Mandalorian enthusiasts, ahoy! Whether you are a Fandalorian, avid Karen Traviss reader, Clone Wars buff or simply a Boba Fett admirer... we salute you!
HomeFAQMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Down and Dirty DEBATES

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Catika
Vice Chief
avatar

Title : Medpack Dispenser
Number of posts : 349
Planet/System : Ord Mantell
Credits : 400
Rep : 65
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:33 pm

Are you kidding? I thought we were done with that kind of shit.

Geez. I can't believe they would classify people like that. Fear does terrible things to government policies (see: The Final Solution). And also, what a disgraceful way to classify veterans!

I don't even know.

At least we got Vermont and Iowa, right? :/
Back to top Go down
http://rc1140.tumblr.com
Cody MacArthur Fett
Sergeant
avatar

Title : Sick-Twisted Freak
Number of posts : 69
Planet/System : Typura/Holarem
Credits : 35
Rep : 0
Registration date : 2009-03-26

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Catika wrote:
At least we got Vermont and Iowa, right? :/
*snort* Vermont? You mean the state where they let child sex offenders go after three months, and plan to legalize pornographic pictures of children (as long as it's with other children )? Trust me, it's not that great of a place to live in. (If you ignore the people though . . . Well, it's absolutely beautiful.)

Of course, I'm guessing you're referring to the recent same-sex marriage decisions, which could basically summed up like this.

Iowa: the courts override the will of the people, and overturn the ban on same-sex marriage in the state.

Vermont: The legislature overrides Governor Jim Douglas' veto on a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage, becomes the only state in the Union to legalize gay marriage, legally (i.e. by the actual republican process instead of judges legislating from the bench).


Still, all that doesn't even come close to the heart attack inducing news a few days ago that the Obama administration was cutting funding for missile defense (on the same day the DPRK launches a rocket, niiiiiiice), scraping three carrier battle groups, and KILLING THE LOCKHEED-MARTIN SUPERFIGHTERS!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! One of my biggest dreams was to one day fly in either a Raptor or a JSF, now those dreams are crushed.
Back to top Go down
Catika
Vice Chief
avatar

Title : Medpack Dispenser
Number of posts : 349
Planet/System : Ord Mantell
Credits : 400
Rep : 65
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:17 pm

Cody MacArthur Fett wrote:
Of course, I'm guessing you're referring to the recent same-sex marriage decisions, which could basically summed up like this.

Iowa: the courts override the will of the people, and overturn the ban on same-sex marriage in the state.

Vermont: The legislature overrides Governor Jim Douglas' veto on a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage, becomes the only state in the Union to legalize gay marriage, legally (i.e. by the actual republican process instead of judges legislating from the bench).

I wouldn't think that Iowa "overriding the will of the people" should be considered some bad move on the court's part. People were against the elimination of "separate but equal" even though segregation was wrong. While one can argue that a democratic government should reflect the will of the people, in that case AND in this case with gay marriage, I really think our government needs to legalize gay marriage because banning it is a huge step backwards in civil rights.

In any case, because a state court made the decision that gay marriage is legal, that court decision can at least be cited in other court cases while it goes through the process of being made a law. /rant

Then with Vermont... what the hell? O_o Did all of the pedophiles move there or something? I have enough faith in humanity that SOMEbody would be like "Hmm wait this is disgusting." I think.

And sorry about the figher jets. Maybe when the economy is better you can get them to make some again? :/
Back to top Go down
http://rc1140.tumblr.com
Cody MacArthur Fett
Sergeant
avatar

Title : Sick-Twisted Freak
Number of posts : 69
Planet/System : Typura/Holarem
Credits : 35
Rep : 0
Registration date : 2009-03-26

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:00 pm

Catika wrote:
Cody MacArthur Fett wrote:
Of course, I'm guessing you're referring to the recent same-sex marriage decisions, which could basically summed up like this.

Iowa: the courts override the will of the people, and overturn the ban on same-sex marriage in the state.

Vermont: The legislature overrides Governor Jim Douglas' veto on a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage, becomes the only state in the Union to legalize gay marriage, legally (i.e. by the actual republican process instead of judges legislating from the bench).

I wouldn't think that Iowa "overriding the will of the people" should be considered some bad move on the court's part. People were against the elimination of "separate but equal" even though segregation was wrong. While one can argue that a democratic government should reflect the will of the people, in that case AND in this case with gay marriage, I really think our government needs to legalize gay marriage because banning it is a huge step backwards in civil rights.

In any case, because a state court made the decision that gay marriage is legal, that court decision can at least be cited in other court cases while it goes through the process of being made a law. /rant

Ah, but segregation was overturned by the legal republication processes set up in the Constitution, not the courts. In fact, many times the courts acted in favor of segregation. Remember Dred Scott? Legislating from the bench is never a good thing, I don't give a damn whether you like the outcome or not, it's just wrong. If you're gonna do it then you go through the proper channels (remember Schoolhouse Rock?) you don't just get the courts to make up stuff up -- that's an oligarchy, that's tyranny.

Now, as you might have guessed, I am not in favor of gay marriage in the slightest. Hell, I'm not in favor of marriage PERIOD! Confused? Well, it's actually quite simple. You see marriage is a religious ceremony, and I find it incredibly hypocritical for a government that seems to at every turn appose the separation of church and state and smash all religious expression in the public square to be regulating marriage and telling churches who they can and can't marry. In other words: I want the government out of marriage! They can hand out civil unions to everyone and leave it at that, but they simply can not be regulating marriage - an institution which has remained the same for thousands of years - to suit their progressive whims!

Catika wrote:
Then with Vermont... what the hell? O_o Did all of the pedophiles move there or something? I have enough faith in humanity that SOMEbody would be like "Hmm wait this is disgusting." I think.
Uh, about that. The Vermont legislature tends to be pretty progressive in their policies, so they'll support anything that even appears to destroy traditional values. If there are people against all these pro-pedophile actions they ain't talkin' . . . Well, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=4354084&referralPlaylistId=9ccf127ad00c53ab8708e18e946bf50e83958340">Bill O'Rielly talking about it</a>, but that's not exactly the most encouraging thing in the world to see every couple of months (it's right up there with seeing your grandmother on <i>COPS</i>).

Catika wrote:
And sorry about the figher jets. Maybe when the economy is better you can get them to make some again? :/
Yeah, I'm actually kinda banking on Obama being out in one term and being replaced with a strong-military president who'll bring back the F-22 and the F/A-35, maybe add a few mobile offshore bases and oceanic destroyers too, ala what Reagan did with the B-1B after Carter killed that plane. (That's right, I have a historical precedent for all of this, and a plan to boot. )
Back to top Go down
Catika
Vice Chief
avatar

Title : Medpack Dispenser
Number of posts : 349
Planet/System : Ord Mantell
Credits : 400
Rep : 65
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:44 am

Cody MacArthur Fett wrote:
If you're gonna do it then you go through the proper channels (remember Schoolhouse Rock?) you don't just get the courts to make up stuff up -- that's an oligarchy, that's tyranny.

The courts don't "make things up"--they're supposed to take cases and make sure their decisions reflect what's in the Constitution. In the case of Dred Scott, they ruled that African Americans were not intended to be included under the "citizens" outlined in the Constitution. That sucked, but that's why there were subsequent cases and better decisions made. Unfortunately that leaves big cases like that up to whoever is on the Supreme Court at the time (which were major factors in the ruling of Brown vs Board of Education).

I don't think that court decisions mean a law is made. I'm fairly certain that it only sets the precedence, and meanwhile the law has to go through the Schoolhouse Rock motions (which I think should be a real political term :p), perhaps following the logic of whatever court made the ruling. If the logic is flawed, then I would hope somebody would catch that.

Cody MacArthur Fett wrote:
Now, as you might have guessed, I am not in favor of gay marriage in the slightest. Hell, I'm not in favor of marriage PERIOD! Confused? Well, it's actually quite simple. You see marriage is a religious ceremony, and I find it incredibly hypocritical for a government that seems to at every turn appose the separation of church and state and smash all religious expression in the public square to be regulating marriage and telling churches who they can and can't marry. In other words: I want the government out of marriage! They can hand out civil unions to everyone and leave it at that, but they simply can not be regulating marriage - an institution which has remained the same for thousands of years - to suit their progressive whims!

I agree--marriage is a religious institution. I don't think the government can or should regulate it because of the separation of church and state. What I do want is for the equality of homosexual couples because they can't even get "civil unions" right now, and because of that they cannot function economically and in many other ways as a heterosexual married/civil unified couple.

I feel as though "marriage" is used interchangeably in most of these cases--if a homosexual couple was going to become legal, they would not go to a church and get "married" because a church wouldn't recognize them. They would get their paperwork done at city hall and probably in the end still call it "marriage." It's just word choice, I think. But I see what you're saying--I know of a few religious people who are for the equality of gay couples, but not for gay "marriage." My stance is for the equality of civil unions for homosexual couples.

Mod note: these posts were moved from the "Did something piss you off today?" thread in Just Chatting forum.
Back to top Go down
http://rc1140.tumblr.com
Tenna
Staff Sergeant
avatar

Title : Droid Control
Number of posts : 193
Planet/System : Hawkbat country
Credits : 217
Rep : 10
Registration date : 2009-03-19

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:33 pm

I wasn't going to get into this, because what I'm about to post is a little off topic from the original debate. Anyway now that it has its own topic...

My biggest issue with gays and the church (depending on the church or religion) is that the church shuns them. I have a very dear friend of mine who is gay. He was really good friends with another girl who is very religious. In college it became more clear that he was gay. Over time the two drifted apparent. I was talking to my gay friend about how the girl he was friends with was having her confirmation that day and how our mutual friend was there. Then he got sad and said "She didn't invite me." Then I went on to say that confirmations were really boring, long, and not fun.

If people should come as they are and that God loves us no matter what, then why is being attracted to someone of the same sex such a sin?

That's what bothers me the most about it and this whole "marriage is sacred" thing is like the billboard for it. There are homosexuals who are religious and would like the same things as heterosexual couples. When it comes down to it, what I care about is the people who haven't done anything wrong and are shunned because they homosexual. It's something personal to me because I have gay friends and they're good people and don't deserve to be treated unfairly.
Back to top Go down
Daennika
Chief
avatar

Title : Top Douche in charge
Number of posts : 483
Planet/System : Sol, Outer Rim
Credits : 553
Rep : 37
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:30 pm

Tenna, what you say got me thinking. I'll admit not to have paid much attention to the debate Catika and Cody were leading but let me just phrase this before I forget...

If I was invited to a confirmation I would go, I'm straight but I don't believe in God. So if a gay person next to me is not invited - and does have faith in the Chrisitan god - then I think it would be unfair.
Back to top Go down
http://daesaurus.tumblr.com/
Sev Fett
Tourist
avatar

Title : Aspiring Mandalore
Number of posts : 13
Credits : 14
Rep : 0
Registration date : 2009-03-25

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:40 pm

As a Christian I can't stand when churches shut out gay people. Practice what you preach people. Love and acceptance. I think in a lot of the real conservative Christians the mind set of gay being some ugly sin. Sin is sin is sin as the saying goes. Some of the things the church does I don't approve of.

That being said I don't believe same-sex marriage should be allowed. I guess this goes back to the wording point Catika raised. As following the Bible marriage is explicitly stated as being marriage between a man and woman. So I don't think there is anything wrong with the church refusing to marry people, it's just that the whole issue has been handled very poorly as a majority.

And the whole jet thing. At least you have the F-22. Canada has as many F-18s as the States does on one carrier. To think, that a lot of the people who were working on the Avro Arrow moved to Lockheed-Martin and were major contributors to the F series. If I have my information correct. I may be wrong.
Back to top Go down
Catika
Vice Chief
avatar

Title : Medpack Dispenser
Number of posts : 349
Planet/System : Ord Mantell
Credits : 400
Rep : 65
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:58 pm

Sev Fett wrote:
As a Christian I can't stand when churches shut out gay people. Practice what you preach people. Love and acceptance. I think in a lot of the real conservative Christians the mind set of gay being some ugly sin. Sin is sin is sin as the saying goes. Some of the things the church does I don't approve of.

That being said I don't believe same-sex marriage should be allowed. I guess this goes back to the wording point Catika raised. As following the Bible marriage is explicitly stated as being marriage between a man and woman. So I don't think there is anything wrong with the church refusing to marry people, it's just that the whole issue has been handled very poorly as a majority.

THANK YOU. I'm also Christian and I do believe that gay couples should have the right to be married (as in, forming civil unions so that they can have the benefits of hetero couples), and I'm even okay if the church doesn't "marry" a gay couple. There's actually a gay pastor here on campus and he believes the same thing.

And Daennika, I totally agree with you. I think it's terrible that gays are treated like dirt by the church because of their sexual orientation. Churches are supposed to love everyone whether they're believers or non-believers. That includes homosexual people--no exceptions.

Sooo yeah. That's all I got.
Back to top Go down
http://rc1140.tumblr.com
Cody MacArthur Fett
Sergeant
avatar

Title : Sick-Twisted Freak
Number of posts : 69
Planet/System : Typura/Holarem
Credits : 35
Rep : 0
Registration date : 2009-03-26

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:50 pm

Sev Fett wrote:
As a Christian I can't stand when churches shut out gay people. Practice what you preach people. Love and acceptance. I think in a lot of the real conservative Christians the mind set of gay being some ugly sin. Sin is sin is sin as the saying goes. Some of the things the church does I don't approve of.
Yes, well, that's the clincher for a lot of people isn't it? I'll be blunt, every single time I've seen homosexuality mentioned in the Bible it's been portrayed in a negative light. It is a sin, but then again, so are a lot of other things humans do on a regular basis (I can certainly attest to that), that's kinda the whole point of the Gospel. One of the other really big points us that one should hate the sin, but love the sinner. Don't shun them, welcome them, but at the same time you welcome them personally don't accept their actions (the same thing goes whether we're talking about the kid who stole money from the safe or the murderer who killed his friend, all sin is equal).

Sev Fett wrote:
That being said I don't believe same-sex marriage should be allowed. I guess this goes back to the wording point Catika raised. As following the Bible marriage is explicitly stated as being marriage between a man and woman. So I don't think there is anything wrong with the church refusing to marry people, it's just that the whole issue has been handled very poorly as a majority.
A lot of it comes down semantics. Almost all people these days hear civil unions and say, "Sure, why not?" However, those very same people hear gay marriage and say, "Over my cold, dead, rotting corpse." Legally they may both be the same thing, but psychologically they're very different.

Sev Fett wrote:
And the whole jet thing. At least you have the F-22. Canada has as many F-18s as the States does on one carrier. To think, that a lot of the people who were working on the Avro Arrow moved to Lockheed-Martin and were major contributors to the F series. If I have my information correct. I may be wrong.
Well, that's kind of the point, we don't have the F-22 anymore. The president ordered the plane killed. He also ordered all the upgrades that we were researching and implementing for all our armed services to be slowed to a crawl. In other words, half the stuff you've seen on Futureweapons are now either dead or won't be realized for many, many, more years.

Oh, and it's not "the 'F' series". "F" is just a designation the Air Forces uses, it means fighter, and I lot of them were produced by companies other then Lockheed Martin.
Back to top Go down
Sev Fett
Tourist
avatar

Title : Aspiring Mandalore
Number of posts : 13
Credits : 14
Rep : 0
Registration date : 2009-03-25

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:13 am

Cody MacArthur Fett wrote:

Oh, and it's not "the 'F' series". "F" is just a designation the Air Forces uses, it means fighter, and I lot of them were produced by companies other then Lockheed Martin.

Well for that I call Canadian ignorance. Razz I hadn't realized President Obama has already implemented these cuts on military spending. He seems to be trying to please absolutely everyone be it Democrat, Republican, or European.
Back to top Go down
Tenna
Staff Sergeant
avatar

Title : Droid Control
Number of posts : 193
Planet/System : Hawkbat country
Credits : 217
Rep : 10
Registration date : 2009-03-19

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:36 am

Daennika wrote:
Tenna, what you say got me thinking. I'll admit not to have paid much attention to the debate Catika and Cody were leading but let me just phrase this before I forget...

If I was invited to a confirmation I would go, I'm straight but I don't believe in God. So if a gay person next to me is not invited - and does have faith in the Chrisitan god - then I think it would be unfair.

Thank you Daennika, I'm really happy to read that. I don't like having any of my friends being treated unfairly or poorly. Especially when there's not a lot you can do for them. But it feels better to have some agree or understand.

Cody MacArthur Fett wrote:
A lot of it comes down semantics. Almost all people these days hear civil unions and say, "Sure, why not?" However, those very same people hear gay marriage and say, "Over my cold, dead, rotting corpse." Legally they may both be the same thing, but psychologically they're very different.
It's like butter and margarine. Kind of look the same, used for the same things, but they're not the same.

I was raised Catholic but I don't believe everything thing that it says in the bible. I believe in the things that make sense to me and the good things that come from it. I don't go to church on a regular basis which doesn't make me Catholic anymore because you have to go to church at least one a year to remain Catholic. I not technically Catholic, but if anything I have Christian beliefs.

I don't have much faith in the Church changing their stance on it anytime soon. I do have faith in future generations to be accepting and not just tolerant.

I'm just not satisfied with the answer "that's what it says in the bible." I need a better answer than that as to why it's wrong. I believe that there are good things that come from the bible and religion. But I don't believe in believing something that I don't agree with.
Back to top Go down
Gratulor's body
Warrior
avatar

Title : Mirsh'kyramud
Number of posts : 144
Planet/System : Fantasy land
Credits : 165
Rep : 16
Registration date : 2009-03-24

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:14 am

Quote :
I agree--marriage is a religious institution. I don't think the government can or should regulate it because of the separation of church and state. What I do want is for the equality of homosexual couples because they can't even get "civil unions" right now, and because of that they cannot function economically and in many other ways as a heterosexual married/civil unified couple.

Correction, Christian union (marriage) is a religious institution. Marriage, by it's definition, is a secular thing that is present in society and all religions. Homosexuals should be able to get married, but obviously Christians and churches can't be forced into being hypocritical - it's their religion and they have to obey their lawgiver if they are to be taken seriously. But Christians can't make marriage their own because they don't have the right to do that, in part because of the united states law that gives people freedom to practice and freedom from religion.

But you know, in another sense, the bible also states that I can, no that it is my godgiven duty to stone anyone found having sex out of wedlock, and that women are very inferiour to men, so much so that an ass (not the rear end) is worth more. So perhaps these few instances where homosexuality is put out to be negative should be regarded as nothing but old prejudice the same as other extremeist POV's in the bible. Women can become priests in most countries now, and obviously women hold the same status as men in our modern society. So why should homosexuality be regarded any differently by the church?
Back to top Go down
Cody MacArthur Fett
Sergeant
avatar

Title : Sick-Twisted Freak
Number of posts : 69
Planet/System : Typura/Holarem
Credits : 35
Rep : 0
Registration date : 2009-03-26

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:43 am

Tenna wrote:
I don't have much faith in the Church changing their stance on it anytime soon. I do have faith in future generations to be accepting and not just tolerant.

I'm just not satisfied with the answer "that's what it says in the bible." I need a better answer than that as to why it's wrong. I believe that there are good things that come from the bible and religion. But I don't believe in believing something that I don't agree with.
Ah, classic mistake, going for the short answer and not elaborating. You want the long answer? Here it is. God told man to be fruitful and multiply, man can't do that if he's frakking people of the same sex. The whole point of Christian marriage is one woman and man getting together until one party dies in order to produce children, not one man and two women, not five men and one woman, not one man and one man, just one man and one woman. And yes, I am aware that several Old Testament figures broke this law, they also broke a few other laws as well, but God doesn't forsake people and He had to make do with flawed people in order to do his work, so that is to be expected. Besides, it's just not natural for humans, if it was we wouldn't have sexual dimorphism in the first place. (And yes, I am aware that the main argument is, "But I was born this way, man!" Big whoop, hermaphrodites were born "that way" too, but we don't consider them natural in any way, why should homosexuality be so different?)

As for the Church changing its views: Don't count on it. Historically speaking, those churches that have capitulated their values to the desires of the times have always been the first to fall when society changes its own values. Ever hear about churches that say that slavery is OK, or that you can go out and kill someone of a another faith, or that working your employees to death in a factory is doable? Of course not, because surrendered to the whims of society, and when society changed they were left in the dust. But the fundamentalists that stuck to their guns (so to speak, fundamentalist Christianity tends to be almost suicidally pacifistic) and said, "No way, man! These are our beliefs, that's the way they are, and you can't make us change." Have always been the ones to persevere and survive when society changes all around them. Trust me, in a few years society will change again, homosexuality will go back to being just another sin, and we'll have moved on to something else, most likely that something else will be, "It's perfectly all right to grow people in labs and then kill them for their organs." Or, "Of course you should get your mind hooked up the net! Why wouldn't you?" Or some other such nonsense.

Gratulor's body wrote:
But you know, in another sense, the bible also states that I can, no that it is my godgiven duty to stone anyone found having sex out of wedlock, and that women are very inferiour to men, so much so that an ass (not the rear end) is worth more.
OK, that was in the Old Testament. And remember how I said the Old Testament was basically God laying the groundwork with flawed and imperfect people? Well, the New Testament was basically God saying, "Yo! World! Guess what? The Messiah has come. That means no more sacrificing lambs to atone for your sins ('cause that'd be redundant), no more 'only Israelites can be Saved', no more going off on crusades to kill the infidels, know why? Because you're supposed to love those infidels, man! Show some kindness to ya brothers, 'cause now Salvation belongs to all who'll except it. (Don't except it? Sucks to be you!) But don't you get off thinkin' it'll be easy, man. 'Cause now that you're Saved you're going to have to be following My law (whether you know it or not)." [It's, of course, a lot more in depth then that, but you get the general idea.]
Back to top Go down
Catika
Vice Chief
avatar

Title : Medpack Dispenser
Number of posts : 349
Planet/System : Ord Mantell
Credits : 400
Rep : 65
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:06 am

Gratulor, I do agree with your definition of "marriage." And I also agree that the passages where homosexuality are seen as a bad thing may be a reflection of the lifestyles of the time (including selling daughters into slavery, stoning, etc). There is also the argument that God wants man to proliferate and only be joined in this kind of relationship: a man and a woman.

And to that I say: there are worse things in the world than two people of the same sex loving each other, and if Christians want to find some sinful cause to object, maybe they should look to child soldiers in Uganda, starvation in Third World countries, and other problems plaguing the world--even our nation. Maybe that's "avoiding the topic," but come on. We're squabbling over an anthill while Hoover Dams are breaking around us.

As a clarification (and perhaps another matter of semantics), Cody: did you mean that hermaphrodites (which I just found out prefer to be called "intersexuals") are "unnatural" in that when one is born, they are normally treated with hormones/surgical procedures to make them one sex or the other? Because calling an intersexual "unnatural" would be calling any person with a genetic mutation as "unnatural," and I think that's rather appalling. But I see where you're coming from if you mean that genetic mutations are often "corrected" to be one way or the other, and in the case of homosexuals, they can be psychologically changed to prefer the opposite sex. I've heard of at least one homosexual individual who was Christian and was able to change his preferences.
Back to top Go down
http://rc1140.tumblr.com
Cody MacArthur Fett
Sergeant
avatar

Title : Sick-Twisted Freak
Number of posts : 69
Planet/System : Typura/Holarem
Credits : 35
Rep : 0
Registration date : 2009-03-26

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:48 am

Catika wrote:
And to that I say: there are worse things in the world than two people of the same sex loving each other, and if Christians want to find some sinful cause to object, maybe they should look to child soldiers in Uganda, starvation in Third World countries, and other problems plaguing the world--even our nation. Maybe that's "avoiding the topic," but come on. We're squabbling over an anthill while Hoover Dams are breaking around us.
Hey, you can kick over an anthill, but if the Hoover Dam is breaking down you're dead, just dead. I know it may sound cold (and it is), but the simple fact of the matter is that you can't save everyone or stop everything. We can't stop children becoming soldiers in Uganda, we can't stop starvation in Third-World countries, we can't (and won't) stop the Chinese from rounding up dissidents, hell, we can't even stop Tiller-The-Frakking-Baby-Killer in our own country, but what we can do is vote, and every time we (the American people) vote we vote to outlaw gay marriage. It's just the way the world works.

Catika wrote:
As a clarification (and perhaps another matter of semantics), Cody: did you mean that hermaphrodites (which I just found out prefer to be called "intersexuals") are "unnatural" in that when one is born, they are normally treated with hormones/surgical procedures to make them one sex or the other? Because calling an intersexual "unnatural" would be calling any person with a genetic mutation as "unnatural," and I think that's rather appalling. But I see where you're coming from if you mean that genetic mutations are often "corrected" to be one way or the other, and in the case of homosexuals, they can be psychologically changed to prefer the opposite sex. I've heard of at least one homosexual individual who was Christian and was able to change his preferences.
Bingo. If it was considered natural we wouldn't be drugging them out the wazzu and snipping off their genitalia. (Using "unnatural" means to make someone "natural", ironic.)

And that someone was able to change their sexuality isn't that surprising. Humans have a surprising ability to adapt. Heck, I'm pretty sure that someone could make themselves attracted to a Camaro if they tried hard enough. (Which, incidentally, some psychologists are considering making a new sexual preference.)
Back to top Go down
Catika
Vice Chief
avatar

Title : Medpack Dispenser
Number of posts : 349
Planet/System : Ord Mantell
Credits : 400
Rep : 65
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:20 pm

I'll acknowledge that I'm being idealistic here. It's not unrealistic, though. Look at it this way: my church, instead of picketing and telling people that 9/11 is punishment from God for homosexuality (see Westboro Baptist Church), has been starting programs in Nigeria and in the past year and a half have drilled over 40 fresh-water wells for needy villages. It's not curing AIDs, but it's better than spreading hate.

And while voting is easier and I will also contend that most people will take the easier route, all it takes is monetary donations (which I understand are tight right now, but it's just as easy to write a check even for $10 as it is to vote). Point being: people who are actively trying to ban gay marriages need to calm the eff down and pick a better cause. People who simply believe in being against it, that's another story--yes they're still going to vote against it. I'll give them that.

I can't remember if I had any other arguments, but that's what I get for leaving my computer for two hours with this window still up. :p Bah!
Back to top Go down
http://rc1140.tumblr.com
Cody MacArthur Fett
Sergeant
avatar

Title : Sick-Twisted Freak
Number of posts : 69
Planet/System : Typura/Holarem
Credits : 35
Rep : 0
Registration date : 2009-03-26

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:42 pm

Catika wrote:
I'll acknowledge that I'm being idealistic here. It's not unrealistic, though. Look at it this way: my church, instead of picketing and telling people that 9/11 is punishment from God for homosexuality (see Westboro Baptist Church), has been starting programs in Nigeria and in the past year and a half have drilled over 40 fresh-water wells for needy villages. It's not curing AIDs, but it's better than spreading hate.
OK, for the record people (that means, you, the person reading this), almost every person in America, including many anti-gay marriage organizations and myself, is against the Westboro Baptist Church. We do not support them, nor do any of the people outside the pastor's family support them.

Catika wrote:
And while voting is easier and I will also contend that most people will take the easier route, all it takes is monetary donations (which I understand are tight right now, but it's just as easy to write a check even for $10 as it is to vote). Point being: people who are actively trying to ban gay marriages need to calm the eff down and pick a better cause. People who simply believe in being against it, that's another story--yes they're still going to vote against it. I'll give them that.
Hey, there's plenty of activism organizations out there, having a dozen more for any given cause would just clutter things up. Besides, if there were no more anti-gay marriage organizations then that would mean that there would only be pro-gay marriage organizations, and that would mean that the traditional definition of marriage would be exterminated within a decade, maybe two on the outside. It's a propaganda war for the hearts and minds of the American people, and every time Conservative organizations don't engage in it the US ends up looking more and more like Europe. Well, we've learned our lesson, never again we will ever relent and let other's define us on a single issue.

Catika wrote:
I can't remember if I had any other arguments, but that's what I get for leaving my computer for two hours with this window still up. :p Bah!
Very well, let us end this then.

Next topic: The nationalization of Europa, good idea or the road the totalitarianism?
Back to top Go down
Tenna
Staff Sergeant
avatar

Title : Droid Control
Number of posts : 193
Planet/System : Hawkbat country
Credits : 217
Rep : 10
Registration date : 2009-03-19

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:38 pm

Sorry guys! I thought I posted this earlier but something weird must have happened... we can move on to another topic though. Sorry to sneak this last bit in.
----

I'm aware of the reason why the church wants marriage to be between a man and a woman. It's also why the Catholic church doesn't agree with oral sex. They see it as a waste of sperm.

The whole reason for the church wanting people to get married to have children was because people didn't live long and there were violent religious wars. There's still religious wars and genocides, but not as many now.

Besides the obvious (being gender based), heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are the same. They function the same way.

When you have close gay friends you start to realize that there really isn't anything that different. And the church's argument about gay marriage starts to not make sense anymore. When I was I was younger I didn't understand anything about homosexuals. I thought it was icky and a little weird. Then I got older, I became friends with a gay man, and one of my friends turned out to be gay. At first I wasn't sure how to act around them or how to understand them. Then I got over it and realized that the only thing that was different about them was they liked men. It's one thing to say you understand and another thing to really understand. In high school I thought it was fine if a man wanted to like another man but I really didn't honestly get it.

However, even though it's an outdated reason, procreation is a better reason than "that's what it says in the bible." But what about older or younger couples who can't have children? Or couples that just don't want children? Should they not be allowed to get married because they're not fertile, procreating, or raising children?

The gay pastor and gay person who decided to change his preference are both individuals. They don't count for the whole gay population. I'm not saying that people like that don't exist in the gay community. There are gay people who don't want to get married just like there are straight people who don't want to get married. They just shouldn't represent the entire population.
Back to top Go down
Daennika
Chief
avatar

Title : Top Douche in charge
Number of posts : 483
Planet/System : Sol, Outer Rim
Credits : 553
Rep : 37
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:54 am

Okay I promised myself to stay away from this debate but now I feel the urge to set a couple ideas straight. I will not make walls of text!

So what if gay people can't get married in the open? Does that keep them from being gay? NO! It's just a way to tell them "KEEP IT IN THE BEDROOM" - the world has functioned like this way for ages: hypocritically and procreational-wise.

Might I remind you that our world is mostly misogynist (Wikipedia's definition for "Misogyny" is hatred (or contempt) of women or girls) and if gay men had been allowed to marry, both men being heads of the household, that would leave no room for the woman in the symbolic family.

So, my point is that in the purely sociological perspective and regarding equality between genders, accepting homosexuality as a basis for institutional reforming could lead to serious moral and ethical conflicts. Everybody (gay, straight, bi) can agree over the fact that men and women are equal in the modern western world while some people and entire countries would see this as an opportunity to shun the female gender out of the natural order of things.

My opinion is not set parallel to the Conservatives but rather along the Humanist lines that our institutions are there not to please everybody but for a certain "greater good." I don't want to hear people complaining that they can't be happy if they have to love someone in secret. TOUGH SHIT.
Back to top Go down
http://daesaurus.tumblr.com/
Gratulor's body
Warrior
avatar

Title : Mirsh'kyramud
Number of posts : 144
Planet/System : Fantasy land
Credits : 165
Rep : 16
Registration date : 2009-03-24

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:13 am

Had to sneak in one final point. Those who say that procreation is the reason for marriage because it has always been could also point out that you should always write by hammering a block of stone. Times change, and the point I'm trying to make is that the number of people on the planet in 1750 was 791 million, 1900 it was 1.6 billion and now, 109 years later it's 6.77 billion. It has never gone dramatically down and it's not going to be lowering while we have medical technology and fertility increasing worldwide. Gay marriage shouldn't be put down because of inability to have children, it could well be useful to the rest of us in the long run.
Back to top Go down
Daennika
Chief
avatar

Title : Top Douche in charge
Number of posts : 483
Planet/System : Sol, Outer Rim
Credits : 553
Rep : 37
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:55 am

Push comes to shove if procreation becomes an issue we'd have the technology to "create life" out of anything.

I think this discussion tends to oppose people in the details while the main problem resides in ethical matters, that is to say the balance of power between genders. In Ancient Greece, society was ruled by gay men while the women stayed at home with the servants as lesser citizens. This is something most of our leaders do not want to see coming back as a "new thing."
Back to top Go down
http://daesaurus.tumblr.com/
Shas Kal'Abra
Specialist
avatar

Number of posts : 34
Planet/System : Rhen Var
Credits : 39
Rep : 0
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:15 am

Actually, it's said that research is proving that the male chromosome is weakening...which seems to say that men will become fewer and fewer...or something to that extent...like totally the opposite of what China is.

Just what I read somewhere.

As far as the Gayness thing goes, it's a proven fact that humanity is afraid of what they don't understand. Yet humanity is not willing to learn, therefore will do anything to quell this "difference" in order to keep up the illusion of "normality".
Back to top Go down
http://otamachamp.deviantart.com
Gratulor's body
Warrior
avatar

Title : Mirsh'kyramud
Number of posts : 144
Planet/System : Fantasy land
Credits : 165
Rep : 16
Registration date : 2009-03-24

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:00 am

Daennika wrote:

In Ancient Greece, society was ruled by gay men while the women stayed at home with the servants as lesser citizens. This is something most of our leaders do not want to see coming back as a "new thing."

There are gay women, so I don't see the problem. And a gay woman actually is now in charge of my nation, so it might not be gay men who would be doing that. Laughing
Back to top Go down
Catika
Vice Chief
avatar

Title : Medpack Dispenser
Number of posts : 349
Planet/System : Ord Mantell
Credits : 400
Rep : 65
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:41 am

I don't see gay men tipping the balance of gender equality. There are too many feminists for that to happen, and on top of that, it's not like the gay community is organizing to do something like that--at least not in our country.

And homosexual couples not being allowed to marry isn't just a matter of principle. In the US, at least, they lack a lot of rights that hetero couples enjoy. And it's not only a blow from an emotional standpoint, but also an economic standpoint (for example, they can't file their partners as spouses on their taxes, etc).

Another big example of one of the things gay couples can't do without being married is that they are not allowed to visit each other in the hospital. That is--the partner is not considered "family." I would imagine by this point there might be some movement to amend that, but I'm not sure. It's just one of the big examples of rights that are denied to gay couples because they can't get married

In short, it's not just a piece of paper. Marriage gives couples a lot more rights than I knew about before I looked into it, and that's why I think gay couples deserve to marry as much as any other couple.

This time I might be out of arguments for real. :p
Back to top Go down
http://rc1140.tumblr.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Down and Dirty DEBATES   

Back to top Go down
 
Down and Dirty DEBATES
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Dirty Harry 1/9
» Get down and Dirty with a naked George Clooney!!!!!!!
» Things to Do Besides Eat:
» Lt1 long crank?
» Your All Time Favourite Comic: a Poll (category 8: British Newspaper Strips part 1)

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: What are you doing here? :: Just chatting-
Jump to: