Author Topic: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"  (Read 54216 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8634
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #140 on: May 09, 2012, 03:09:33 PM »
And which god would that be!?






TOPIC DERAILMENT!!! (sorry just ignore me and this post)

 :corn

 ::)
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #141 on: May 09, 2012, 03:10:28 PM »
-snip of stupid pic that doesn't further the conversation of gay marriage in any way shape or form-

hyperbole

 :rollin
How is that hyperbole?  There are genetic consequences for producing children with your first cousin. 
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20558
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #142 on: May 09, 2012, 03:14:58 PM »
Is that Fox headline for real? Amazing, I love the US.
Yes, it's real, but it's a FOX Nation article, and isn't actually part of FOX News.  It's more their editorial department.  To be clear, FOX News isn't shy about writing bullshit headlines, but they're not generally as blatantly bogus as the FOX Nation department.  Those guys are just insane.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline snapple

  • Posts: 5132
  • The last hurrah? Nah, I'd do it again!
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #143 on: May 09, 2012, 03:16:26 PM »
-snip of stupid pic that doesn't further the conversation of gay marriage in any way shape or form-

hyperbole

 :rollin
How is that hyperbole?  There are genetic consequences for producing children with your first cousin.

Because ignorant people think "WELL I CAN MARRY AND FUCK MY COUSIN, SO DUDES SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY" when it should be a separate discussion. It's beyond stupid. In fact, it is FUCKING stupid.

so maybe it's logical fallacy. Either way, it's counterproductive to a discussion of gay marriage.
MLB 2014 Thread
DTF Cookbook

Driftin' away like a feather in air. Letting my words take me away from the hurt and despair

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #144 on: May 09, 2012, 03:37:22 PM »
To tackle some things here, let me begin with Omega:
What you are is doing is defining marriage and pushing your own definition as law. Partly you say it's about reproduction... but what about a heterosexual couple who gets married but they have no intentions to have children - is that OK? Why is your opinion on what the purpose of marriage should be more sacred?

Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and irrelevant. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #145 on: May 09, 2012, 03:42:00 PM »
Please watch this video (especially you, Omega) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM

It just disgusts me how certain people can act (not referring to anyone on here). I cannot honestly understand how someone can practically disown their own child.

Yes, it is especially relevant to me, since, you know, I advocate violence and abuse towards homosexuals. I've seen the video before, thanks. Heartbreaking, right? I don't see how pulling at my heart strings will convince me of even considering of condoning or allowing an impossibility such as same-sex "marriage".
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #146 on: May 09, 2012, 03:44:25 PM »
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.

Why don't you put youir money where your mouth is and demand the death penalty for homesexuality?

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Just sayin'

I unfortunately don't have any Youir money. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Youir the currency some Arabic countries use? Either way, I'd love to, again, and thanks for the invitation, but I don't posses any Youir money.


PS: I'm rather pleased that you decided to change that Dawkins avatar.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 03:57:14 PM by Omega »
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Online rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26453
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #147 on: May 09, 2012, 03:47:33 PM »
Fair and Balanced



Wait, is that photoshopped? That can't be real.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Online Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5517
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #148 on: May 09, 2012, 03:48:18 PM »
It is completely real.

http://nation.foxnews.com/

Online rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26453
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #149 on: May 09, 2012, 03:50:59 PM »
Wow. What a shit site.
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Online Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5517
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #150 on: May 09, 2012, 03:56:37 PM »


Also, how about that underwear bomb plot?

Offline The Dark Master

  • Posts: 869
  • Gender: Male
  • Veteran of the Psychic Wars
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #151 on: May 09, 2012, 03:59:10 PM »
Fair and Balanced



Wait, is that photoshopped? That can't be real.

rumborak

It's been changed to "Obama Flipflops on Gay Marriage" now.

I wonder if they received complaints about their blatantly inflammatory headline, and decided to go with something a bit more politic. 

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4580
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #152 on: May 09, 2012, 04:16:29 PM »
-snip of stupid pic that doesn't further the conversation of gay marriage in any way shape or form-

hyperbole

 :rollin
How is that hyperbole?  There are genetic consequences for producing children with your first cousin. 

Its not that big of a problem to be honest.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #153 on: May 09, 2012, 04:27:13 PM »
Fair and Balanced



Wait, is that photoshopped? That can't be real.

rumborak

Nope, it's 100% real.  I got it right from the Fox site, before their handlers got them to take it down.   Groovy, ain't it? 






Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #154 on: May 09, 2012, 04:28:07 PM »
"FAIR AND BALANCED"



Offline snapple

  • Posts: 5132
  • The last hurrah? Nah, I'd do it again!
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #155 on: May 09, 2012, 04:37:15 PM »
"FAIR AND BALANCED"

It is bro. Conservatives get their time and liberals get theirs. Just a matter of which views they make look better.  :azn:
MLB 2014 Thread
DTF Cookbook

Driftin' away like a feather in air. Letting my words take me away from the hurt and despair

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20558
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #156 on: May 09, 2012, 04:37:33 PM »
Once again, we probably shouldn't be bashing FOX on the basis of FOX Nation.  That'd be like slamming MSNBC because of something that aired on Dateline NBC.  Same ownership, different outlet.  From what I can tell, FOX Nation appears to be an editorial outlet, and they're allowed to be full of shit on that front.  Actually, I'd probably label them as analogous to Huffington Post. 

Besides, FOX News proper does more than enough questionable things to keep us all bashing them for years to come. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 552
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #157 on: May 09, 2012, 06:08:41 PM »
jammindude's posts about homosexuality and alcoholism are literally HORRIBLE. Utterly illogical and irrational 'arguments' thinly veiling homophobia.

The only thing 'immoral' is 'distancing yourself' from practicing homosexuals because YOU deem them to be 'immoral'. How is 'distancing yourself' any different to 'cruelty'? Really? Family members/friends who you 'distance yourself' from based solely on their sexual orientation WILL feel hurt by your actions. I guarantee you that no homosexual/bisexual person is acting on their orientation to hurt anyone else - they've almost certainly gone through a whole lot of pain for years coming to terms with it themselves before they even work up the courage and the inevitable shitty reactions from people around them. I came to terms with the fact I was bi when I was about 15/16 - it was only when I was 23 that I felt comfortable enough to both act on it and tell people my orientation. You should feel privileged that they've trusted in your goodness enough to be honest with you, and not abuse that trust to then apply skewed religious dogma to insinuate they are 'bad'.

Why the hell would anyone CHOOSE to be a homosexual? A life of having to be cautious around EVERYONE because of a constant awareness there are judgmental people who will react negatively to the fact you're homosexual, and even a fear of actual physical/verbal attacks? Why would anyone CHOOSE that? When I'm out in public with the guy I'm dating, there are very few situations/places we feel comfortable enough to even hug or hold hands, let alone kiss - this isn't because we think we're doing anything 'wrong' or 'immoral' but because we are aware there are plenty of 'immoral' and judgmental people in the world who would do their best to make us feel pariahs.

Alcoholics are born with a predisposition to addictive personality traits, or circumstances in their life has made them shit at coping with reality, and alcohol becomes a tool to block out that reality, or just becomes something they become addicted to AFTER trying it. Alcoholics who say they were 'born' to be alcoholics know full well that if they'd never tried alcohol, then their life wouldn't be the same. They're also probably aware that if they'd tried various other drugs then they'd be addicted to those instead. Unless a human has been locked away in a room alone all their life, then they WILL be exposed to men and women, and it becomes plain to them who/what they're attracted to. People don't become gay because they see that other people are gay and think "oh man, they're cool, I wanna be gay too" - they REALISE they're gay when they see members of their sex that they feel attracted too - exactly like straight people see people of the opposite sex and realise they're attracted to them.

This post has been VERY restrained. jammindude's self-righteous posts literally sickened me with their entirely un-Christian attitudes. I'm not Christian (or any religion whatsoever), but I nevertheless think that Jesus was a good character - any 'Christian' who distances themselves from homosexuals and deems them 'immoral' is certainly very un-Christ-like. With the coming and teachings of Jesus came a new covenant - the old one is obsolete, and not just there to be picked from at random to suit personal prejudices. If you truly beleive in a god, then you should realise that it's up to that god to judge the individual's actions as moral/immoral - not you. If you wanna follow the Old Testament (I'm not gonna even gonna get started on how anyone who doesn't think that history and humans have altered the 'original' message of the text is very short-sighted and totally blind to even the most basic lessons of history), then you damn well better follow every single irrational rule in it (amongst myriad others; don't sit anywhere where a female friend on their period has sat, lest you become unclean!!!) to the letter to avoid being a ridiculous hypocrite.

edit: the saddest thing is, according to the link in jammindude's sig, he's actually a middle-aged man, and not an impressionable teenager as I first presumed.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 06:35:03 PM by Rick »

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8634
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #158 on: May 09, 2012, 06:41:47 PM »
Rick...

I'm honestly really sorry if my post came across as anything "veiled".    It was never my intention to hide anything you're perceiving.  I am sorry if I gave any impression that I in any way feel any malice towards anyone.  And I offer my sincere apologies if it came across that way.

I honestly feel that you're reading something in that's not there.   But I can't say that I blame you.  As I said in a previous post...this subject has polarized so many people so much, that everyone perceives you as belong to the side that accepts, or the side that hates.   No one seems to have any room for balance.

I can assure you that I have received JUST as much proverbial "hate mail" from conservatives for my defense of treating all people with kindness, and condemning those who mistreat *ANY* human being for any reason whatsoever.   Nothing raises my ire more than those who claim to be "Christian" condemning homosexuality as if it was a contagious form of leprosy.   And I have gone on record several times as condemning all such actions. 

It is the very core of everything I believe that human beings were NEVER meant to decide for themselves what is "right" and "wrong"...it is a very centralized and fundamental foundation to everything else I believe.   As such, I do take exception to the idea that *I* have deemed something (or anything for that matter) as immoral.   The very idea stabs at the heart of everything I believe and hold dear.    As a matter of fact, my entire form of worship is based on the idea that Adam broke away from God *BY CHOOSING HIS OWN STANDARD* of what is "good" and "bad"...what is "right" and what is "wrong".    We simply were not created with the capacity to make that choice independently of God.   We must look to God for what is "right" and "wrong"...I don't make the call. 

There is NO vitriol hiding under the surface...there is no fear...no hatred...   I'm no better than anyone else.  I'm just as flawed and broken as everyone else on planet earth, and there's not a single one of us that is better than another.    If I stand in judgment of ANYONE...I stand condemned. 

If I gave any impression other than that...even if it just seemed like I was hiding something (I'm not) than I again owe you my sincere apologies.  I am sorry.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #159 on: May 09, 2012, 06:44:09 PM »
To tackle some things here, let me begin with Omega:
What you are is doing is defining marriage and pushing your own definition as law. Partly you say it's about reproduction... but what about a heterosexual couple who gets married but they have no intentions to have children - is that OK? Why is your opinion on what the purpose of marriage should be more sacred?

Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and irrelevant. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
As others have said in all of the threads you've posted this rant in (which you continually ignore whenever it's brought up), this is historically not the reason that marriage has existed. Marriage, up until the relatively recent past, has been an exchange of property, the wife being the property. Historically and factually, marriage has not served the purpose you claim it to serve. Children have been inconsequential as far as marriage is concerned; the romantic concept of getting married to a woman who loves you, buying a house, and having some kids is really very recent, and exists only in developed countries.

Even today, I don't see how marriage "regulates the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation". The government doesn't do any "regulation" of any kind when it comes to procreation. If you have a baby, the government expects you to feed it and not to beat it, but these same rules apply whether you're married or not. There is no "regulation" that applies specifically to married people.

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 552
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #160 on: May 09, 2012, 07:14:34 PM »
Rick...

I'm honestly really sorry if my post came across as anything "veiled".    It was never my intention to hide anything you're perceiving.  I am sorry if I gave any impression that I in any way feel any malice towards anyone.  And I offer my sincere apologies if it came across that way.

What was 'veiled' was your homophobia - you think it is something immoral - therefore universally 'wrong' and 'bad'. You beleive this to be the right thing to think because it is part of your belief system. I respect that people can beleive whatever the hell they want to beleive, but just because someone believes something doesn't give them any sort of right whatsoever to name what is objectively right and wrong. Your belief is a choice - biblical 'knowledge' does not come a priori.

I honestly feel that you're reading something in that's not there.   But I can't say that I blame you.  As I said in a previous post...this subject has polarized so many people so much, that everyone perceives you as belong to the side that accepts, or the side that hates.   No one seems to have any room for balance.

There is little 'balance' in your previous posts.

I can assure you that I have received JUST as much proverbial "hate mail" from conservatives for my defense of treating all people with kindness, and condemning those who mistreat *ANY* human being for any reason whatsoever.   Nothing raises my ire more than those who claim to be "Christian" condemning homosexuality as if it was a contagious form of leprosy.   And I have gone on record several times as condemning all such actions. 

If you want to treat people with 'kindness', then you wouldn't choose to distance yourself from practicing homosexuals - you would tell them one time that you have a belief system based around the reading of a single book that you have interpreted to show that there are concepts of right and wrong, and 'sin', and that in your reading of that book practicing homosexuality is one of those 'sins' - however, as a Christian you understand that it's none of your business and you still love them just as you love any other human being, and then you carry on as normal - to choose to treat them in any other way is to judge them.

It is the very core of everything I believe that human beings were NEVER meant to decide for themselves what is "right" and "wrong"...it is a very centralized and fundamental foundation to everything else I believe.   As such, I do take exception to the idea that *I* have deemed something (or anything for that matter) as immoral.   The very idea stabs at the heart of everything I believe and hold dear.    As a matter of fact, my entire form of worship is based on the idea that Adam broke away from God *BY CHOOSING HIS OWN STANDARD* of what is "good" and "bad"...what is "right" and what is "wrong".    We simply were not created with the capacity to make that choice independently of God.   We must look to God for what is "right" and "wrong"...I don't make the call.   

You have chosen to beleive things. Just as you choose not to believe other things in your life. You have chosen to beleive that your interpretation of a text is 'right', just as you have chosen to beleive that that text is objectively 'right' to even begin with. Basic understanding of anything to do with linguistic, literary, or historical theory should lead one to understand that anything you read is interpreted. Deconstruction highlights the dangers of logocentrism; basic understandings of even just Derrida, Barthes and Wittgenstein would be illuminating.


The Testimony of Truth
It is written in the Law concerning this, when God gave a command to Adam, "From every tree you may eat, but from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise do not eat, for on the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." But the serpent was wiser than all the animals that were in Paradise, and he persuaded Eve, saying, "On the day when you eat from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, the eyes of your mind will be opened." And Eve obeyed, and she stretched forth her hand; she took from the tree and ate; she also gave to her husband with her. And immediately they knew that they were naked, and they took some fig-leaves (and) put them on as girdles.

But God came at the time of evening, walking in the midst of Paradise. When Adam saw him, he hid himself. And he said, "Adam, where are you?" He answered (and) said, "I have come under the fig tree." And at that very moment, God knew that he had eaten from the tree of which he had commanded him, "Do not eat of it." And he said to him, "Who is it who has instructed you?" And Adam answered, "The woman whom you have given me." And the woman said, "It is the serpent who instructed me." And he (God) cursed the serpent, and called him "devil." And he said, "Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing evil and good." Then he said, "Let us cast him out of paradise, lest he take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."

But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said "Adam, where are you?" God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, "Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever." Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger! And what kind of God is this? For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him. And he said, "I am the jealous God; I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the children until three (and) four generations." And he said, "I will make their heart thick, and I will cause their mind to become blind, that they might not know nor comprehend the things that are said." But these things he has said to those who believe in him and serve him!
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 07:29:02 PM by Rick »

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8970
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #161 on: May 09, 2012, 07:25:20 PM »
But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said "Adam, where are you?" God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, "Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever." Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger! And what kind of God is this? For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him. And he said, "I am the jealous God; I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the children until three (and) four generations." And he said, "I will make their heart thick, and I will cause their mind to become blind, that they might not know nor comprehend the things that are said." But these things he has said to those who believe in him and serve him!

Wow!
sounds like the serpent's words all over again

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8634
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #162 on: May 09, 2012, 07:27:57 PM »
Rick...I wouldn't mind discussing more of this with you at length...but I'm getting the impression you have already made up your mind about me.

We can seek a better understanding of one other, but I don't wish to derail the thread.    PM me if you wish to have open minded dialog. 

May you have peace, my friend.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9401
  • Gender: Male
  • Lost within a world I chose to hide
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #163 on: May 09, 2012, 07:29:15 PM »


Oh my god.  Dude, Omega.  Please.  Reconsider everything about your world view and your view of yourself right now.  The way you're going, you're going to be unhappy forever.  Or, you're going to have a moment when you get older when you're forced to realize that everything you thought was wrong.  And you're going to then spiral to other intellectually and emotionally vacuous places to fill that hole in your identity.

Quote
Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and irrelevant. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.)

Why is your definition of marriage correct?  From what source do you derive its veracity?  Why is your definition correct and the definition of other people in this thread wrong?

Quote
Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws.

This is stupid.  A person's ability to make laws is based off the power they have or do not have.  Let's say I'm the dictator of a small African nation.  I make a law that says every citizen of my country must offer me a package of Yogurt as tribute to my greatness within the next week.  This is stupid and nonsensical.  But none of that matters, because I have a death squad to punish everyone who doesn't comply.  I have the power to make laws.  Whether or not those laws are logical is meaningless.

Quote
Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible.

I think what you're trying to say is that since, in theory, a man and a woman can procreate, it doesn't matter if they actually can.  Therefore, any man and any woman can marry.

Because of this, are you okay with incestuous marriages?  Marraiges between fathers/daughters or sons/mothers?  They can procreate.

Quote
It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government.

Let's say this is true (because really, I have no idea), why can't the purpose of something change over time?

Quote
But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle!

What's with your obsession over definitions?

Quote
Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.

Right, that's exactly what everyone else is saying.  Marriage isn't just about making babies.  We are attempting to change its definition.  This does not take away from the necessity of stable two-parent families to the proper care of children.  Do you have a problem with a gay couple raising kids?

Quote
So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.

Right, exactly.  You're defining marriage based on your whims.  I'm defining it based on mine.
We must learn to rise above the past
Before we can at last
Begin again

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 552
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #164 on: May 09, 2012, 07:40:43 PM »
Rick...I wouldn't mind discussing more of this with you at length...but I'm getting the impression you have already made up your mind about me.

We can seek a better understanding of one other, but I don't wish to derail the thread.    PM me if you wish to have open minded dialog. 

May you have peace, my friend.

I do not see this as 'derailing' the thread whatsoever - the thread is about homosexuality and people's attitudes towards such things, and that is what is being discussed. If the dialogue is to continue, then I'd rather be on a public forum. I have not 'made up my mind' about you to the point I am closed whatsoever; but I must say that thus far you have said nothing in response to my previous 2 posts that makes me reconsider anything I've said.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 07:54:23 PM by Rick »

Offline senecadawg2

  • Posts: 6357
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #165 on: May 09, 2012, 07:43:02 PM »
The amendment is fucking insane, and a real shame for the state of North Carolina. A whole lot of ignorant, self-righteous, morons decided it was time to take matters into their own hands, and 'protect' marriage. I get it though, over the years it has become obvious that gays are assaulting the institution of marriage, and that it needs protection.

Marriage, as an institution, is sacred and necessary to protect human procreation [Omega Opinion].

Gay marriage, because of it's inability to procreate, is inherently more dangerous than a heterosexual marriage between two lunatics who can't possibly raise a kid effectively to contribute to society [Omega Opinion]

My moral beliefs, largely founded in my religious beliefs, are the only correct beliefs, and should be accepted as fact [Omega Opinion]

All humans who truly understand God's will, as expressed in the Bible, will agree with me (rightfully so) [Omega Opinion]

It is my right to forbid the communion between two consensual people, based solely on my opinions [Omega Opinion]

I hold onto a strict, antediluvian, moral code, and it should be accepted as fact [Omega Opinion]

I fully comprehend the preachings of an ancient manuscript written in a time that I cannot begin to understand, for reasons I may never fully
understand [Omega Opinion]

I support discrimination against a minority, based on their sexual orientation, and find it incredulous that anyone should disagree with me [Omega Opinion]

Your arguments are nothing but... OPINIONS
Quote from: black_floyd
Oh seneca, how you've warmed my heart this evening.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #166 on: May 09, 2012, 07:46:44 PM »
jammindude,

You seem not to understand the implications of the posts you've made.

First of all, you juxtaposed alcoholism and homosexuality. The latter is a normal sexual orientation; the former is an addiction which has destroyed many lives. Surely you understand what may be construed as offensive about that.

Your other post called homosexuality a "trait", "condition", and "problem". The words were in quotation marks, but that doesn't change the words themselves.

In short, I think you're trying to be fair and agreeable, but you're just really, really bad at voicing unbiased opinions.

Also, I'm not going to necessarily judge your view on how Christians should treat homosexuals. However, your ultimate goal is to become Christlike, right? You should ask yourself whether Christ would distance himself from sinners as you described in great detail.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8634
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #167 on: May 09, 2012, 07:52:04 PM »
Well, your quote of The Testimony of Truth gets into a completely different discussion.  We start to go away from the topic of homosexuality, and into to the topic of "the origin of sin"...and deeper into a theological discussion. 

What have I said that was homophobic?

More importantly, when did I ever decide that anything was immoral?  I very firm in my stance that *it is not my call or decision* to decide that anything is immoral.  I am too broken, flawed and imperfect to ever make a call of that nature.  It's completely out of my depth.  I was not created with the ability to decide what is moral or immoral.  The only decision I made was that I made a decision that human beings (all of them...including me...especially me) didn't know what the heck we were doing, and couldn't make those decisions for ourselves.  So I humbly bow to God's superior wisdom above my own.   

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that the men involved wrote God's thoughts.   But here is where I feel we'll probably end up branching off into a discussion about whether or not the Bible is from God...whether or not it should be followed...what it really says...whether or not it's been changed through the ages...etc...etc...etc...   And that is where we would end up derailing the thread. 

I believe that everyone *is free* to choose for themselves what they wish to do....I have chosen to follow God and not myself. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 552
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #168 on: May 09, 2012, 08:03:48 PM »
Well, your quote of The Testimony of Truth gets into a completely different discussion.  We start to go away from the topic of homosexuality, and into to the topic of "the origin of sin"...and deeper into a theological discussion. 

I posted that not because I beleive it's 'correct' (I don't beleive in anything to do with gods, etc) - just to highlight the dangers of black/white interpretations - interpretations can equally show that God arbitrarily chose his own standards, etc.

What have I said that was homophobic?

'Homophobia' isn't limited to fear/hate - it's an umbrella term that also encompasses any prejudice or aversion - thus it's perfectly valid to use in this context for you have claimed it's sinful behaviour, likened it to alcoholism, and stated you then avoid such people - if someone I considered friend/family acted like this towards me if I informed them of my sexuality then I have no qualms whatsoever in condemning their behaviour as 'immoral' (in a Kantian sense, of course).

More importantly, when did I ever decide that anything was immoral?  I very firm in my stance that *it is not my call or decision* to decide that anything is immoral.  I am too broken, flawed and imperfect to ever make a call of that nature.  It's completely out of my depth.  I was not created with the ability to decide what is moral or immoral.  The only decision I made was that I made a decision that human beings (all of them...including me...especially me) didn't know what the heck we were doing, and couldn't make those decisions for ourselves.  So I humbly bow to God's superior wisdom above my own.   

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that the men involved wrote God's thoughts.   But here is where I feel we'll probably end up branching off into a discussion about whether or not the Bible is from God...whether or not it should be followed...what it really says...whether or not it's been changed through the ages...etc...etc...etc...   And that is where we would end up derailing the thread. 

I believe that everyone *is free* to choose for themselves what they wish to do....I have chosen to follow God and not myself.

You seem like you're probably a decent guy, trying to do his best on what he thinks is right, but your methods are very flawed. If I thought you were an intentionally malicious person, I wouldn't even bother engaging with you and wasting my time. I don't want any discussion whatsoever about whether the Bible is the word of god or not - I don't beleive in a god to begin with to even bother entertaining the notion that there's a book written based on his direct words. I'm merely pointing out that if indeed you do beleive in such a god, and do beleive that those are his words, then as I've already stated in previous posts - you very seriously need to reconsider your utter blind faith in your own human interpretations of those words: follow your interpretation, and you follow yourself - however much you try and convince yourself otherwise.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8634
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #169 on: May 09, 2012, 08:04:21 PM »
jammindude,

You seem not to understand the implications of the posts you've made.

First of all, you juxtaposed alcoholism and homosexuality. The latter is a normal sexual orientation; the former is an addiction which has destroyed many lives. Surely you understand what may be construed as offensive about that.

Your other post called homosexuality a "trait", "condition", and "problem". The words were in quotation marks, but that doesn't change the words themselves.

In short, I think you're trying to be fair and agreeable, but you're just really, really bad at voicing unbiased opinions.

Also, I'm not going to necessarily judge your view on how Christians should treat homosexuals. However, your ultimate goal is to become Christlike, right? You should ask yourself whether Christ would distance himself from sinners as you described in great detail.


With Christ...the situation pretty much took care of itself.   Because he taught what God's standards were without being apologetic....and he did it everywhere he went.  Anyone who didn't want to listen to him, just avoided him.   In my own way, I attempt to do the same thing.   I teach God's standards, and I generally find that those who don't with to conform to God's standards tend to stay away.    But I always attempt (in my own imperfect way) to teach with kindness and love.   Christ was always kind....but he *NEVER* compromised.   

Some people here have claimed that the rest of the Bible (namely Paul's letters) are to be dismissed as being against what Christ taught.   I disagree completely.  I believe that Paul's letter's are God's thoughts on the matter.   But again...this is where we start to diverge off topic.  This forum is about homosexuality.   I believe that what the Bible teaches is very clear on homosexuality.   That we are to be kind and loving to all of human kind, but avoid ungodly actions to the best of our ability.   We must do the best we can to try to teach people what God's standards are...what they choose to do with that information (if anything) is a choice of free will.    God can, and is willing to forgive anyone of any ungodly thing they've ever done...no matter whether it's something as simple and tiny as a lie, or something as heinous as rape and murder...but forgiveness requires repentance...repentance requires turning your back on your former course of life.   And Jesus said that no matter how precious something is to us...even if we love it as much as an eye or a foot...if it's making us do something that God condemns, we need to cut it out of our lives.

He also said that because of conforming to God's standards, everyone would hate us...sometimes even members of our own family.  But that we must put God's standards above our own, and remain loyal to him alone...even over our own families.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #170 on: May 09, 2012, 08:09:49 PM »
jammindude,

You seem not to understand the implications of the posts you've made.

First of all, you juxtaposed alcoholism and homosexuality. The latter is a normal sexual orientation; the former is an addiction which has destroyed many lives. Surely you understand what may be construed as offensive about that.

Your other post called homosexuality a "trait", "condition", and "problem". The words were in quotation marks, but that doesn't change the words themselves.

In short, I think you're trying to be fair and agreeable, but you're just really, really bad at voicing unbiased opinions.

Also, I'm not going to necessarily judge your view on how Christians should treat homosexuals. However, your ultimate goal is to become Christlike, right? You should ask yourself whether Christ would distance himself from sinners as you described in great detail.


With Christ...the situation pretty much took care of itself.   Because he taught what God's standards were without being apologetic....and he did it everywhere he went.  Anyone who didn't want to listen to him, just avoided him.   

Completely, unequivocally incorrect. My advice to you is to spend a while thinking about this issue.

Mark 2:
"16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” "

Online kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 39296
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #171 on: May 09, 2012, 08:11:55 PM »
I'm happy that I'm not gay or religious.  Nobody cares to talk about an old, fat dude.  I'm not a hip subject. :lol


Really though, I've been married for almost 18 years and not once have I thought about stopping a gay couple that wants to marry.  To me it doesn't affect me or my life one bit.
“I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2770
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #172 on: May 09, 2012, 08:12:38 PM »
@jammindude;

A person's sexual orientation isn't a choice.

Also, and I say this to help you, brevity is your friend. When you reply to everything with a somewhat rambling wall of text, it's unclear sometimes exactly what you're trying to say. Keep it concise, and we can avoid misunderstandings.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8634
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #173 on: May 09, 2012, 08:15:11 PM »

More importantly, when did I ever decide that anything was immoral?  I very firm in my stance that *it is not my call or decision* to decide that anything is immoral.  I am too broken, flawed and imperfect to ever make a call of that nature.  It's completely out of my depth.  I was not created with the ability to decide what is moral or immoral.  The only decision I made was that I made a decision that human beings (all of them...including me...especially me) didn't know what the heck we were doing, and couldn't make those decisions for ourselves.  So I humbly bow to God's superior wisdom above my own.   

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that the men involved wrote God's thoughts.   But here is where I feel we'll probably end up branching off into a discussion about whether or not the Bible is from God...whether or not it should be followed...what it really says...whether or not it's been changed through the ages...etc...etc...etc...   And that is where we would end up derailing the thread. 

I believe that everyone *is free* to choose for themselves what they wish to do....I have chosen to follow God and not myself.

You seem like you're probably a decent guy, trying to do his best on what he thinks is right, but your methods are very flawed. If I thought you were an intentionally malicious person, I wouldn't even bother engaging with you and wasting my time. I don't want any discussion whatsoever about whether the Bible is the word of god or not - I don't beleive in a god to begin with to even bother entertaining the notion that there's a book written based on his direct words. I'm merely pointing out that if indeed you do beleive in such a god, and do beleive that those are his words, then as I've already stated in previous posts - you very seriously need to reconsider your utter blind faith in your own human interpretations of those words: follow your interpretation, and you follow yourself - however much you try and convince yourself otherwise.


Another thing I really have an aversion to is "blind faith"...

As a matter of fact, I found one old saying to be very true in the case of my conversion...."The Truth will set you free....but it will really piss you off first."

My conversion came after months of research, study and soul searching.   And when it all started to point in one direction, my first reaction was I was REALLY REALLY upset.   It made me mad.   I believe the first words out of my mouth upon my revelation was..."OH GOD NO!!  ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!!"   Then I ran away.   I was so frustrated because I didn't want what I had found.   So I looked into other things...other viewpoints...and then I realized that those viewpoints were telling me what *I* wanted to hear, and not what the actual facts were pointing to.   So I got mad again.     

Finally, I just caved.   The proverbial "prodigal son" came home.   This was absolutely NOT what I wanted...but I found that when I put it into practice, I was happier...as God had promised all along.    Every time I've done things *MY* way, my life has gone to crap...every time I've done things God's way, my life has been wonderful.     That continues to be the case.    I still make mistakes...but I'm convinced that that pattern will continue.   God has been trustworthy, and he's been my best friend, and every piece of advice he's given me has always turned out for the best.   Every time I've ignored him and done things my way...it was nothing but a mess.     I trust him...not myself.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8634
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #174 on: May 09, 2012, 08:21:12 PM »
@jammindude;

A person's sexual orientation isn't a choice.

Also, and I say this to help you, brevity is your friend. When you reply to everything with a somewhat rambling wall of text, it's unclear sometimes exactly what you're trying to say. Keep it concise, and we can avoid misunderstandings.

I guess I do tend to get verbose sometimes.   I apologize.   But in one of my posts, I acknowledged that I agree with you.  It's not a choice.   But ACTIONS are ALWAYS a choice.    We all are born with some kind of defect.   No one is exempt.   But do we decide for ourselves whether it's OK to act on those things?  Or do we let God make the choice for us?   I have chosen the latter.   

I suppose I'm going to get jumped on for using "defect" again...but again, let me remind you that this is ALL INCLUSIVE.  There isn't a human being alive that ISN'T defective.   WE'RE ALL defective.   I may have more defects than any homosexual alive.   (I probably do)   But if I take an action that is against God's law...the penalty will be death.   Can I be forgiven?  Yes...provided I repent and reject my former course of conduct. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude