TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- The NO on Prop 8 thread....
Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »

quote:

Originally posted by skizzell Pretty weak argument there. How come your so-called 'natural' heterosexual couples sometimes experience difficulty getting pregnant? Is that God's way of punishing them for something else? Also, how in the world do you know how humans were 'created'? Show me scientific proof suggesting that homosexuality has not always existed in our most evolved form. Uh oh, there I go again with the 'e' word.

I don't have all your answers, but last time i check. even scientists were baffled at seeing how life was created.. someone once said that as they got closer to discovering more about life, they could only assume it looked as if someone designed life. hence intelligent design.

you guys have to read a book called, " Darwin's Little black box" or something like that, came out like 10 years ago. Talks about the E word..

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Reese That's what I meant. Edit. Thanks

Yeah I figured as much. I just had to make sure there was no confusion in the thread.

quote:

Originally posted by system-7 I don't have all your answers, but last time i check. even scientists were baffled at seeing how life was created.. someone once said that as they got closer to discovering more about life, they could only assume it looked as if someone designed life. hence intelligent design. you guys have to read a book called, " Darwin's Little black box" or something like that, came out like 10 years ago. Talks about the E word..

it sounds like you aren't sure of anything you say, hear or allegedly know. why even assert an opinion you can't articulate with clarity?

All this talk makes me wanna shave some ass!

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH it sounds like you aren't sure of anything you say, hear or allegedly know. why even assert an opinion you can't articulate with clarity?

whatever dude, I don't claim to know everything. I'm just expressing my opinion and justifying why I don't agree with this.. you apparently seem to want to argue just for the sake of..

too many things can't just a be coincedence in this life that serve as proof that we didn't just happen by chance...

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel Jesus would tell everyone to get their head out of the sand and allow them to choose as they wish. He would also tell the religious people in general, that they are fucking sinners because they aren't being "christ-like" by passing judgment, pushing their beliefs on others, etc.

So God speaks to Abraham and says, "Yo, Abe! I'm going burn this freakin place to the ground" (speaking of Sodom) and Abe says, "Woo there Big Guy! There's righteous people there too. Shit! My nephew Lot grazes his goats there."

So God sends a couple glowing angels down to warn Lot of the impending fate of his beloved land and that night every man in the city, young and old, surrounded Lot's house and yelled in, "Yo Lot! We seen a couple fresh-faced twinks at your place. Send them out so we can lay some pipe to em."

Lot, in return, walks out his front door and says, "Forget it! You can do my two daughters instead. They're virgins - never been touched!" The men replied, "Daughters! We don't want your stinkin daughters! We want some glowing man-ass!" and broke for Lot's door.

Just at this point, the two angels reached their hands out, pulled Lot back inside, struck the leather-clad, sandle-wearing homos blind so they couldn't find the door, and told Lot, "Get your shit, head for the hills, and don't look back."

Lot gathered his family and escaped just as the Lord lay fire to the city but of Lot's dumb ass wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. (Genesis 19:1-26)


"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13)

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26-27)


So yeah, I guess if you are a Christian, it is your duty to oppose same-sex marriage within your society. This is not the government trying to pass a law nor would I consider them right-wing religious facists (although the lines have been significantly blurred over the past 8 years). I would merely say that if you consider yourself a believer in the Bible, you must vote yes on Prop 8 and you must not look upon same-sex relationships with compassion and understanding as surely you will suffer the same fate as Lot's wife.

On the other hand, with their mother out of the way, those two crazy virgin daughters of Lot got his old ass drunk and became impregnated by him while they were holed up in that cave on the outskirts of the city. (Genesis 19:30-38

And how many of these "Good Christians" are divorced or in their second marriages? There is no such thing as divorce or a second marriage. Biblical law would dictate that this is adultery. So why isn't it therefore a Christian duty to outlaw divorce in this country - except in cases of fornication of course? (Matthew 19:1-12)


It's all too confusing! Shave Ass and Vote No on Prop 8

thats a very good point. But isn't divorce a man idea?, God didn't intent for divorce, nor did he create it.. Moses allowed it but only cause man bitched about it alot.. Jesus was asked the same question, I guess 2000 + years later the same ?'s arise.

quote:

Originally posted by system-7 whatever dude, I don't claim to know everything. I'm just expressing my opinion and justifying why I don't agree with this.. you apparently seem to want to argue just for the sake of.. too many things can't just a be coincedence in this life that serve as proof that we didn't just happen by chance...

my point is if you're going to argue your opinion about something, at least have a clue what the fuck you're talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH my point is if you're going to argue your opinion about something, at least have a clue what the fuck you're talking about.

you really know you're way with people don't you...

i've made my point, apparently some people don't like it when you bring in Biblical history, it makes their buttcheeks crunch up.

sit there and talk snap, internet gangsters.. I like to call them

quote:

Originally posted by system-7 Biblical history

quote:

Originally posted by system-7 i've made my point, apparently some people don't like it when you bring in Biblical history, it makes their buttcheeks crunch up. sit there and talk snap, internet gangsters.. I like to call them

No I just can't "question" biblical verses in authenticity. My point still stands, that the idiocy of the religious right are the ones that want to ban this. Don't force me to follow your rules just because you are the current majority.

they wont give up!!!

people knocked on my door at noon saying "here's the sign you ordered"(vote yes on prop 8). I'm like "I didnt order a sign" "well, I have it here(looking at his paper) you asked for 1" "ummm, no. I was never asked and I dont want it"

wtf

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel No I just can't "question" biblical verses in authenticity. My point still stands, that the idiocy of the religious right are the ones that want to ban this. Don't force me to follow your rules just because you are the current majority.

Amen.

quote:

Originally posted by skizzell Probably the same reason why people are so passionate about calling other groups of people derogatory names.

I love it! It is amazing how negative straight men think of gay men!

Anyways, I want to repost my original post regarding RDP's and marriage, since not a single post I have read addresses this issue. Moreover, I have seen one thing come true: both sides like pissing off the other. It seems like the thread has dissolved into a namecalling, "lets talk crap about religion" (yeah, just wait until YOU are on YOUR deathbed and lets hear your smack talk then!) So, I have this query and I challenge anyone to explain me this situation with a clear sense of the issues (please save the obstinate comments)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and play the devil's advocate.
First things first, I don't care about this Prop and will not be voting on it either way. Yeah, society has treated the LGBT culture unfairly and for too long, but I will argue that Prop 8 is not a 14th Amendment issue. Also, a good friend of mine who is in his forties and has been gay all his life, will also not be voting on the Prop 8. He made a good point to me on this issue, one that I would like to highlight with a quote from another TA:

"I straight ask em to come in and take off their clothes, the reaction is precious...You should see what I do to right wing christian republican loons, well I never get to it cuz they quickly notice am not white and ran for the hills."

I thought that RDP unions are treated the same as a marraige, in regard to financial records, insurance beneficiaries, etc. All the rights afforded to a married couple are afforded to a RDP couple, right? If not, please explicate the exact differences and what would change if Prop 8 was passed.

He stated that there is no need for marriage to be redefined nor altered, for this prop is just a way "The Family" is sticking it to "The Man". As the poster put it, there is a sense of pleasure that I have noticed that permeates the LGBT culture when the right wing gets mad at any changes (which are sometimes needed and at times very beneficial to everyone) to the status quo. So what is the root of the message that a NO on Prop 8 is sending to everyone? If RDPs are legally recognized as a bonafide union, guaranteeing both partners all the rights afforded to a married couple, then why change the definition? It this only a matter of linguistics?

quote:

Originally posted by teknotexan then why change the definition? It this only a matter of linguistics?

If this was the case, McDonalds would not have lost in a "hot coffee" lawsuit. Don't pose stupid questions like this. You should know that people will try to skirt the law in any way possible.

Also, the thing about RDPs granting the same exact as marriage is not true in every state, although it is the same in California as of 2005.

Ben quit it this bullshit and get your ass to circus

quote:

Originally posted by xenpro Ben quit it this bullshit and get your ass to circus

lol too late. I went out last night and am dead still.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel lol too late. I went out last night and am dead still.

ok carry on

quote:

Originally posted by xenpro ok carry on

The sad thing, is this is true for the most part.

it could be worst

quote:

Originally posted by xenpro it could be worst

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by teknotexan If RDPs are legally recognized as a bonafide union, guaranteeing both partners all the rights afforded to a married couple, then why change the definition? It this only a matter of linguistics?

I really don't agree that Domestic Partnerships guarantee the same rights as Marriage, however. For one thing, if an individual insures their same-sex partner under a "family" policy at work, the benefit is added to the primary insured's gross taxable income. If the same couple were married, this is not the case.

At least that's the way it was at my old company...they passed it off as Federal IRS regulations, and there was no way around it. So, considering this issue alone, Domestic Partners would take home less in their paychecks since they can't be married. I'm sure there are other differences as well, it's all in the fine print...

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel If this was the case, McDonalds would not have lost in a "hot coffee" lawsuit. Don't pose stupid questions like this. You should know that people will try to skirt the law in any way possible. Also, the thing about RDPs granting the same exact as marriage is not true in every state, although it is the same in California as of 2005.

The driver was held liable for 20% of her injuries in the case, and the cup was not labeled on it's lid nor was it properly insulated for the tempertures that the coffee maker would dispense coffee at. I haven't read anything quality you've added to this discussion except blanket statements and generalities that are offensive to any person of faith.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel You can't teach a dumb dog new tricks. Religious people are the dumb dogs for the most part. They think they are all right, and that because their god said so, that everyone should be forced to believe as them.

This has nothing to do with a 14th Amendment issues, ok? If you can't simply discuss an issue, piss off. Anyways...

Skirt the law indeed! You proved my point precisely! The Prop. 8 is only in California, and as you stated RDP's are regarded the same as marriages since 2005! Love and commitment aside, along with "teaching kids what is right", I'm looking at it from a legal vantage point. If from 2005 on in California RDP's are legally treated the same as marriages, and this is a CA Proposition, then please tell me how anyone can deliver a non-offensive, non-judgemental, non-condescending and convincing argument that this is absolutely necessary to ensure the rights of gay couples are guaranteed?! SO far there's nothing but religion bashing and name calling on this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by teknotexan SO far there's nothing but religion bashing and name calling on this thread.

Well you're from Texas so you're stupid and probably smelly.

Smelly.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.