rf_ucsd Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times' date=' long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:[/quote'] yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now??? What does it have to do with now? Christians in the U.S. keep trying to portray homosexuality as unnatural. That's an underlying current in this debate: The demonization of these people. And it's wrong. what you said :) Btw, I think it's really good that we can talk about this without ending up in arguments. *thumbs up* I agree. And I totally see punk's point of view. I hope we can maintain civility moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punks united Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 what do u mean by it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 cnn is communist as far as im concerned haha i usually watch fox and the orielly factor (effects of being raised in a republican household) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punks united Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 Same here Eric......but the funny thing is my aunt is democratic borderline liberal so we have some interesting debates :) and i don't know about Cnn being communist...that's just a little harsh to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rf_ucsd Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 cnn is communist as far as im concerned haha i usually watch fox and the orielly factor (effects of being raised in a republican household) I watch Fox sometimes. I watch CNN sometimes. I watch Chris Matthews. I watch Tim Russert. I watch George Stephanopolous. I watch Jim Lehrer. I think that's about it. Probably my favorite political pundit right now is Peggy Noonan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punks united Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times' date=' long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:[/quote'] yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now??? What does it have to do with now? Christians in the U.S. keep trying to portray homosexuality as unnatural. That's an underlying current in this debate: The demonization of these people. And it's wrong. what you said :) Btw, I think it's really good that we can talk about this without ending up in arguments. *thumbs up* I agree. And I totally see punk's point of view. I hope we can maintain civility moving forward. i think we can....and u can call me nikki if u want :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rf_ucsd Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times' date=' long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:[/quote'] yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now??? What does it have to do with now? Christians in the U.S. keep trying to portray homosexuality as unnatural. That's an underlying current in this debate: The demonization of these people. And it's wrong. what you said :) Btw, I think it's really good that we can talk about this without ending up in arguments. *thumbs up* I agree. And I totally see punk's point of view. I hope we can maintain civility moving forward. i think we can....and u can call me nikki if u want :) Cool! That's good to know. I'm Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punks united Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 coolness....okay... Back to the issue at hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 if i want material i'll watch fox but if i want headliner things like little tidbits at the bottom of the screen then its CNN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punks united Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 right :) But I guess what the real issue seems to be here is if religion should be used to support ammendments...right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musiclover Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I don't like where Bush is going with this...he is being maniacal by bringing his own personal religious beliefs into government. I don't accept this proposal, and I will vote him out of office come November! :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 bah! polls say a large majority dont like the idea of gay marriages are you gay musiclover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rf_ucsd Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 bah! polls say a large majority dont like the idea of gay marriages are you gay musiclover? That's true, but the poll MSNBC is reporting on says while 63% are opposed to gay marraige only 36% support a Constitutional Amendment. It seems that people like the idea of it being handled on a state-by-state basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 yeah well for my state arizona, there would be mad gay marriages seeing as the govenor is a lesbian... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 im not even kidding openly lesbian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musiclover Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 bah! polls say a large majority dont like the idea of gay marriages are you gay musiclover? no, I'm not gay, Eric. All the same, just because I am liberal in my thinking and I support gay rights doesn't make me out to be a gay, not that there's anything wrong with being one...but i'm not! as to your reasoning about majority supporting 'defense of marriage' or are against gay marriage....the point is, laws can't be made based upon what some arbitrary majority thinks. In 1800s, I'm sure a majority of people in America totally supported slavery....so does that make it okay? Laws should be made that are equitable to all humans....based on the principle that a secular government should not care what you do in your private home, which includes: whom you sleep with, whom you pray to, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 if i was in lived in the south i wouldve supported slavery too not all slave owners were horrible people when the lincoln pass the slave law or whatever many wanted to stay with their owners and that was their way of live (slave owners) that was their manual labor. they need slaves to do the crop things you cant really compare marriage with slaves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musiclover Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 what Bush has done is moralize on marriage when he has no right to be doing so...as I'm sure many people know, Bush was an alcoholic and not a great husband in his early married life. Instead of giving surmons on marriage, Bush should busy himself and his underlings with real issues facing America, such as the actual fight on terror, the jobless economy, the devastation of our natural resources, etc. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 k lets not sidetrack from slavery... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t170ceo Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 There's a reason that gay marriage, abortion, and other issues like this are so hard: It's whether government should set basic moral values for the people of America, or if we're going to be truly "free", and let people do whatever they please (within reason). Personally, I guess I'm against it. Gays marrying...weird...where? Las Vegas? :idea2: But what I'm also against is discriminating against gays/lesbians in any way. I guess that makes me a hypocrite. How Bush got into Harvard is beyond me. Of course, if I was president, people would be wondering that about my preschool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musiclover Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 if i was in lived in the south i wouldve supported slavery too not all slave owners were horrible people when the lincoln pass the slave law or whatever many wanted to stay with their owners and that was their way of live (slave owners) that was their manual labor. they need slaves to do the crop things you cant really compare marriage with slaves Eric...where did you read this? :stunned: :o I went to a southern university for my degree, and the history i was taught, even there, was that nobody in their right mind can now say that slaves willingly stayed on to be slaves even after they were proclaimed free. To say that not all slave owners were bad, or that slaves actually enjoyed their slavery is to perpetuate a myth that has no moorings in reality. In fact, the most famous and inglorious example of a slave owner was our 'great' Thomas Jefferson himself. This guy not only denied freedom to his slaves, but, when one revolted against him, Jefferson sold the slave for pennies to a slave-trader and demanded that this wretched man be sold to a sugar plantation in Jamaica...then, a renowned place for "hell on earth" for slaves. Now coming to your argument that slavery can't be compared to gay marriage: I am looking at this from purely legal perspective. Not moral or religious, but legal. Remember, the 'kind' slave owners you're talking of also held up the Bible as their saving grace to own slaves (Bible allows slavery!). Thus, just like a majority of voters in 1800s America supported slavery (voters then were of course only white males!), a majority of voters in 21st century America might support outlawing gay marriage. But that doesn't make it right or equitable. If you want a country based on Bible laws, you might want to start looking into how Saudi Arabia is faring nowadays...a country strictly following the Koran... laws in the name of some religious edits are all pretty much bigoted...against some group or another....and so, it's best to leave out religion when making laws. Otherwise, you would also have to start allowing Muslims to have 4 wives like they're allowed under the Koran...and also allow Mormon men to marry their underage neices 'cuz their religion allows it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 and also allow Mormon men to marry their underage neices 'cuz their religion allows it! wow you're completely wrong on that im mormon and that was done with more than a century ago mormon's dont practice piligamy now :idea2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 btw mormon is a slang term but i dont expect you to know that :idea2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punks united Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 How is it a slang term Eric?? And Music Clover...check the definiton of marriage...The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. so does this include two men or two women no...so if they were to allow gay marriage they would have to allow for a man and a little boy to get married, a person and an animal...they would have to change the whole idea for everyone...so logically it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 im a member i think i would know if it's slang or not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.28f6dfef0fe08bf9d6e4caa55d014e7d.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now