Man I already debunked that junk in a thread a few months ago.
If this is in reference to my post before I finished editing it, read on.
If it is in reference AFTER I edited it.
You are the reason that the laws were in place, as well as people like you. Everyone CLAIMS to be open-minded, but you just show that you are as far opposite as anyone could be. I am sure you didn't take the time to compare the information I posted to what you were taught. I am also sure that you have not had the "religious" experiences that I personally have had in life. I have seen religions from one extreme to the other. Hell, I remember after "petitioning" to get into one, it was on tv as the fastest growing "cult" which I agreed with after more research.
Basically, I have one answer for you, and as silly as it sounds for those who read the series of novels this is in reference to....
You know what is funny? A lot of Christians say men were not built for that sort of thing (You know, cock in the ass).
Actually, the male erogenous zone is hit repeatedly when they take it, which I imagine would be odd (for me, anyway). Nonetheless, men on the recieving end supposedly enjoy it.
In any case, why should you care if people are gay or not? Does it not make them people?
You will say "no, of course they are people", but do you understand that in your own mind their is a likely chance that you subconciously think less of them because of a stupid sterotype?
I'd much rather talk about the Supreme court's meaning/purpose than talk about homosexuality and/or morality.
On that note... Adex. Let's say you're arrested/imprisoned/fined for a law that you think is unconstitutional. You have the option (assuming you have the cash) to go to court until you're heard in front of the supreme court if necessary. The supreme court will examine the constitution, and examine the law which caused you to be arrested/imprisoned/fined, and make a determination.
In this case, the Supreme court determined that the law in question was a violation of an inidividual's rights as they are defined in the Fourteenth amendment to the constitution.
So let me ask you. Where in the legislative branch is there a provision to allow an individual to be freed from arrest/imprisonment/fines if the law which seeks to punish them is unconstitutional?
It's a rhetorical question. There isn't, and if you've already been found guilty of an unconstitutional law, you can't exactly call a state vote to see what people think about it.
Am I getting through to you yet?
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
You see it as a wrong, however you are wrong as well (but not gay yourself, wrong in other ways) so really it is a live and let live thing?
What about threesomes?
Obviously, somewhere in a scenario like that there will be homosexual contact. Is that wrong?
Because if it is, I don't want to be right.
3 pages and you still haven't said why you think they are wrong.
because its not popular? if popular opinion ruled, then there would be no reason for the supreme court. hell let's just amend the constitution every time there's something the religious right wants to change around. you could just right it on one of those whiteboards with a sharpie and just add/remove shit whenever.
That works right up to the point in which you start tolerating evil.
If you tolerate you neighbor beating up on his wife and don't do something to help the wife then you screwed up.
If you see a guy stealing hubcaps and don't call the cops you screwed up.
Live and let live can only go so far.
So homosexuality, what do I do? Well for one I don't support any legislation that celebrates the act.
Do vote for legislation that "opresses" homosexual acts?
You might as well ask me if I vote for legislation that "opresses" lieing under oath, or shoplifting.
Do I think a law discouraging acts of homosexuality actually discourages it? Nope.
Do I think a law that discourages sodomy helps to make a homosexual more open to my worldview? nope.
Do have a responsiblity to reach out on a personal basis and help a friend with his faults and he helps me with mine? Sure, that's called civilization. That's a subcomponent of being a friend.
While I think you started off well that last post dosen't sound good...
You just said that you like the SC but not in this case... If you agree with the SC on other rulings which are unconstitutional but not this one then you are heading back down that moral road again.
Either the SC protecting us from Unconstitutional Laws is good or bad. If you agree that it is a good thing then you shouldn't have a problem with this law as it's obviously unconstitutional. As unconstitutional as the Gov. saying a person couldn't have a beer legally during the 1930s, EVEN in their own home... same thing.
I'm trying my best to juggle 5 hostile topics at the same time.
Marb,
States have a consitutional right to make moral judgements.
Its been demonstrated in the past that we criminalize things be they private or public.
States have a right to reflect the morality of their people through the laws they make.
I belive that the SC showed poor judgement by jumping into this particular issue. The ruling it made essentially created new legislation that protected sodomy in private.
Do I give a damn about sodomy in private? Nope,
Do I give a damn about how the SC jumped in and infringed on voter's rights? In this ruling yes.
See Kyo? I hope that helps you see the summary of my stance.
Adex wrote:I think the Supreme Court has a role to play in our government. I wouldn't want to go without it.
I simply disagree with this particular ruling.
What role do they have to play in our government if not situations exactly like this? Why is this ruling such an abhorrence to you? The answer to the second question is why you're getting so much static here.
Adex_Xeda wrote:If you tolerate you neighbor beating up on his wife and don't do something to help the wife then you screwed up.
If you see a guy stealing hubcaps and don't call the cops you screwed up.
In both of the above examples, someone is being hurt. Explain to me please, who is hurt when two homosexual consenting adults engage in sexual acts.
Adex wrote:So homosexuality, what do I do? Well for one I don't support any legislation that celebrates the act.
The word celebrates doesn't fit in the above sentence. Legislation does not celebrate anything. Legislation very simply provides us with laws to govern our society.
The rest of your post was not well clear enough or on-topic enough to merit a comment.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
Adex wrote:Do I give a damn about sodomy in private? Nope,
Do I give a damn about how the SC jumped in and infringed on voter's rights? In this ruling yes.
If you wish to convince me, or anyone that this is your stance, you need to start by explaining where the process failed, and never mention what laws were effected again. The process did not fail. The process is working as intended.
I will say it again. If you break a law that violates your contitutional rights, you can not afford to wait for the voters to repeal that law. The judiciary branch is there to protect you as a citizen.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
the real reason adex is pissed off is he if from texas and doesn't think anyone should be steppin on texan shoes because there better and above everyone else
Just about every law is based upon a moral judgement.
It is "wrong" to steal.
It is "wrong" to murder.
It is "wrong" to cheat someone of their money.
etc. etc.
The real debate begins when different people sit down and try to determine the good moral judgements from the bad ones.
no you are wrong again. laws are put in place to protect people from becoming victims of crime. there is no crime in sodomy, there is no crime in homosexuality. laws are absolutely not put in place just because some dude randomly decided they are immoral. they exist to protect people.
and yes I say this fully aware of the fact that you think people need to be protected from the queers and sodomists who want to corrupt your children and lead them away from the path of jesus.
You're right. The people do have the right to legislate a moral code. The US Supreme Court also has the right to tell you that legislation is unconstitutional. You're also right that arguing with you is futile because you can't seem to understand that.
holy christ you came within two words of quoting stalin. you are the most un-american person in the world.
PEOPLE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEGISLATE SOMEONE ELSE'S MORALS. YOUR OWN PERSONAL MORALITY IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAT SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHT TO ANYTHING.
dude adex pull your head out of your fucking ass oh wait that would be illegal in your world where we should have the law because i hate fags and don't have to balls to say it. pushing your morals onto someone isn't right and im glad we have the supreme court ...
so ... adex ... why are you all pissed off that the SC hurried up the process that texas was supposed to be doing and why do you say earlier that you think that law should of been thrown out but later say that the law was constitutional ... that shows that you think we should keep it. would you like me to come and watch you have sex ... whenever you do or would that be me invading your privicy ? and would you like me to tell you your not allowed to do certain things? if you say yes to all of that then i can see why you think that law shouldn't of been deamed unconstitutional
Vetiria, Kyo, there was a time when people thought acts of homosexuality were a danger to the public, thus its link to moral judgements that outlawed "harmful" acts such as battery or theft.
This opinion has changed in the current day. This explains why since 1960 states with sodomy laws have been reduced from 50 to 13.
Drasta, when I played you and I got along great. I knew you were gay, I didn't act all snooty towards you. Frankly I enjoyed your company. Ask Fesuni, I never rejected him as a person because he was gay. Being gay or not, is not a factor that limits my friendships.
Homophobe? Scared of gay folk? Why would I fear a person just like me, we just have different things we struggle with.
Judgemental Christian? Well I do have a moral code that I try to follow. I do try to act in line with that moral code.
I think just about anyone follows a moral code.
I challege you to find a totally passive and indecisive person. Such a person would have trouble functioning in society.
You guys are passing judgements on me as we speak. It's natural.
Adex_Xeda wrote:Vetiria, Kyo, there was a time when people thought acts of homosexuality were a danger to the public, thus its link to moral judgements that outlawed "harmful" acts such as battery or theft.
This opinion has changed in the current day. This explains why since 1960 states with sodomy laws have been reduced from 50 to 13.
No one is arguing that with you. The Supreme Court was within their right to remove a law they viewed unconstitutional. That is their main role in the country. They were not out of bounds. That's their job. That's their job. That's their job. That's their job. That's their job. That's their job. Shall I keep going?
i've had people read this and ask their opinion on your stance is ... and they have all been what people have been saying. if your trying to convey another opinion your doing a poor job of showing it.
and stealing is illegal ... the SC did exactly what they were created for so your example was a shitty one ... find me one that has nothing illegal in it
and how would you feel about the privicy thing with your sex life? don't you think you have a right to have sex how you want with the person as long as they are ok with it?
He said it himself. It's about homosexual sodomy, not sodomy in general, and not the supreme court. He'd like us to believe there's some vast intellectual disagreement with the manner in which the judiciary branch of our government functions, but in reality... he's just another bigotted fool.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
I understand that its hard to separate the sodomy from the failure of judicial protocol.
I also understand that there's a lot of emotion involved and in your frustration you just have to unload by calling me a homophobe, judgemental christian, poopyhead.
Heh, If you're all charged up let it out man.
I'll gladly be a punching bag for ya.
I hear and understand you viewpoints about how privacy issues trump calls on right and wrong.
I'm unable to agree with you but I understand where you coming from.
so .... you wouldn't like someone to tell you how your allowed to have sex? and that law was a religious based law that shouldn't of even been in place to begin with .. its a law that was directed at homosexuals
the only way morals come into play with being gay is when someone brings the bible into it ... because thats the only place gay and morals are in the same play ... the bible ...
The sad thing is that you don't see it yourself. Blind faith is a bad thing Adex. Question everything, and judge not lest ye be judged.
(yes I'm aware of the hypocrisy of me saying that, and I'm quite comfortable with it. I'm certainly not perfect, but if I can make someone else better, so much the better.)
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
There is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, unless you're a fucking religious nut who can't make a fucking decision without the influence of your inexistant god.
And believe you me, no matter how much you argue with Adex he will not change his stance, however fucking illogical it may be. You keep gay friends even though you feel that homosexuality is a flaw in their character, I keep christian friends for the same reason. However, none of my friends are as ignorant as you. I'm not saying that because I'm blowing a gasket, I'm saying that because it is absolutely true. But truth is not very high on your list of moral priorities so wtf does it matter?
Just go on avoiding questions and talking out your ass. At the very least it is entertaining in the same way watching a monkey eat his own puke is entertaining.
I tell it like a true mackadelic.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
or would that be me invading your privicy ? and would you like me to tell you your not allowed to do certain things? if you say yes to all of that then i can see why you think that law shouldn't of been deamed unconstitutional
