Ex shows us all clearly that you need to learn the basic principle that is illustrated in I Corinthians 14:9 :
quote: So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
There ya go, orthodox Bible verse even.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Excathedra: I'm a little tired of your snits. It's a complex issue that you obviously don't agree with me on, but if all you can bring to the table is ad hominem wisecracks, then perhaps you should take Cynic's advice after all.
"Attempting to change a long-established institution is very much seeking special privilege"
I bet there were a lot of plantation owners who thought the abolition movement was an attempt at changing a long-established institution. Do you think the slaves were seeking special privledge when they wanted freedom?
" Just as the priest-wannabe must choose to repudiate his sexual preferences in order to become a priest"
Naw, the priest-wannabe just has to LOOK like he is repudiating his sexual preference. Don't you read the papers?
"It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense.
Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women.
Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents."
and homosexuality is illegal because???????? why?????????
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Any progress on finding 23 additional victims of John Calvin?
Or, are you still cruising with the intellectual vitality of a lazy fabricator?
Which is it, Punk?
Hee hee, if this is the best you can come back with, bringing up unsettled arguments that you had with me as a means of 'proving' your case, then you must be getting desperate.
Calvin was responsible for more than just Servetus' death. And the evidence documenting this isn't a result of some 'intellectual vitality of a lazy fabricator'. Plus I imagine that if it weren't so well known that Calvin was responsible for Servetus' death, you'd deny that too, and hope that nobody would be the wiser. Perhaps you aren't as objective about the founder of your denomination as you'd like for us to think, hmmm?
Thank you for showing me further why Calvinism (your brand anyway) is best avoided.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Excathedra: I'm a little tired of your snits. It's a complex issue that you obviously don't agree with me on, but if all you can bring to the table is ad hominem wisecracks, then perhaps you should take Cynic's advice after all.
Zix,
Insteresting that Cynic tells Ex to '.... off', and acts in his usually condescending and derisive manner to her as well, and yet ex's 'snits' seem to stand out to you more? Here she is trying to get him to speak in a form English that more people than just William Buckley can understand, and he just blows her off.
Let someone try that .... on you, and then let's see what you think.
And frankly, I think that your attempts to disguise your opposition to homosexuality behind 'legal reasoning', 'special rights', 'comparative analysis', etc. wears a little thin. Especially with your line of "If there were no homosexuals, would the world miss them" 'logic' to help bolster your case. That is so transparent, its not even funny.
Tell us truly: why does homosexualtiy really get to you? Apart from the biblical injunction, that is?
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
OMG...this is why I didn't jump into this fracas before now...
Let's see if I can answer from memory and with some sense of sanity...
*******
Zix,
Polygamy? Go for it. Who really cares?
*******
Rocky,
Actually, I think Trefor brought up the point at the very beginning. I didn't know that when I posted, but found it on one of his earliest posts.
I was kinda half joking and half serious...because "happiness" is a relative term...but "the pursuit of happiness" can be specified.
In this society the bonds of marriage are legal, not emotional or religious. Marriage is a legal contract that gives certain rights to each party...and certain responsibilities. (If anyone wants to argue with that, well, then they must not have ever been through a divorce.)
IMO, to deny any class of consenting adults the ability to enter into such a contract is the same as denying them the ability to enter into contracts such as mortgages, car loans, business partnerships, etc.
The marriage contract allows people the opportunity to build a life together much in the same way an LLP or other such business partnerships allow people to build a company together.
Would anyone deny two people to build a business together just because they are gay? Would anyone deny several people to build a business together? Gawd forbid!
*********
Now I think I'm going to try and go back to reading only...this thread is dangerous!
?????????????
[This message was edited by CoolWaters on February 07, 2004 at 0:18.]
Zixar, your examples of the RC church and the Armed Services are clear enough, but those are closed communities. Marriage is an institution that crosses all boundaries, cultures, religions, and for that matter, sexual orientations. I don't see how any one culture, or age, can claim the only true definition.
Marriage is defined, like it or not, by many differing doctrines, and the only common denominator is voluntary commitment. We call it a vow, but it's a contractual commitment. Everything else marriage is depends upon what we believe.
Suppose you attend the First Church of the Heterosexual Truth and Premarital Abstinance. Your fellow church members needn't consider a homosexual union legitimate, on spiritual grounds. On legal grounds, it only matters in limited circumstances, and they have no effect on your own definition of marriage.
And the same goes for "Jim and Bob." My only concern is fairness. For instance, it's obvious to me that when they have the married-couples' three-legged race at the county fair, the gays will have a leg up, so to speak. In that case, the rules may need to be amended. Other than that I don't see a major problem.
As usual, Garth cites no sources to support his accusations.
As usual, Cynic needs links to every historical source every time a commonly known historical fact is made, particularly when regarding Calvin.
And he does so in such a straw man like fashion.
(After Goggling the internet for the supposedly non-existant references) OK, Cynic, here are some references that show that Calvin wasn't such the non-persecuting saint you wish to make him:
3) http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:5pFu4...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 - Ohh look! Others who were actually killed, or at least whom Calvin went after with the intent of killing. How many of those whom I have failed to prove is it whittled down to now?
:D--> Your turn, Mr. Strawman.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Garth, does Cynic pay you to make him look good, or is it just a reflexive thing you do?
Is this the best you can come back with? Or is this one of those 'gotta defend a fellow Republican no matter what' frat brother sort of thing?
I'm sorry, but I didn't know that I made Cynic 'look good' because I called him on his condescending arrogance, particularly towards Excathedra in this case. And all he could come back with is to bring up an unsettled argument to deflect the criticism.
Oh I know, its because I'm such the 'liberal', isn't it? Therefore that 'neccesitates' my words not meaning a thing, is that it? (As tho' that argument really carries any weight -- which it does not)
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
OK...I said I would try to be read only...but I can't stop myself...sigh...
Anyway, in this country the discussion of "legalizing" anything (or not) should not include religious beliefs and/or doctrines...unless, of course, the purpose is to promote one's own beliefs/doctrines...imo.
?????????????
[This message was edited by CoolWaters on February 07, 2004 at 1:00.]
You possibly are going to face my bringing up your blood-libels every time you get in my face.
You finally have provided some links, however, which, despite their possible imprecision, is quite an accomplishment for such a lazy little a$$ hole as you.
"Attempting to change a long-established institution is very much seeking special privilege"
I bet there were a lot of plantation owners who thought the abolition movement was an attempt at changing a long-established institution. Do you think the slaves were seeking special privledge when they wanted freedom?
It's not quite the same thing, because at the time, there was nothing illegal about slavery, and the slaves themselves were chattel property. They could not exercise freedom by making a personal choice.
" Just as the priest-wannabe must choose to repudiate his sexual preferences in order to become a priest"
Naw, the priest-wannabe just has to LOOK like he is repudiating his sexual preference. Don't you read the papers?
True, just as many marriages are on paper only. Still, the noncelibate priest is still a priest until removed under church law, and married people are married until legally divorced.
"It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense.
Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women.
Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents."
and homosexuality is illegal because???????? why?????????
It isn't. Only homosexual marriage is, since the sodomy laws were overturned on dubious reasoning by one Supreme Court after they had been upheld by another.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Cynic
You don't seem to be able to stand seeing Trefor being challenged on his arguments.
I'm not stopping.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Then challenge them. And please base it beyond your typical and thinly-veiled loyalty to your orthodoxy. It does get old after a while.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
cynic, first off, are you talking to me or garth about tref ?
and if you want people to get a liking to your way of thinking, you should try to talk
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
Any progress on finding 23 additional victims of John Calvin?
Or, are you still cruising with the intellectual vitality of a lazy fabricator?
Which is it, Punk?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic,
Ex shows us all clearly that you need to learn the basic principle that is illustrated in I Corinthians 14:9 :
There ya go, orthodox Bible verse even.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Exie, I am so very very proud to know you at this moment.
:)-->
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Dan: What the hell are you talking about?
Excathedra: I'm a little tired of your snits. It's a complex issue that you obviously don't agree with me on, but if all you can bring to the table is ad hominem wisecracks, then perhaps you should take Cynic's advice after all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sorry Zix, but I just couldn't resist.
"Attempting to change a long-established institution is very much seeking special privilege"
I bet there were a lot of plantation owners who thought the abolition movement was an attempt at changing a long-established institution. Do you think the slaves were seeking special privledge when they wanted freedom?
" Just as the priest-wannabe must choose to repudiate his sexual preferences in order to become a priest"
Naw, the priest-wannabe just has to LOOK like he is repudiating his sexual preference. Don't you read the papers?
"It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense.
Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women.
Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents."
and homosexuality is illegal because???????? why?????????
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Hee hee, if this is the best you can come back with, bringing up unsettled arguments that you had with me as a means of 'proving' your case, then you must be getting desperate.
Calvin was responsible for more than just Servetus' death. And the evidence documenting this isn't a result of some 'intellectual vitality of a lazy fabricator'. Plus I imagine that if it weren't so well known that Calvin was responsible for Servetus' death, you'd deny that too, and hope that nobody would be the wiser. Perhaps you aren't as objective about the founder of your denomination as you'd like for us to think, hmmm?
Thank you for showing me further why Calvinism (your brand anyway) is best avoided.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
As usual, Garth cites no sources to support his accusations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Zix,
Insteresting that Cynic tells Ex to '.... off', and acts in his usually condescending and derisive manner to her as well, and yet ex's 'snits' seem to stand out to you more? Here she is trying to get him to speak in a form English that more people than just William Buckley can understand, and he just blows her off.
Let someone try that .... on you, and then let's see what you think.
And frankly, I think that your attempts to disguise your opposition to homosexuality behind 'legal reasoning', 'special rights', 'comparative analysis', etc. wears a little thin. Especially with your line of "If there were no homosexuals, would the world miss them" 'logic' to help bolster your case. That is so transparent, its not even funny.
Tell us truly: why does homosexualtiy really get to you? Apart from the biblical injunction, that is?
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
OMG...this is why I didn't jump into this fracas before now...
Let's see if I can answer from memory and with some sense of sanity...
*******
Zix,
Polygamy? Go for it. Who really cares?
*******
Rocky,
Actually, I think Trefor brought up the point at the very beginning. I didn't know that when I posted, but found it on one of his earliest posts.
I was kinda half joking and half serious...because "happiness" is a relative term...but "the pursuit of happiness" can be specified.
In this society the bonds of marriage are legal, not emotional or religious. Marriage is a legal contract that gives certain rights to each party...and certain responsibilities. (If anyone wants to argue with that, well, then they must not have ever been through a divorce.)
IMO, to deny any class of consenting adults the ability to enter into such a contract is the same as denying them the ability to enter into contracts such as mortgages, car loans, business partnerships, etc.
The marriage contract allows people the opportunity to build a life together much in the same way an LLP or other such business partnerships allow people to build a company together.
Would anyone deny two people to build a business together just because they are gay? Would anyone deny several people to build a business together? Gawd forbid!
*********
Now I think I'm going to try and go back to reading only...this thread is dangerous!
?????????????
[This message was edited by CoolWaters on February 07, 2004 at 0:18.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
QamiQazi
Zixar, your examples of the RC church and the Armed Services are clear enough, but those are closed communities. Marriage is an institution that crosses all boundaries, cultures, religions, and for that matter, sexual orientations. I don't see how any one culture, or age, can claim the only true definition.
Marriage is defined, like it or not, by many differing doctrines, and the only common denominator is voluntary commitment. We call it a vow, but it's a contractual commitment. Everything else marriage is depends upon what we believe.
Suppose you attend the First Church of the Heterosexual Truth and Premarital Abstinance. Your fellow church members needn't consider a homosexual union legitimate, on spiritual grounds. On legal grounds, it only matters in limited circumstances, and they have no effect on your own definition of marriage.
And the same goes for "Jim and Bob." My only concern is fairness. For instance, it's obvious to me that when they have the married-couples' three-legged race at the county fair, the gays will have a leg up, so to speak. In that case, the rules may need to be amended. Other than that I don't see a major problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Well, this thread has certainly degraded into schoolyard bullying... cynically speaking...
But, with a couple of the usual suspects, Excie, i repeat one of your earlier encouragements: "why waste your breath?
One has to learn that the world does not stop if a Cynic or a Zixar tells one to .... off.
Please, someone pass them the prozac.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QamiQazi
Garth, does Cynic pay you to make him look good, or is it just a reflexive thing you do?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Rocky,
I made a big mistake in my post to you. Please forgive me. I wasn't doing anything on purpose...just not thinking at all. I'm very sorry!
?????????????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
As usual, Cynic needs links to every historical source every time a commonly known historical fact is made, particularly when regarding Calvin.
And he does so in such a straw man like fashion.
(After Goggling the internet for the supposedly non-existant references) OK, Cynic, here are some references that show that Calvin wasn't such the non-persecuting saint you wish to make him:
1) http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM - Showing the mindset of the one whom you can't seem to believe that he'd do such things.
2) http://online.sksm.edu/ouh/chapter/13_XIII.html - And what if Gribaldo hadn't backed down like he did, wouldn't he too have been executed for heresy?
3) http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:5pFu4...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 - Ohh look! Others who were actually killed, or at least whom Calvin went after with the intent of killing. How many of those whom I have failed to prove is it whittled down to now?
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Rocky,
I like Excathedra, but I decided to respond to her disruptive questioning and railing with a guttural get-off-my-case.
I doubt that you would agree with the result of our comparative psychological soundness being evaluated by a competent professional.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
That's yours and mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Is this the best you can come back with? Or is this one of those 'gotta defend a fellow Republican no matter what' frat brother sort of thing?
I'm sorry, but I didn't know that I made Cynic 'look good' because I called him on his condescending arrogance, particularly towards Excathedra in this case. And all he could come back with is to bring up an unsettled argument to deflect the criticism.
Oh I know, its because I'm such the 'liberal', isn't it? Therefore that 'neccesitates' my words not meaning a thing, is that it? (As tho' that argument really carries any weight -- which it does not)
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QamiQazi
Yes Garth, something like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
OK...I said I would try to be read only...but I can't stop myself...sigh...
Anyway, in this country the discussion of "legalizing" anything (or not) should not include religious beliefs and/or doctrines...unless, of course, the purpose is to promote one's own beliefs/doctrines...imo.
?????????????
[This message was edited by CoolWaters on February 07, 2004 at 1:00.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
You possibly are going to face my bringing up your blood-libels every time you get in my face.
You finally have provided some links, however, which, despite their possible imprecision, is quite an accomplishment for such a lazy little a$$ hole as you.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.