Gay marriage legal in Massachussetts

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by TN_Independent
I would agree with that, for the most part.

As for this thread, I'd have to say that I'm against same-sex marriage. I am against it because I think that marriage is a union of husband and wife. I realize that this view is based on my religious and moral beliefs, and make no apology for it.

As for same-sex unions, it is their choice. I am not opposed to allowing for "civil-unions", or any other name that would apply. Give them tax breaks equal to married couples who file joint returns. Give them every financial and social standing afforded to married couples. It just shouldn't be termed marriage, in my opinion. No matter how trivial that may seem to some, that's the way I see it.

Now, do I think that the gay community would find this acceptable? No, I do not. I think that their goal is not only that we accept them and allow them to legally become couples. I feel that they want to force 'total acceptance', for lack of a better term (and that may be inappropriate), even though true total acceptance will never be possible. They will not be happy, imo, until they are allowed to 'marry'.

Mmmm...Civil unions...Separate but equal...Haven't we been down that road before? Didn't work then either.

 

[KLSuddeth]

There is a quote (I dont remember who said it or what the exact wording is) that goes something like this.

There are 3 steps to acceptance of new ideas:

1. violent opposition
2. mockery
3. quiet acceptance

*edit - I have been informed by my encyclopedia/dictionary.....errrrr, I mean husband that I have the order bassackwards

flip #'s 1 and 2

HAPPY NOW DEAR??!!!??!?!?!

edit by DKSuddeth:

not yet, I have some more things for you to do. :

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
What's it like being a "middle of the roader" matts, with no true convictions about anything? Just live and let live....

Isn't it boring?

sort of peaceful maybe? little to argue about, little to persecute over. overall general harmony for once in our lifetime? just a thought

 

[KLSuddeth]

Originally posted by KLSuddeth
There is a quote (I dont remember who said it or what the exact wording is) that goes something like this.

There are 3 steps to acceptance of new ideas:

1. violent opposition
2. mockery
3. quiet acceptance

*edit - I have been informed by my encyclopedia/dictionary.....errrrr, I mean husband that I have the order bassackwards

flip #'s 1 and 2

HAPPY NOW DEAR??!!!??!?!?!

edit by DKSuddeth:

not yet, I have some more things for you to do. :

ATTN ADMIN STAFF - PLEASE REIGN IN YOUR TOKEN LIBERAL MOD WHO CONSTANTLY ABUSES HIS POWER TO ANNOY ME.

THANK YOU

(take THAT, DK) :cof:

 

[TN_Independent]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Mmmm...Civil unions...Separate but equal...Haven't we been down that road before? Didn't work then either.

Assuming that the gay couples were afforded every advantage offered to married couples, what possible benefit could there be in their being "married" rather than "united"? Other than the fact that they would have succeeded in tearing down the traditional defintion of the term marriage, I just don't see it.

 

[TN_Independent]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yes. I discard the parts which are ignorant and backward.

rtwng,

I'm still trying very hard to find a meaning in this earlier post other than the obvious one that jumps out at me.

Are you saying that parts of the Bible you discard as ignorant and backward? If so, that must make it very easy when you have to ask forgiveness for sins (you wouldn't have very many in that case, would you?).

Surely you don't think you can pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you believe.

Tell me it ain't so!

TN

 

[Aquarian]

won't speak for rwa, but I do think I can choose which parts of any document, idea, ideology I believe in. I actually think that's my duty, to figure things out for myself. The bible says we are all god's children. In that light, the bible was written for an audience that was extremely childlike in terms of knowledge and advancement (assuming here that it is the exact word of god and not in any way altered by being written through the hand of man). We have different rules for children than we do for adults, is there any reason to assume god wouldn't also? In my personal philosophy of life, human society has advanced out of the 'child' years and into the teenage era, full of rebellion and questioning, fits of anger, internal conflict etc. will be interesting (if I live that long) to see what young adulthood will be like on a world cultural level...

on civil unions, would there be any issue with having couples hetero or homo use civil union status in regards to government treatment and leaving marriage in the eyes of god strictly to churches?

 

[TN_Independent]

Originally posted by Aquarian
won't speak for rwa, but I do think I can choose which parts of any document, idea, ideology I believe in. I actually think that's my duty, to figure things out for myself. The bible says we are all god's children. In that light, the bible was written for an audience that was extremely childlike in terms of knowledge and advancement (assuming here that it is the exact word of god and not in any way altered by being written through the hand of man). We have different rules for children than we do for adults, is there any reason to assume god wouldn't also? In my personal philosophy of life, human society has advanced out of the 'child' years and into the teenage era, full of rebellion and questioning, fits of anger, internal conflict etc. will be interesting (if I live that long) to see what young adulthood will be like on a world cultural level...

Aquarian,

Are you a Christian? That is not evident from your answer, and it would be very pertinent, at least to my thinking. It is obvious, I suppose, that I feel that the Bible must be taken literally and that we are not given the freedom to choose which part we are to respect and which we aren't. I will admit that there is the possibility that some of the text may have been altered in translation, but not in significant amounts and not enough to make contextual differences.

on civil unions, would there be any issue with having couples hetero or homo use civil union status in regards to government treatment and leaving marriage in the eyes of god strictly to churches?

I personally would have no problem with this and feel that it would be an adequate solution to the problem.

TN

 

[Aquarian]

I was raised catholic up thru first communion but not confirmation. Currently I am either agnostic or atheist, been doing some soul searching and reading of various sources to help determine which but so far I'm still undecided and likely will be till the end of my time here.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Aquarian
won't speak for rwa, but I do think I can choose which parts of any document, idea, ideology I believe in. I actually think that's my duty, to figure things out for myself.

When you recall the penalty for adding to or taking away from God's word, and the fact that the Bible proves its self entirely devine in origin, your changes to its wordings are not allowed.

As a side effect, your beliefs then show in your propigation through politics and social interactions and begin to sway others as well.

How many believers can be sabotaged?

How many unbelievers will be pushed into what they THINK is Chirstian behavior, but NOT?

The ramifications on Earth are large, and the ramifications after death are larger.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Aquarian
I was raised catholic up thru first communion but not confirmation. Currently I am either agnostic or atheist, been doing some soul searching and reading of various sources to help determine which but so far I'm still undecided and likely will be till the end of my time here.

Maybe that is because of your pick and choose instead of pick and PROVE.

 

[Aquarian]

You may very well be right newguy. So might I. Your reasoning is why I generally shy away from discussing religion with anyone who is likely to be swayed by my arguments. I'm taking my afterlife into my own hands by disagreeing with the bible and I'm ok with that, less so with the idea of being responsible for changing someone else's mind if I turn out to be wrong. none of us will know for sure until we die, and then it will be too late (most likely). My older sister, who is very religious, and I had a long conversation the other night. she wanted to know my reasoning for my atheist leanings. I did my best to explain them while emphasizing the parts of my belief system that left the possibility of a supreme being open. I for one admit I don't know, but many others present what they think as indisputable fact.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Aquarian
I for one admit I don't know, but many others present what they think as indisputable fact.

That's pretty much where I stand. For all I know I'll be reincarnated as a bluefish, which is sort of a humbling fact.

 

[OCA]

Flasher/Chippewa have been posting from the same exact computer, this much has been confirmed people.

Flasher how long do you intend to keep your charade going?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by OCA
Flasher/Chippewa have been posting from the same exact computer, this much has been confirmed people.

Flasher how long do you intend to keep your charade going?

I can pretty much verify that no one is accessing the board from my computer besides me. I am in class at New Horizons. Check the IP address. It would be a HUGE coincidence if someone was.

And I only have one screenname. So layoff, OCA. Geez.

 

[OCA]

Flasher the proof is irrefuteable. What do you say you tell us why you let RWA push you over the edge. Hell man i've seen the proof with my own eyes. I ask again how long do you want the charade to go on?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by OCA
Flasher the proof is irrefuteable. What do you say you tell us why you let RWA push you over the edge. Hell man i've seen the proof with my own eyes. I ask again how long do you want the charade to go on?

RWA thinks he pushed meover the edge?
Puh-lease.
Go back to talkingabout something interesting, OCA. This is a witch hunt as best I can tell.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

This thread is monsterous. I've only read the last page, and it seems full of invective and silly nonsense. Is there any substance to it? Can someone give me a brief synopsis?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
This thread is monsterous. I've only read the last page, and it seems full of invective and silly nonsense. Is there any substance to it? Can someone give me a brief synopsis?

This is a discussion on gay marriage gone tragicly wrong.

For example, one poster here thinks that whether being gay is normal is relevant. Seems to me that's a topic for another post.

 

[DKSuddeth]

IP's can be used by multiple people. Case in point, Mine and my spouses. Machines behind the same proxy or firewall can end up being the same exact IP so until there is definitive proof, other than an exact IP address, lets ease up on the dual identity accusations.

So far I've seen nothing to indicate that flasher would have any need to use a second identity.