[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
A gay couple will never result in new life, ever.
[/quote]
You mean sticking your dick in a hole designed to expel waste matter doesn’t create life? Who would’ve guessed? But they’re equal right? If you don’t agree with me you are a fascist. Anyone against gay marriage should have a swastika tattooed on their foreheads.
[quote]MikeShank wrote:
The bottom line is when gay marriage is legalized nation wide the only thing that will happen is that a lot of gay people will get married.[/quote]
Your graph is wrong (probably even before it was created).
In this groundbreaking volume grounded to cutting edge scholarship that is plainly written, Will Letts and James Sears have pointed us down the path to a brighter tomorrow. Here they bring together a diverse range of writers who offer both theoretical constructs and practical advice to those who believe our schools should actively foster the values of justice. Queering Elementary Education gives us tools we need to move ahead. (Kevin Jennings, Executive Director, Gay/Lesbian/Straight Education Network (From the Foreword))
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
A gay couple will never result in new life, ever.
[/quote]
You mean sticking your dick in a hole designed to expel waste matter doesn’t create life? Who would’ve guessed? But they’re equal right? If you don’t agree with me you are a fascist. Anyone against gay marriage should have a swastika tattooed on their foreheads.[/quote]
Then again, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, sticking your dick into a hole “designed” to accept a dick doesn’t create life, either.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
A gay couple will never result in new life, ever.
[/quote]
You mean sticking your dick in a hole designed to expel waste matter doesn’t create life? Who would’ve guessed? But they’re equal right? If you don’t agree with me you are a fascist. Anyone against gay marriage should have a swastika tattooed on their foreheads.[/quote]
Then again, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, sticking your dick into a hole “designed” to accept a dick doesn’t create life, either. [/quote]
is that using a condom other forms of birth control, or just pulling out. In my experience with me and my wife we had a 100% chance of getting preggers if we used zero forms of birth control. I am not kidding.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Then again, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, sticking your dick into a hole “designed” to accept a dick doesn’t create life, either.[/quote]
If that’s not a false equivocation I don’t know what is.
A gun that misses 99 times out of 100 is still a firearm. A gun that can’t shoot or can only be discharged directly into the ground is scrap iron or, at best, a spear or a hammer. Second-class weaponry (or hammer) at any rate.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
is that using a condom other forms of birth control, or just pulling out. In my experience with me and my wife we had a 100% chance of getting preggers if we used zero forms of birth control. I am not kidding.
[/quote]
I think Varq’s numbers are distorted (possibly out of date too). It suffers both from repetition bias and reporting bias. People who conceive on the literal first try don’t report (and we are legion), people who can’t conceive after the 1000th have considerable more time and desire to try another 1000 times and report the results. Biasing things the other way, prior to IVF, 12 mo. of failed attempts is usually required. If you want to consider that 12 failed attempts or more is kinda arbitrary. However, it does kinda suggest that, at about at a rate of about 8.3%, you start to be considered, anecdotally, infertile and in need of medical assistance. Considering ~50% of people in the US are the result of unintended pregnancies, the risk of unintended pregnancy for heterosexuals clearly exists.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions.[/quote]
Here is your quote about the changes. You are saying that these “Changes” are so big that we should not believe what it says.
My argument is that the changes DO NOT change the meaning of the Bible, so the changes are pointless.
If I wrote “They’re going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Does it change the meaning if I instead wrote “There going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Just because I changed the word They’re does not change the meaning. You are stuck on the They’re and not the meaning.
I wish you would believe, but you chose not to and that is your choice. Just do not put me down because I choose to believe, it is my choice.
And no I did not dismiss V post.
[/quote]
Please read this over and over and over and over again:
[quote]Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.
But others are more important. They meant something.[/quote]
And that is the changes we know about and can find. You said it hasn’t been changed. Your wrong. Now you want to goalpost shift and say well yeah it’s changed, but not enough to matter.
No. The fucking book (which you believers can’t even agree on the meaning of anyways) has been changed over history many times.
[/quote]
I never goalpost moved anything. I asked for proof of changes. Your “changes” were not about misspellings, but about Religious people arguing about the Bible. That is meaning and not changes.
[/quote]
I wish I could make a law that says if you have not read the Bible, you cannot discuss it.
It seems to me it is the only book in the world people feel have the right to open criticize without knowing what it says. Do that with any other book and you will be called ridiculous in varying ways. But it’s cool to bitch about the Bible, without knowing a damn thing about it.
It gets old, I tell you.[/quote]
We have confirmation changes have been made.
I’ve also read the Bible. Full of hypocrises. Not what I’d want to base any law on. [/quote]
If you did read it, you would not have made that statement…
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Yeah, I didn’t read any of this, but IMO, this topic is debated far too often. Only about 2% of people are gay. Not 10%, not 25%, not 33%, just two.
Let 'em get hitched, it won’t make a fucking difference. You wouldn’t have even noticed if you hadn’t made such a big deal about it. Pick your battles, people. There’s better things to waste your time arguing about.[/quote]
I think your statement is a little backwards. 2% if it’s that high, should not have a majority control over what people actually think.
Give domestic partnerships all the rights you want, I don’t care. But you cannot call something it is not. And marriage it is not. I have yet to find one person to make a single compelling argument that a ‘gay’ marriage is in anyway the same as a real marriage. And all the people who are for it and are married will not ever compare that their marriage is the same as a gay marriage or that it could be compared in anyway other than there are two people and they have sex. Marriage is much more than just that.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
is that using a condom other forms of birth control, or just pulling out. In my experience with me and my wife we had a 100% chance of getting preggers if we used zero forms of birth control. I am not kidding.
[/quote]
I think Varq’s numbers are distorted (possibly out of date too). It suffers both from repetition bias and reporting bias. People who conceive on the literal first try don’t report (and we are legion), people who can’t conceive after the 1000th have considerable more time and desire to try another 1000 times and report the results. Biasing things the other way, prior to IVF, 12 mo. of failed attempts is usually required. If you want to consider that 12 failed attempts or more is kinda arbitrary. However, it does kinda suggest that, at about at a rate of about 8.3%, you start to be considered, anecdotally, infertile and in need of medical assistance. Considering ~50% of people in the US are the result of unintended pregnancies, the risk of unintended pregnancy for heterosexuals clearly exists.
[/quote]
I actually think my “numbers” (which I plucked out of the rhetorical aether, by the way) are overly generous. You cannot honestly tell me that for every one hundred instances of heterosexual intercourse, one or more conceptions occur. Really? Counting all heterosexual couplings everywhere? Most sex is non-procreative, by a probably incalculable factor.
To use your firearms analogy, the ratio is probably equivalent to the ratio of the total number of bullets fired from every firearm in the world, to the number of bullets that actually hit their intended target. Astronomical. And the comparison is not between a firearm that only hits once out of every hundred shots and one that never hits; it is a comparison between a firearm used deliberately for hunting, police or military use, and one that will only ever be used for plinking.
[quote]pat wrote:
And all the people who are for it and are married will not ever compare that their marriage is the same as a gay marriage or that it could be compared in anyway other than there are two people and they have sex. Marriage is much more than just that.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that gay marriage is just about sex? Or that gay couples can’t have the same relationships as hetero couples?
[quote]pat wrote:
Give domestic partnerships all the rights you want, I don’t care. But you cannot call something it is not. And marriage it is not. I have yet to find one person to make a single compelling argument that a ‘gay’ marriage is in anyway the same as a real marriage. And all the people who are for it and are married will not ever compare that their marriage is the same as a gay marriage or that it could be compared in anyway other than there are two people and they have sex. Marriage is much more than just that.[/quote]
You know, Pat, it’s interesting that this statement immediately follows the statement you made immediately previous to it.
I agree: nobody is qualified to speak with any authority on what the Bible says or does not say unless one has given it a good, solid and thoughtful read. Still, though, one’s preconceptions will color one’s understanding of the Bible: if you are receptive to the message, you will come away from the experience of reading the Bible with a far different conclusion than you would if you were adamantly biased against it. As I once said, if you expect to find God, you will find him everywhere. If you don’t, he will remain forever hidden.
Similarly, I wonder how much interaction you have ever had with a homosexual couple who are in a committed, long-term, monogamous relationship. Do you have any gay friends? Do you know any gay or lesbian person at all, whom you do not look at with disdain, disapproval and disgust? You don’t need to answer but my sense is that your answer is no.
Because if you did, I don’t think you would have made that statement.
[quote]MikeShank wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Oh well, pity Abbot will probably win this election.[/quote]
The Bible didn’t recognize “slavery” as a natural condition. Servitude was not the ownership of a lesser being in those times except in the case of Egypt where the Hebrews were viewed as less than human.
It was often a form of payment, as in indentured servant and after a time, most were free to leave, if they so chose. But often, they were considered members of the family.
The point is that his comparison was a non-sequitur. In that he is uninformed about the culture differences between the ancient Hebrews and the slave owners of the previous 4 centuries.
I don’t disagree that gays are born with it. I am not particularly affronted if people are granted coupled benefits be they gay, or just friends who choose to never marry, or brothers or sisters who live together as a partial family unit, or what not. But a marriage it is not and never will be.
The dichotomy in the male-female pair bond is unique and cannot be replicated in a same sex pair bond. I have never seen anybody make the case that it is or even can be. Love, does not a marriage make, it’s a lot more than that.
Until somebody can prove that same sexed couples are the same as opposite sexed couples that are in the understood definition of marriage, you cannot call it that.
To me it’s not about ‘rights’ I don’t really care from that perspective. I care from the perspective that you cannot make something be, what it is not.
I think people think of this issue two dimensionally, only politically. They don’t think about what it really means. You start blurring definitions of what things are willy-nilly, you introduce slippery-slopes which often render meanings useless.
[/quote]
Your views on Biblical slavery are rather myopic, bordering on outright incorrect in all but one of the practices applications. That referring to the clearly delineated difference between slaves of Israelite and non Israelite origin. Those laws clearly defined manumission vs. human chattel.
It is very interesting that you accuse another person of being uninformed about the ancient hebrew cultural practice of slavery when you don’t seem to understand it yourself.
Sexual and conjugal slavery, permanent enslavement and being born into slavery were all practices of the time.
What I find funny about your comment is it seems to closely parallel (although probably/hopefully not intentionally) a somewhat antebellum view of “happy” African Slaves.
Hopefully people took upon themselves to make a simple google search on the subject before they took your statement verbatim.
I have to guess that references such as this one are where you got your information. Unfortunately the author here seems to be more of a biblical apologist, rather than an expert with any real knowledge on the subject.
As for the rest of your comment, it is very circular and thereby unclear. Ultimately it doesn’t seem to make much sense. It actually reminded me a lot of the chewbacca defense from south park.
The bottom line is when gay marriage is legalized nation wide the only thing that will happen is that a lot of gay people will get married.
Modern society will not melt down, laws and buildings will not crumble and life will go on much the same as we already know it.
[/quote]
No
[quote]Forestfolly wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions.[/quote]
Here is your quote about the changes. You are saying that these “Changes” are so big that we should not believe what it says.
My argument is that the changes DO NOT change the meaning of the Bible, so the changes are pointless.
If I wrote “They’re going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Does it change the meaning if I instead wrote “There going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Just because I changed the word They’re does not change the meaning. You are stuck on the They’re and not the meaning.
I wish you would believe, but you chose not to and that is your choice. Just do not put me down because I choose to believe, it is my choice.
And no I did not dismiss V post.
[/quote]
Please read this over and over and over and over again:
[quote]Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.
But others are more important. They meant something.[/quote]
And that is the changes we know about and can find. You said it hasn’t been changed. Your wrong. Now you want to goalpost shift and say well yeah it’s changed, but not enough to matter.
No. The fucking book (which you believers can’t even agree on the meaning of anyways) has been changed over history many times.
[/quote]
I never goalpost moved anything. I asked for proof of changes. Your “changes” were not about misspellings, but about Religious people arguing about the Bible. That is meaning and not changes.
[/quote]
I wish I could make a law that says if you have not read the Bible, you cannot discuss it.
It seems to me it is the only book in the world people feel have the right to open criticize without knowing what it says. Do that with any other book and you will be called ridiculous in varying ways. But it’s cool to bitch about the Bible, without knowing a damn thing about it.
It gets old, I tell you.[/quote]
We have confirmation changes have been made.
I’ve also read the Bible. Full of hypocrises. Not what I’d want to base any law on. [/quote]
Oh boy! Here we go. Could you please give me one hypocrisy or contradiction. Oh, and I hope, I truly do, that since you have read the bible you will use proper context and understanding of the law as it was in OT and how it was fulfilled with Christ. Also please watch yourself with any kind of chronological snobbery.
[/quote]
Oh goody, now were going to get a bunch of quotes for atheists.org and thinkreason.net…Whoopie.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And all the people who are for it and are married will not ever compare that their marriage is the same as a gay marriage or that it could be compared in anyway other than there are two people and they have sex. Marriage is much more than just that.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that gay marriage is just about sex? Or that gay couples can’t have the same relationships as hetero couples?
[/quote]
Gay couples cannot have the same relationship as hetero couples. The dynamic that exists in a famale/ male pair bond cannot be replicated in a same sex couple. In the end a man is a man and a woman is a woman. The inherent traits that belong to each make same sex coupling impossible to be the same.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And all the people who are for it and are married will not ever compare that their marriage is the same as a gay marriage or that it could be compared in anyway other than there are two people and they have sex. Marriage is much more than just that.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that gay marriage is just about sex? Or that gay couples can’t have the same relationships as hetero couples?
[/quote]
Gay couples cannot have the same relationship as hetero couples. The dynamic that exists in a famale/ male pair bond cannot be replicated in a same sex couple. In the end a man is a man and a woman is a woman. The inherent traits that belong to each make same sex coupling impossible to be the same.[/quote]
I am really not trying to be difficult but I don’t get this. They can’t feel the same love? Maybe you are referring to the joy of parenthood a couple can feel, but I don’t think that is what you are pointing to.
All I have to reference is my 75 year old lesbian aunt who has been in a committed gay relationship for thirty years. When I look at them I see a loving couple who I am pretty sure are not just in it for the sex (shudder).
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Give domestic partnerships all the rights you want, I don’t care. But you cannot call something it is not. And marriage it is not. I have yet to find one person to make a single compelling argument that a ‘gay’ marriage is in anyway the same as a real marriage. And all the people who are for it and are married will not ever compare that their marriage is the same as a gay marriage or that it could be compared in anyway other than there are two people and they have sex. Marriage is much more than just that.[/quote]
You know, Pat, it’s interesting that this statement immediately follows the statement you made immediately previous to it.
I agree: nobody is qualified to speak with any authority on what the Bible says or does not say unless one has given it a good, solid and thoughtful read. Still, though, one’s preconceptions will color one’s understanding of the Bible: if you are receptive to the message, you will come away from the experience of reading the Bible with a far different conclusion than you would if you were adamantly biased against it. As I once said, if you expect to find God, you will find him everywhere. If you don’t, he will remain forever hidden.
[/quote]
Correct, I see the hand of God in everything.
The key to reading the Bible is keeping your bias’s in check. It doesn’t mean you let go of your biases, that’s virtually impossible for a human to do. But understand that you have biases, understand what they are and do not use them, but let the book speak for itself. Otherwise you spend most of your time trying to make the Bible say things it does not and way too many people spend way too much time doing just that. Just let it be what it is, it all makes sense in the end.
[quote]
Similarly, I wonder how much interaction you have ever had with a homosexual couple who are in a committed, long-term, monogamous relationship. Do you have any gay friends? Do you know any gay or lesbian person at all, whom you do not look at with disdain, disapproval and disgust? You don’t need to answer but my sense is that your answer is no.
Because if you did, I don’t think you would have made that statement. [/quote]
Sure, I have known my fair share of gay couples. One of my neighbors is one of them, in a committed relationship. It’s not the same as an opposite sex pairing. It’s just not. You cannot make it be what it is not. Exposure to gay people and their lifestyle is not lacking. Anecdotally speaking it’s my exposure that amplifies my point. They are different, they act different, they interact with each other differently than opposite sex couples.
I think you are taking what I said as a judgement of good vs. bad. I am just saying they are different and you cannot make them the same. If they are not the same, you cannot say they are the same.
The two points have nothing to do with each other. I didn’t start the bible conversation.
But Pat, I could make the observation that the dynamic between a man and a woman in a Japanese marriage is different from that in an American marriage, or that the dynamic between a man and woman in a Muslim marriage, or a Hindu marriage, or an Indonesian Papuan marriage, is different from that of a Catholic marriage. They are different and you cannot make them the same. You just can’t.
However, you also can’t say that those marriages are invalid just because they are unfamiliar to you.
And “I have a gay neighbor” is not exactly the same as “I have a gay friend”. Nice try. 
Again, I understand the theory and even the mechanics of a sperm and an egg. When you change the DNA contained in a sperm or egg, the biology of the resulting system is still the exact same. In essence, something has changed. Yet the sperm and the egg still perform their same actions with different chromosomes attatched.
[quote]dmaddox wrote: My wife was a surrogate for a heterosexual couple (actually my pastor and his wife). They combined one sperm and one egg (they actually did multiple, but for this discussion lets just say two), then they inserted two embryos with 10 cells each into my wife. One took and the other did not and 9-10 months later a baby girl was born. It was an incredible blessing for that family.
[/quote]
If you think a couple who practice NFP doesn’t know the exact moment of pregnancy, then you are telling yourself a huge lie.
In vitro can’t be that successful because I know many people that have tried multiple times and pregnancy results after how many eggs are implanted? How many different / failed attempts? Please don’t forget that a unique individual’s life begins the exact moment of fertilization. If ten embryos are implanted and only one actually implants in the uterine wall, that means nine individuals are lost, forever.
Your following paragraph states: “it just takes a couple of extra steps” and I am curious to know how many times this has successfully been completed. A reference would be nice so I can read about the actual science.
The rest of this particular post is filled with emotion and a pipe dream from complete willful ignorance. I will always prefer logic, Truth and/or reason. All of which support my Faith ; ) jaa jaa jaa
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How successful is in vitro fertilization? Extremely successful. If you factor in all “failed attempts” of both methods, it’s actually more likely to result in a live birth than doing it the “old fashioned way” (though definitely not as much fun).
The point is that a homosexual couple can produce a child, it just takes a couple of extra steps. For the lesbians, it involves finding some sperm. For the gay men, it involves finding an egg and a surrogate mother.
My further point is that advances in technology and embryonics will, I predict, allow the combination of gametes even from two same-sex partners, and even someday eliminate the need for surrogate mothers altogether.
This is good for hetero couples as well: if a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant, she doesn’t have to: she can gestate her baby in a machine. Which means that only the babies that are wanted will be produced. Cheap implantable contraceptives should prevent accidents. Sex will no longer be for procreation, but for pleasure.
Religious people, who probably think that keeping women from suffereing through childbirth is somehow an affront to God (and are leery about the whole “sex for pleasure” thing) probably wont like this at all, but imagine their dismay when they realize that fully embracing gay marriage and the technological advances to accomodate it could prevent or actually end abortion. [/quote]
If a gay couple wants to spend their lives together, that is their choice. Yet you can NOT use the word marriage to define what they have. Redefining words to change what the majority emotionally wants, that is completely wrong. Otherwise where do you draw the line?