Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 169
Gay RightsPage 6 of 18    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)

What an egregious aversion from all that is pure in our world,


Pure being what YOU say/think is pure?


while denouncing Biblical truths


If they were "truths" then religion wouldn't require faith. And why should Judeo-Christian faith take precedence over Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan or any other faith?


if you take time to research the causative factors for Pedophilia, you'll find they are a reflection of some of the same desires affecting the Homosexual.

Many Homosexual Men who are unable to get sex from other men have been known to kidnap and rape little boys.


Why don't you post links to this research? And I guess pedophiles who kidnap & rape little girls shows thatheterosexual sex is wrong .


but in the final analysis the Word of God is the ONLY Authority on this subject, good luck with your scientific data


A) WHICH god?

B) so everything set forth in th eBible MUST be fully obeyed? I guess you execute people that work on the Sabbath, stone your children for disobedience, have no problem selling your daughter into slavery andmake sure you aren't wearing garments composed of more than 1 type of fabric

C) the Bible was written & collected by men, who chose which gospels to include... how is that the "word of god" ?

Here's a couple passages from the Bible :


Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Now a later passage:


Genesis2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.


Only a couple chapters into the book & already 2 differing accounts of what happened. First it says god created man & woman then next chapter it says Adam was alone & had no companion. Either the bible was written by men & is filled with errors & bias' or the bible is the "word of God" and God is apparently suffering fromsomeformof senility & can't remember what he just dictated to the writers.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 170
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 9:15:51 AM

What would you think if there were valid instances where non physical beings that live in the invisible or spirit world, seek to guide, and/or deceive people into believing that such thoughts/feelings they are experiences, are not actually their own, or attributed to self awareness, but fabricated by said entities in communication via corporeal intrinsic states of the soul? (regardless of age)


I'd think "valid instances" ? Wow, let's see your proof/evidence. Someone saying this happened to them isn't evidence by the way, it's just anecdotal hearsay.
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 171
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 9:19:56 AM

What would you think if there were valid instances where non physical beings that live in the invisible or spirit world, seek to guide, and/or deceive people into believing that such thoughts/feelings they are experiences, are not actually their own, or attributed to self awareness, but fabricated by said entities in communication via corporeal intrinsic states of the soul? (regardless of age)


I would think that this is a very scary world to live in. I mean, invisible soul-manipulating spirits unilaterally convincing people that they are inherently gay....

Were that not such an outlandish, unfounded, and preposterous notion, I'd almost say it could be relevant in this discussion.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 172
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 10:15:55 AM

I would think that this is a very scary world to live in. I mean, invisible soul-manipulating spirits


It could mean we're all just avatars in an ultra realisitc SIMS program, & the manipulating spirits are the programmers or players..
 ea┬«ly
Joined: 11/7/2006
Msg: 173
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 10:20:01 AM

It could mean we're all just avatars in an ultra realisitc SIMS program, & the manipulating spirits are the programmers or players.


Boil that dust speck....
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 174
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 10:38:31 AM
We hold these truths to be self evident... that SOME men are created equal.

As long as it's other Americans denied their rights under our Constitution, what does it matter to us? I mean our own rights will never be at risk right?
 aSydneyMale
Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 176
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 12:02:43 PM

Interesting Theory, but in the final analysis the Word of God is the ONLY Authority on this subject, good luck with your scientific data.

You dismiss scientific research and embrace a book written by men based upon an assumption.

In your arrogance and bigotry you also dismiss all other religious people who are just as convinced as you are that their faith is right. Of course, at least in a secular country you can actually debate the existence of a god, I lived amongst Muslims and it was never dared raised in the mosques, it was automatically assumed as the truth and how dare anybody question it?

You don't know there is a god, any more than they do, or I do. All you have is what you've read about in a book and what the people you associate with have driven into you.

Don't come on here and state your assumptions as fact. All you have to do is say 'I believe that....' and the rest of us will make up our own mind whether what follows has weight. When you come on here trying to dress up your opinion as the 'truth', that's when I, for one, call 'bullsh*t''.
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 177
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 12:11:59 PM
Yeah, whenever you get the "because god said so" type people, I find its best to just smile politely and ignore them. Arguing an intentionally created unassailable position like that is pointless. Might as well say "Because I said so!" It's not like people are really going to take you or your god's words for the truth.
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 178
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 12:17:52 PM

Don't come on here and state your assumptions as fact. All you have to do is say 'I believe that....' and the rest of us will make up our own mind whether what follows has weight. When you come on here trying to dress up your opinion as the 'truth', that's when I, for one, call 'bullsh*t''.


Do you find, as do I, that when someone begins with, 'In my opinion...', you are much more inclined to listen to the rest of the sentence?

I know several Gay/Lesbians, and none of them are asking for any special rights--they are asking to be recognized as 'equal'. That equality would make it possible for them to marry--each other, not the family dog as some have posited.
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 179
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 1:31:45 PM
I think the main reason that the powers that be don't want gay marriage legalized is because they realize that gays can't reproduce, and the whole point of marriage (from the governments perspective) is to create families which will increase the population and increase the nation's GDP. Also, they don't want people to be able to abuse the tax status that married couples are allowed...as well as imigration related abuses.

It's really all about money. The government should just be open about it and tell everyone the real reason why gay marriage is illegal. They pretend like it is some morality issue which in turn prompts gays to get up on their discrimination soap box and forces the rest of us to listen to why they feel they are being morally victimized.
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 180
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 1:44:30 PM

Keep in mind that there are well over 1000 federally provided benefits to marriage (that is obviously not including state and locally granted benefits.) While I understand your point about right v. privilege, the legal benefits of marriage cannot be ignored


With the seperation of Church and State I am against the fact that marriage gives any sort of benefit from the federal government. And I know I speak for many when I say by definition Marriage is a privelage, a privelage of religious people, it is a religious event, and those of the Religions that have marraige should control it. Government should have no role in marriage in anyway, and the choice to keep homosexuals out of it should be done by the religion.

In a perfect world things would be far different than they are, but there will never be a perfect world. The problems we have now, we will always have, and we need problems to strive to acheive more, without problems there is no purpose, and without purpose there is no world.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 181
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 2:02:29 PM
"Imigration related abuses?" So is it that you think homosexual individuals are more prone to break immigration laws? How odd.


I think a spin-off thread regarding gay illegal immigrants could be interesting... (particularly the illegals from south of the border ~ as they seem to be the only ones anyone ever thinks of for some reason when they hear the term "illegals" .... never noticing for instance the hundreds of thousands or more illegals from Poland, Russia, and other former Soviet countries....but then I think we have most of those here in Chicago really, so maybe in fairness the rest of the country has never seen them).
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 182
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 2:05:37 PM
Since you're suggesting that some private entity should have control over who may get married (and the gov't should stay out of it), Let's set aside the fact that this just isn't reality in this country, and never will be. Are you in favor of any sort of legally recognized union between two people?


Legally recognized union? - No, I believe the Federal Government's involvement should far more limited than it is.

I believe the owner of the bar should decide if there is to be smoking or no smoking in it, I believe those that own a business should decide whom to hire or fire and that the laws of the economy dictate if it succeeds or not (I dislike the "term" economic or economy because most people believe it to be a separate science when in reality its physics, chemistry, and mathematics, in fact all of the sciences are quite deeply related)

Politicians create problems for the public to create a purpose for their existence, as long as government gets bigger there will inherently be bigger problems, and the fact is the working class is what has to pay.
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 183
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 2:23:30 PM
The thing is that there are people who care, people who believe that the science should dictate that smoking is "bad." Its the fact that the politicians get behind these people and use them to increase those taxes. So at face they have a caring mother whom lost a son to cancer, a person who really does know pain and doesn't want anyone to suffer as she has.

But its a Trojan horse, a real horse full of ways to get more money into the pockets.

Some may say, that those with power already have it and have no need to gain more. Inflation is a fact, as more people get more money the less an individual has (again the sciences mix here) its Einstein's theory of relativity at work, those with power will always have to gain more or find ways to keep the rest from gaining it.

There will always be incentive to create conflict
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 184
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 2:24:26 PM
saharam wrote:
And what are you talking about when you say that "they don't want people to be able to abuse the tax status..." Part of the discussion of gay marriage includes the many many benefits to marriage that should be available to everyone. How exactly would that be an abuse?


I don't really believe in straight marriage either, so I agree with you in that all people should have the same benefits, regardless of if they have a spouse.


"Imigration related abuses?" So is it that you think homosexual individuals are more prone to break immigration laws? How odd.

Before you go jumping off half-cocked defending homosexuals... I wasn't talking about immigrant homosexuals. I was talking about anyone who would use the guise of homosexual marriage in order to circumvent immigration laws. Allowing same sex marriage just opens up one more loophole.


I find it shameful that you are trying to play the victim here, whining about how someone who is discriminated against "forces you to listen." This isn't about "moral victimization" (whatever that it.) It's about actual discrimination. You don't have to agree with gay marriage. That doesn't mean you should ignore reality.

I just get iritated by it because gays are arguing how they should have equal rights, when in reality the whole issue is just over money, not equality or morality. Of course, the government knows that it can use predjudice and morality to help bolster its position on gay marriage, so they polarize the conflict as a right vs. wrong issue when in reality it is just a money issue. Gay marriage would be legalized in a heart beat if citizens of our country realized that once again, Uncle Sam is just pulling the wool over their sheeple's eyes.
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 185
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 3:04:00 PM
Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and bigotry.
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 187
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 4:06:50 PM
Of course marriage is a "right" ~ adults have the right to get married. Gays should not be denied the "right" to get married. Are you and I "privileged" beause we're hetero?


No its not, I have no "right" to be married, I cannot force a pastor to marry me if he has decided not to.

A right is something that is given to me because I am a citizen of this country. That would be the constitution and bill of rights. There is nothing in the constitution that recognizes my marriage as a federal matter.

Marriage is inherentily an organizational proposition, example: If I am the only person that recognizes me as married to a cat, i'm not married to a cat. It takes the CHURCH to recognize a marriage. NOT THE STATE. The Church cannot create rights just as the State cannot create marriage.
 Tarah0128
Joined: 2/25/2009
Msg: 188
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 4:22:32 PM
What? Leave your cat alone

We can get married by a judge ~ doesn't have to be in a church

(Geez, Louise! Think the pages in these threads are long enough????)
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 189
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 4:33:30 PM
lol, my cat is fine

the being married by a judge is an example of what is wrong.

The grand scheme for me is that, the right to peacefully assemble should not be infringed upon.

The whole reason that women's rights activists want women into men only schools, or gays into the church etc... is to water down, dilute, then eventually disassemble the organization.

I am reminded of the movie the incredibles, where the mom says, "remember Jack that everyone is special," and Jack replies with, "that's just another way of saying no one is."

If you let everyone into an organization it no longer stands for what it did or is what it was. Its a well-thought-out plan to destroy everything that disagrees with the "new-age progressive" thinkers.
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 190
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 5:16:52 PM
I am against legally recognized union. To put it simply.

I understand that the law is there to help, I basically wish we had no need for laws. No need for government. Not that we don't need them, but I strive to be the best person I can be regardless of any benefits or punishments, regardless of a "pay-off" to go to heaven. I would want everyone to do the "right" thing just because its right, and I'm not talking about situations where it is muddy but in the obvious case.

The idea that the general public needs motivation from Government, or from Church, not to steal from your neighbor or to not murder saddens me. The idea that individuals will become married just for the benefits saddens me.

I am a firm believer in Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative. That people shouldn't be lured into doing the right thing, but they should do the right thing because it is what makes this world work. (I also know that this fact alone breeds incentive to do the wrong thing, its called the prisoner's dilemma in economics.)

I believe marriage should be sacred in the hearts of those that par-take and needs to be no where else. That love in their hearts will keep them together far longer than any legalized document or a tax write off. This is what I wish, not what it is.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 191
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 7:50:47 PM
Personally I feel legal / civil unions should be recognized for same-sex couples who wish to have them. I understand and respect the fact that the state has no way to make the churches (or the Reform synagogues...don't even bother trying with the Orthodox synagogues or the mosques ) recognize the unions as marriages. But that's really just "separation" , isn't it? That's how it's designed to function. I mean I was raised Catholic, left it completely for a time, explored other paths, am now basically "non-practicing / cultural Catholic" at best. But as far as the RCC is concerned I am not married at all if I go to a judge with some lady I meet ....this weekend, for example...and tie the knot. Yet to everyone else, and to the state, they don't care what the Roman Church thinks and they recognize us as officially married. Including in court.

Also as far as the RCC is concerned, if they HAD married me in the Church, and then I get a divorce, I'm not divorced and anyone else I have sex with after my (legal secular) divorce is "adultery". The only way they'll consider me divorced is if I get it annulled through Rome. Technically speaking (though with most modern-day Catholics I'm not sure how much to the "letter of the law" they all follow this stuff), a divorcee is not even allowed to get Communion in a Catholic church. They can go to Confession weekly, naturally, and can sit in at Masses (which the priest would of course "recommend") but cannot take Communion.

So the point is, they've got one set of laws (the laws of the Roman Church) which do not always overlap (or even agree with) the laws of the secular state. Why can't gay couples get married, and just have it accepted as valid but not by any religious bodies who won't recognize it (and most mainstream ones likely won't , except perhaps some of the very liberal-minded Protestant offshoots like Unitarian-Universalism or something).

I think gays are wrong if they are trying to force it on religious bodies, trying to force religious groups to recognize their unions, because you just can't plain and simple. It's the religious groups' 1st Amendment right to continue exercising their own dogma and doctrine -- part of which is no same sex unions I guess. But I think gays are well within their rights (ok, it's not a "right".....) , within their "privileges" as tax-paying law-abiding citizens let's say, to legally tie the knot in a civil union and enjoy the benefits of general (secular) recognition of that union. I can see no serious reason (and save the, "it leads to marrying an animal" argument, please) why they should not be able to do this. Unless it really does have to do with money to an extent and employers don't want to have to extend health benefits to a gay spouse, and so forth.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 193
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 8:33:41 PM

Yep, when isn't it about money? It's ALWAYS about money

As far a divorced people not being able to take Communion, it's changed now. I think some of the old school Catholics still abide by that rule, but my mother doesn't and she's Sacristan or Eucharistic Minister during Mass


It probably has at least something to do with $$, somewhere, yes. I mean, just about everything does. Yeah I'm sure that Communion rule is rarely if ever enforced anyway. After all, how can it be? What priest knows exactly what every parishioner is doing in their private lives (who's divorced, separated, currently cheating, etc etc). Also even if they by some chance did hear of it, in a small community for instance, not that many priests would be old school and hardline enough nowadays to call anyone out about it. Then even if they did, all that would do would be turn off yet another parishioner (more $ lost...) , as that person probably just goes to a different Catholic church in a different part of town then and takes Communion there instead.

But, technically speaking, just like no one's supposed to theoretically go to Communion at all without Confession the day before, and fasting for at least an hour, etc...those are still the technical rules. I'm sure most priests today are wise enough to know all about today's watered-down "cafeteria Catholicism" anyway. Frankly I think they're happy when Catholics show interest enough to show up at Mass at all !
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 194
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 9:29:53 PM
Popular prejudices aside , there really is no good reason to deny homosexual unions.


The reason doesn't matter, I believe that organizations that peacefully assemble (this is Churches, golfing tournaments, private schools, clubs, bars etc...) don't need any more reason to exclude someone than they just don't want them.

Its every Americans right to preach pro homosexuality just as it is to preach anti-homosexuality. Just because you disagree and feel you are scientifically proven right, doesn't give you the power to dictate others' lives, America is suppose to be the idea that you can go out and create your own paradise, and to some people paradise is an area with no homosexuals. Just as it is a paradise for others to have nothing but homosexuals.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 195
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/22/2009 9:35:38 PM
As far a divorced people not being able to take Communion, it's changed now


My parents divorced back in "68. In the early 70's my mother discussed going back to the church with our local minister. She was told it'd be no problem if she sent $2500.00 to the archdiocese in Toronto to gether marriage annulled by the church.... she attends a Baptist church now

As to gay marriage; one argument against it I hear regularly is that a gay marriage would destroy the "sanctity of marriage". OK if that's so then any state that doesn't allow gay marriage ( and also doesn't recognize a gay marriage that takes place elsewhere) should preserve the sanctity of marriage by not allowing divorce AND also not recognizing any divorces granted at any other location.

And I'm not sure where the Christian churches get off saying marriage is a sacred institution & gay marriage would be a mockery of it; when Joesph & Mary were a married couple & Joseph is apparently not the father of her son...
 Fishingthereef
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 197
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/23/2009 8:42:16 AM
I thought I should clear this up . . .

Things homosexuals and their supporters are NOT asking of you:

1. They are not demanding you have 'gay sex'
2. They are not demanding that you marry a person of the same gender as yourself.
3. They are NOT demanding that your church marry them (nor will they ever demand this)
4. They are not demanding that you even accept gays and lesbians.
5. Probably most important for THIS thread (at least to some people in this thread), they want to practice THEIR religion just as you are allowed to. You can think any faith other than yours is "satanic" if you'd like, but even SATANISTS have a right to practice their religion in the United States of America. You don't have to AGREE with the dogma of other faiths, but if some sects of Christianity find marrying two men or two women to be entirely within the bounds of their faith, then you have NO RIGHT to tell them they cannot.

Here is what they ARE asking:

1. That they can marry the person they love (just like you do).



James, Seattle, Washington, USA
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >