RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage

Quote:

---

Ian McKELLAN (on Real Time w/ Bill Maher): Can I just quote you the third president, because there it is on the Jefferson Memorial, some of the great words ' and I'm sorry I don't know them off by heart, but he says, 'Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as manners and opinions change, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.' And that's barbarity.

http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_022704.htm

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:

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.

---

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
The passage Animalman refers to (outside its full context, as is the norm for the pro-gay side of this topic) is from:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=MATT+22&language=english&version=NIV

Quote:

---

Matthew 22: verses 34-39:
.
The Greatest Commandment
.
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.
35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

---

---

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
All the rights you describe would be available through civil union, without imposing restrictions on religious beliefs and freedom.

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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.

---

Whoops! I just realized that they do sum them up. My bad. Confused my sentence meanings for a sec.

Animalman, those two quotes don’t actually change anything in the Ten Commandments and they don’t "prioritize" either. If you outline the mutual importance and goals between each of the commandments and the certain sins that are listed under each individual commandment, you’d find that all of them coincide with Christ’s feedback. They’re founding elements to the Ten Commandments.

Another thing Animalman. Because I believe that Christ is God, I wouldn’t find it blasphemous at all if he ever changed the Commandments.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

No, I never implied that Christ was saying those two commandments should be practiced in exclusion of the others. I said that he was prioritizing the commandments, declaring that loving your neighbor and your God is the greatest(and most important) thing we, as people, can do. I also said that prioritizing them, was, in a sense, revisionment, but revisionment of the order of the commandments, not of the message of the commandments themselves.

---

Quote:

---

NYC Mayor: Gay Couples Merit Equal Rights

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - The mayor of the nation's largest city says same-sex couples deserve the same rights in civil unions that straight couples enjoy in marriage, but he will continue to enforce New York state's ban on gay marriage.


Mayor Michael Bloomberg's statement, reversing his previous refusal to discuss his position on gay marriage, came the same week that dozens of same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses were turned away by the City Clerk, and that state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer held that gay and lesbian marriages are prohibited by state law.


Bloomberg said in an interview that he goes "back-and-forth" on whether same-sex marriages should be allowed, but believes these couples deserve equality.


"Personally, I've always thought that civil unions should have exactly the same rights as marriage," Bloomberg said during the interview, to be broadcast Sunday on WPIX-TV. "I don't think you should discriminate against anybody."

---

Quote:

---

Bush warned me that gay people in San Francisco were getting married to each other and that, as a result, my traditional marriage is now threatened. But I just checked with my wife of 25 years and she told me our marriage is still doing just fine. Is it possible my president is misinformed? Misguided? Mistaken?

Art Verity


An unjustified war, 3 million jobs lost, families allowed to go homeless and hungry and uninsured, the environment sold to the highest bidder, corporate raids on pensions unpunished, Social Security cuts threatened, education for the poor slashed to the bone — these are immoral acts. Two men or two women holding hands and promising to take care of each other — that's the most moral thing in the news these days.

Kate Carnell Watt

So Bush wants to ban gay marriage. I thought the purpose of law and government was to protect people's rights and freedoms, not to diminish them.

Frank L. Atkin

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:

Dude. The vagina was designed for stretching and the uterus was as well. The sphincter, however, was not. And does not heal as well as the vulva.

Furthermore, the asshole wasn’t meant to evolve at all. Casual sodomy can get out of hand that way. Also, while the vagina has the hurt put on it a lot. The pain eventually ceases and then the pleasure is a bit more present. With sodomy, you have lasting pain and tenuousness with each sexual session. And like I said before, you DON’T want casual sodomy to mellow out the feelings through having done to your ass what is done to the vagina.

Quote:

---

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.

This doesn’t really change anything. It’s devoid the fact that Sodomy is a procedure that has a high risk factor for diseases—And while I, myself do consider pregnancy a disease that the world can’t seem to kick, it’s in no way, validly comparable to Aids or HIV.. That was the whole point of my argument. The greater amount of fragility in the colon than the vagina is the increase in danger of not only physical negative effects but also biological ones.

Also, while we’re on this, there’s a REALLY good reason for going through so much pain Animalman, this isn’t so for sodomy. There’s no pleasure or greater outcome involved for the catcher. It, more often than not, just creates problems.


Somwhere along the lne my message had been lost when you made this response Animalman. But because I got so mixed up, I just decided to roll with it.

---

Here's a site that essentially tells you to use lube, condom & common sense & you'll be fine.
http://www.sexhealth.org/bettersex/anal.shtml
I also got to add, I personally have never heard or read of anyone being hurt physically because of anal sex & following the rules, except for rape cases. If health was really an issue, there are many things that will shorten your lifespan. Being overweight, smoking and lack of exercise just some of them. Essentially a gay bottom is probably in much better health than say Jerry Falwell & all his blubber.

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.

---

Quote:

---

Here's a site that essentially tells you to use lube, condom & common sense & you'll be fine.
http://www.sexhealth.org/bettersex/anal.shtml />

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
This wasn't revision. It was enlightenment. As far as this situation suggests, God had seen that his words were misconstrued, then made a correction. He didn’t re-word the Bible or change its principles.

---

Quote:

---

If you can't adopt conceptive argument, then we can't get any further with this line of response. My (and pretty much all of Catholicism's) beliefs are that the Bible is entirely God’s word and that Christ, himself, is God. The apostles wrote it with something beyond divine inspiration.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman, those two quotes don’t actually change anything in the Ten Commandments and they don’t "prioritize" either. If you outline the mutual importance and goals between each of the commandments and the certain sins that are listed under each individual commandment

---

Quote:

---

Another thing Animalman. Because I believe that Christ is God, I wouldn’t find it blasphemous at all if he ever changed the Commandments.

---

Quote:

---

I wasn’t making it exclusive to gay sex, I was listing sexual ignorance under both hetero and homosexual acts.

---

Quote:

---

Dude. The vagina was designed for stretching and the uterus was as well. The sphincter, however, was not. And does not heal as well as the vulva.

---

Quote:

---

Furthermore, the asshole wasn’t meant to evolve at all.

---

Quote:

---

With sodomy, you have lasting pain and tenuousness with each sexual session.

---

Quote:

---

This doesn’t really change anything. It’s devoid the fact that Sodomy is a procedure that has a high risk factor for diseases—And while I, myself do consider pregnancy a disease that the world can’t seem to kick, it’s in no way, validly comparable to Aids or HIV.. That was the whole point of my argument. The greater amount of fragility in the colon than the vagina is the increase in danger of not only physical negative effects but also biological ones.

---

Quote:

---

Also, while we’re on this, there’s a REALLY good reason for going through so much pain Animalman, this isn’t so for sodomy. There’s no pleasure or greater outcome involved for the catcher. It, more often than not, just creates problems.

---

Quote:

---

Somwhere along the lne my message had been lost when you made this response Animalman. But because I got so mixed up, I just decided to roll with it.

---

Quote:

---

One small comment here: I don't buy this at all. I'm not looking for a lasting discussion on this Animalman, but you made things pretty damn clear in their unthoroughness when you used your wording. If your refute was as technical as you make out, I'm confident that you would have explained a bit more in depth in the first place. I mean, you've done it a bunch of times.

---

Quote:

---

Pig Iron said:
I cleaned up my above post for drunken idiocy and errors in syntax and intent.

---

I didn't notice

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

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. 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 the system, and out of public speech.

---

Quote:

---

Dave said:

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

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. 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 the system, and out of public speech.

---

Funny, I thought you'd raise civil unions.

Setting aside Animalman's comments about the lack of legal equality between marriage and civil union, it also creates a caste or aparthied system.

Straights get the full measure. Gays get the other version.

The stat that many blacks don't support gay marriages means nothing. Since when does equality depend upon a measure of opinion by a particular class of people?

I've read nothing here against gay marriage so far which isn't apologism for discrimination. At least the Klan wore white hoods so we could spot them more easily.

---

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".

---

I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.

---

I read the "bigot" label the same way.

---

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


"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
Your reading of these verses from 1 Samuel , Matter Eater Man, are, again, false and misrepresentative.
.
Saul was then king of Israel. Jonathan his son.
.
David is a shepherd, and Jesse is David's father.
.
Jonathan had a close friendship with David, DEFINITELY not to be confused with a homosexual relationship, as you imply.
What possible scholarly justification do you have for such a skewed interpretation?
.
Jonathan's giving of his tunic and personal items to David, and particularly his weapons, including his sword, indicates submission and loyalty to David's authority, and symbolically (as well as literally) indicates that he recognizes David's authority over King Saul's, and points to David as the future king of Israel.
.
Jonathan has made this manifestation of loyalty, despite the fact that it undermines Jonathan's own accession to the throne of Jonathan's father, King Saul.
.
Saul is outraged and jealous, because Jonathan has chosen David over Saul as the rightful authority, even at the loss of Jonathan's own accession to the throne. Saul was interested in his own personal ambition, not serving God, and in contrast, David's courage and selflessness earned Jonathan's loyalty, even over his own legagy to be king, and even over Jonathan's loyalty to his own father, King Saul.
.
A kiss between men in ancient times, and even in many parts of the world today (on the cheek usually) is often a sign of friendship and not sexual in nature.
When Judas betrayed Jesus to the Romans, he did so with a kiss as the signal, and when the Romans saw the kiss, it identified which was Jesus, so the Romans could swarm in and arrest him. It certainly didn't indicate that Jesus and Judas had a homosexual relationship, any more than David and Jonathan were homosexuals.
.

You also --to the misrepresentative advantage of your flawed argument-- omit sections within the same paragraph of 1 Samuel that discuss David's courtship and marriage to one of Saul's daughters (verses 20-27)
.
Here are ALL the verses, together in their full context:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=1SAM+18&language=english&version=NIV
.
Verses 12-16 make clear the reason for Saul's jealousy is clearly NOT a belief that his son is a homosexual. It is because David is popular and favored and revered, by all of Israel, by God, and by Saul's own son Jonathan.

Quote:

---

Samuel 18, verses 12-16:
.
12 Saul was afraid of David, because the LORD was with David but had left Saul.
13 So he sent David away from him and gave him command over a thousand men, and David led the troops in their campaigns.
14 In everything he did he had great success, because the LORD was with him.
15 When Saul saw how successful he was, he was afraid of him.
16 But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he led them in their campaigns.

---

Once again, your reading of this as homosexual in nature goes against scripture throughout the Bible, that CONSISTENTLY makes clear the Bible's (and God the Father's, and Jesus') condemnation of homosexuality, in both the Old and New Testaments.

---

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I don't believe what Animalman posted above. That is a distortion by advocates of gay marriage, I'm sure.

---

Quote:

---

Since gays retain all the rights to insurance, health benefits, spousal estates, etc., under proposed civil unions.

---

Quote:

---

As I've said endlessly, if gays really need or deserve these rights, civil unions gives them those rights to benefits

---

Quote:

---

Or agnostic, who just don't approve of the gay lifestyle, and don't want their goverment to force it on them.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I don't believe what Animalman posted above. That is a distortion by advocates of gay marriage, I'm sure.

---

What part of it don't you believe?

These are real laws and policies that give a clear advantage to married couples, not civil union couples.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Since gays retain all the rights to insurance, health benefits, spousal estates, etc., under proposed civil unions.

---

"Proposed civil unions"? What proposed civil unions?

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As I've said endlessly, if gays really need or deserve these rights, civil unions gives them those rights to benefits

---

Not as it stands today, they don't.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Or agnostic, who just don't approve of the gay lifestyle, and don't want their goverment to force it on them.

---

I'm Agnostic. What makes you think Agnostics don't approve of the gay lifestyle?

---

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Animalman, your questions are annoyingly inane and nitpicky, and the answers to your questions are obvious. Or at least they should be after 37 pages.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:
I don't believe any of it. It's a hyperbolic distortion to say gays have no rights.

---

Quote:

---

If they don't have "spousal" death benefits, for example, they can just as easily write a will. As was explored earlier in the topic.

---

Quote:

---

Why are you even asking this STUPID STUPID question ?!?

The proposed civil union laws we hear about every night on the news.

---

Quote:

---

Given gays' use of any secular rights to launch an assault on religious freedom, they don't deserve them.

---

Quote:

---

Another STUPID STUPID statement of yours. Congratulations on re-inventing the obvious.

Obviously, not all agnostics approve of gay marriage. Obviously not all agnostics oppose gay marriage either.

---

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:

i think if queers wanna butt bang each other thats there own business, but i dont think our goverment should be in the business of sanctioning it, and i do think if you make someones tax dollars such as SS go to pay for benifits to someones butt bang partner you are infringing on their reigious rights, and or personal beliefs....

---

Quote:

---

Wait, what? You say it's not revisionment, but then you say God "made a correction". If the situation changes, then so does the interpretation of that situation.

---

Quote:

---

Eh, I think you're a little off here, Pariah. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, yes, but it's far from a universally Catholic belief.

I, myself, am not religious, but I've attended Catholic schools my entire life, and studied them just as long. I'm currently studying it as part of my philosophy minor. While I wouldn't call myself an "expert", I've been around Catholics/Christians long enough to have a fairly good idea of their religious ideologies.

---

Quote:

---

....and how would you "outline the mutual importance and goals between each of the commandments and the certain sins that are listed under each individual commandment"?

---

Quote:

---

You misread, I said "for any man to place one above another in importance would be not only pretentious but blasphemous as well". Jesus, according to Christian belief, is all man, but also all God, so it doesn't apply to him.

---

Quote:

---

Jesus was clarifying, he was saying that loving everyone(especially God) is more important than anything else.

---

Quote:

---

Sure, but damage is still done.

---

Quote:

---

No, not necessarily. Some enjoy it, and don't find it to be an eternally painful experience. I've even met a few girls that love anal sex.

---

Quote:

---

This is way off topic, but I'd love to hear how exactly you can prove what is and what isn't meant to evolve.

---

Quote:

---

The Bible says that gay sex is wrong, but it doesn't say that it's wrong because anal sex tears the rectal issue. The argument most commonly constructed by theologians(though not directly evidenced by scripture), is that gay sex is wrong because procreation cannot be achieved through it.

---

Quote:

---

Gay sexual promiscuity has a high risk factor for diseases(as does heterosexual promiscuity), but if the two gay individuals are monogamous, and are tested, there is no risk.

---

Quote:

---

A statement of love? Consummation of a deeply intimate relationship? I'd imagine most gay couples would call that a positive outcome.

Besides, your original statement was that "the physical differences between the sphincter and the vagina is the biggest factor here." You make no mention of the positive outcomes of intercourse, or of the purpose of the activity.

---

Quote:

---

I did explain it. I explained it quite clearly. I use the word "prioritizing" several times in my explanation. If you interpret that as suggesting one should be practiced in exclusion of the others, then I'm afraid the fault is yours, not mine.

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps you read what you wanted to read into what I said, simply because I have the audacity to disagree with you.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

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

---

Are you gonna say that it's rare, and therefore, making it justifiable to take the risk?

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:

i think if queers wanna butt bang each other thats there own business, but i dont think our goverment should be in the business of sanctioning it, and i do think if you make someones tax dollars such as SS go to pay for benifits to someones butt bang partner you are infringing on their reigious rights, and or personal beliefs....

---

The problem with that line of reasoning is that we pay taxes too but don't get the same "bang" for our buck. When you or the others speak of "our" government, you forget it's not just your government. A great many of gay people are part of it, many making far bigger contributions to this country than you or I.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
I do feel that those other things are important in this discussion. It shows that bad choices or behavior that actually are proven to shorten the life span are not outlawed. This would be comparable to the crack addict saying you shouldn't have that second cheeseburger. I think you need to show some type of study that shows protected anal sex is more dangerous than say being a couple pounds overweight. And if we're going to argue that those issues don't belong in this debate I could point out the same thing with the whole anal sex issue belonging in the gay marriage debate. It doesn't apply to lesbians, and it certainly doesn't to all gay males. Many just stick to oral sex and stuff. So we have some unquantifiable number of those actually doing "it" and some slutty gay you talked too, who felt damaged by it.

And I think it comes down to your not gay, any type of gay male sex probably repulses you and that in turn feeds a bias IMHO

---

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:

i just figured you had read my previous statements if the majority has voted in laws stating that marriage is between man and woman than we should respect that, and a judge shouldnt take it upon himself to impose the will of the minority upon the majority.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
1) I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods Before me.

---

Quote:

---

3) Remember thou keep holy the Lords day.

---

Quote:

---

9) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.

10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:

i just figured you had read my previous statements if the majority has voted in laws stating that marriage is between man and woman than we should respect that, and a judge shouldnt take it upon himself to impose the will of the minority upon the majority.

---

Our court system isn't run by polls but operates to carrying out the laws. In this case it's an equal rights thing that supersedes quickie made laws supported by fear, ignorance & garbage arguments.

---