Gay marriage legal in Massachussetts

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
It would be great fun to have a few pints with Jeff, hey Jeff lets go to the Ram sometime.

I'm there at least once a week! The one in Puyallup, at least. They've got their Mai Bock back as the seasonal brew.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Flasher - my guess by your post is that you are in school now, no?
How is that system? I think it all really matters were you are located!

I was basicly privately schooled, which was quite expensive.

Right now I am getting my MCSE certification.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Yeah but I make it a point never to post while I'm drinking! :

Oh but its fun!

 

[Aquarian]

no prob jeff, I was just making the point that if you want to convince a non-christian that it's a moral issue, you'll eventually need a secular reasoning. as always you have my respect for your thoughtful replies.

beware the giant lizard gozilla!

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Good luch with it Fasher!

Thanks, bro.

In class now: token ring, ethernet...zzz. lol

 

[NewGuy]

1. Marriage is not a Constitutional issue.

The context of the Constitution is to balance powers not make laws for behavior.

2. Marriage CAN be a state issue.

If it is a state issue, the state sets the mandate supposedly off of voter opinion.

3. Marriage is a ritual.

Marriage is not love. Marriage is not commitment. Marriage is public symbolism.

The Bible, which is what the Nation's laws were founded on condemns homosexuality as a sin. It dictates people should NOT perpetuate sin.

Our nation treasures liberty. It was structured so that individual liberties were totally protected until they broke promises or ecroached upon the rights of others (natural law).

These two seem at odds, but they are not.

The end conclusion is that if homosexual marriage is to be treasured, it cannot be government sanctified as it is:

1. a measure of religious faith
and
2. a personal liberty

Therefore, adding tax benefits for married people discriminates against singles and makes the whole ritual a governmental discrimination policy.

The nation cannot be one that believes "all men are created equal" if it financially discriminates against singles. By the same token, it is to preserve individual liberty. It must ignore all marriage.

As such, the Bible, since it condemns sin, would put America in the position (as being a Christian foundation) of needing to ignore all governmentally recognized "marriage" except acknowleding it exists for such things as census records, and all citizens would be able to do whatever they wanted to PRIVATELY with their own rituals of commitment.

In addition, since homosexuality is a behavior, just as celebacy is, nobody HAS to engage in it, and it IS a choice.

As such, it is wrong, should be condemned, and the people who flagrantly engage in it ought to be shown for what they are:

Sinners trying to promote the corruption of others by adopting the same egotistical behavior which would exterminate the human race if carried to its logical conclusion and trying desperately to do all of this in the face of those of Christian faith.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
1. Marriage is not a Constitutional issue.

The context of the Constitution is to balance powers not make laws for behavior.

2. Marriage CAN be a state issue.

If it is a state issue, the state sets the mandate supposedly off of voter opinion.

3. Marriage is a ritual.

Marriage is not love. Marriage is not commitment. Marriage is public symbolism.

The Bible, which is what the Nation's laws were founded on condemns homosexuality as a sin. It dictates people should NOT perpetuate sin.

Our nation treasures liberty. It was structured so that individual liberties were totally protected until they broke promises or ecroached upon the rights of others (natural law).

These two seem at odds, but they are not.

The end conclusion is that if homosexual marriage is to be treasured, it cannot be government sanctified as it is:

1. a measure of religious faith
and
2. a personal liberty

Therefore, adding tax benefits for married people discriminates against singles and makes the whole ritual a governmental discrimination policy.

The nation cannot be one that believes "all men are created equal" if it financially discriminates against singles. By the same token, it is to preserve individual liberty. It must ignore all marriage.

As such, the Bible, since it condemns sin, would put America in the position (as being a Christian foundation) of needing to ignore all governmentally recognized "marriage" except acknowleding it exists for such things as census records, and all citizens would be able to do whatever they wanted to PRIVATELY with their own rituals of commitment.

In addition, since homosexuality is a behavior, just as celebacy is, nobody HAS to engage in it, and it IS a choice.

As such, it is wrong, should be condemned, and the people who flagrantly engage in it ought to be shown for what they are:

Sinners trying to promote the corruption of others by adopting the same egotistical behavior which would exterminate the human race if carried to its logical conclusion and trying desperately to do all of this in the face of those of Christian faith.

You seem to awfully concerned about the sins of others. Generally, that's a pretty good indicator that someone's trying to cover up their own sins.

What are you hiding? Or are you just so insecure about your own sexuality that you have to criticize that of others?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
You seem to awfully concerned about the sins of others. Generally, that's a pretty good indicator that someone's trying to cover up their own sins.

I am concerned about the sins of others?

Where did you get that drivel?

I care about the foundation and integrity of our nation.
I care about Christ and His plan.
I care about my salvation.
I care about making sure others hear the truth about Christ.
I care about my own behavior.
I care about my salvation.

What are you hiding? Or are you just so insecure about your own sexuality that you have to criticize that of others?

Insecure?

Did you know too much soy product causes the male hormones to DECREASE?

I suggest laying off of them for a while.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
You seem to awfully concerned about the sins of others. Generally, that's a pretty good indicator that someone's trying to cover up their own sins.

What are you hiding? Or are you just so insecure about your own sexuality that you have to criticize that of others?

Standard rebuttal for someone on the gay topic when they can't refute the content. Surprised homophobe wasn't in there, thats usually #1 in the playbook.

 

[NewGuy]

Christians are automatically considered homophobes.

BP knows that.

"BP"......Isn't that a place where their nozzel always gets put into your backside opening and you get "filled up"?

Why was MY sexuality in question?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
You seem to awfully concerned about the sins of others. Generally, that's a pretty good indicator that someone's trying to cover up their own sins.

What are you hiding? Or are you just so insecure about your own sexuality that you have to criticize that of others?

Who wouldnt be concerned with the sins of others? no man is an island. No man lives in a vaccuum. Our actions effect others. We effect others around us and more importantly our actions affect generations of people who come after us. You may think "Who cares what i do with my d***" welcome to the real world. Your sexual activity does affect others. You have the power to create life, and with great power come great responsibility even if you dont think it matters.

Your sex life effects generations of people. Not only that but also effects every tax payers in this nation. We pay $20 billion dollars a year for people who have been careless with their sexual life and gotten some STD. So you think someones sex life doesnt effect others? It just shows the selfish views you have. You care more about your own instant gratification then whether your actions have any negative consequences.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by OCA
Standard rebuttal for someone on the gay topic when they can't refute the content. Surprised homophobe wasn't in there, thats usually #1 in the playbook.

Well, personally, I think that ALL of you men who are overly concerned with the sexual practices of others are secretly ashamed of your own desire to rub up against a large, erect penis.

I could be wrong, but seriously, you all spend alot of time think about OTHER guys' penises and what they do with them. Get a hobby.

 

[mattskramer]

Wow. So many new posts!! With a wife, a career (that does not allow me time or permission to surf), and other activities, I simply don't have the time to keep up with such an active thread. I didn't read through all of the posts for this thread but I noticed a series of statements in one of the posts to which I wish to reply.

"I care about the foundation and integrity of our nation."
I care about it too.

"I care about Christ and His plan.
I care about my salvation."

I'm an Agnostic. Therefore the comment does not apply to me.

"I care about making sure others hear the truth about Christ."
Good. Communicate with others. I care about informing others about my philosophy.

"I care about my own behavior."
I care about my behavior.

There is a difference between advising people about what you consider to be good for them and advocating legislation that forces people to behave, in ways pleasing to you, by penalty of the law.

 

[mattskramer]

"We pay $20 billion dollars a year for people who have been careless with their sexual life and gotten some STD."

Same can be said for heterosexual sex. It sure sounds like a cry for abstinence regardless of your sexual preference. I am still a moderate libertarian with an individualist mindset. I believe that individuals should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. To knowingly infect someone with an STD should be a crime (if it is not). I would also caution people to "know your partner" before having sex.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I am concerned about the sins of others?

Where did you get that drivel?

I care about the foundation and integrity of our nation.
I care about Christ and His plan.
I care about my salvation.
I care about making sure others hear the truth about Christ.
I care about my own behavior.
I care about my salvation.



Insecure?

Did you know too much soy product causes the male hormones to DECREASE?

I suggest laying off of them for a while.

I think you're more concerned with your own tiny ego than anything else. It's such a delicate thing. And I left out homophobe since it was so blatantly obvious.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I think you're more concerned with your own tiny ego than anything else. It's such a delicate thing. And I left out homophobe since it was so blatantly obvious.

I think his issues might go beyond ego.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by OCA
Standard rebuttal for someone on the gay topic when they can't refute the content. Surprised homophobe wasn't in there, thats usually #1 in the playbook.

If there was any rational, well reasoned argument here as to why gay and lesbian couples should be denied marriage, I would gladly rebutt and refute it. But there's not,,,So I don't.

 

[OCA]

*sigh* Our(anti-gay marriage and anti-special rights for homosexuals) arguments are well documented, well thought out and up to this point have yet to be countered effectively. We have heard "homophobe", "afraid to rub up against an erect penis", and the good ol' famous ridiculous notion that "we have issues with our own sexuality". Anybody want to try and prove that homosexuality is normal? Somebody give that a whirl and then we'll talk. Until then we'll consider the issue pretty much null and void since y'all are at the ridiculous stage.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
If there was any rational, well reasoned argument here as to why gay and lesbian couples should be denied marriage, I would gladly rebutt and refute it. But there's not,,,So I don't.

Lol Bully I think that the fact that your moral compass is effectively whatever brings pleasure to an individual is good to go sort of disqualifies your opinion, don't ya think?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
*sigh* Our(anti-gay marriage and anti-special rights for homosexuals) arguments are well documented, well thought out and up to this point have yet to be countered effectively. We have heard "homophobe", "afraid to rub up against an erect penis", and the good ol' famous ridiculous notion that "we have issues with our own sexuality". Anybody want to try and prove that homosexuality is normal? Somebody give that a whirl and then we'll talk. Until then we'll consider the issue pretty much null and void since y'all are at the ridiculous stage.

are you daft? I've countered every single argument that you've brought up.

Gay marriage won't do any more damage to the institution of marriage than straight marriage already does.

Gay marriage is NOT a sin to the people that don't believe in god.

Gay marriage hurts NOBODY but those involved with it.

Finally, YOU, yourself, said that being gay was not normal but due to some 'short circuit'. When I called you on it not being a choice anymore, you twisted the two together to CYA.

consider it null and void all you want, its a dead even heat you have no chance of winning. Unfortunately neither do I.