What Is the Big Deal With Gay Marriage? - Page 11

jillio · 10-25-2011, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

I think you are wrong on this.....Time will tell.

It always does. I have hope for the social consciousness of mankind. It has always won out in the end.

**TXgolfer** · 10-25-2011, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Knowing Cincinnati as well as I do, I don't think your goons would go over well.

Again I think you are wrong there.....but oh well..

jillio · 10-25-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Again I think you are wrong there.....but oh well..

So, you have spent significant time in Cincinnati? You know the people of the city?

**TXgolfer** · 10-25-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

It always does. I have hope for the social consciousness of mankind. It has always won out in the end.

Meh, battles are won and lost.... But I already know who wins the war.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Meh, battles are won and lost.... But I already know who wins the war.

Must be nice to be omnipotent.

Sunshine · 10-25-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

It always does. I have hope for the social consciousness of mankind. It has always won out in the end.

Exactly. Future generations will judge us for how we treat gay people, and how we allow others treat them.

**TXgolfer** · 10-25-2011, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunny_signs

Exactly. Future generations will judge us for how we treat gay people, and how we allow others treat them.

No doubt

**TXgolfer** · 10-25-2011, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Must be nice to be omnipotent.

It's the Ginko

dogmom · 10-25-2011, 03:04 PM

naisho,

for answering-

what I would do about various ideas as you mention depends on exactly what they are. A convicted ex-con, sex offender or rapist living in my neighborhood requires one line of thinking....someone into bestiality may or may not be my business depending on how that person who does that approaches it in terms of animal welfare.

but not everyone's "greater good" is the idea of Christ, nor is it anyone's duty to make it such-

dogmom · 10-25-2011, 03:06 PM

I really agree with you, whatdidyousay!, about sep. of church and state-

Journey · 10-25-2011, 03:32 PM

This is a never-ending debate that I have participated in many times and, I'm sure, will participate many more times in my lifetime. I think, for me, the bottom line always seems to be the same and a quote from post #275 highlights that bottom line - " ... now-homosexual father". There are those that believe that sexual orientation is a choice. This quote appears to uphold that view by inferring that the father 'was' straight but is now homosexual. There are those that believe sexual orientation is genetic, no more a choice than a person's skin or eye color. This difference in views also escalates to the 'anti-gay' argument that, "Ok, even if it is genetic, a person can still "choose" not to act upon it", to which the counter-argument is, "imagine your life if you were told not to act upon your hetrosexual feelings and ideas and had to live a homosexual life." All arguments, on both sides, seem perfectly clear and valid in the eye of the beholder. However, the one big difference I have found consistently over the course of my lifetime is that the majority of those who are most vocal and steadfast in their view about evils, or even repulsiveness, of gays is that they themselves have never grown up with a friend or family member who is gay. They have not truly listened, with an open mind and heart, to the thoughts, feelings and experiences of gay individuals and weighed those words against circumstances, evidence and actions. Although I believe, rather sadly, that this topic will be debated/argued for a long time to come, I am glad to see that at least it is now a debate that is present and public and no longer confined to dark hushed quiet corners.

As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.

ALBERT EINSTEIN

**sallylou** · 10-25-2011, 04:19 PM

The slippery slope argument is the not a logical argument. People can base their decision on it, but it's not rational. I feel more comfortable with logic and facts than emotions. Many people make decisions in a very emotional way, though, and that's their personality style. A person is entitled to her opinion but not the facts. Just say that it's your emotional state that determines your decision. Don't twist the facts in an effort to justify it.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

It's the Ginko

I'd say that you probably have grounds for a false advertising lawsuit.

**deafskeptic** · 10-25-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

John 8
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

In other words, she was forgiven of her sin of adultery, and commanded to quit committing the sin of adultery.

Jesus didn't say that adultery was not a sin; He told the woman to stop doing the sin.

I condescended the story a bit just so you know.

**sallylou** · 10-25-2011, 04:30 PM

The point of that passage is that people should not judge other people. It's not our place to judge others.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

...with added editorial comments and inaccuracies.

Good. Those legal rights that I have include the right to speak out.

Each person has their own sources of reference for making decisions. One could say each person justifies his or her decisions using different sources.

God does let us know, thru His Word, the Holy Bible.

No, God doesn't need me to speak up but I have that right, and as a Christian, God does command me to not be ashamed of the Gospel, and to speak the truth.

Jesus offered freedom from the bondage of sin to all people. He died equally for all. He doesn't withhold salvation from any person. His blessings are available to all who will trust Him. I believe and support all that Jesus did and does, so how is that marginalizing?

What inacurracies? These are your own expressed opinions I am simply repeating.

Regarding your tendency to preach at me and others, I guess you didn't get the memo. Your religious beliefs are yours and they are best used to justify whatever it is in your life that you feel needs a rule book for. It has no place being involved in making those decisions for others. No matter how much space you devote to quoting your interpretation of your Bible, it does not increase it's validity in this discussion. All it does is confirm exactly what is being said, and that you seem to think is an inaccurate portrayal of your opinion. You are the one that keeps confirming the fact that you use religion as an excuse to marginalize and judge others.

If you don't want others to see that side of you, then I would suggest you cease to bring religion into every discussion.

**deafskeptic** · 10-25-2011, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

I condescended the story a bit just so you know.

However, i will admit I misquoted one of the passages.

**deafskeptic** · 10-25-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sallylou

The point of that passage is that people should not judge other people. It's not our place to judge others.

Exactly.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

John 8
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

In other words, she was forgiven of her sin of adultery, and commanded to quit committing the sin of adultery.

Jesus didn't say that adultery was not a sin; He told the woman to stop doing the sin.

That is the way you interpret it, and that is perfectly within your right. Where you cross the line is when you attempt to apply that to ALL and to determine who is right and who is wrong, who is moral and who is amoral, who deserves legal rights and who doesn't deserve legal rights based on a choice you have made for yourself.

**TXgolfer** · 10-25-2011, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sallylou

The point of that passage is that people should not judge other people. It's not our place to judge others.

And no one is being judged. A behavior is being judged. And we DO have a right to decide what behaviors we will allow. In fact we do it all the time.

FireTiger · 10-25-2011, 04:45 PM

One person, one vote, she can only change the course of the vote as much as someone else who votes pro-gay rights... voting for any reason is a right of non felons over 18 in the USA.

A person can choose to Christmas-tree the ballot, or only vote for every other race... or vote 'c' on everything... there are less reasonable reasons to vote a particular way...

**deafskeptic** · 10-25-2011, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

That is the way you interpret it, and that is perfectly within your right. Where you cross the line is when you attempt to apply that to ALL and to determine who is right and who is wrong, who is moral and who is amoral, who deserves legal rights and who doesn't deserve legal rights based on a choice you have made for yourself.

I believe I know of one candidate for President who is against the separation of Church and State. He seems to have forgotten why colonists left the Old World to come to the New World and why the the First amendment was written in the first place.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

And no one is being judged. A behavior is being judged. And we DO have a right to decide what behaviors we will allow. In fact we do it all the time.

So you are comparing homosexual behavior to say, murder? How do you propose we sanction homosexual behavior if it is the behavior that one objects to? You are making quite a leap there.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

I believe I know of one candidate for President who is against the separation of Church and State. He seems to have forgotten why colonists left the Old World to come to the New World and why the the First amendment was written in the first place.

Seems like quite a few people have.

rolling7 · 10-25-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Again with the stawman arguments. Just because a city is dry doesn't mean you can't go somewhere else, buy your booze, and bring it back to drink it there.

Seriously, you need to try to stick to the topic. You have used everything EXCEPT a legal objection to gay marriage or a way in which it will negatively impact you or your life in an attempt to support your bigotry. That is very typical of those who don't have a argument that is logical and understandable, but simply built on an emotional reaction.

Yes you can and you can also be arrested for breaking the law and bringing the booze into the area. How do I know this? It is on the book.
I and everyone else can NOT have a legal objection to a law that is NOT on the book.
Everyone can only object to those on the book. This is where you get confused. Post a link where all of us can read a law we might have objections and then stand back. There is a law called ADA and I've read every but of it. And yes, I've plenty of objections about it (i.e. see AD post......Does complaining about c.c. make a difference?) There is a law called the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I've read every bit of it. And yes again, I've objections about it (i.e. Affirmative Action). If YOU have an objection to the marriage law that is now on the book, state YOUR objection, that is your right. DON'T ask me to state an legal objection to a non-existing law because not one person can. That non-existing law is YOUR strawman.

**TXgolfer** · 10-25-2011, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

So you are comparing homosexual behavior to say, murder? How do you propose we sanction homosexual behavior if it is the behavior that one objects to? You are making quite a leap there.

Or any other behavior we "sanction". But in this case it would be refusing to endorse a behavior.

**Reba** · 10-25-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

What inacurracies? These are your own expressed opinions I am simply repeating.

Your assumptions and interpretations of what I post are inaccurate. If you truly believe that my words can stand alone, why do you feel it necessary to add the editorial comments?

Quote:

Regarding your tendency to preach at me and others, I guess you didn't get the memo.

In that case, I guess you didn't either. Secular preaching is still preaching.

Quote:

Your religious beliefs are yours and they are best used to justify whatever it is in your life that you feel needs a rule book for.

Snarkiness and condescension is so unbecoming.

Quote:

It has no place being involved in making those decisions for others.

I'm making no decisions for others. Each person decides how to vote and how to live. People are free to incorporate religious beliefs or non-religious beliefs in their decision making.

I don't tell you how to make your decisions, or what to use in the decision-making process.

Quote:

No matter how much space you devote to quoting your interpretation of your Bible, it does not increase it's validity in this discussion.

I like the Scriptures to be quoted accurately and completely without paraphrasing and editing.

Quote:

All it does is confirm exactly what is being said, and that you seem to think is an inaccurate portrayal of your opinion.

Why does my opinion need confirmation? People can read my posts for themselves.

Quote:

You are the one that keeps confirming the fact that you use religion as an excuse to marginalize and judge others.

Again, that's your personal opinion. I don't "use religion as an excuse."

Quote:

If you don't want others to see that side of you, then I would suggest you cease to bring religion into every discussion.

Guess what? I really don't care what you "suggest." I'm not one of your clients.

Religious discussion is a two-way street. I guess you would like it if I just sit by quietly while others can say whatever they want about God, Jesus, and the Bible.

dogmom · 10-25-2011, 05:20 PM

<quote>"People are free to incorporate religious beliefs or non-religious beliefs in their decision making." <endquote> .........

.......for THEMSELVES only.......

**TXgolfer** · 10-25-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogmom

<quote>"People are free to incorporate religious beliefs or non-religious beliefs in their decision making." <endquote> .........

.......for THEMSELVES only.......

Decision making includes voting.....of course

jillio · 10-25-2011, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Yes you can and you can also be arrested for breaking the law and bringing the booze into the area. How do I know this? It is on the book.
I and everyone else can NOT have a legal objection to a law that is NOT on the book.
Everyone can only object to those on the book. This is where you get confused. Post a link where all of us can read a law we might have objections and then stand back. There is a law called ADA and I've read every but of it. And yes, I've plenty of objections about it (i.e. see AD post......Does complaining about c.c. make a difference?) There is a law called the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I've read every bit of it. And yes again, I've objections about it (i.e. Affirmative Action). If YOU have an objection to the marriage law that is now on the book, state YOUR objection, that is your right. DON'T ask me to state an legal objection to a non-existing law because not one person can. That non-existing law is YOUR strawman.

I have lived in dry cities and counties. There are a lot of laws on the books that are never enforced. You might want to do a Google search regarding some of the silly laws that are still on the books that never get enforced.

But again...you are using strawman arguments. We are not discussing alcohol or the laws pertaining to such. We are talking about homosexual marriage.

I'm well aware that you can't come up with a legal support for your objection. That is the whole point. Your objection is emotional and based on prejudice, discrimination, and personal belief systems. That is exactly why your arguments are moot.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you have objections to the Civil Rights Act. It simply confirms what I have believed all along.

10-25-2011, 03:04 PM	#309 (permalink)
dogmom Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 5,469	naisho, for answering- what I would do about various ideas as you mention depends on exactly what they are. A convicted ex-con, sex offender or rapist living in my neighborhood requires one line of thinking....someone into bestiality may or may not be my business depending on how that person who does that approaches it in terms of animal welfare. but not everyone's "greater good" is the idea of Christ, nor is it anyone's duty to make it such- jillio likes this.

10-25-2011, 03:06 PM	#310 (permalink)
dogmom Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 5,469	I really agree with you, whatdidyousay!, about sep. of church and state- jillio, deafskeptic and whatdidyousay! like this.

10-25-2011, 03:32 PM	#311 (permalink)
Journey Registered User Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 976	This is a never-ending debate that I have participated in many times and, I'm sure, will participate many more times in my lifetime. I think, for me, the bottom line always seems to be the same and a quote from post #275 highlights that bottom line - " ... now-homosexual father". There are those that believe that sexual orientation is a choice. This quote appears to uphold that view by inferring that the father 'was' straight but is now homosexual. There are those that believe sexual orientation is genetic, no more a choice than a person's skin or eye color. This difference in views also escalates to the 'anti-gay' argument that, "Ok, even if it is genetic, a person can still "choose" not to act upon it", to which the counter-argument is, "imagine your life if you were told not to act upon your hetrosexual feelings and ideas and had to live a homosexual life." All arguments, on both sides, seem perfectly clear and valid in the eye of the beholder. However, the one big difference I have found consistently over the course of my lifetime is that the majority of those who are most vocal and steadfast in their view about evils, or even repulsiveness, of gays is that they themselves have never grown up with a friend or family member who is gay. They have not truly listened, with an open mind and heart, to the thoughts, feelings and experiences of gay individuals and weighed those words against circumstances, evidence and actions. Although I believe, rather sadly, that this topic will be debated/argued for a long time to come, I am glad to see that at least it is now a debate that is present and public and no longer confined to dark hushed quiet corners. As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it. ALBERT EINSTEIN jillio likes this.

10-25-2011, 04:19 PM	#312 (permalink)
sallylou Potterhead and Janeite Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: My own private Idaho Posts: 6,653	The slippery slope argument is the not a logical argument. People can base their decision on it, but it's not rational. I feel more comfortable with logic and facts than emotions. Many people make decisions in a very emotional way, though, and that's their personality style. A person is entitled to her opinion but not the facts. Just say that it's your emotional state that determines your decision. Don't twist the facts in an effort to justify it. __________________

10-25-2011, 04:30 PM	#315 (permalink)
sallylou Potterhead and Janeite Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: My own private Idaho Posts: 6,653	The point of that passage is that people should not judge other people. It's not our place to judge others. jillio likes this. __________________

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

10-25-2011, 04:45 PM	#321 (permalink)
FireTiger Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Arl, Jax, NE-FL, SE-USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Universe A, Mutiverse 1 Posts: 518	One person, one vote, she can only change the course of the vote as much as someone else who votes pro-gay rights... voting for any reason is a right of non felons over 18 in the USA. A person can choose to Christmas-tree the ballot, or only vote for every other race... or vote 'c' on everything... there are less reasonable reasons to vote a particular way...

10-25-2011, 05:20 PM	#328 (permalink)
dogmom Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 5,469	<quote>"People are free to incorporate religious beliefs or non-religious beliefs in their decision making." <endquote> ......... .......for THEMSELVES only....... jillio likes this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode