Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/10/21 07:10:36
Subject: Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending
Surely gay marriage implies a religious connotation?
If religion says something is wrong, why would gay people want to be associated with it? I've never understood that.
Presumably the debate will focus around the word 'Marriage' and whether it has sole religious meaning. I'm sure plenty heterosexual couples are married, yet don't go to church/practice any form of religion.
Medium of Death wrote: If religion says something is wrong, why would gay people want to be associated with it? I've never understood that.
Because Religion (though it would seem you mean Christianity, and perhaps Islam, more then just religion in general, as that is really to broad of a statement to apply to religion as a whole) aren't entirely about being against gay marriage, and some forms of it actually couldn't care less. Same for just being gay as well. Not all Christians are against homosexuals or think it is wrong.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2012/10/21 09:10:06
Subject: Re:Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending
Maybe 1000 years ago. Today marriage is a government institution with tax breaks, various protection rights, and what not. I think anyone arguing that marriage is the sole realm of the religious is living in the past by at least a century and a half.
generalgrog wrote: It's a behavior choice issue. Black people didn't choose to be black. Gay people made a choice.
No.
Besides the factual problems with the argument, it's a terrible argument anyway. We are certainly opposed to bigotry based on religion (for example, not allowing Christians to marry other Christians), and religion is a behavior choice issue. Members of a religion made a choice. So should it be legal to discriminate against people based on their religion? Do you support repealing every law against discrimination based on religious belief?
I have made the same arguments as GG on this forum, that being gay is a choice, whether that choice is conscious or not is another debate. And in your argument that we should repeal every law against discrimination, well, I think the opposite here. Because there is discrimination, we are in need of legislation to get rid of that.
The problem, I think now, is that too many people are keying in on the word marriage. Too many religious groups use this term, and feel that they have the proprietary rights to it. Of course, civil union sounds overly government, and we can't use that either, so what do we call marriage without offending the religious, and still make the LBGT community acceptable in a "normal" society?
2012/10/21 13:42:12
Subject: Re:Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending
generalgrog wrote: It's a behavior choice issue. Black people didn't choose to be black. Gay people made a choice.
No.
Besides the factual problems with the argument, it's a terrible argument anyway. We are certainly opposed to bigotry based on religion (for example, not allowing Christians to marry other Christians), and religion is a behavior choice issue. Members of a religion made a choice. So should it be legal to discriminate against people based on their religion? Do you support repealing every law against discrimination based on religious belief?
I have made the same arguments as GG on this forum, that being gay is a choice, whether that choice is conscious or not is another debate. And in your argument that we should repeal every law against discrimination, well, I think the opposite here. Because there is discrimination, we are in need of legislation to get rid of that.
The problem, I think now, is that too many people are keying in on the word marriage. Too many religious groups use this term, and feel that they have the proprietary rights to it. Of course, civil union sounds overly government, and we can't use that either, so what do we call marriage without offending the religious, and still make the LBGT community acceptable in a "normal" society?
You call it marriage.
Because if there is one thing that we should have learned is that separate and equal never works, and nobody should have the "other" kind of marriage because they were not good enough for the "real" kind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/21 13:42:49
2012/10/21 14:31:01
Subject: Re:Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending
If religion says something is wrong, why would gay people want to be associated with it? I've never understood that.
Presumably the debate will focus around the word 'Marriage' and whether it has sole religious meaning. I'm sure plenty heterosexual couples are married, yet don't go to church/practice any form of religion.
Not really, At a few of the catholic parishes around town, they have adopted the "We have worse things to worry about, go do your thing" its down to the parish sometimes.
5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
2012/10/21 15:13:57
Subject: Re:Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending
Maybe 1000 years ago. Today marriage is a government institution with tax breaks, various protection rights, and what not. I think anyone arguing that marriage is the sole realm of the religious is living in the past by at least a century and a half.
At the /very/ least.
Personally if the issue is "marriage" I think the solution is simple, get the government of the the "marriage" business, if it's a religious term, fine make it so. Everyone can go to the government for a "civil union" to receive the present legal protections of being in a "permanent" relationship and if they want a marriage on top of it they can bother the preacher of the denomination of their choice at their leisure.
I really fail to see the logic in deny someone else rights simply because you don't like something. I don't like a lot of things that other people do, I even think some of those things are immoral. You don't see me trying to stop them from living their lives how they want to though. They're not really bothering me or stopping me from living my life my way, and until they infringe on others they should be able to do whatever it is they do. Whoever they are. Christians argue that gay marriage is infringing on the practice of their beliefs
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
I wasn't surprised at all..I knew what he was doing... because he choose very specific buzzwords.
His whole speech, as is the argument in general, is a false analogy, in that the gay marriage issue is a civil rights issue.
It's a behavior choice issue. Black people didn't choose to be black. Gay people made a choice.
GG
The reason I have so much distaste for people like GG is very simple... They are basically trying to claim that all straight men would be just as happy sucking blokes off as we are sleeping with a woman.
Now, I've obviously not got any issue with gay people at all, but I would strongly deny being homosexual if anyone asked me as I happily cohabit with my missus. But I don't "prefer" to kiss women than men. I don't "pick" womens vaginas over big hairy arses... its not a close run thing that I have to think about.
Clearly you have no choice in the matter at all, I don't choose to like staring at womens tits, something in my brain demands it of me... no doubt something to do with our lowly origins.
Thus, I can only presume that GG and all those like him are repressed homosexuals, and I feel genuinely sorry for them that they think they have to hide their feelings for other men. America is a tolerant society, and as such he should be free to wear assless chaps and ride around on the back a motorcycle driven by a burly moustachioed man in a string vest.
Matty, once again you prove yourself to be awesome. Congrats man.
GG, sometimes I think you post the anti-gay words that you do only to rally everyone against you. How close to the truth am I? You can't honestly believe being gay is a choice-it's part of some peoples' biological makeup. The only 'gay' act that is a choice is practiced by 18-21 year old girls who move away from home for 4 years and experiment with new friends at Greek parties. And every man in his right mind should support those gay acts with thunderous applause.
Agreed, nice argument, there, matty.
timetowaste, you'd be surprised what absurd stuff do "honestly believe". My wife's extended family and she were at an aquarium, and they watched a lungfish crawl out of the water and sit there on land, and proceded to marvel about God and creationism.
edit: the extended family, not my wife. She'd probably be pretty annoyed if that wasn't clear.
Please don't try and bypass the swear filter, it's there for good reason.
Reds8n
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/22 07:45:46
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I have made the same arguments as GG on this forum, that being gay is a choice, whether that choice is conscious or not is another debate. And in your argument that we should repeal every law against discrimination, well, I think the opposite here. Because there is discrimination, we are in need of legislation to get rid of that.
Of course it's the opposite, and we need laws against discrimination even when the things being discriminated are arguably a choice.
However, the point was about consistency. If you argue that it's wrong to provide protection against discrimination based on homosexuality because it's a choice it's completely inconsistent to also support laws that prevent discrimination based on religion, since religion is definitely a choice. If you oppose the former but support the latter then it's pretty clear that it's not really about whether or not it's a choice, it's about your personal dislike of one but not the other.
The problem, I think now, is that too many people are keying in on the word marriage. Too many religious groups use this term, and feel that they have the proprietary rights to it. Of course, civil union sounds overly government, and we can't use that either, so what do we call marriage without offending the religious, and still make the LBGT community acceptable in a "normal" society?
Why should "not offending some religious people" be a priority at all?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2012/10/21 20:56:40
Subject: Re:Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending
Bromsy wrote: ...provided we can just strike the work religious from that sentence, I agree.
We could and it would still be true. However, the claim I'm disputing was that religious people "own" marriage and therefore we can't change it and offend them, so its presence in the sentence is very important.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2012/10/21 22:05:27
Subject: Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending
Well, I said what I did about not offending people because of the apparent, over the top politically correct world we live in. Today's pansy world means we have to tip toe around nearly all the issues for fear of "offending" someone.
I mean, me personally, I couldn't care less if two gay people are "married" or are in a "civil union". My wife and I are married according to pretty much anyone we know. I know that "civil union" is a BS term that people sometimes use to strip away the apparent religious connotations associated with the word marriage.
It's odd, how if you look back at history, prior to the middle of the Middle Ages, all that was required to be married was two sets of parents to arrange for boy and girl to get married, then throw a party. Enter the Church, who now says that you cannot be married unless it is ordained by them, so now they control this (for a nominal tax, or donation if you want). It's only the natural progression that the government begins to issue "licenses" to people wishing to get married. Of course, in the Gov'ts case, they do this to track whether a person is illegally having multiple spouses, is eligible in the first place, and consensus information.
If the government did make it legal for gays to get married, I would be quite interested in the consensus data in the following few years, to see just how many people the new law affected.
2012/10/21 22:37:40
Subject: Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending
"census". Gay marriage is allowed in some states. It's not a big deal.
Religion has been involved with marriage for a long time prior to Christianity.
But of course you may well be right that marriage (committed, monogamous mating) predates religion.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/21 22:38:31
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
whembly wrote:The "idea" of Marriage has it's roots in multiple ancient society that were not "religious" in nature...
In Ancient Rome, "Marriage" was popularize not because "of the family model"... but, because of tax reasons.
AsI read this, I imagine you are holding your hands up in the air and repeatedly making an air-quote motion, and it is filling me with both anger and sadness.
Strictly speaking, I believe when people do that, they're "quoting in context" with the context being "someone saying these things with a particular meaning or value I find ironic". Having that been said, That still doesn't mean that they're not just cheaply impersonating their obnoxious baby-boomer parents from whom they learned the behaviour from.
Now, after both my lose misuse of the word "ironic" and my liberal use of quotation marks (in much an ironic fashion), how high would you rate your pain? 8? 9? (and the deliberate misspelling of 'loose', mind you)
Also, you'll note that I used Arabic numerals instead of spelling the word for values less than ten.
Also: "Literally". Substitute it where it does the most damage.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Huh. Blame Steve Martin. Apparently.
generalgrog wrote: If you consider mattyrms response as discourse you and I have different ideas of discourse. He consistently insults me with seeming impunity. See his post above for an example. I don't and never had an issue with real discourse.
You clearly do. All you talk about is banning, because you are desperate for people who disagree with you to shut up. Also, I didn't insult you, and thats why I am not banned. Its all right there in black and white for everyone to read.
Oh hang on...... Did you read what I wrote about inferring that people might be homosexual themselves if they constantly crow on about sexuality being a choice was as "insult"
I get it now!
Well thanks for proving me right, because no sensible adult other than someone who is bigoted thinks being called "gay" is a heinous insult. By their deeds shall ye condemn them. My "insults" are merely pointing out that I don't for a second believe their is a conscious choice because I didn't choose to like women, I just do.
Some of your words on the other hand, which I have read many times these last two years, are genuinely appalling, and offensive to a great many people, you have referred to gay people as "perverts" on numerous occasions, and I don't cry about banning you, I just retort that what you say is at odds with facts, logic, and pretty much the vast majority of people who are educated on the topic. You believe the same as many other creationist Christians do, not because its a well thought out and rational retort you figured out for yourself, you are simply parroting what many of your ilk do. This also is a fact.
Proof if needed, is obvious in the rest of your posts, because when something isn't at odds with your (or possibly your pastors) own narrow interpretation of the scriptures, you are just like everyone else, talk sports or favourite beer or favourite holiday spot and you are as pleasant and congenial as the next man!
Lets leave the topic open to debate and leave the great dakka reading public to decide just who is being insulting here, I have to point out though.. I'd be fething amazed if any fair minded reader found my comments more "insulting" than yours.
Exalt.
Veriamp wrote:I have emerged from my lurking to say one thing. When Mat taught the Necrons to feel, he taught me to love.
whembly wrote:The "idea" of Marriage has it's roots in multiple ancient society that were not "religious" in nature...
In Ancient Rome, "Marriage" was popularize not because "of the family model"... but, because of tax reasons.
AsI read this, I imagine you are holding your hands up in the air and repeatedly making an air-quote motion, and it is filling me with both anger and sadness.
It's a behavior choice issue. Black people didn't choose to be black. Gay people made a choice.
What is your evidence for this claim?
EDIT:
Also if you could please just clear something up for me:
Could you please describe to me the first time you got sexually aroused by a woman? If you could go over briefly what made you come to the conclusion "Why yes, I think I'm going to have an erection in response to this" that would helpful. Just go over some of the pros and cons you weighed to come to that decision, or if you just kind of made it in the spur of the moment what was the biggest deciding factor in choosing to get that erection?
Are you tits or an ass man? How did you choose? I mean there must be a lot of convincing arguments one way or another.
Similarly I have to assume you've seen some prime examples of manhood in your lifetime. When did you first look at a robust healthy young chap in the locker room and go "You know what. I could be getting diamond-hard boner right now, but I think I'd better not". How did you choose to not be attracted to his rippling abs? From what I understand men can be hard to have relationships sometimes, did that factor at all?
The more detail you can go into on your decision making processes in these matter the better. I look forward to your full response.
Thanks.
EDIT(AGAIN):
Do you ever take advantage of the fact that people choose their sexuality? For example in school would you choose not to be attracted to girls for a time, so you could focus more on your studies? I imagine you must choose to not be attracted to women at least once in a while, particularly when your SO isn't really in the mood to have sex. Otherwise it would just be so frustrating to sit there, still attracted to her and horny but know you're not getting any.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2012/10/22 18:14:48
2012/10/22 18:03:09
Subject: Re:Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/10/22 20:08:25
Subject: Re:Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending
It's a behavior choice issue. Black people didn't choose to be black. Gay people made a choice.
What is your evidence for this claim?
EDIT:
Also if you could please just clear something up for me:
Could you please describe to me the first time you got sexually aroused by a woman? If you could go over briefly what made you come to the conclusion "Why yes, I think I'm going to have an erection in response to this" that would helpful. Just go over some of the pros and cons you weighed to come to that decision, or if you just kind of made it in the spur of the moment what was the biggest deciding factor in choosing to get that erection?
Are you tits or an ass man? How did you choose? I mean there must be a lot of convincing arguments one way or another.
Similarly I have to assume you've seen some prime examples of manhood in your lifetime. When did you first look at a robust healthy young chap in the locker room and go "You know what. I could be getting diamond-hard boner right now, but I think I'd better not". How did you choose to not be attracted to his rippling abs? From what I understand men can be hard to have relationships sometimes, did that factor at all?
The more detail you can go into on your decision making processes in these matter the better. I look forward to your full response.
Thanks.
EDIT(AGAIN):
Do you ever take advantage of the fact that people choose their sexuality? For example in school would you choose not to be attracted to girls for a time, so you could focus more on your studies? I imagine you must choose to not be attracted to women at least once in a while, particularly when your SO isn't really in the mood to have sex. Otherwise it would just be so frustrating to sit there, still attracted to her and horny but know you're not getting any.
This.
Too bad whenever this point gets brought up it is ignored by who it is directed at only to have the original claim repeated another time, then wash rinse repeat. It is as if they do not want to actually weigh their claim against another but to preach their brand. It is even worse when a person is claiming that there is no discourse being taken by the opposing side when they regularly avoid valid points such as the above. It is almost as if some people are not looking for discourse but to preach their brand again.
Ikasarete Iru
Graffiti from Pompeii: VIII.2 (in the basilica); 1882: The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
Xenophanes: "If horses had Gods, they would look like horses!"
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
