Gay marriage

[mattskramer]

The most absolutely reliable signpost, informing the world that a once great people are about to be trampled into the dust, is the breakdown of morals. At no time during the formative years of this nation would the idea of legitimizing sexually deviant behavior have even been entertained.

No. Years ago the issues were Slavery and Woman Suffrage. Today we think of how foolish it was to have allowed Slavery for so long and to have denied women the right to vote. Now that those issues have practically been resolved, issues about homosexual marriage can be addresses.

It is only now, that the hard work has been done, and we, the fat, lazy, and bored beneficiaries can delude ourselves into believing that we are SO advanced and enlightened, and that our ancestors were SO superstitious and intolerant, that we can even POSE a question like, "Who am I to tell two men who love each other that they can't get married?" How educated do you have to be to say something that STUPID?

Yes, To a degree our ancestors were superstitious and intolerant. Thankfully, times have changed. Just as it used to be thought of as stupid to even suggest that women should be allowed to vote, it will be thought of as stupid to not allow homosexual marriage.

------------------------------------

1. Slavery was ECONOMIC slavery.

There was economic slavery and there way racial slavery. Blacks were not allowed to be free even if they wanted to be free. Did as many White people travel the "underground railroad"? Read about Harriet Tubman and educate yourself.

2. Pushing an Indian and warring were normal for any place/any time at that point in history. Judging by today's overpopulated planet's rules is invalid.

Pushing the Indians back the way we did was simply wrong. It would be like me moving into your home and kicking you out. Yes. It was done in other nations, but that does not excuse it or make it right.

3. Women shouldn't vote according to their morals back then, and given the situation it was entirely correct.

If a woman had a moral conviction to not vote, she should have been free to decide to not vote. If she wanted to vote, she should have been allowed to vote. Yes. The situation was different back then. The sexist and patriarchal establishment thought that women should not have been allowed to vote. Please read about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. The situation today is different from it will be 50 or more years from how.

We could go into details, but you owe an explanation to another post first.

I must have overlooked something. To what post do I owe an explanation?

 

[musicman]

matts:

You speak of slavery and the mistreatment of women as if they were America's sins, and America's shame. The point you keep - somehow - missing is that these were HUMANITY'S sins - sins that the world had deemed perfectly permissible for thousands of years, until one upstart little nation decided that they had to go. Now, you (and many others) bitch because it didn't happen fast enough???!!!

That these changes took place at all is cause to rejoice in grateful wonder at the miracle that is America. And, whether you ever admit it or not, this miraculous nation exists and prospers because it was founded and built by a moral people. If we ever abandon those morals, and cave in to the wishes of those who would remove any and all restraints on human behavior, in the name of "tolerance", the miracle will - deservedly - evaporate.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by musicman
matts:

You speak of slavery and the mistreatment of women as if they were America's sins, and America's shame. The point you keep - somehow - missing is that these were HUMANITY'S sins - sins that the world had deemed perfectly permissible for thousands of years, until one upstart little nation decided that they had to go. Now, you (and many others) bitch because it didn't happen fast enough???!!!

That these changes took place at all is cause to rejoice in grateful wonder at the miracle that is America. And, whether you ever admit it or not, this miraculous nation exists and prospers because it was founded and built by a moral people. If we ever abandon those morals, and cave in to the wishes of those who would remove any and all restraints on human behavior, in the name of "tolerance", the miracle will - deservedly - evaporate.

Did you just say that the United States was the first country to abolish slavery?

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Did you just say that the United States was the first country to abolish slavery?

I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that slavery was the accepted norm until America decided that it had to go. That's why it's a bunch of shit to say that slavery is, somehow, America's "sin".

 

[mattskramer]

matts:

You speak of slavery and the mistreatment of women as if they were America's sins, and America's shame. The point you keep - somehow - missing is that these were HUMANITY'S sins - sins that the world had deemed perfectly permissible for thousands of years, until one upstart little nation decided that they had to go. Now, you (and many others) bitch because it didn't happen fast enough???!!!

That these changes took place at all is cause to rejoice in grateful wonder at the miracle that is America. And, whether you ever admit it or not, this miraculous nation exists and prospers because it was founded and built by a moral people. If we ever abandon those morals, and cave in to the wishes of those who would remove any and all restraints on human behavior, in the name of "tolerance", the miracle will - deservedly - evaporate.

Face the facts. This nation was built on land practically taken from the American Indians. The land was then worked to a large extent by Black slaves. Women were not allowed much of a voice in American government. Our founding fathers (our ancestors) were not that moral. They were highly racist and sexist. To a degree, they were less moral than we are today.

What I said was that slavery was the accepted norm until America decided that it had to go.

My point is that it is all practically parallel. Not allowing gay marriage is the accepted norm until America decides that it has to change. Allowing slavery was not moral. Preventing gays from getting married is not moral. We rejoice in the fact that slavery was outlawed. We will rejoice when gay marriage is allowed.

 

[dmp]

right.

 

[NewGuy]

1. Slavery was ECONOMIC slavery.

There was economic slavery and there way racial slavery. Blacks were not allowed to be free even if they wanted to be free. Did as many White people travel the "underground railroad"? Read about Harriet Tubman and educate yourself.

Now you are being rediculous.

Have you even read any history? Do you get all of your information from just one book?

Slaves were economic slaves, and as such were kept in close proximity to the people who owned them. Common practice the world over was to go into a nation, conquer, and take slaves. America does it, and you get all Anti-american. Where is your criticism of other nations?

Kind of a stupid argument mat, when you have American founders putting blacks in a position of having a 3/5 vote and being allowed to be classified as people. They even were given status to prosecute against criminals who harm them because they WERE people. Secondarily, they were property. As it was a secondary issue, they were associated with peoperty laws so offenders would pay restitution if harming a slave.

Read the Federalist papers.

It hints at common perception of slavery.

You tell me to educate myself?

You will NEVER surpass my capacity of understanding of our foundation.

That is a fact.

2. Pushing an Indian and warring were normal for any place/any time at that point in history. Judging by today's overpopulated planet's rules is invalid.

Pushing the Indians back the way we did was simply wrong. It would be like me moving into your home and kicking you out. Yes. It was done in other nations, but that does not excuse it or make it right.

Which by your own admission makes your moral relativity stupid.

In addition, the problem here is you judge yesterday by today's rules.

In CONTEXT, as I pointed out above, conquering nations was a common practice. If you want to get snippity, think about this:

When we broke from England and claimed independence, where were we supposed to go? In effect, the original founders were slaves to the notion of being controlled by a foreign nation as well. That is why they founded America. Then, you had America vs indians. As common rules of the day were, whoever had the most might wins. quit judging a time when there was plenty for everyone by rules of the day when there is not enough for anyone.

3. Women shouldn't vote according to their morals back then, and given the situation it was entirely correct.

If a woman had a moral conviction to not vote, she should have been free to decide to not vote. If she wanted to vote, she should have been allowed to vote. Yes. The situation was different back then. The sexist and patriarchal establishment thought that women should not have been allowed to vote. Please read about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. The situation today is different from it will be 50 or more years from how.

Stupid again.

The Bible is the foundation of where the custom came from. Biblical law and tradition was that the man was the head of the house. The reason is that there is a power structure and it works in order of creation.

It goes:

God>Man>Woman>Child

Man follows the authority of God. Woman follows the authority of man. The child follows the authority of the woman.

The reason for this man vs woman situation currently is that now moral and Biblical standards have eroded. Marriages end in divorce. Women are found single EVERYWHERE. Back then, it didn't happen. A person's word in marriage or anything else was BOND. As such, families were the norm and women and men each had roles. The men took care of the occupation, labor, and decision making, the women took care of the home and kids.

People like you who advocate homosexuality further rip this foundation apart and create more deterioration in proper natural function and caused the right to vote for women to BE an issue when it shouldn't have been in the first place.

We could go into details, but you owe an explanation to another post first.

I must have overlooked something. To what post do I owe an explanation?

You did overlook something. Musicman keeps asking you questions you can't answer.

 

[musicman]

Face the facts. This nation was built on land practically taken from the American Indians. The land was then worked to a large extent by Black slaves. Women were not allowed much of a voice in American government. Our founding fathers (our ancestors) were not that moral. They were highly racist and sexist. To a degree, they were less moral than we are today.

What I said was that slavery was the accepted norm until America decided that it had to go.

My point is that it is all practically parallel. Not allowing gay marriage is the accepted norm until America decides that it has to change. Allowing slavery was not moral. Preventing gays from getting married is not moral. We rejoice in the fact that slavery was outlawed. We will rejoice when gay marriage is allowed.

You say that the sky is plaid. I point out that it's blue - and bring you color charts from Sherwin-Williams, explaining the color spectrum while "Blue Sky", by the Allman Brothers, plays in the background. You say, "Yeah - but the sky is plaid". I honestly don't know what else to say to you.

 

[DKSuddeth]

When we broke from England and claimed independence, where were we supposed to go? In effect, the original founders were slaves to the notion of being controlled by a foreign nation as well. That is why they founded America. Then, you had America vs indians. As common rules of the day were, whoever had the most might wins. quit judging a time when there was plenty for everyone by rules of the day when there is not enough for anyone.

When the colonists arrived in the new land, they were initially friendly but cautious with the native americans. In the course of more colonists arriving there was some small warfare in the beginning, but in course of time there were treaties signed between the federal government and the tribes. After that it was not an issue of 'the most might wins' but an issue of states not abiding by the treaties under the constitutional law and the federal government refusing to step in and stop the states from land grabbing. In the course of 'protecting' the natives, such as the cherokee, many thousands were killed to allow georgians their 'land lottery'.

now that we're done with a little history, can we get back to the topic or should I close this thread?

 

[Bonnie]

right.

Jeff that is such a sick picuture........I had to look at it 4 times to make sure I wasn't seeing things LOL

 

[NewGuy]

now that we're done with a little history, can we get back to the topic or should I close this thread?

I say close it.

Apparently background info to prove an analogy invalid is not on topic.

This pretty much invalidates all perspectives.

 

[Annie]

I say close it.

Apparently background info to prove an analogy invalid is not on topic.

This pretty much invalidates all perspectives.

I believe dump thought this a 'dead horse' from the beginning. You want me to close it?

 

[mattskramer]

Slaves were economic slaves, and as such were kept in close proximity to the people who owned them. Common practice the world over was to go into a nation, conquer, and take slaves. America does it, and you get all Anti-american. Where is your criticism of other nations?

Where there White slaves in the USA? I doubt it. It may have been a common practice. That does not make it right. To deny gay marriage is a common practice. That does not make it right. I criticize other nations too. You seem to not criticize America (simply because other nations do it too). Does slavery exist in any location today? If so, I guess that I should be allowed to own a slave. Your logic is as sound. By the way: Just because I have some criticism for specific events in America's past does not mean that I am Anti-America. Simply put, my national pride does not blind me to some of the wrong that America has done.

Kind of a stupid argument mat, when you have American founders putting blacks in a position of having a 3/5 vote and being allowed to be classified as people. They even were given status to prosecute against criminals who harm them because they WERE people. Secondarily, they were property. As it was a secondary issue, they were associated with peoperty laws so offenders would pay restitution if harming a slave. It hints at common perception of slavery.


So what is your point. Eventually the establishment wised up and realized that Black people are human. So slavery was common. As I said before, it does not make it right.

In addition, the problem here is you judge yesterday by today's rules.

My point is not to judge yesterday by today's rules. I will try to explain my point as simply as I can. It was understood, years ago, that Black people were property. It was understood, years ago, that women should not be allowed to vote. These views, that were once very popular, now seem to be foolish and repressive. The views have changed. Blacks are not slaves. Women are allowed to vote. Likewise, there is a very popular view gay marriage should not be allowed. In time, this view will also change. Gay marriage will be allowed. Years from now, people will think back and consider how foolish and repressive were to have not allowed gay marriage.

The Bible is the foundation of where the custom came from. Biblical law and tradition was that the man was the head of the house. The reason is that there is a power structure and it works in order of creation.

So blame it on a book. Whatever. I have a Bible too. It is called "The Kramer Book". It basically says that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others.

 

[NewGuy]

Slaves were economic slaves, and as such were kept in close proximity to the people who owned them. Common practice the world over was to go into a nation, conquer, and take slaves. America does it, and you get all Anti-american. Where is your criticism of other nations?

Where there White slaves in the USA? I doubt it. It may have been a common practice. That does not make it right. To deny gay marriage is a common practice. That does not make it right. I criticize other nations too. You seem to not criticize America (simply because other nations do it too). Does slavery exist in any location today? If so, I guess that I should be allowed to own a slave. Your logic is as sound. By the way: Just because I have some criticism for specific events in America's past does not mean that I am Anti-America. Simply put, my national pride does not blind me to some of the wrong that America has done.

Kind of a stupid argument mat, when you have American founders putting blacks in a position of having a 3/5 vote and being allowed to be classified as people. They even were given status to prosecute against criminals who harm them because they WERE people. Secondarily, they were property. As it was a secondary issue, they were associated with peoperty laws so offenders would pay restitution if harming a slave. It hints at common perception of slavery.


So what is your point. Eventually the establishment wised up and realized that Black people are human. So slavery was common. As I said before, it does not make it right.

In addition, the problem here is you judge yesterday by today's rules.

My point is not to judge yesterday by today's rules. I will try to explain my point as simply as I can. It was understood, years ago, that Black people were property. It was understood, years ago, that women should not be allowed to vote. These views, that were once very popular, now seem to be foolish and repressive. The views have changed. Blacks are not slaves. Women are allowed to vote. Likewise, there is a very popular view gay marriage should not be allowed. In time, this view will also change. Gay marriage will be allowed. Years from now, people will think back and consider how foolish and repressive were to have not allowed gay marriage.

The Bible is the foundation of where the custom came from. Biblical law and tradition was that the man was the head of the house. The reason is that there is a power structure and it works in order of creation.

So blame it on a book. Whatever. I have a Bible too. It is called "The Kramer Book". It basically says that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others.

Yousaid all of this to say that it doesn't matter what the issue is, you think Amrica is "foolish and oppressive"?

And top it off with justification that "matt's book" claims it is wrong, so it IS??!?!?!?!?

That has to be, hands down, the stupidist logic on the face of this Earth and is EXACTLY what the democrats stick by.

You are a perfect example of why moral relativity is wrong as I stated.

 

[freeandfun1]

Yousaid all of this to say that it doesn't matter what the issue is, you think Amrica is "foolish and oppressive"?

And top it off with justification that "matt's book" claims it is wrong, so it IS??!?!?!?!?

That has to be, hands down, the stupidist logic on the face of this Earth and is EXACTLY what the democrats stick by.

You are a perfect example of why moral relativity is wrong as I stated.

exactabmundo! :shocked:

 

[mattskramer]

Yousaid all of this to say that it doesn't matter what the issue is, you think Amrica is "foolish and oppressive"?

Carefully reread my post. I said that "Years from now, people will think back and consider how foolish and repressive [we] were to have not allowed gay marriage." The notion of not allowing gay marriage is, by definition and at least to a small degree, foolish and oppressive.

And top it off with justification that "matt's book" claims it is wrong, so it IS??!?!?!?!?
That has to be, hands down, the stupidist logic on the face of this Earth and is EXACTLY what the democrats stick by.

It is no more stupid then relying on a roughly 2000 year old book (the Bible) to legitimized denying women the right to vote.

You are a perfect example of why moral relativity is wrong as I state.

You have yet to give an irrefutable reason why moral relativity is wrong. By the way, has the Bible changed or should women still not be allowed to vote? Perhaps you are slipping into moral relativism based on time.

 

[NewGuy]

Yousaid all of this to say that it doesn't matter what the issue is, you think Amrica is "foolish and oppressive"?

Carefully reread my post. I said that "Years from now, people will think back and consider how foolish and repressive [we] were to have not allowed gay marriage." The notion of not allowing gay marriage is, by definition and at least to a small degree, foolish and oppressive.

So......which is it?

Do I need to carefully read your post, or am I right?

Like on most issues, you just straddled the fence again and yet proved me right.

And top it off with justification that "matt's book" claims it is wrong, so it IS??!?!?!?!?
That has to be, hands down, the stupidist logic on the face of this Earth and is EXACTLY what the democrats stick by.

It is no more stupid then relying on a roughly 2000 year old book (the Bible) to legitimized denying women the right to vote.

If it were a book, you would be correct. Instead, it isn't. It is the unerrant word of God. IF you would care to have that proven, we could take this to another thread.

And I would be more than happy to see you try to prove it is just a normal book.
:cof:

You are a perfect example of why moral relativity is wrong as I state.

You have yet to give an irrefutable reason why moral relativity is wrong.

You are right. Reason is not logic. Logic dictates reason. I gave you the logic. As the logic dictates there must be an objective moral standard, as DICTATED by Biblical standard, I have given irrefutable LOGIC why moral relativism has failed and if you want to use Biblical irrefutable logic, totally satanic in origin.

By the way, has the Bible changed or should women still not be allowed to vote? Perhaps you are slipping into moral relativism based on time.

Women have to be allowed to vote since moral relativity has deteriorated and broken up the family. Now women independent of the family structure are the RULE, not the exception. Because you and others like you made this mess, the rest of us have to fix it.

Since the rest of us who are foundationally upright have tried to compensate with allowing women to vote, a band-aid has been put on the issue.

But if you want to get blunt, and break down the entire issue to its core:

No.

Women should not be allowed to vote.

-Because they should be happy in marriages and take their role.
-Because they should be in heterosexual monogamous relationships.
-Because men should too and step up to the plate with their Biblically responsible roles.
-Because the world WORKS when people follow their parts according to God's word.

And all your line of thinking has done is destroy that.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

NewGuy,

I see an apparent distinction between yourself and mattskramer. He uses the Constitution as a basis for his political beliefs while you use the Bible as a basis for yours. This country was founded on the ideals of the Constitution to be used in politics. Religion may have been in the background and indented as a rough guide but the Bible was never intended to be used to dictate governmental policy.

 

[Bonnie]

NewGuy,

I see an apparent distinction between yourself and mattskramer. He uses the Constitution as a basis for his political beliefs while you use the Bible as a basis for yours. This country was founded on the ideals of the Constitution to be used in politics. Religion may have been in the background and indented as a rough guide but the Bible was never intended to be used to dictate governmental policy.

Well new guy with all due respect the bible was the very foundation, and the reason this country was established.

Thou Shall not kill..........
Thou shall not steal.........
Thou shall not bear false witness.......

I love those that use the separation of church and state as a means to an end....That was never even put in the constitution. More to the point what liberals are doing is changing the constitution to fit their own idea of morality (secular humanism). Thats what I find most troubling

 

[DKSuddeth]

Well new guy with all due respect the bible was the very foundation, and the reason this country was established.

Thou Shall not kill..........
Thou shall not steal.........
Thou shall not bear false witness.......

I love those that use the separation of church and state as a means to an end....That was never even put in the constitution. More to the point what liberals are doing is changing the constitution to fit their own idea of morality (secular humanism). Thats what I find most troubling

this nation was not founded as the land of god nor was the bible a directive or guidebook for creating the united states. In many threads in the past this has been vociferously argued and debated to death.