The Other Guy
Spam King
So by the logic leveled here anyone who is infertile should not be allowed to marry?
California Overturns Gay Marriage
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
I said it before ... and I'll say it again .......
Being against gay marriage ... is (plain and simple), homophobia at it's worst .....
ho·mo·pho·bi·a [homə fṓbee ə]
n
irrational hatred of homosexuality: an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, homosexual men and lesbians, and their culture
[Mid-20th century. Coined from homosexual + -phobia .]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
The above definition says it all ... all the rest is the bigotry of the religious right *may they be judged worse than those they have judged*.
{This is the part of religion that turns me off}.
Being against gay marriage ... is (plain and simple), homophobia at it's worst .....
ho·mo·pho·bi·a [homə fṓbee ə]
n
irrational hatred of homosexuality: an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, homosexual men and lesbians, and their culture
[Mid-20th century. Coined from homosexual + -phobia .]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
The above definition says it all ... all the rest is the bigotry of the religious right *may they be judged worse than those they have judged*.
{This is the part of religion that turns me off}.
senojekips
Active member
It didn't take long,... all of the old catch phrases are coming out here, Homophobe, bigot etc.
In this case a bigot is no more than someone who happens to disagree with the first persons views. Usually used when that person has no further logical evidence to support their argument.
A person who has a dislike of antisocial behaviour can hardly be described as a "bigot" for stating that fact. As I've said or alluded to, two or three times, homosexuality is akin to picking one's nose and eating it,... there is little logical reason why it should not be done, but that is the social expectation in a civilised society.
First they banned paedophilia, next they want to stop homosexuality,... where oh where will it all end, at this rate, we'll soon have no freedoms at all.
Expectations of civilised behaviour is a real b@stard ain't it?? Ooooh, for the old freedoms, being an old Navy man I was never averse to a bit of "Rum, Sodomy and the Lash",... NOT!
In this case a bigot is no more than someone who happens to disagree with the first persons views. Usually used when that person has no further logical evidence to support their argument.
A person who has a dislike of antisocial behaviour can hardly be described as a "bigot" for stating that fact. As I've said or alluded to, two or three times, homosexuality is akin to picking one's nose and eating it,... there is little logical reason why it should not be done, but that is the social expectation in a civilised society.
First they banned paedophilia, next they want to stop homosexuality,... where oh where will it all end, at this rate, we'll soon have no freedoms at all.
Expectations of civilised behaviour is a real b@stard ain't it?? Ooooh, for the old freedoms, being an old Navy man I was never averse to a bit of "Rum, Sodomy and the Lash",... NOT!
Last edited:
A person having a dislike is indeed not a bigot, that is why I left it outside the discussion. What I would like to know is: on what grounds do you call it anti-social behaviour? Because you dislike something doesn't make it anti-social.
Secondly, what do you call civilized? There have been plenty of societies, that we call civilized, where homosexuality was quite normal. For instance; the Romans, Greek, feudal Japan.
So if you have a problem with gay marriage and you oppose this... fine by me. But making your dislike a wide spread communal thought, that is something else.
"Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.'" Genesis 2:18
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24
As we all know I'm not religious, but this comes right out of yall's Bible
I found nothing stateing that a man should leave his parents and be joined with his husband.
Persoanlly I couldn't care less what they do behind their closed doors, just don't go into detail while I'm eating my lunch.
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24
As we all know I'm not religious, but this comes right out of yall's Bible
I found nothing stateing that a man should leave his parents and be joined with his husband.
Persoanlly I couldn't care less what they do behind their closed doors, just don't go into detail while I'm eating my lunch.
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
Part 1- My book says nothing of the sort.
Part 2- Unless you plan on attending the reception, why be against marriage? You can be against pride parades but why blow it all off?
Why should the bible get a say in this?! I dont really get it, ok people are religious, but the whole world aint! And the world shouldn't be run on a religious base! It was in the middleages in Europe and we all know what happened there! And the bible was written a long, long, long time ago, and is belived to be the "word of God", and we're really so stubid that we let stuff from the bible get into politics?! Religion and politics has nothing to do with each other! And in Genesis it stands that to daugthers got their dad drunk and slept with him, is that right? Since it stands in the bible I mean..
But since you've gotten into it it says in the bible that noone is different, not the men or the women, theyre all the like in the ecclesia (somewhere in one of Pauls letters), so dosen't that mean that no one is diffrent or to be trated that way?
But the reality is that homosexuality is getting more and more accepted! Wich means if we're repeating history (wich we are), homosexuality is going to be completely normal, not maby soon, but it will.
senojekips
Active member
Like 90% of this fad we are experiencing called Political correctness, it will eventually disappear. As I pointed out in my earlier post, many countries who were at the forefront of these stupid ideas are now trying madly to stop them and if possible reverse the ill effects.
The only real reason that it appears to be accepted by some, is that they don't wish to be branded a "bigot" or "homophobe", as if that implies something bad. These words are merely names with no real impact, I have said many times in this debate in a number of threads. "I personally do not like Brocolli, does that necessarily make me a 'Brocolliphobe", and does that word have any derogatory associations,... of course the answer is, No"!
Chukpike
Banned
When it is accepted by the majority then it can be changed. Since the original post is about marriage in California. It can be introduced on a proposition and voted on.
In a year when the democratic candidate (Obama) overwhelmingly wins the state and he recommended the defeat of this proposition why did it pass? Because even a large segment of his voters did not believe that gay marriage was a right.
senojekips
Active member
Anti social, by definition and expectation, is offensive behaviour that is outside the norms of the majority. It comes back to my old argument, "Do you pick your nose and eat it in public"?
Why is it something else? And also, I am not making it widespread, I am just reporting the fact, that it is already widespread. I can't make anything, I am but one man with one man's opinion. You are getting way, waaaay ahead of yourself.
Civilization, per se is not a static thing, it is a progression, where we become more civilized as we advance (if we care to advance). In the great Roman civilization, they also held games where they slaughted humans for the entertainment of the masses, don't talk to me of the ancient civilizations. They were only civilized by the expectations of their time, today they would be regarded as both backward and degenerate. Hopefully we are moving forward from those times. It has even been suggested that it was this social and moral decline that you seem to admire, that bought about the end of these so called "civilized" societies. What you are advocating could well take our civilized societies closer to going down the same path.
The very idea of "Civilisation", being that we learn for our previous mistakes,... not try to repeat them.
Last edited:
TOG your right about part 1 I have a Bible right in front of me now and this is what Genesis 2:18 says
And the Lord God said "It is not good that a man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."
Part 2 is exactly as it is my my Bible
the Book was printed in 1982 King James version by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
I'm not against them getting married, I neither condone it nor dam it, if its a some sin against a God, then its on them not me. I have enough to worry about in my life than worry about what sombody I don't even know is doing.
Well for one I don't think religion and politics should EVER be in the same place at the same time.
I know the whole world ain't religious, thats why I put that there and said its y'alls Bible, I'm one of the ones you say ain't religious.
but if your secone paragraph is correct about one of Paul's letters saying were all the same, and to be treated that way, then theres gonna be a lot of religious people in hell anyway.
I know whats right for me, the whole Man+woman=couple things makes perfect sense to me, espically since thats the only way to ensure the continuance of the species, since last time I checked Bill can't get Ted pregnant while their on the excelent adventure.
(Not you Ted)
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Lets face it the use of the bible as a reference to anything other than mans weakness and gullibility is a strong indication of a weak argument, the simple fact that not even the religions who believe in this god can tolerate each other or come up with a united front indicates failure of the highest magnitude.
If we genuinely believe in universal equality then we have to assume that all people are equal regardless of differences from the norm therefore all that is left to determine is whether there are any negative aspects for society as a whole in allowing homosexuals to marry and to be honest I just can't see any (they are still going to work, pay taxes and follow the laws of the land). The main problem I have with the "anti-gay" argument here is that not one of those arguments has been compelling in terms of tangible fact as to what the downside of recognising gay marriage is.
If we genuinely believe in universal equality then we have to assume that all people are equal regardless of differences from the norm therefore all that is left to determine is whether there are any negative aspects for society as a whole in allowing homosexuals to marry and to be honest I just can't see any (they are still going to work, pay taxes and follow the laws of the land). The main problem I have with the "anti-gay" argument here is that not one of those arguments has been compelling in terms of tangible fact as to what the downside of recognising gay marriage is.
the whole downside is that the "religious right" thinks that everything is cut and dry as it is written in the "holy book". I just think its funny to throw the bible in just for a different perspective on stuff.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Well here is a question for you:
If the religious right is right then do you want to agree with them in order to spend an eternity with them?
Personally the thought of spending an eternity with all these self-righteous pricks would be enough for me to volunteer for hell.
im getting in late on this one but let me just put my views in for the heck of it:
I admit I am homophobic. Dont like looking at two man kissing, dont like to hear about that, dont like the whole festival around the gay community.
HOWEVER, and this is a big one- Marriage is a personal decision to live with the person you love. Its not anyones, espcially the states, buissines who people marry. As long as both sides are mature adults that is.
Also as far as adoption...I dont think having two dads or two moms is the geatest thing, but its not the worse. There are plenty of things that go wrong in hetrosexual families, that **** up the kids for good. I will never stop feeling the mental results of my parents ugly divorce. Adoption should be based on the people- are they kind, can they support the kid finnancialy, etc. If you think a fully functional 16 year old will become gay inspite of his natural instincts, you are strange to me. Gay people are born gay they are not made gay.
I admit I am homophobic. Dont like looking at two man kissing, dont like to hear about that, dont like the whole festival around the gay community.
HOWEVER, and this is a big one- Marriage is a personal decision to live with the person you love. Its not anyones, espcially the states, buissines who people marry. As long as both sides are mature adults that is.
Also as far as adoption...I dont think having two dads or two moms is the geatest thing, but its not the worse. There are plenty of things that go wrong in hetrosexual families, that **** up the kids for good. I will never stop feeling the mental results of my parents ugly divorce. Adoption should be based on the people- are they kind, can they support the kid finnancialy, etc. If you think a fully functional 16 year old will become gay inspite of his natural instincts, you are strange to me. Gay people are born gay they are not made gay.