|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Interesting. Dripping with sarcasm, to state the obvious, but interesting. At the very least, it took some guts to sign the letter.
....Grassy Knoll?
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
One of the posts reminded me of this one strip from a webcomic called "Ozy & Millie"  "Ozy & Millie" is actually a pretty good series, with its own unique kind of random humor. It's worth checking out.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Matter Eater Man, how many times are you going to come back
and ask the same question, that's already been answered?
It is not "Clinton speak" to say that the Bible does not
specifically address masturbation or pornography, or less-
than-pornographic enticing images of women.
That was in response to this:
Quote:------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I can honestly say I've never masturbated to Internet
porn. I'm still the master of my domain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sounds like Clinton speak. Just to be clear, your saying you don't masturbate at all? The master of your domain comment implies you have never masturbated. If that is true then your certainly no hypocrite and I'm in awe of your extraordinary will power.
You should be a politician  A yes or no (or none of your business) would have sufficed but instead you applied what I was asking to something else. I'll just take that as a "none of your business" answer, OK?
I do think I understand what your saying. We all sin, and even if masturbation and looking at women with desire, are sins you will be forgiven. Masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible & Homosexuality (with harsh penalties) is. OK I agree with that. It's apparent that we differ on how we view the Bible. I take a more liberal view obviously when it comes to the Bible. I just don't see the passages pertaining to homosexuality to make sense, reflect modern homosexuality or God for that matter. Even you switch interpretive styles when it comes to...
(chapter 5:verses 27-28, "anyone who looks at a woman
lustfully, has already committed adultery with her in his
heart")
Instead of taking it literally, you ask what does it mean? Your interpretations works for you. Mine works for me.
I'll end this post with a riddle.
There are two penises. One is gay, the other straight. Both ejaculate due to male stimulation. Which penis just sinned?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Actually love does set Homosexual & Heterosexual apart from those other things. A fetishes for example, is lust. The object doesn't love you back. Pedophiles are in lust with a child. If they truly loved the child they wouldn't take advantage or harm them. Furthermore the pedophile is interested in the youthful state the child's body & mind are in. Once that is gone the pedophile moves on to another object of desire.
MEM, the love doesn't have to be returned to establish it's wrong and (to paraphrase) wasn't meant to be. All you need is the physical differences that create the incompatibility in the situation
Even so...
You're making some huge exceptions here. That pedophile you used in your scenario might have a different definition of love. They might think that they wouldn't actually be taking advantage of the child, but expressing affection normally. Here, love can be given by a child to a pedophile and the (very well could be) equally loving pedophile might return that said love by statchitorically(sp) raping him/her. What the topper here is the ever important element of impression. That child might see pedophilia as the norm from there after. Same goes for animals too.
The only real equalizer to all the situations that contain legally/sexually cognizant individuals is age of consent. And this counts for absolutely nothing. Because consent doesn't change the fact, which I explained before, that love is no excuse for physical acts which put the body at a potentially high risk--There are other ways of expressing and signifying love. Very physically friendly ways.
Well, I don't buy the homosexuality is dangerous argument. Promiscuity is dangerous but that can apply to anyone. I'm comfortable with my stance.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
*shrug* Okay then. I find that promiscuity and homosexuality are both equally dangerous though. The same amount of risque lies within both I find. It's just even worse when you put them together. But, whatever. I see no signs of agreement. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
300+ posts
|
|
300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342 |
I'm not wanting to restart a flame war, which seems to happen every time I chime in, so I've been doing less of it lately. Truly, I am curious - How is homosexuality as dangerous as promiscuity, outside of what the Bible says? Having one man commited to one man is a whole lot different than one married man who cheats on his wife with 2 or 3 women?
Yes, the two combined are dangerous - but equally so with heterosexuality and promiscuity - A.I.D.S affects both - and it's not just AIDS out there.
Promiscuity is a stereotype that follows gays and sometimes, sadly - proves to be true. But that's because civil unions and marriages are new ground. They were never an option before. Legal bindings could possibly slow that, and slow the disease some. That's just speculation. But that's a plus side to the argument no one seems to want to hear.
And what's the big deal about jacking off to internet porn? I've never sat down and jacked off to internet porn either. It's much easier in front the tv.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
So the Governator comes out admiting he's not a bigot like most of his party. Which came as a dissapontment to those who are.
Quote:
March 2, 2004
Governor Says Law Permitting Gay Marriage Would Be 'Fine'
Schwarzenegger also tells 'Tonight Show' host that he opposes Bush's proposed amendment.
By Joe Mathews, Peter Nicholas and Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writers
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on national television Monday night that it would be "fine with me" if state law were changed to permit same-sex marriages.
In an interview with Jay Leno on NBC's "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," Schwarzenegger also strongly rejected President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. "I think those issues should be left to the state, so I have no use for a constitutional amendment or change in that at all," he said.
The governor reiterated his opposition to the decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying city officials should abide by the state law.
But when Leno asked, "Would you have any problem if they changed the law?" the governor replied: "No, I don't have a problem. Let the court decide. Let the people decide."
After noting that voters had approved Proposition 22 in recent years to limit marriage to a man and a woman, Schwarzenegger indicated he was open at least to an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage.
"If the people change their minds and they want to overrule that, that's fine with me."
The author of Proposition 22, Sen. William "Pete" Knight (R-Palmdale) said he was surprised at Schwarzenegger's comments and disappointed by the governor's overall handling of the gay marriage issue.
If Schwarzenegger announced support for gay marriage legislation, it would pass, Knight added.
"If he says he'll sign it," said Knight, "it'll whistle through there."
Former Gov. Gray Davis, who has socialized with Schwarzenegger in recent weeks, made a surprise appearance on Monday's show, and the two exchanged a few quips.
The former movie star said he had been advising Davis about a possible acting career.
"He's helped me a lot with acting, particularly with my pronunciation," Davis said.-
Schwarzenegger's interview with Leno gave the first indication that the governor is not opposed to gay marriage at a moral level, and that if Californians wanted to change the law, he would not be an obstacle.
When asked, Schwarzenegger has spoken in favor of gay rights since his days as a bodybuilder in the 1970s. He has also expressed support for California's existing domestic partnership law. But as governor he had largely sidestepped questions about the fairness of barring same-sex couples from marrying.
His only previous statement, during a recall campaign interview with talk show host Sean Hannity, appeared to be a malapropism: "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman."
Asked last week if he had voted for Proposition 22 when it was on the ballot in 2000, the governor said: "I'll be honest with you. I can't remember."
In the past two weeks, Schwarzenegger has staked out the position that what is chiefly offensive to him about the marriages in San Francisco is the violation of law.
"He sees this primarily as a matter of the rule of law," his communications director, Rob Stutzman, said in an interview last week.
Asked Monday night about Schwarzenegger's statement on Leno, Stutzman said: "I think the governor's words speak for themselves."
The stance hews closely to the governor's position on most controversial issues. As the self-proclaimed "People's Governor," he has said he wants to follow the wishes of the public as expressed at the ballot box.
But his comments were a notable departure in tone for the governor. Over the past two weeks, Schwarzenegger has suggested that San Francisco's granting of licenses was a threat to "civil order." On Feb. 22, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," he said of the scene in San Francisco, "We see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing. The next thing we know is there are injured or dead people, and we don't want to have that." San Francisco authorities disputed that, saying there have been no riots connected to the issue.
On the same show, he added: "We cannot have, all of a sudden now, mayors go and hand out licenses for various different things. If it is — you know, in San Francisco, it's the license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons. And someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs."
Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who is no relation to Jay Leno, last month introduced a bill to legalize gay marriage in California. Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill.
The assemblyman said he was pleased to hear that the governor opposed a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But, he said, he saw Schwarzenegger's statements "let the court decide … let the people decide" as contradictory.
"Constitutional issues need to be reviewed and decided by courts and not left to majority opinion polls or cast ballots," said Leno. "Otherwise, few in this country would have any civil rights."
Knight, on the other hand, said he was disappointed in Schwarzenegger's inability to halt the marriages in San Francisco.
"He's not followed up in San Francisco," said Knight. "They're still issuing marriage licenses, they're still breaking the law."
Knight said that if the Legislature passed a bill to legalize gay marriage, he would sue, just as he has sued to try to block a new law sponsored by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) that next January will grant more rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners.
"Eventually the courts are going to have to take the issue and decide," he said. "Although I don't have much hope in California. The judges so far have not been willing to tackle the issue."
During the "Tonight Show" interview, Jay Leno made an extended speech about what he saw as growing support for gay marriage among the young. "With younger people, it seems to be gathering momentum," Leno said.
"That's good," Schwarzenegger said. "I think it's a good debate. It's a very interesting question, and I think the courts should make those decisions. But I think before that happens, we should obey the law."
Schwarzenegger has been one of the most frequent guests in the history of "The Tonight Show," and has used the venue to make major announcements about his career, including his entry into politics on Aug. 6 of last year.
But the governor did not appear to be attempting to make news on gay marriage. During the same interview, the governor joked he was fighting with his Hollywood agents because they wanted 10% of the state budget. Schwarzenegger seemed more intent on campaigning for two ballot measures to eliminate budget deficits — Propositions 57 and 58 — which appear on today's statewide ballot.
Schwarzenegger initially glared at Jay Leno when he raised the issue of gay marriage, but the ensuing discussion was lighthearted.
After Jay Leno introduced the subject by asking, "This gay marriage thing, what's your position on it, how do you deal with it?"
Schwarzenegger paused pregnantly and asked, "Are you trying to ask me something?"
"No, I'm not trying to ask you something," Leno replied.
"C'mon, admit it," the governor said. "All right, I admit," Leno said. "I'm in love with you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press contributed to this story.
By the way, thanks for that Krazzzy xxxdj. I remembered reading that list myself a while back and was actually going to run a search for it before you posted it. And as you can tell, I never give a fuck if I start a flame war. *ahem* "Bring it on". 
Funny stuff. amazing how we pick and choose those laws which are pleasing to our sense of bigotry. Much like Herbert Armstrong (Worldwide Church of God) picked and chose which passages of the bible forbade interracial marriage, much like people picked and chose those passages which (in their mind) absolved them from the guilt of slavery and segregation. I always chuckle when explanations are given about Christ doing away with those ancient draconian laws such as not being able to eat shellfish and such. Funny how the " gays are an abomination" one is always retained by the very same people though.
The real issue of gay marriage is not a desire to "change what marriage is," nor is it to gain "free benefits" The benefits that committed gay couples would like, which married couples take for granted, include: making spousal medical decisions; funeral and bereavement leave; permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; right to inheritance of property; confidential marriage communications; and status as next of kin.
Why people in this country are so callous as to deny dedicated and loving couples these benefits that married straight people enjoy is mystifying. I would like to believe that those who are opposed to gay marriage have never thoughtfully considered their position. If they had, they would realize that the message they are sending is one of hate and intolerance. And then there are those who have carefulkly thought out their positions and don't give a hoot if their message is of hate and intolerance. For they think that hatred and discrimination is what pleases their Lord. For them I have nothing but contempt.
By the way, has Pariah have nothing better to do with his time than to run around to other message boards to see what people are saying about his gang.
"OOOOOOHH I'ma tell on you!!!!!"
Last edited by whomod; 2004-03-03 10:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
whomod said:
You're assuming of course that i'm an atheist.
To quote Grant Morrisson "Don't be such a tight-ass".
What are you exactly? I THINK I once heard you say you were Christian, but that's not true even if you say you are.
Thank you for standing there and telling me what i am and am not.
Yes, I am recognized as a Christian. I'm a lot more accepting of people than some of the more self righteous and judgemental sects though, mainly the pentecostals of which I am more than familiar with.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
U.S. National - AP
N.Y. Town's Mayor Continuing Gay Weddings
8 minutes ago
By MICHAEL HILL, Associated Press Writer
NEW PALTZ, N.Y. - New Paltz's mayor vowed to go ahead with up to two dozen same-sex weddings this weekend, despite being charged with 19 criminal counts and possibly facing jail time for marrying gay couples.
 Meanwhile, a crowd of gay couples was expected to go to the county administration building in Portland, Ore. Wednesday after a county commissioner there said she would begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Also Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Constitution subcommittee is focusing on whether judges are overstepping their bounds and eroding traditional marriage. The panel is using the Massachusetts high court ruling permitting same-sex marriages as an impetus.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he called Wednesday's hearing to examine the "judicial invalidation of traditional marriage laws." Cornyn supports a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Last week, President Bush last week called on Congress to quickly pass an amendment prohibiting gay marriages.
New Paltz Mayor Jason West insisted Wednesday that it was New York's Health Department that was breaking the law by refusing to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples. "Our state constitution requires equal protection for all New Yorkers," he said on NBC's "Today Show."
West, 26, said he was motivated by civil rights and "common decency" to join the vanguard of the growing gay marriage movement, along with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
West married 25 gay couples on Friday, making this small college village 75 miles north of New York City another flash point in the national debate over gay marriage. More than 3,400 couples have been married in San Francisco; West now has about 1,000 couples on a waiting list.
West was to be in court Wednesday night to answer charges that he married 19 couples knowing they did not have marriage licenses, a violation of the state's domestic relations law. He planned to plead innocent.
"I don't plan to spend time in jail," the Green Party mayor said. "I think that the judge before whom this case will be heard will see that the constitution is clear on this, will see that our laws are clear on this and will see that these marriages are in fact legal."
The movement appears to be gaining steam. In Oregon, Multnomah County Chair Diane Linn directed the county to begin issuing such licenses, after consulting with the county attorney, but without an official vote from the four other county commissioners.
The head of an Oregon gay rights group said a crowd of gay couples would go to the county administration building in Portland on Wednesday for the licenses. A county judge said she was ready to conduct the weddings.
"Many of these couples have been waiting decades, and this is the first time they've been seen as equal under the law," said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon.
In New Paltz, the mayor was charged with a misdemeanor and the punishment could run from a $25 to $500 fine or jail time. Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams said a jail term wasn't being contemplated at this point.
The district attorney, who does not have the legal authority to issue an injunction preventing the ceremonies, held out the possibility that state officials or the town judge could intervene to stop West from carrying out any more weddings.
Williams said the misdemeanor complaint lists 19 charges — instead of 25 for the number of weddings performed — because police at the scene provided eyewitness accounts of only 19 ceremonies. He said he could add counts if West marries more couples.
The state Health Department last week said New York's domestic relations law bars the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and that New York courts have recognized only marriages between men and women. Critics say that is unconstitutional.
* Picture: New York Paltz Village Mayor Jason West is shown Friday, Feb. 27, 2004, outside the village hall in New Paltz, N.Y., where he married 25 gay couples. According to Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams, West faces 19 separate counts of solemnizing a marriage with a license, a misdemeanor under the domestic relations law. (AP Photo/Jim McKnight)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
*shrug* Okay then. I find that promiscuity and homosexuality are both equally dangerous though. The same amount of risque lies within both I find. It's just even worse when you put them together.
But, whatever. I see no signs of agreement.
Oh no, not the sad blue face! Have an entirely non-sexual (hug) from me. Like KrazyXXXDJ posted, how is homosexuality dangerous? If you addressed this earlier I didn't see it-sorry. Otherwise I would say we have to agree to disagree.
KrazyXXXDJ, I don't think there is anything wrong with masterbation/porn for the most part. But if somebody is going with a strict interpretation of the Bible it's hard to justify. At least according to quick tour of the Internet where various web pages & study groups tackle the question. One nut even said it was homosexual in nature & would turn you into a (expletive slur) Also liked the Dr. Laura bit. There is another one floating around the comic section here (from Newsarama?) that had her counseling the X-men, very funny.
Poor Whomod, your Christianity has been hijacked! Don't be too upset. You still fall under the traditional definition that we've had forever. These new fangled religions are just stealing the word & redefining it to suit their purposes.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
The letter penned to Dr. Laura, while humorous, presents the absurdity of following the Bible in 21st C. America.
What was condoned two millenia ago may not be now, and what was not condone two millenia ago may well be condoned now, based on cultural shifts and the like.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
The letter penned to Dr. Laura, while humorous, presents the absurdity of following the Bible in 21st C. America.
What was condoned two millenia ago may not be now, and what was not condone two millenia ago may well be condoned now, based on cultural shifts and the like.
I understnad where you're coming from, but I think your comment is a bit harsh.
For example, I keep kosher and try hard to observe the Sabbath as closely as I can. The Bible conisders it meritorious to give charit and treat others with respect, even to the extent of encourage us to help other people to get along, and I try and do this. I pray when I can, I observe Jewish holidays, commemorating noteworthy events in the history of my people.
These things give me a sense of being a part of something special, and are a significant part of my Jewish identity. How is this absurd?
By the way, a lot of what the Bible says, including punishments for certain sins, don't apply in modern times because the Jews don't have a Jewish state where a Sanhedrin, a Jewish court, is able to enforce the Jewish law. So many of the laws in the Torah don't in fact apply today.
Also, the oral law of Judaism (the Talmud), which is just as important as the Bible, placed all sorts of restrictions on the death penalty, so even where the Bible says "breaking the Sabbath is punishable by death," only a court can carry out this sentence - no vigilante justice is condoned by Judaism - and it was almost impossible for the courts to execute anybody due to the restrictions. So the laws of the Bible may seem harsh at face value from an outsider's point of view, but that's because most are unaware of the oral law which tempers them, and it's the oral law that tells us exactly how to carry out the commandments of the Bible - which are rather vague.
BTW, I once asked this before - does Christianity or Islam have an oral law like we do? Or is the Bible/Koran the only book they go by?
Last edited by Darknight613; 2004-03-03 10:55 PM.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Heyv Darknight. I saw this today and thought you'd like it. Hopefully you wont have to register in order to read it.
For a generation of Jews, it's kosher to be cool
and
Jewcy
Last edited by whomod; 2004-03-04 6:50 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Thank you for standing there--
--On your soap box. You forgot to finish that phrase with “on your soapbox”.
Quote:
--and telling me what i am and am not.
Well, You're obviously not taking the trouble to go through what you are or REALLY aren't, so I did the job for you.
To be a Christian, it takes a certain amount of agreeance and belief in the Bible and teachings OF the Bible. Belief and agreeance you aren’t exactly exhibiting. You’re also characterizing it in such a way that suggests you don’t and feel no need to understand it (your taking lightly and insulting comments of the Bible verses). And what’s also required would be to actually practice the religion (go to mass).
Quote:
Yes, I am recognized as a Christian.
Recognized by whom?
Quote:
I'm a lot more accepting of people than some of the more self righteous and judgemental sects though, mainly the pentecostals of which I am more than familiar with.
So basically, you're just taking what you want from Christianity and leaving the rest behind and then justifying that fact by saying that people interpret God wrong?
You can't do that and keep your credibility Whomod. With religious practices, it's either all or nothing--Not only that, YOUR interpretation and misrepresentation of what the religion (in this case, Christianity) really stands for means nothing. Saying that something's wrong with something that originated from God is one of the biggest fallacies I've ever heard. And it's just plain stupid coming from someone that proclaims himself Christian. You're a typing contradiction Whomod.
Anyway Whomod, if you think that titling yourself as Christian will buy you any more validity then you already hone—ESPECIALLY when you make exceptions with it, then you’re wrong.
Quote:
By the way, has Pariah have nothing better to do with his time than to run around to other message boards to see what people are saying about his gang.
This is one of the most juvenile things I've heard you say. But I'll roll along since I don't actually consider myself the sparkling example of maturity.
At least I nor the gang I hang out with obsesses itself with certain posters. "Unhealthy obsession" would be a good way to describe it. It must have taken Hatter many hours to aquire all of Dave's posting dates and origins.
And if I had something better to do with my time, I'd NEVER be posting on the boards.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Like KrazyXXXDJ posted, how is homosexuality dangerous? If you addressed this earlier I didn't see it-sorry. Otherwise I would say we have to agree to disagree.
Well, before I answer that question. I would like to hear from you first, how it is not. Please, I'd REALLY like to know exactly how it is JUST AS chancy as non-promiscuous straight sex.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
White House - AP Cheney Says He Supports Gay-Marriage Ban Tue Mar 2, 7:45 PM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo! WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday he supports President Bush's call for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, though one of his daughters is gay and he has said in the past the issue should be left to the states.
"The president's taken the clear position that he supports a constitutional amendment," Cheney said in an interview with MSNBC. "I support him."
 Cheney said during the 2000 campaign, and again last month, that he prefers to see states handle the issue of gay marriage. His openly lesbian daughter, Mary Cheney, is an aide in the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, but the vice president declined to discuss her.
"One of the most unpleasant aspects of this business is the extent of which private lives are intruded upon when these kinds of issues come up," he said. "I really have always considered my private — my daughters' lives private and I think that's the way it ought to remain." John Aravosis, co-creator of a new Web site that seeks to pressure Mary Cheney into speaking out against a marriage amendment, called the vice president's position hypocritical. "Now that's rich — the vice president wants to include the details of my private life in the U.S. Constitution yet laments a lack of privacy for his daughter?" Aravosis said. "The vice president can't have it both ways." Cheney said he will be on Bush's re-election ticket in the fall, as the president himself has said, although there is speculation to the contrary. Cheney, who has had four heart attacks, said his health has been good and he couldn't think of any circumstances that would prompt to decline the role. "He's asked me to serve again and I'll be happy to do that," Cheney said. He dismissed talk that he has become a liability to Bush, with Democrats pounding the administration over allegations of profiteering in Iraq by oil services giant Halliburton, which Cheney once headed, and the vice president's frequent but now much-doubted claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "I think the fact that you become a lightning rod is, it goes with the turn," he said. "I'm not concerned about that." Cheney's popularity with the public has dropped in recent weeks, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey. In October, 43 percent of the public had a favorable view and 26 percent had an unfavorable view. In the last two weeks of February, people were about evenly split, with 33 percent favorable and 36 percent unfavorable. The vice president's popularity declined with most groups, with the biggest drop among Republicans. Seventy-four percent of Republicans saw him favorably in October and 58 percent viewed him that way in late February. Six in 10 in late February said Bush should keep Cheney as his running mate, while a quarter said Bush should pick someone else. The Annenberg survey in late February of 2,700 people has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points In his interview, the vice president also took a shot at the leading Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, and his chief rival, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who have skewered Bush over lagging job growth even as the economy improves. "If the Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two or three years, the kind of tax increases that both Kerry and Edwards have talked about, we would not have had the kind of job growth that we've had," Cheney said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
"He (Kerry) spent two decades in Congress; he's built up quite a record. In fact, Sen. Kerry has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue," [Bush] said.
Here are some quotes by Vice President Dick Cheney from the 2000 vice presidential debate. On gay and lesbian relationships:
Quote:
"The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don't get to choose, and shouldn't be able to choose and say, 'You get to live free, but you don't.' "
On gay and lesbian civil unions or marriage:
Quote:
"I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."
I guess he would now amend his statement to say "unless we need to use it as a wedge issue to help our chances of getting reelected in 2004."
Or in Bush's case, one shouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses.
Last edited by whomod; 2004-03-04 12:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
300+ posts
|
|
300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Well, before I answer that question. I would like to hear from you first, how it is not. Please, I'd REALLY like to know exactly how it is JUST AS chancy as non-promiscuous straight sex.
? I'm not sure I understand the question there.
Your statement was that homosexuality and promiscuity can be viewed equally as dangerous, if i interpreted it right.
I just don't get how an monogamous (homosexual) relationship is just as dangerous as a promiscuous (heterosexual) one.
Non-promiscuous homosexual sex is the same as non-promiscuous heterosexual sex in risk factors, just as anything else that is non-promiscuous - homo or hetero doesn't matter in this case - it's the promiscuity that makes them both equally dangerous - right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
whomod said:
Heyv Darknight. I saw this today and thought you'd like it. Hopefully you wont have to register in order to read it.
For a generation of Jews, it's kosher to be cool
I'll have to register. Is there any way you can post the article, please?
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
To be a Christian, it takes a certain amount of agreeance and belief in the Bible and teachings OF the Bible.
Didn't St. Paul say that the only thing necessary to be a Christian is devotion to Christ as Lord and Savior?
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
300+ posts
|
|
300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342 |
Animalman brings up an excellent point, one that probably causes me most of the confusion concerning the term "Christian".
It was always my belief that God loves you no matter what. Others disagree.
Some people say to be a Christian, you MUST follow the teachings as closely as possible. Others say just by "recognizing" Christ, that makes them Christian.
So what you have is a lot of people basing their faith on their own beliefs. Nothing concrete.
I know a LOT of people who recognize Christ, saying they believe in Christ, and that's about the extent of it. Most people just try to live the best they know how. But not all. Others don't. With others, they'll come down on you on what they feel is wrong and contradictary to the Word. Then it's back to porn, and swearing, and hording possessions, googling boobies, etc. They never go to church. They can't quote scripture. They don't give to charity. They believe they'll go to heaven just by saying they believe in God. Then they're stealing pens from work. A direct violation of the ten commandments.
Picking and choosing, weighing sin. But then it's not o.k. for people to be homosexual, and they feel they have the right to tell me so. Like my existence in the eyes of God is less than theirs. That makes no sense to me- seems like that kind of logic is flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
DK13, in replying to me, said: "These things give me a sense of being a part of something special, and are a significant part of my Jewish identity. How is this absurd? "
That you keep kosher is a personal choice that affects no one but you.
My point was in the idea that following to the letter, every declaration in the Bible is, nowadays, does not mesh with current acceptabilities.
Jim
Last edited by Jim Jackson; 2004-03-04 8:49 PM.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
DK13, in replying to me, said: "These things give me a sense of being a part of something special, and are a significant part of my Jewish identity. How is this absurd? "
That you keep kosher is a personal choice that affects no one but you.
My point was in the idea that following to the letter, every declaration in the Bible is, nowadays, does not mesh with current acceptabilities.
Jim
Ah, I see. The way your comment was worded, I couldn't tell that's what you meant.
No harm, no foul.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
KrazyXXXDJ said:
Animalman brings up an excellent point, one that probably causes me most of the confusion concerning the term "Christian".
It was always my belief that God loves you no matter what. Others disagree.
Some people say to be a Christian, you MUST follow the teachings as closely as possible. Others say just by "recognizing" Christ, that makes them Christian.
So what you have is a lot of people basing their faith on their own beliefs. Nothing concrete.
I know a LOT of people who recognize Christ, saying they believe in Christ, and that's about the extent of it. Most people just try to live the best they know how. But not all. Others don't. With others, they'll come down on you on what they feel is wrong and contradictary to the Word. Then it's back to porn, and swearing, and hording possessions, googling boobies, etc. They never go to church. They can't quote scripture. They don't give to charity. They believe they'll go to heaven just by saying they believe in God. Then they're stealing pens from work. A direct violation of the ten commandments.
Picking and choosing, weighing sin. But then it's not o.k. for people to be homosexual, and they feel they have the right to tell me so. Like my existence in the eyes of God is less than theirs. That makes no sense to me- seems like that kind of logic is flawed.
It is more than a little offensive to have you making all kinds of assumptions that Christians are stealing pens from work and all other kinds of offenses, and assuming that it's just all a rationalization so Christians can hate the Homos.
I've made clear arguments to the contrary since page 2 ( page 2 !! ) and you still choose not to get it. And you never will get it, unless you at some point want to.
If there is one thing that is absolutely indisputable and unchangeable in the Bible, it's the sanctity of marriage. One man and one woman
As I laid out at length in earlier posts, in Revelation especially, Christ is called the Bridegroom, and the collective followers of Jesus (the church) are called The Bride.
Throughout the Bible, the sanctity of marriage is both sacred, and deeply symbolic.
"Gay marriage" urinates contemptuously on that concept.
Homosexuality is condemned throughout the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as I've quoted here. Chapter and verse.
No one can say I haven't been clear.
Homosexuality is one of the major Biblical crimes. Infidelity and fornication (of which homosexuality is one form, as I've said endlessly) are one of the major symbols of an evil civilization, as depicted in end-time prophecy. Homosexuality's Biblical immorality is NOT an "outdated" concept, it is a standard commanded to be honored till the second coming of Christ.
Sexual immorality, in the forms of fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are all listed as among the most severe indiscretions.
It is obvious to anyone who is open to the truth that eating pork and shellfish, or similar more hygenic customs carry much less severe Biblical weight and penalties, if violated.
Homosexuality is condemned by the Bible.
And based on that, "gay marriage" is as opposite Christianity as night is to day.
As I've said --again, since page 2-- gay civil unions could be permissible, as an alternative standard to "gay marriage".
If gays would be content with that balance of rights between homosexuals and religious freedom.
An alternative that doesn't begin to shut Christianity out of the system, and violate religious freedom by illegalizing Biblical teachings, turning Genesis chapters 18 and 19, and similar verses that teach the clear Biblical standards against homosexuality, and turning those scriptural commands from God into "hate-crimes".
But again, if civil union were the end of it (allowing absolutely equal representation under the law for gays within a secular, non-religious, non-repressive-of-religion framework ) I'd more readily accept it.
But, as every gay activist, attorney and advocate has made clear, this would not be the accepted fair balance of rights between gays and those religiously or personally opposed to homosexuality, it would be a beach-head, from which to push further legislation, to run roughshod over religious freedom, and over the right to publicly read the Bible.
EXAMPLE:
According to Canada's laws (as I saw on the news segment today of the 700 Club) if any radio or TV station reads verses condemning homosexuality on Canadian broadcast airwaves, that would be a "hate-crime" punishable by a fine of up to $250,000.
THAT is where all this is headed in the United States as well. It is a first step, toward erasing the ability to teach what the Bible actually says.
You can believe what you want, but that doesn't change the obvious truth.
In typical liberal fashion, you attempt to shut out the truth, by finding one tiny technicality, one tiny lack of clarity, that the Bible doesn't explicitly address (shellfish, pork, masturbation, porn, antibiotics, whatever) that scholars don't fully agree on, so you can dismiss the other 99% that is clearly stated Biblically and undisputed.
Or that if I personally question a portion of the law on jay-walking, that somehow invalidates my right to say that the law on imprisoning murderers and rapists is correct and just.
In typical liberal fashion, you attack with a narrow argument that glosses over the full picture, to deceitfully misrepresent the full picture, and railroad your agenda with an argument that misrepresents the truth:
The Bible condemns homosexuality and all forms of adultery. From GENESIS to REVELATION, homosexuality is condemned.
And there's no expiration date on that strongest and clearest of commandments.
Which is, once again, your liberal wrongheadedness, that just because there's a question about the law concerning jay-walking, we should let every murderer and rapist out of prison. Ridiculous.
And in further viciousness and distortion, you make stereotypical characterizations of Christians, even as you allege that it is Christians that are the hateful ones.
"Gay Marriage" is just a Trojan Horse for writing Christianity out of legal existence. At least in a form that truly represents the Bible, that is supposed to be its foundation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
whomod said:
Heyv Darknight. I saw this today and thought you'd like it. Hopefully you wont have to register in order to read it.
For a generation of Jews, it's kosher to be cool
I'll have to register. Is there any way you can post the article, please?
Quote:
March 3, 2004
STYLE & CULTURE
For a generation of Jews, it's kosher to be cool
Call it Hebrew chic -- multiculturalism has sparked a movement bent on celebrating a culture that's newly hip.
By Carol Eisenberg, Newsday
Jason Saft once believed Jewish cool was as incongruous an idea as, well, a Jewish James Bond.
Growing up in Levittown, N.Y., Saft, 26, admits he felt "ashamed and embarrassed about being Jewish." He wanted to be like all the other kids at Division Avenue High School, which is to say, Irish or Italian.
That was before he got in touch with his "kosher fabulosity," as he likes to say, and helped stoke a worldwide pop-cultural movement. A year and a half ago, after brainstorming with friends about cutting-edge Jewish humor for a new theater, Saft printed out their logo, ironed it onto a T-shirt, and went walking around Manhattan with it plastered across his chest.
The message was simple, racy and undeniably proud: "JEWCY," it said.
"I was mobbed," Saft says. "People were coming up to me on the street, Jews and non-Jews, saying 'I have to have that shirt.' "
Suddenly, as Saft discovered, it had become hip to be Hebrew in America. From the website JewLo.com, which proclaims that "Jew and cool are not incompatible, but go together like peanut butter and Kosher-for-Passover chocolate," to the arrival in downtown movie houses of the Hebrew Hammer, the first Jewish action hero in the guise of a Yiddishkeit Shaft, a younger generation is creating new narratives of what it means to be Jewish in America.
And JEWCY has become one of its emblems, capturing the flip attitude of a largely secular group weaned on rap, hip-hop and the new American love affair with multiculturalism.
With no advertising save Web logs and word of mouth, the T-shirt has become the accouterment of choice for a new breed of Jewish hipsters from Manhattan to Los Angeles. They listen to bands like the Hasidic New Wave and Hip Hop Hoodios, delight in the Yiddish-inflected humor of the magazine Heeb: The New Jew Review, and read a new raft of young, transgressive Jewish writers.
"I think it's too soon and too inchoate to call it a movement yet, but I really do believe there is something profound and exciting going on right now with young Jews who are trying to connect with Judaism in thoroughly untraditional and in thoroughly new ways," said Joshua Neuman, 31, publisher and editor of the 2-year-old Heeb.
"These are people who are really comfortable in their identities and so they can be playful about boundaries and make fun of themselves," says Alicia Svigals, a Jewish music pioneer whose work with the Klezmatics starting in the mid-'80s set the stage for the hipsters.
To be sure, there are plenty of young Jewish people who never bought into the caricature of Jews as meek, or had the self-doubt that JEWCY's Saft did, but for whom the revival of all things self-consciously Jewish is still meaningful.
Theirs is a generation, after all, reared largely in the American suburbs without firsthand knowledge of privation or persecution — and for whom hip-hop is often more familiar than Hebrew. They have watched with fascination, and not a little envy, as one ethnic group after another has rediscovered its particularity now that Americans have come to embrace multiculturalism. Many are impatient with their grandparents' preoccupation with Jews as victims or "the chosen people," even as they experience the Holocaust as a Steven Spielberg film.
Many seek "new" connections to Jewish culture in the burgeoning music scene — exploring jazz by John Zorn's Masada and Hasidic New Wave; klezmer by bands like Mikveh, Golem and Pharaoh's Daughter; and even novelty hip-hop by 50 Shekel.
Others pass around books by a new generation of self-consciously Jewish writers.
Some assert newfound ethnic pride by wearing edgy and sometimes explicit slogans such as "Yo Semite" and chortling over Heeb's homage to the big-hipped, big-nosed appeal of "the Jewess."
And a few have dedicated themselves to reclaiming the old slurs with a chutzpah that would surely make their grandparents cringe — turning "hebe," for instance, from ugly epithet into an everyman greeting, spoofing Jewish cabals on InternationalJewishConspiracy.com, and drinking He'brew, "the chosen beer" from the Northern California-based Schmaltz Brewing Co.
"I think this time is going to be seen, in hindsight, as the beginning of a golden age," says Heeb's Neuman. "You could call it post-denominational Judaism. Our staff includes Jews from every denomination … all of whom think of ourselves as trapped, for better and for worse, in the same historical narrative. And we want to have a dynamic, interrogating, nuanced, at times critical and at times irreverent relationship with all things Jewish."
Some acknowledge, though, that that posture might change if resurgent anti-Semitism abroad takes hold in the U.S.
"This is happening at a time when Jews in other parts of the world are facing risks," says Paul Zakrzew'ski, editor of "Lost Tribe: Jewish Fiction From the Edge." "Here in New York, you're surrounded by other Jews and so you have a sense of safety … and you can afford to poke fun at yourself. I probably would feel very differently if I lived in England or Turkey."
Beyond that, some are frankly skeptical that the hipster scene will warrant more than a footnote in Jewish history.
"If there's something that distinguishes this generation from the past, it's that it is much more removed from a substantive Jewish upbringing and substantive Jewish education," says Rabbi Andy Bachman, 40, executive director of New York University's Bronfman Center for Jewish Life.
Bachman says he supports any new opportunities for young Jews to connect with Jewish identity. "But I think people often go way overboard when they speak about how they're going to create their own personal Judaism or how they're going to reshape the tradition. How often does a truly great mind arise? How often is there a Maimonides or a Rashi?"
Many suggest that lurking beneath the flip veneer of the hipster scene is a deep craving for identity that is unlikely to be satisfied with pop culture expressions of Jewishness alone.
Ahandful of relevant bands in the '80s has metamorphosed into hundreds, and the music has become almost mainstream. But the question remains whether it will inspire some to explore questions in their lives from a religious as well as a cultural perspective.
Saft, of JEWCY fame, has returned to synagogue after 13 years, though he is making no long-term commitments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
To be a Christian, it takes a certain amount of agreeance and belief in the Bible and teachings OF the Bible.
Didn't St. Paul say that the only thing necessary to be a Christian is devotion to Christ as Lord and Savior?
And that devotion requires belief. Belief not based only on faith, but also understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
KrazyXXXDJ said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
Well, before I answer that question. I would like to hear from you first, how it is not. Please, I'd REALLY like to know exactly how it is JUST AS chancy as non-promiscuous straight sex.
? I'm not sure I understand the question there.
Your statement was that homosexuality and promiscuity can be viewed equally as dangerous, if i interpreted it right.
I just don't get how an monogamous (homosexual) relationship is just as dangerous as a promiscuous (heterosexual) one.
Non-promiscuous homosexual sex is the same as non-promiscuous heterosexual sex in risk factors, just as anything else that is non-promiscuous - homo or hetero doesn't matter in this case - it's the promiscuity that makes them both equally dangerous - right?
Nonononononono.
The physical differences between the sphincter and the vagina is the biggest factor here. One's WAY more fragile and accident prone than the other. Note that this reasoning is also based on the scenario of having no condoms and the usual uninformed (in the ways and dangers of homosexual intercourse) couples going at it. Another topper is the everpresent fact that anal sex damages no matter how careful you are. Despite what you're definition of damage may be, the fact is that it leaves a lasting unhealthy.....Groove (and worse) so to speak.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
And that devotion requires belief. Belief not based only on faith, but also understanding.
Belief and understanding.....in Christ. Not necessarily the Bible. The two aren't the same thing.
Infact, if I recall correctly, Jesus elaborated on and even revised certain parts of the Bible, including the Ten Commandments, which(according to Mark) he compressed into two simpler and more general ideas:
1.Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul
2.Love your neighbor as yourself
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
And that devotion requires belief. Belief not based only on faith, but also understanding.
Belief and understanding.....in Christ. Not necessarily the Bible. The two aren't the same thing.
Infact, if I recall correctly, Jesus elaborated on and even revised certain parts of the Bible, including the Ten Commandments, which(according to Mark) he compressed into two simpler and more general ideas:
1.Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul
2.Love your neighbor as yourself
Really? Can you elaborate on where exactly he elaborated? Because I never actually heard that before.
And Animalman, the Bible is Christ's teachings, it's God's teachings, so it would be the equivilant.
Also, those two quotes (which I can't exactly vouch for myself) don't sum up or "acronymize" the Ten Commandments nor do they add on/revise the old testament in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
The physical differences between the sphincter and the vagina is the biggest factor here. One's WAY more fragile and accident prone than the other. Note that this reasoning is also based on the scenario of having no condoms and the usual uninformed (in the ways and dangers of homosexual intercourse) couples going at it. Another topper is the everpresent fact that anal sex damages no matter how careful you are. Despite what you're definition of damage may be, the fact is that it leaves a lasting unhealthy.....Groove (and worse) so to speak.
I would suggest checking out a hospital & speaking to some women in the maternity ward before checking out the broken anus wing
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
300+ posts
|
|
300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342 |
Dave, did you even READ this post before you replied to it?
I said:
Quote:
Most people just try to live the best they know how. But not all. Others don't.
It's an observation I've made of people who claim to be Christian and aren't, not an assumption about true Christians. I never lumped you in that category, and I never made the assumption that it was to rationalize their feelings on homosexuality. In fact, I also said:
Quote:
They never go to church. They can't quote scripture.
...which, I did notice, you have been doing since page 2, and quite well.
You say:
Quote:
And in further viciousness and distortion, you make stereotypical characterizations of Christians, even as you allege that it is Christians that are the hateful ones.
Wrong again. My problem here is with people who claim to practice Christianity and don't/never do/never will, then turn around and point out it's rules onto me as it makes them appear superior to me. And depending on your faith, you should have a problem with this, too. The people I am addressing sit on an agnostic side of the fence - claiming Christianity but not practicing it in any way. Do you see what I'm saying? Saying you are Christian, and doing nothing else, does not make one Christian. In a way, it's similar to using the Lord's name in vain, or lying - don't you agree?
And it is not an untrue observation that there are a TON of more people out there who "claim" to be practicing Christian than there are people that are actually TRUE practicing Christians. These are the people I am talking about that *steal pens from work* fornicate* lie* cheat* never go to church * can't quote scripture* consume massive amounts of alcohol* abuse drugs* whatever. Then admit to others they are Christian so in case there IS a God, they won't catch the full blunt in the afterlife. Sheesh! And this, sadly, is how I see the majority of America. It may or may not be true, but that's how *i* see it from where I'm sitting.
I have four neighbors in my building alone who claim to be Christian, though I have yet to see them get out of bed in a drunken stupor on a Sunday morning to attend church, in the last four years. Is that Christian?
Tattoos and body piercings - isn't your body "a temple" you are not supposed to desecrate? Is that Christian?
Is it Christian to knowingly commit these sins again and again and just "pray them off"? I somehow doubt it.
In my previous post I am merely stating that - if true Christians must live by the Word, then there are a lot of "false" Christians. If that statement were fact, if true Christians MUST live by the Word -then myself, the majority of the people here, and possibly you as well, are included (because if we MUST live by the Word, then God most likely didn't smile on the STFU and BOOBIES graphics in reply to my original post, or the swearing in others, or the constant judging of "liberals" as you call anyone with an opinion that doesn't sit well with your outstanding Christian beliefs). And maybe that doesn't sit well with you, because that lumps us in the SAME category. Picking and choosing our sins to fit our needs. Is that not true?
Weighing sin then, is in turn the case here. While some sins are judged more severe, people tend to pick and choose which sins they will commit and which they won't. Hell, in modern society among teenagers alone, fornication is a rite-of-passage. Seriously, do the people in your neighborhood who have waited for marriage outnumber those who haven't? I seriously doubt it.
Or are you saying it's ok to commit the minor sins, often, as long you avoid the major ones?
On to the other side - if we're NOT weighing sin and it is all judged the same - then I am no more in the wrong than the actor on television that said "God Damn" on the television five minutes ago.
So, in my "liberal wrongheadedness", I will continue to believe that God loves ALL his creations who live the best (good, moral, forgiving, unjudging, FAIR) life they can, equally, despite what a few men wrote about homosexuality-men scorned by an empire. Men trying to take down Rome in writing. It was a different time, and it was unknown. I know just as many true, genuine, GOOD homosexuals as I do true, genuine, GOOD heterosexuals - and until I see an inherent EVIL or reason to be accused AS EVIL, I just won't believe God DOES see them that way. I will continue my belief that the only unforgivable sin is the taking of one's own life.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Really? Can you elaborate on where exactly he elaborated? Because I never actually heard that before.
He touched on many of the controversial issues surrounding the origin of the Bible and the validity of it, including the story of Adam and Eve, the flood, the prophet Daniel, and Moses' role in writing the Old Testament.
He also talked about what is and is not appropriate for Sabbath activities. Somewhat contradictory(depending on how you interpret it) to what is said in Exodus 31:14, Jesus says in Matthew 12:11-12 that "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath", using the example of rescuing a sheep that has fallen into a pit. Keep in mind that Leviticus discusses numerous cases of Israelites being severely punished for desecrating the Sabbath, even in doing good deeds(for example, a man is put to death for collecting firewood in the middle of winter).
Quote:
And Animalman, the Bible is Christ's teachings, it's God's teachings, so it would be the equivilant.
It's partly Christ's teachings interpreted through man(since, like God, Christ never wrote anything down himself), but it's not the embodiment of one or the other.
Quote:
Also, those two quotes (which I can't exactly vouch for myself) don't sum up or "acronymize" the Ten Commandments nor do they add on/revise the old testament in any way.
It's Mark 12:28-31, if that's what you're indirectly asking. Jesus was asked which commandment was the most important, and responded by listing those two.
When you consider that this is holy scripture, to prioritize it is, infact, revisionment. These were supposedly God's words, these commandments. For any man to place one above another in importance would be not only pretentious but blasphemous as well. Jesus was clarifying, he was saying that loving everyone(especially God) is more important than anything else.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
The physical differences between the sphincter and the vagina is the biggest factor here. One's WAY more fragile and accident prone than the other. Note that this reasoning is also based on the scenario of having no condoms and the usual uninformed (in the ways and dangers of homosexual intercourse) couples going at it. Another topper is the everpresent fact that anal sex damages no matter how careful you are. Despite what you're definition of damage may be, the fact is that it leaves a lasting unhealthy.....Groove (and worse) so to speak.
This is one of the more unusual justifications I've heard. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "based on the scenario of having no condoms" or "the usual uniformed couples going at it", sexual ignorance and a lack of condoms is hardly exclusive to gay sex. Heterosexual intercourse also results in damage(the breaking of the hymen), and can leave a lasting "groove". The vagina adjusts to the size of the penis over time, a process that can be long and painful.
Let's not forget that childbirth is naturally one of the most physically damaging experiences imaginable, something that has killed numerous women(and babies), even in today's era of medicine. The muscles tear, hipbones are dislocated....while the end result is certainly positive the means by which it's achieved isn't too pretty.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142 |
Sorry to break into the discussion, but I posted an update on that Bedpan Fury stuff from a couple pages back in the off-topic forum: Bedpan Fury gets VELOED! Wonder Boy, and anyone else who might be interested, if you'd like to see just how classless Mad Hatter really is, check that thread out. That is all.
And that's terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Good call, Velo.
I suspected as much, as I said in my lengthy initial response to Mad Hatter (page 33 of the topic), and then followed up on in this post, on page 34:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
From the "Daniel.." topic, page 2, on the GRASSY KNOLL boards:
http://208.56.183.233/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001768&p=2
Quote:
posted by Danny:
I feel I should clarify something. I didn't mean to imply that everyone at Rob's is a dumbshit. Yes, the place has its share of dumbshits, but the same could be said of any board that size you're likely to find on the net. I wouldn't post there if there weren't some cool people I happily get along with. There just happens to be some dumbshits too. This is no slight against Rob, or the people at his boards that I do like.
Quote:
posted by Midknight
Contributor
Member # 96 posted March 02, 2004 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally shat out by whomod:
1. Matter Eater Man.
2. (Typhoid) Dave
3. KrazyXXXDJ
4. Animalman
and
5. Jim Jackson.
There. I've listed the only people there who aern't fucktards.And here's the fucktards.
1)Mr.JLA
2)Dave TWB
3)Pariah
4)The G-Man
Everyone else there falls in between the 2 poles. Rob tries to keep it cool so I respect that. Still, I don't think he's all that removed from the latter list though.You're welcome.
So what criteria do you judge people with?
Yes GayLA [ Mister JLA? ] & Pariah go out of their way to annoy people but G-Man puts together well constructed posts even if you dont agree with what he says!
I for one rarely agree with him but I also rarely agree with you or Jim Jackson,so does that make you two "fucktards"?
Animalman has also had some less than sterling arguments that very few people agree with so does that make him a "fucktard"?No it doesnt,cause everyone is entitled to their opinions,but you are an elitist wanker who actually thinks only your opinion & those that agree with you count!
Now lets take Dave (Typhoid variety),he is one guy who knows that this world takes all kinds to get along.
He enjoys both ridiculous posts & well thought out serious posts.
Dave is equally at home with guys like GayLA or guys like you & Jim Jackson.
Lighten up dude,smell the same coffee Dave has,and stop obsessing over who is & who isnt cool!
Quote:
Mad Hatter
Contributor
Member # 4 , posted March 02, 2004 10:35 AM
.
For the record, people who make less than sterling arguments using Internet shorthand are, in fact, fucktards. People who accuse others of being elitist are often simply those who don't wish to express themselves in whole words and refuse to put any actual logical thought into their stance. And people who come here to carry on grudges from other boards, attacking the people they followed over without contributing anything of actual worth, find themselves without membership pretty damn quickly.
Man, I love this.
.
It's why I didn't rush to post a response on your GRASSY KNOLL boards. Because you already spinelessly edited out every contradiction you were called on, I figured as much, that as moderator of your forum, you'll edit and delete posts of your opposition as well.
.
And consistent with that, you'll delete any members or opinions from your smug, pretentious GRASSY KNOLL community that don't fit neatly into your condescending, pretentious liberal worldview.
.
This is classic liberalism. Scream and posture loudly about the cause of free speech. And then slander, ridicule and shut out any views that contradict your own.
.
Once again, liberals think that free speech is a right that only they should have.
.
On the subject of Dave (Typhoid Dave ) without getting into it, I hold a different view than Midknight. On topics such as this Gay Marriage topic, Islamic ignorance, the Iraq war topics, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, he has a great tendency toward bypassing the issue and resorting to labels and namecalling.
.
Pig Iron is a poster who I think is the model of moderation and conciliatory diplomacy. Even when I disagree with him, he does so respectfully, and I don't feel slandered, misrepresented or insulted by what he says.
Although there are apparently some topics where he's had a
major clash with the Nature Boys, which I haven't seen. But the barbs they exchange indicate a heated conflict
I've missed.
.
I find myself most frequently agreeing with G-Man. He backs his opinion with documentation and clear argument better than anyone here. His opposition treats him pretty much the way they treat me, and he takes it in stride with remarkable civility.
.
Mister JLA, britneyspearsatemyshorts, Llance, Kristogar Velo, DrZ Smith, Pariah and others here I find myself agreeing with almost always.
They post, at turns, playful banter and avoid deep discussion, and in my opinion, by doing so give the rude, insulting, irrational and skewed emotional liberal arguments here the lack of seriousness these liberal arguments deserve.
And at other turns they post articles and interviews that expose the liberal crap arguments for the flawed logic that they are.
But either way, I find myself agreeing with close to 100% of what they post on political issues.
.
While I disagree frequently with JQ, he seems open to hearing both sides.
.
I've had clashes with Darknight613 and Animalman, and agree with maybe 10% of what they post. And while Animalman doesn't like to be labelled a liberal, and may not be, his political leanings are certainly to the left of my own. But despite earlier clashes, I at least admire their efforts at civility, as things have gone forward between us.
.
And Whomod... geez, buddy !
.
I don't think there's anyone on these or the DC boards who has expressed so much unrestrained anger at conservatives, Republicans, and Bush in particular. Your 10 stereotypes of Christians at the top of this page being just yet another example.
While at times you post articles with real information from mainstream sources, so much of what you post is pure hate, pure venom, pointlessly inflammatory, without any credible information.
.
And then you have the audacity to call anyone else hateful ?!?
No one else on these boards approaches your hatred and antagonism.
.
Jim Jackson, far beyond Whomod, all you have to contribute are insults as well. You seem to be a very unhappy person. And you lash out and personalize the debate when addressing me, because it really gets your goat that there are facts that disprove your twisted world view.
And with no facts to back what you're saying, your only alternative is to slander and insult me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
The Mayor of San Francosco has said that this is is the contemporary equivalent of the black civil rights legislation.
I'm with that. Banning gay marriage is another form of aparthied.
It says some people can do somethng, but another class of citizens may not.
Marriage is not just a religious institution. Its a legal institution. It enables inheritence, social security payments, all manner of legal rights. A religious argument is a misleading argument which bypasses the legal impact of such a ban.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27 |
Agree 100% Dave.
The religious arguement also provides a convenient cover to those with truly bigoted beliefs. While I understand that many people actually believe their "God" condems homosexual behavior*, I think the real movers & shakers behind the anti-gay movement are simply using religion as a shield against charges of bigotry (i.e., claiming/pretending to be devout when it serves their purposes).
* These true believers are a lessor problem IMO, because over time and through education they may change their belief on this issue, just as they have on slavery. I don't think they have any ulterior motive, they are just misguided. It's the ones who would harness a poweful force like religion (or nationalism, or patriotism for that matter) that are truly dangerous & scare me. They are people who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals - Yes, Mr. Bush I'm talking about you & your craven ilk.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
"These true believers are a lessor problem IMO, because over time and through education they may change their belief on this issue, just as they have on slavery."
Or they die off.
JJ
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Dave said:
The Mayor of San Francosco has said that this is is the contemporary equivalent of the black civil rights legislation.
I'm with that. Banning gay marriage is another form of aparthied.
It says some people can do somethng, but another class of citizens may not.
Marriage is not just a religious institution. Its a legal institution. It enables inheritence, social security payments, all manner of legal rights. A religious argument is a misleading argument which bypasses the legal impact of such a ban.
That is, once again, an ornately crafted mischaracterization.
All the rights you describe would be available through civil union, without imposing restrictions on religious beliefs and freedom.
Again, there is a larger, and deceitfully cloaked agenda, as my example of what is already being enacted to repress religious freedom in Canada makes clear.
If equal legal rights were the true issue, civil union would be satisfactory.
The real goal of gay activists is to shut religion, and specifically Christianity, out of the system, and out of public speech.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Wingnut-EL said:
Agree 100% Dave.
The religious arguement also provides a convenient cover to those with truly bigoted beliefs. While I understand that many people actually believe their "God" condems homosexual behavior*, I think the real movers & shakers behind the anti-gay movement are simply using religion as a shield against charges of bigotry (i.e., claiming/pretending to be devout when it serves their purposes).
* These true believers are a lessor problem IMO, because over time and through education they may change their belief on this issue, just as they have on slavery. I don't think they have any ulterior motive, they are just misguided. It's the ones who would harness a poweful force like religion (or nationalism, or patriotism for that matter) that are truly dangerous & scare me. They are people who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals - Yes, Mr. Bush I'm talking about you & your craven ilk.
Cheers!
A new poll shows that a majority of black Americans oppose gay marriage.
The poll results were released by the Pugh Research Center on November 18, 2003, the same day as the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage.
It indicated that 60% of blacks oppose gay weddings.
And further, 51% oppose gay civil unions as well.
Further, many black leaders are furious that the gay rights movement is being compared to the black civil rights movement.
When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that gays have the Constitutional right to marry, the Massachusetts Supreme Court justices cited landmark repealing of laws that banned inter-racial marriage.
Which, again, made many black leaders furious.
As reported by FOX News, Rev. Talbert Swan II, expressing his distaste for the comparison of gay marriage to the civil rights movement, said :
"Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. I could not choose the color of my skin."
Mychael Massie, a conservative black columnist, and member of Project 21, a political alliance of conservative blacks, said in his column for WorldNetDaily:
"It is an outrage to align something as offensive as this with the struggle of a fallen man, a great man, such as Martin Luther King Jr."
"The whole thing runs much deeper and more insidious than 'We just want to get married'.
They want to change the whole social order."
Alvin Williams, President and CEO of Black America's Political Action Committee, said that
"The gay marriage issue looks like an equal rights issue at first glance. But it becomes a special rights issue after closer examination. Because it's about behavior, not ethnicity."
~
So once again, arguments comparing this to civil rights is proven to be manipulative deceitful spin.
The need for liberals to call any dissenters to their view on the issue "ignorant" just shows their own ignorance on display.
It is ignorant for you to feel a need to call others "ignorant". And an attempt to emotionally divert from the true issue.
But regardless, a clear majority of black America disagrees with your posturing comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
