Which totally throws asunder my assertion that these documents were written in a different era w/ in a different language, translations of which have been filtered through even more languages b4 getting to where we are today. I have read the Bible. And i'm smart enough not to take it literally b/c I can recognize when it's woefully inadequate in its application to modern life. I REPEAT: YOU ABSOLUTELY CANNOT SAY WHAT GOD WANTS MODERN MAN TO DO RE PRE-MARITAL SEX. You cannot. Please do not cite the word "fornicate" as "proof" of this. As we all know, terms relating to sex change drastically from decade to decade, and even moreso from millenium to millenium. Also, if you come at me w/ direct references to homosexuality, please be prepared to do the following: 1. cite the word in original hebrew or greek 2. explain ALL shifts in the usage of the word from the time of Moses on to Christ and then through the middle ages of Europe amongst monks and priests, who were the only ones maintaining arcane languages 3. take into account the development of the concept and practice of homosexuality in antiquity all the way through the late Renaissance (hint: read Foucault) 4. take into account when "homosexuality" was made illegal (i'll give you a hint: 19th century) 5. take all this into account and come up w/ a clear, concise, educated and comprehensive analysis of the issue at hand and report back to us.
This is also happening in many African nations. Do you care anything about them? Or only "white" nations? I'm sorry. Still, all i'm hearing from you is ignorance and bigotry. And yes, I am an anglo-christian woman, so I do know where you're coming from.
Yeah, but we're still allowed to murder millions of babies while you're forced to support with tax money the colored crack whore who's getting them. Socreboard, bitch!
You know, we should keep in mind that the phrase"Till death do us part" was written when life expectancy was, like, 30. As has been pointed out, pre-marital sex wasn't much of a possibility back when pre-marital was synonymous with pre-pubescent. Monogamy was a way to prevent VD, imbreeding and men killing each other over the one hot chick in the cave. They wanted man-woman couples to make babies because infant morality rate was so high and procreation was crucial for species preservation. Pretty much all "morals" come from practical considerations - some just happen to be more timeless and universal than others. The no-no on homosexuality is neither timeless nor universal; in an age when not every couple needs to procreate and orphaned children are waiting to be adopted, it's silly to oppose same-sex unions because they don't make babies when they do the nasty.
You think 2-1 is a representation of a whole country? That kind of narrow view of the world is one of the major problems we face. You do realize what 2-1 is, right? For EVERY two people, one is for it. Even if a MILLION people think it should be defined that way, 500,000 think it shouldn't. By the way... you do realize that the whole country voted by what is really a 1-1 margin that Bush shouldn't be president, right?
Right. Laws against murder, and for the FICA tax, they're imposing moral values. But there's a difference between moral values that affect everyone (at least potentially) and moral values that don't. Everyone except Tony Soprano wants the law against murder, because everyone is a potential murder victim. That's different from laws making pot illegal, or heroin illegal, or criminalizing anal or oral sex.
So because I made reference to the country with which I am most familiar, I am all of the sudden racist? I was supposed to make reference to every single country and place that has a problem? I used Russia as an example because I lived there and I know about it. BTW, Russia is far from being an entirely white nation. And the link I gave has reference to the problem in Africa. I think you are just looking for reasons to hate me, because that is the most ridiculous thing I've read. So as an answer to your question, yes I care very deeply about what is happening in Africa. I just am less familiar with it and I'm not sure it relates to the subject of this thread. Please explain to me how it does, I would love to hear. I just don't have facts nor personal experience on it like I do about Russia. If you can provide those facts and show me how they are relative to the subject, I'd love to discuss them.
I agree with this, that laws that don't affect everyone shouldn't be laws. The difference is that I feel Gay marriage and degenerating moral values do affect everyone, especially long term. That is what the debate should be about, not whether or not us "religious fanatics" have the right to impose our morals or not. Because if we are right and it does have an effect, then it should be a law. And if we are wrong than it shouldn't.
She said you're a bigot, not a racist. Bigotry is hating queers regardless of the color of their skin. Racism is just hating the black ones.
Next time you "religions fanatics" are busy writing bills to prevent gays from getting married, could you add at rider to do something about those filthy Jews? Much appreciated.
I'm Roman Catholic. My wife and I went to noon mass today, as we do on as many days as we are able. So some would say I'm a religious fanatic. So I would like you to explain to me, a married, practicing Roman Catholic, how "Gay marriage" is related to "degenerating moral values," and how gay marriage thus affects me.
Yes. thank you. Sokol - i only brought up that issue because you initially brought up the "europeans (as a species?) are going to be extinct if we don't protect "the sanctity of marriage" argument. so. a direct correlation. there you go. i don't want to hate you. i want you to open your mind.
This has only been happening since they threw off godless Communism and went back to their Orthodox roots. So I'm not sure what your point is.
But not all laws have anything to do with a mandate from God. There's nothing in the Bible about speeding, or driving drunk. Yet they are laws. A majority of people think it's wrong to drive drunk because it endangers not only the driver but everyone around him. It has nothing to do with God. That's why our country was built with the idea of seperation of church and state. It's based on what the majority thinks and how they vote. Where they get their convictions is irrelevant and protected by the constitution as freedom of religion, or freedom to not have a religion, or freedom to think the opposite of what religion thinks. It is a fact that law is imposing some sort of belief or moral or whatever you want to call it on the minority.
Exactly. which goes back to my original argument. How does it afffect YOUR heterosexual marriage for gays to have certain rights? (dr - i'm not directing this at you)
It ENDANGERS people. How are gay people getting health insurance through their spouses endangering you?
sokol, your rhetoric is all over the place. You beg for separation of Church and State, yet you advocate application of a one Christian tenet (homosexuality is a sin, hence we shouldn't let 'em git married here in 'Merica) over another more important tenets (love thy neighbor; let God be the judge of ppl) in a lay state.
And b/c of this fanatical application of laws, it's endangering STRAIGHT couple's health as well!! Not everybody subscribes to the same forms of kinship. I'm eternally grateful for the advances of gays, b/c I have been able to give my girlfriend great insurance. WE've been together 7 years, but don't want to get married yet. But we are married in our eyes. What's the social benefit of having ppl go w/o insurance???
Just for the record. I don't think there should be gay "marriage". but i do think they should be allowed civil unions and basic rights that "married" people have (like hospital visitation and health care access). i look at it as a civil rights issue.
Maybe you didn't read that the statement of Europeans as a species was certainly not mine, but of a British journalist. The word "species' was obviously used by him to create effect, and to correlate with the word "extinct". Please don't think I that I actually think of Human beings in that sense. That would be against all that I really believe. Dr. Wankler, please read my earlier posts as to how family values are degenerating. I will say that it doesn't affect me directly, but I believe that it does affect society and causes a lot of problems. That's why I brought up Russia as an example. Superdave, first of there's a few things you need to understand about Russia. There is a huge difference between the Russian people and the government. The official religion if the USSR was Atheism, but that didn't stop anybody from going to Church. Saying that Russia has gone back to their "Orthodox roots" is just not accurate. It would be Putin's dream come true if Russians united behind Orthodox ideology, but they haven't at all. They have adopted the values of the west regarding the family. They have many abortions and few children. They don't have much fidelity in marriage and the divorce rate is enourmous. AIDS and other SIV's are ravaging the country. Read the link I posted. These things are destroying their society and that's why I don't want those same things to happen here, although it has begun. I haven't even talked about the problems they have with drug and alcohol addiction, which I believe are also related to the degeneration of the family. That's why I brought it up.
I have several long posts about it earlier in the thread, about page 4 IIRC. If you don't feel that answers your question, as I can't remember everything I posted up there, then let me know and I'll write a new one.