[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
The reason that evolutionists resist reality and true science is that they are either knowingly or unknowingly being influenced in one of the New Age religions, probably Secular/Religious Humanism, Atheism, or Agnosticism, and that influence is making it impossible for them to be objective. Evolution isn’t science.
There is no proof of evolution, and, in fact, there are a growing number of observations that show evolution to be a scientific impossibility. The reason that evolution-scientists are still backing the debunked hypothesis of evolution is that they have a hidden agenda which causes them to be willingly ignorant of the facts. This hidden agenda has to do with a desire to follow the precepts of worldly liberalism. Many people are not aware that liberalism is tied closely to the New Age religion and that Secular/Religious Humanism is a denomination of New Age. New Age doesn?t want Almighty God, but it either wants a god of forces, or humanity as god, or no God at all.
As a result of the effect of the New Age influence, evolution scientists are willing to accept presuppositions, rationalized fantasies, and faulty logic as if any of these were proof, which none of them are. None of these are proof, but they are the basis of all proof offered by evolutionists.
In addition, evolutionists are increasingly drawn to Post Modernism and Chaos Theory, under which there is no truth, there are no absolutes, there are no lies, and winning is all that really counts. As a result the evolution-scientists have found many ways to misrepresent the facts and have been able to totally deceive some and partially deceive many.
Ha ha. Wrong thread, dude. This is Gay Marriage, not Creation v. Evolution. Still, since you’re fundamentally misguided (pun intended) on both topics, I suppose it’s all good.[/quote]
You love to jump to conclusions don’t you?
I started the “Evolution vs. Creation” thread AFTER I posted that last post. You are so quick to jump all over me with anything you can find, regardless of it’s validity. Whether it’s real discussion or not, you don’t care.
Also, I find it funny how you keep calling me “misguided”. I was raised and taught by evolutionists. I guess if you want to call me “misguided”, go ahead. Because it’s true.
At least I have actually learned from being “misguided” and snapped out of the lies. You still haven’t learned.
Can we let this discussion die yet? We can debate until we’re all blue in the face, but it seems clear no one has convinced anyone else of their side of the arguement, much as I expected. Now, I became a member just to post back on this topic, but frankly, I’m ready to let this thing die already. I’m spending far too many hours reading/writing on this issue, and not checking out the rest of what this site has to offer. Anyone else agree? If so, this will be my last post to this topic. If not, I guess I have a few writings left in me…
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Perhaps you need to take another look at Revelations (and the rest of the Bible as well) while using one of Krishnamurtis pieces of advice
“only a mind that is in a state of inquiry is capable of learning.”
He was trying to free people such as yourself from attachment to religious dogma. You twit.[/quote]
And Jesus Christ was trying to free you from your sins! Who has the more important mission?
(And please refrain from name calling, it only devalues your argument)
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
I told you that I didn’t want to argue religious beliefs with you. But you insisted on lacing into mine.[/quote]
Actually, it was you who brought up the Bible in a post to me 6/25 1:01AM. Do you remember that post? You claimed that “God is not particularly prolific in his direct teachings, etc.” At that point I replied that "God is quite prolific regarding direct teaching. Regardless of which book (in the Bible) you turn to it will be filled with “direct teachings.”
You then came back to me with another “religious” post stating (among other things):
“I don’t see how anyone who believes in the Christ can take all of what is in the Bible as divinely inspired. It is full of human error.”
To which I replied:
“Yes, I have heard the “human error” claim before. Please tell me specifically what the
“human errors” are? I consider myself a student Ha ha a forty something student. What I mean is that I am always trying to learn. With no malice in my heart please point out the errors so that I can be better informed.”
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
However, simply because the sin (all of our sin) is wrong that does not mean that we hate the person involved. As I have repeatedly stated we are to love the sinner and hate the sin.
Right, so gay folks just chop it off or sew it up. Love you, love you, love you.[/quote]
Is an adulterer to continue to cheat on his wife?
Do we help ourselves or hurt ourselves by constantly doing something that creates pain in our lives?
According to rising hope a full 33% of homosexuals attempt suicide. Is this a happy life?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
rising_hope wrote:
I won’t paint a rosy picture for you. The path to accepting gay life is difficult, no doubt. So difficult, 1 in 3 attempt to commit suicide at some point along the road to acceptance.
Just one more reason not to allow gay couples (married or not) to adopt!
[/quote]
This is a pretty bold statement. I don’t know if I would bar gay couples from adopting, but I don’t think I would give them equal footing to a heterosexual married couple.
This is one reason why I favor a form of civil unions between gay couples and not marriage.
[quote]Not such a funny joke to many of my black friends when they here the Gay lobby try to compare their plight to hundreds of years of slavery!
They have told me that they are indeed offended!
[/quote]
Yet when Kerry made similar comparrison during his campaign, the crowd of blacks around him cheered him on. Certainly, at least some of them do not share offense.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
According to rising hope a full 33% of homosexuals attempt suicide. Is this a happy life?
[/quote]
'Tis true. However, please do not confuse that suicide attempts are largely caused from social rejection pre-coming out. It’s certainly understandable. Human nature seeks affection, companionship, and a sense of belonging. How well do you think you would survive being denied access to such?
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
Not such a funny joke to many of my black friends when they here the Gay lobby try to compare their plight to hundreds of years of slavery!
They have told me that they are indeed offended!
Yet when Kerry made similar comparrison during his campaign, the crowd of blacks around him cheered him on. Certainly, at least some of them do not share offense.[/quote]
I’m sure that Black Gay people don’t mind, as well as many social liberal Blacks. Over all, I bet most do in fact mind.
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
ZEB wrote:
According to rising hope a full 33% of homosexuals attempt suicide. Is this a happy life?
'Tis true. However, please do not confuse that suicide attempts are largely caused from social rejection pre-coming out. It’s certainly understandable. Human nature seeks affection, companionship, and a sense of belonging. How well do you think you would survive being denied access to such?[/quote]
I don’t think you should tie in “a sense of belonging.” Can you not be Gay and “belong” to a group, family etc.? Is every single thing tied to your sexuality? Perhaps this is in itself a problem.
Well, regardless of where this discussion is heading or not, Canada officially legalized same-sex marriage this morning in a LEGISLATIVE vote (not court decision.)
The Liberals’ controversial same-sex marriage legislation has passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through in a 158-133 vote.
Supported by most members of the Liberals, the Bloc Qu?b?cois and the NDP, the legislation passed easily, making Canada only the third country in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to officially recognize same-sex marriage.
But the passage of Bill C-38, once again, came with a political price tag for the government. Joe Comuzzi, resigned from the cabinet so he could vote against the bill ? an open rebuke of the government legislation.
Comuzzi was the minister responsible for Northern Ontario.
Although he was the only cabinet minister to break ranks with Prime Minister Paul Martin over the controversial plan to legalize the marriage of gays and lesbians, it highlighted the divisions within Canada and within the Liberal party, pitting supporters of equality rights against those who are defending religious freedoms.
For Comuzzi, the decision to resign meant putting principles ahead of the privileges of cabinet. “In 2004, during the election, I promised faithfully to the people of Thunder Bay-Superior North, that I would defend the definition of marriage,” he said, explaining his move.
The prime minister said he regretted the decision of a man he called an “old friend,” but accepts it because the government must speak with one voice on same-sex marriage.
The “vote is about the Charter of Rights,” said Martin. “We’re a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don’t cherry-pick rights.”
The government has moved over the last few months to appease critics both within Liberal ranks and among Canadians at large. Amendments were introduced to ensure no religious group or charitable organization would be forced to accept same-sex marriage. But in spite of those amendments some groups remain unconvinced.
Same-sex marriage remains one of the most difficult issues ever to confront Canadian politicians. In large part passage of the bill is the reason the parliamentary session was extended for the first time in 17 years.
Prime Minister Paul Martin, left, with MP Joe Comuzzi, who quit his junior cabinet position Tuesday. (CP photo)
But while Tuesday night’s vote closes off the debate in the Commons, the Conservatives insist there is no closure for Canadians who believe marriage should continue to be defined as the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others.
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says if his party forms the next government, the law will be revisited.
Harper made the promise one day after suggesting the adoption of the law lacked legitimacy because it relied on the support of the separatist Bloc Qu?b?cois. Harper said he believes Bloc MPs are the legitimate representatives of Quebec voters. But he argues most Canadians aren’t buying it as a final decision since most federalist MPs are opposed to same-sex marriage.
Harper says a Conservative government would hold a free vote for all MPs on the matter, rather than forcing cabinet ministers to vote with the government.
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
Homosexuals have absolutely ZERO special rights. Name me ONE, I challenge you.[/quote]
Okay, I’ll name one:
“If you have been discriminated against for a job, housing, access to a public accommodation, or another covered area because you are heterosexual, HOMOSEXUAL, bisexual, or asexual, you can now file suit using the New York State Human Rights Law.”
This has happened before! Ever hear the term “militant homosexual?” It’s just that the press won’t cover it. It’s a much better story when a heterosexual beats up a homosexual.
Please don’t deny that there are these types of morons on both sides of the fence.
[quote]Interesting you mention about the majority of Americans feel that homosexuals should be treated equal under the law.
To further clarify, most American’s feel that workplace and housing descrimination based on sexual orientation should be illegal. But, it’s not illegal. I suppose that works for both sides (gays could fire heteros for no other reason than there sexual orientation), but doesn’t that sound ridiculous? It shouldn’t happen. Period. Yet the law continues to allow this. In fact, the court system has even upheld thier rights to discriminate numerous times.[/quote]
I am with you on this. The basis for hiring and firing should be solely upon the basis of job qualifications and performance! Anything else is an infringement into the persons personal life and has nothing to do with the job!
However, I am not for “special rights” for any class of people.
The “common public interest” is anti discrimination based upon sexual prefeence. However, public sentiment goes the other way when it comes to changing the insitution of marriage.
[quote]History will show that attempting to change the institution of marriage in order to favor Gay unions was a complete failure! However, I do think more tolerance will come about (eventually) because of this and that is a good thing.
Obviously, we’re both speculating. Only time will tell on the matter. The little boy in me just can’t wait, be it in 5 or 10, or 20 years down the line to say “I told you so,” though. At least you agree tolerance is a good thing.[/quote]
Why would any sane individual be against tolerance? Allowing others to live their lives as they see fit is the American way! It’s changing the social fabric which I am opposed.
Yes, Vermont home of the former Gov. of Vermont Howard (screech) Dean. Not much more needs to be said. If Vermont is for it then how good could it be? “On to Iowa and let’s win there YIHAAAAA”
(Chortle chortle).
We are really starting to find some common ground!
[quote]Yes, we know it’s largely about money.
You mock me. Either you didn’t read what I said before or you just don’t care. I find it somewhat of a personal insult that you didn’t respond to that then, but sit here now and say “It’s largely about money.”
[/quote]
You are right, let’s just say it’s partly about money…better?
And I find it offensive that you would compare a race that had to undergo slavery for a few hundred years to a small group of people (1%) who want to have sex with someone of the same gender! One is a choice, the other is a race! And it is a choice (born that way or not, and there is no proof that you are born that way) as it’s an act.
[quote]I suppose you’re right. It’s a choice to live a life of persecution in order to live what you know in your heart to be what you need to do versus living a life in utter solitude or living a lie and hoping you can live with yourself. Blacks were slaves in this country, sure. Just as gays have been made slaves before in other nations. But mostly around the world, they’re not considered worthy of slavework and are executed instead. Yup, terrible comparrison. Surely, gays don’t experience the same level of persecution.
[/quote]
First of all we are discussing the situation relative to gays in the USA. You and I have no idea exactly how gays are treated in some third world country. Presumably they are not treated very well, then again most of the population is not treated very well by the leadership in those areas of the world.
Secondly, I have to dispute your read on being in “utter solitude.” How does not being able to marry put you in “utter solitude”? Why does everyting have to revolve around sex with you guys? This is more the use of hyperbole on your part than fact. Are you not allowed to join local clubs and organizations? Are you not allowed to have friends? Are you not allowed to shop, eat and visit any place that a heterosexual can go?
These are all things that African Americans were not able to do! I will say it again and hopefully for the final time: THERE IS NO COMPARISON BETWEEN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM AND EQUALITY AND THE GAY MOVEMENT! NONE!
[quote]Please site all of the beheadings of gays that have taken place.
Actually, I mispoke. I was thinking of England, actually. But, the person that was executed in England by beheading was arrested here, in New York for being a homosexual. (Oscar Wilde)[/quote]
I agree one case does not make a cause.
[quote]I know a few guys who are “oriented” toward having sex with many women. Unfortunately their wives don’t find this “orientation” very beneficial to their marriage, so they had to stop…it’s sad. That entire adultery “orientation” isn’t even a crime anymore. Tell me are other “orientations” okay?
What if someone is “oriented” to be sexually attracted to relatives. Don’t laugh this is an actually psychological disorder…at least it’s a disorder for now. Who knows maybe they will get their own political lobby.
Anyway, can that guy marry his sister? What if they promise not to have kids? What if they are stable? What if…
Okay, let’s just get this shit out of the way, right here, right now… From the dictionary on sexual orientation:
Main Entry: sexual orientation
Function: noun
: the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior
We’re not talking about the inclination of people to marry dogs, brothers to marry sisters, or adults to have sex with children. It’s positively distracting, insulting, and just plain not in context of what we’re talking about here, so would everyone PLEASE stop making such comparrisons.
Hence forward, I will not even bother to address such suggestion. There are no such implication as to the changes of marriage beyond allowing two persons, regardless of gender, to become legally recognized under the rights, responsibilities and duties of the current marriage contract as legally defined. I have great respect for you, Zeb, but statements like these are just meant to antagonize.
[/quote]
Ah, you say it has nothing to do with a man marrying his sister, dog or lamp shade! Please tell me then, since there is ALWAYS a next step, what is the next step regarding the redefinition of marriage?
That is not meant to antaganize, but to explore. I am trying to coax you out of your little black box. Nothing exists in a vacuum! You simply cannot state, “We are adults and have a right to marry, matters not if we are the same sex” without expecting some sort of continuing ramifications.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not against Gay marriage because I think it will lead to other sorts of odd combinations. I am against gay marriage on it’s face. However, to think that the bounds of marriage will stop with gays being allowed to say thier vows is not only short sighted, but foohardy. I suspect you realize this, but would rather not discuss it.
If the boundaries of marriage are widened to include gays there is literally no end to the strange combinations (a literal freak show) which we will be presented with! A man marrying his sister will, I’m sure, be one of the more tame match ups.
Now you are comparing the gay movement to the horrible torture that the Jewish people went through under Adolph Hitler. That is just as ridiculous as comparing the gay movement to the African American struggle. six million gays were not executed because of their “nationality.” Nor were they enslaved, mistreated and forced to do manule labor.
Can you see how foolish these arguments look to those of us who are not gay? You have to stop doing this, it only hurts the other points you make which have some validity.
One more (and hopefully final time: Simply beause one group of people are persecuted that is no reason to compare it to either the Jewish planned exterminaton under Hitler, or the enslavement of an entire race as occured in early America.
When you make these comparisons you really are denegrating both African Americans and Jews everywhere!
Yes, some gays are beat up because they are gay and it’s wrong. It does not however even come close to reaching the epic proportions of either of the other two situations.
On top of that both Jews and Blacks are born that way and were discriminated against because of their race and or Nationality. Gays are in fact involved in an action which they can either do or not do, even if they are born that way (and there is no eveidence to support that they are born that way).
Please no more!
Here is another area where we may never agree. I am not for any sort of law that would give two gay men (women) the right to form a “civil union.” Those rights should be left to one man and one woman.
Gay people can already cohabitate all they want, and they do!
[quote]Yes you should provide more! You left out the extreme torture of the Native American Indian at the hands of the evil white settlers. I think you could somehow tie this in to the 1% of the population that wants to change our societal fabric. (Leave out the part about Custer).
Blah. I doubt you’re being serious. Yes, there was extreme torture, murder, enslavement of Native American’s (covered under race discrimination/hate crimes legislation now.) My point was that every atrocity, every act of violence, every protection we can think about any group of people is now covered under the law. Except sexual orientation. That really needs to change.[/quote]
Do you realize that an employer could in fact fire (or not hire) someone because they simply don’t like their qualifications, or the job they are doing then suddenly get hit with a law suit by this person because they are gay. The employer would not even know at the time that the person was gay.
As an employer I don’t want to go down that road. There are plenty of nutty lawsuits filling up the court system as it is.
How can you tell if someone is gay anyway? Don’t you think that this could get terribly abused? What if someone really was not gay, simply a poor worker, was fired and then claimed “gay status.” How do you prove that a singly unmarried man (or woman) is not homosexual?
What a freaking mess! No thank you!
Is it then okay for me to use some sort of offensive gay slang? I don’t think so, so in the future be as respectful of my beliefs as I am of yours.
[quote]Ahh the precious age of relativism. God bless those liberal Universities who ushered in this age. Oops, I said “God,” sorry
Please do not appoligize for the use of God. It is in the context of your religion, and therefore appropriate, and appoligizing for it somehow implies that I, or anyone else, would be insulted by it, which in itself is somewhat of an insult.[/quote]
I know
You are wrong in that assumption! Morality used to be based upon the Bible. People used to be ashamed if they were having an affair with a married woman, not just because there was a law against it (how silly a law based upon adultery. Isn’t that quaint? Oh…that’s right there was less divorce then) But because it was also breaking the word of God.
When liberal Judges removed God they also removed the desire of at least two generations (so far) to try to follow some sort of moral code. The relativism of which you speak is one of the things which is harming this country. I know, I know, my laws are not your laws.
For Heaven sake if you are going to remove the Bible from every one of it’s former homes: School, Court house, Government buildings etc. At least replace it with something that serves the same end relative to a moral compass. Do you know how many kids are growing up with absolutly no clue as to right and wrong? Where is the structure for morality to be found? It’s not in the law books my friend!
That’s one reason why you are seeing an increasing great divide in this country. It will get worse…
[quote]Though I would certainly agknowledge that virtually every society around the world agrees that it is morally wrong to kill/eat another person, aboriginal Austrialians were known canibals. Though people of this nation generally agree that monogamy is best, Mormons (of course not modern mormons) once felt it was perfectly morally acceptable to take on multiple wives. (Multiple husbands was another matter entirely.) Point being, morality is a matter of perspective.
[/quote]
I take issue with your read on some laws being universal. Personally, I don’t think there is any end in sight for some.
I remember when the Supreme Court allowed abortion. It’s the womans body the left cried out. Have you been reading some of the “interesting” articles about “infanticide?” It seems there is a growing cry among some of the liberals to allow a baby to be killed after it is born if it has several (there exists a list) birth defects.
It is after all the mothers child not yours they cry… sad… very sad…
Judges are one of the reasons that we are in the moral mess which we are in. I think Judges should be elected and answer directly to the people. Those who say that this would “politicize” the courts are right, but who cares? At least they will be answerable to someone! I think they should run every 6 or 7 years and if most people in the country agree with you then let there be all sorts of gay rights laws passed. If they agree with me then there will be no gay marriage or civil unions of any type.
Since they are basically legislating from the bench anyway let them be answerable to the people!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
I told you that I didn’t want to argue religious beliefs with you. But you insisted on lacing into mine.
You then came back to me with another “religious” post stating (among other things):
“I don’t see how anyone who believes in the Christ can take all of what is in the Bible as divinely inspired. It is full of human error.”
To which I replied:
"Yes, I have heard the “human error” claim before. Please tell me specifically what the
“human errors” are?
Just trying to jog your memory
[/quote]
Those are statements of my beliefs, not attacks on yours. That the book is full of errors is on the other hand a fact.
Go check out the Creation v. Evolution thread for a nice list of the errors, recently posted. But not by me. I contented myself with noting that witchcraft is a crock.
“If you have been discriminated against for a job, housing, access to a public accommodation, or another covered area because you are heterosexual, HOMOSEXUAL, bisexual, or asexual, you can now file suit using the New York State Human Rights Law.”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
However, simply because the sin (all of our sin) is wrong that does not mean that we hate the person involved. As I have repeatedly stated we are to love the sinner and hate the sin.
Right, so gay folks just chop it off or sew it up. Love you, love you, love you.
Is an adulterer to continue to cheat on his wife?
Do we help ourselves or hurt ourselves by constantly doing something that creates pain in our lives?
[/quote]
Zeb, these are complete non-sequiturs. As for something that creates pain in our lives, that probably describes all marriage.
I think rising hope’s statistics are off a bit. In any case it would be a happier life for all of us if homosexual behavior wasn’t needlessly condemned.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
I told you that I didn’t want to argue religious beliefs with you. But you insisted on lacing into mine.
You then came back to me with another “religious” post stating (among other things):
“I don’t see how anyone who believes in the Christ can take all of what is in the Bible as divinely inspired. It is full of human error.”
To which I replied:
"Yes, I have heard the “human error” claim before. Please tell me specifically what the
“human errors” are?
Just trying to jog your memory
Those are statements of my beliefs, not attacks on yours. That the book is full of errors is on the other hand a fact.
Go check out the Creation v. Evolution thread for a nice list of the errors, recently posted. But not by me. I contented myself with noting that witchcraft is a crock.
[/quote]
The point is you seemed to want to discuss religion!
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Okay, I’ll name one:
“If you have been discriminated against for a job, housing, access to a public accommodation, or another covered area because you are heterosexual, HOMOSEXUAL, bisexual, or asexual, you can now file suit using the New York State Human Rights Law.”
What is so special about a right shared by everyone? “heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual” would seem to about cover the gamut.
[/quote]
Not true, he fact that there is such a brand new law is indication that homosexuals are already getting speical rights as I suggested.
Have you ever heard of a law protecting someone against discrimination for being a heterosexual? No, of course not! Has anyone ever claimed that they were fired because they were a “heterosexual?” No, how foolish. This was crafted by those who are obviously pro speical rights for homosexuals.
A
At least you agree tolerance is a good thing.[/quote]