The party of tolerance (political)

Pages

467 posts / 0 new
Last post
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:

how is eating shrimp as opposed to fish any less or more of a risk of disease? and what does wearing cotton and polyester have to do with hygene....these are some of the problems I find with using a 1500 year old book of stories & contradictions copied from dozens of ther religions, re-translated dozens of times, re-interpreted even more, as guide to set the rules of my life by....I don't need a book like that to keep me from being a bad person.

If you or others need such a book to aid in your journey through life, I got no problems with that.  What ever gets you through your day, it makes no difference to me.

I have a problem when people start using books like that to enact laws and rules for the rest of us.

which is why I will vote yes on gay marriage

praawk, ppppppprawk, prawk ppppraaawk  pwrak!!!

Here chicky, chicky!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
how is eating shrimp as opposed to fish any less or more of a risk of disease? and what does wearing cotton and polyester have to do with hygene....these are some of the problems I find with using a 1500 year old book of stories & contradictions copied from dozens of ther religions, re-translated dozens of times, re-interpreted even more, as guide to set the rules of my life by....

What does eating shrimp and fish have to do with the Bible today?

I have a problem when people start using books like that to enact laws and rules for the rest of us.

which is why I will vote yes on gay marriage

on spite??  I'm getting to know you multi.

this whole pedophile thing can be discussed when its an issue with the gay community....as for now, it has nothing to do with it,

Per cap I think homosexuality has a lot more to do with pedophilia than heterosexuality.  Who was it again the priests were molesting?

muti  how are we to believe anything that comes from your mouth.  You chastised us for thinking you were anti religion, then you admitted it, now ----- who knows???

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

so gst says if I support gay marriage that means I support pedophilia...well he's entitled to his opinion I guess.  my stance is, pedophila has nothing more to do with the gay community than it does with black people.

my real question is how would any of you change my mind on how to vote on the gay marriage topic.  anything other than the bible or pedophile argument?  neither of which hold any water. 

yes gst we know pedophilia has been "legal" in various places, religions and times....still has nothing to do with the gay community.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09
how is eating shrimp as opposed to fish any less or more of a risk of disease? and what does wearing cotton and polyester have to do with hygene....these are some of the problems I find with using a 1500 year old book of stories & contradictions copied from dozens of ther religions, re-translated dozens of times, re-interpreted even more, as guide to set the rules of my life by....

What does eating shrimp and fish have to do with the Bible today?

You tell me, it says its a sin on the same page it says a man lying with a man is a sin....isn't this where you're getting your rules from

soneed2fish's picture
soneed2fish
Offline
Joined: 3/27/13

I believe there's two parts to "marriage".  One is the part under God which is done in a church.  The other is the legal binding of assets and decisions.  That's done thru the legal system.  The one under God is defined by and controlled by the churches.  My church says no to gay marriage and I support them in that.  As for the one in the legal system I have no problem if gays want to marry.  It's only a piece of paper that gives them legal rights.  It doesn't say God has to honor it or agree to it, nor does it say their church has to perform it. 

Genuine conservatism promotes cautious and prudent change, respect for tradition, stewardship, humility, responsibility and fact-based decision making. It is concerned with both individual and societal well-being. With regard to government, conservatism favors a government that is lean, efficient and effective -- not impotent.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
so gst says if I support gay marriage that means I support pedophilia...well he's entitled to his opinion I guess.  my stance is, pedophila has nothing more to do with the gay community than it does with black people.

my real question is how would any of you change my mind on how to vote on the gay marriage topic.  anything other than the bible or pedophile argument?  neither of which hold any water. 

yes gst we know pedophilia has been "legal" in various places, religions and times....still has nothing to do with the gay community.

Still no answer from the little banty rooster.

Once again, instead of answering questions, he spouts so much bs meant to deflect from having to answer simple questions.

multi you are lying claiming I have said or insinuated something I have not.

plain and simple.

And you are telling this lie to deflect from having to answer a question you KNOW will paint you in a corner.

Multi we are trying to determine if you think  marriage laws allowing for the act of pedophilia to happen outside of the gay community is right or wrong.

That question is being asked to determine why YOUR tolerances of a marriage versus someone elses tolerances of a marriage should be any different when it comes to laws governing marriage. 

Facts regarding laws restricting/governing marriage have been provided along with the links and they simply are dismissed rather than discussed.

We are discussing gay marriage here and not the act right?

Come on multi are you really that much of a chicken to answer a simple question? 

Should a 40 year old man be able to marry a 13 year old girl and have all the "rights" associated with that marriage? 

Yes?

No?

Chick, chick chickeee

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

soneed2fish Said:
I believe there's two parts to "marriage".  One is the part under God which is done in a church.  The other is the legal binding of assets and decisions.  That's done thru the legal system.  The one under God is defined by and controlled by the churches.  My church says no to gay marriage and I support them in that.  As for the one in the legal system I have no problem if gays want to marry.  It's only a piece of paper that gives them legal rights.  It doesn't say God has to honor it or agree to it, nor does it say their church has to perform it. 

YES!

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

no GST, in my opinion, even though it has been prcaticed and legal in other places and times I do not think any man or woman over 18 should be able to marry or have sex with a 13 year old.

still has nothing to do with gay people.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

multi-species-angler Said:

how is eating shrimp as opposed to fish any less or more of a risk of disease? and what does wearing cotton and polyester have to do with hygene....these are some of the problems I find with using a 1500 year old book of stories & contradictions copied from dozens of ther religions, re-translated dozens of times, re-interpreted even more, as guide to set the rules of my life by....

What does eating shrimp and fish have to do with the Bible today?

You tell me, it says its a sin on the same page it says a man lying with a man is a sin....isn't this where you're getting your rules from

You don't understand the Bible multi.  If you did you would understand that there are three laws In the old testament.  Some liberal churches will say the old testament no longer applies.  However, if you read it with an open and searching mind you will find that two of the laws were abolished with the fulfillment of prophecy. 
The food laws were a portion of one law and only for the Jewish people, and only for a given time.  They do not apply to gentiles, nor do they apply to Jews today because prophecy is fulfilled.  The Jews continue to follow the food laws because they do not believe Jesus was the predicted (prophecy) messiah, and  no it isn't Obama.

The laws are: 

The Old Testament Law

  • Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.

     

  • Civil Law: This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.

     

  • Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.
    (From the "Life Application Study Bible"

    The only laws that were not abolished were the moral laws which the Bible says was for all people for all time.  So as much as you don't like the moral laws of Leviticus they still apply today.  Eat all the shrimp you want. 

Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

 Heaven or an eternity in hell is on the line.  You would think a god that truly loved us would make it very plain what laws need to be followed and what ones didn't.   

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Candiru Said:
 Heaven or an eternity in hell is on the line.  You would think a god that truly loved us would make it very plain what laws need to be followed and what ones didn't.   

Ten commandments, might be a good start.

Neat

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

How come rape isn't in the ten commandments? you can rape someone and get in to heaven, but if you say the lords name with a shitty attitude you burn for eternity......seems legit.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

well....unless its gay rape

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:

no GST, in my opinion, even though it has been prcaticed and legal in other places and times I do not think any man or woman over 18 should be able to marry or have sex with a 13 year old.

still has nothing to do with gay people.

Multi, thanks for finally answering a question.

Now unfortunately from your comments there are a couple more for you.

Where have I ever equated pedophilia to gay people?

I have not. Please stop inferring I have as it is a lie.

If you have followed along in other threads, I have pretty steadfastly brought up the marriage laws as this is what this is all about, laws regulating who can be married.

And now it comes down to this.

If YOU wish to be able to maintain YOUR ideals on the AGE of marriage even though other states have clearly written laws not in accordance with your views, why then should I or any other person not be able to hold to our ideals about marriage being between a man and a woman despite what other states have done in this regard?

What makes you so special to determine your beliefs, but others can not hold to theirs without your condemnation?

Foamit's picture
Foamit
Offline
Joined: 12/7/13

 How come rape isn't in the ten commandments?

how come obamacare isn't in the constitution... 

you can rape someone and get in to heaven

you can make me pay for your obamacare and still vote in elections...

but if you say the lords name with a shitty attitude you burn for eternity......seems legit.

but if you question our president, you get audited... seem like horse shit...

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

haha, I agree...but there's plenty of threads on FBO about Obama already

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

"What makes you so special to determine your beliefs, but others can not hold to theirs without your condemnation?"

Isn't this really the pot calling the kettle black here?

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

 

multi-species-angler Said:

eyexer Said:
 

Candiru Said:
In my view allowing men to marry teenagers or teenagers to marry each other is wrong because they are not capable of making such large decisions and properly consenting.   Laws that allow this should be changed

My question where in the bible does it say that it is wrong for a 60 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl?   We have evolved beyond the morality of the bible.  

"we have evolved beyond the morality of the bible"?  we have thrown the morality of the bible under the bus.  

I throw the morality of the bible under the bus every time I eat at red lobster, get a hair cut, or let my wife tell me what to do.

I'm not sure what your red lobster rant is, jesus fed thousands with fish.  your other two statements could create a very long discussion in themselves.  

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

gotta read that bible more eyexer.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination to you.

anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.

You shall not eat any abomination

I guess I could find more if I try, but the point I'm making is this god has a bigger problem with shrimp than he does gay folks.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

ok GST, I played ball...lets keep it fun. now you answer my question from earlier, even though its off topic and doesn't prove anything....just fun food for thought

guess who?

born of a virgin

born on dec. 25th

performed miracles

birth accompanied by a star in the east

3 kings

baptized at age 30

traveled with 12 deciples

was betrayed, then crucified

buried for 3 days

then resurrected

who am I?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

multi-species-angler Said:
How come rape isn't in the ten commandments? you can rape someone and get in to heaven, but if you say the lords name with a shitty attitude you burn for eternity......seems legit.

I think it's covered through other commandments.  As far as taking the lords name in vain ya, you would burn in hell, and for many other things.  That's why there is forgiveness. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

svnmag Said:
They're all here now.  Life is normal.

I wonder if btr has as much issue with states setting their own marriage laws regarding age as he seems to regarding sexual orientation?

You are incorrect. I always said marriage laws are a states issue, never have I said otherwise and this is I believe the 2nd or 3rd time I've had to correct you on that. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

multi-species-angler Said:
so gst says if I support gay marriage that means I support pedophilia...well he's entitled to his opinion I guess.  my stance is, pedophila has nothing more to do with the gay community than it does with black people.

my real question is how would any of you change my mind on how to vote on the gay marriage topic.  anything other than the bible or pedophile argument?  neither of which hold any water. 

yes gst we know pedophilia has been "legal" in various places, religions and times....still has nothing to do with the gay community.

I don't see any way to change your mind since there are currently no valid reasons to change your view on gay marriage. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

multi-species-angler Said:

no GST, in my opinion, even though it has been prcaticed and legal in other places and times I do not think any man or woman over 18 should be able to marry or have sex with a 13 year old.

still has nothing to do with gay people.

Multi, thanks for finally answering a question.

Now unfortunately from your comments there are a couple more for you.

Where have I ever equated pedophilia to gay people?

I have not. Please stop inferring I have as it is a lie.

If you have followed along in other threads, I have pretty steadfastly brought up the marriage laws as this is what this is all about, laws regulating who can be married.

And now it comes down to this.

If YOU wish to be able to maintain YOUR ideals on the AGE of marriage even though other states have clearly written laws not in accordance with your views, why then should I or any other person not be able to hold to our ideals about marriage being between a man and a woman despite what other states have done in this regard?

What makes you so special to determine your beliefs, but others can not hold to theirs without your condemnation?

I don't have to respect your beliefs and you don't have to respect mine. However, that doesn't mean they are equal. An American should respect a persons right to hold a belief, that doesn't mean the belief itself is free of ridicule. I give someone else's belief as much respect as I think it deserves. To me, the most credible way to determine how much respect a belief deserves relates to how much fact, evidence, common sense, etc etc... That belief warrants. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
"What makes you so special to determine your beliefs, but others can not hold to theirs without your condemnation?"

Isn't this really the pot calling the kettle black here?

Multi, you condemn those that hold a belief marriage should be between a man and a woman, yet suggest there should be laws preventing what is currently legally allowed in several states when age is involved based on YOUR belief.

Call it what you wish.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
gotta read that bible more eyexer.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination to you.

anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.

You shall not eat any abomination

I guess I could find more if I try, but the point I'm making is this god has a bigger problem with shrimp than he does gay folks.

multi, I hate to break it to you, but you would NOT be the first person I would turn to for theological interpretation.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
ok GST, I played ball...lets keep it fun. now you answer my question from earlier, even though its off topic and doesn't prove anything....just fun food for thought

guess who?

born of a virgin

born on dec. 25th

performed miracles

birth accompanied by a star in the east

3 kings

baptized at age 30

traveled with 12 deciples

was betrayed, then crucified

buried for 3 days

then resurrected

who am I?

As you choose to hide your comments behind a made up moniker on an internet site I have no idea who you are.

Multi you and I have had previous discussions about religion and faith. If you go back thru them you should be able to draw what you are seeking from them.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:

svnmag Said:
They're all here now.  Life is normal.

I wonder if btr has as much issue with states setting their own marriage laws regarding age as he seems to regarding sexual orientation?

You are incorrect. I always said marriage laws are a states issue, never have I said otherwise and this is I believe the 2nd or 3rd time I've had to correct you on that. 

btr, you certainly seem to have an issue with the state of ND making this decision as they have do you not?

In previous threads you seem to bitch a bit about it until you are reminded of the fact this IS a states rights issue in which EACH state should be able to decide themselves what is legal in their state and then reluctantly concede indeed it is. .

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:

multi-species-angler Said:

no GST, in my opinion, even though it has been prcaticed and legal in other places and times I do not think any man or woman over 18 should be able to marry or have sex with a 13 year old.

still has nothing to do with gay people.

Multi, thanks for finally answering a question.

Now unfortunately from your comments there are a couple more for you.

Where have I ever equated pedophilia to gay people?

I have not. Please stop inferring I have as it is a lie.

If you have followed along in other threads, I have pretty steadfastly brought up the marriage laws as this is what this is all about, laws regulating who can be married.

And now it comes down to this.

If YOU wish to be able to maintain YOUR ideals on the AGE of marriage even though other states have clearly written laws not in accordance with your views, why then should I or any other person not be able to hold to our ideals about marriage being between a man and a woman despite what other states have done in this regard?

What makes you so special to determine your beliefs, but others can not hold to theirs without your condemnation?

I don't have to respect your beliefs and you don't have to respect mine. However, that doesn't mean they are equal. An American should respect a persons right to hold a belief, that doesn't mean the belief itself is free of ridicule. I give someone else's belief as much respect as I think it deserves. To me, the most credible way to determine how much respect a belief deserves relates to how much fact, evidence, common sense, etc etc... That belief warrants. 

And there in lies why ND believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

As of yet in this incremental intrusion on individual and states rights by the progressive liberal ideals we still as an individual and a state have decided to honor a traditional marriage thru the eyes of the law.

So why do YOU not "respect" that belief?

I guess you are happier ridiculing it as you do every thread that mentions it on FBO.

Just curious btr, what did you think of the article svnmag shared?

Multi, what did you think of it?

You guys seemed to skip right over that one.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:

svnmag Said:
They're all here now.  Life is normal.

I wonder if btr has as much issue with states setting their own marriage laws regarding age as he seems to regarding sexual orientation?

You are incorrect. I always said marriage laws are a states issue, never have I said otherwise and this is I believe the 2nd or 3rd time I've had to correct you on that. 

btr, you certainly seem to have an issue with the state of ND making this decision as they have do you not? Nope, I do not have a problem with the people of this state voting on marriage.

In previous threads you seem to bitch a bit about it until you are reminded of the fact this IS a states rights issue in which EACH state should be able to decide themselves what is legal in their state and then reluctantly concede indeed it is. No. I have always understood this to be a states rights issue. For whatever reason, you seem to be confused about that. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

 

And there in lies why ND believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yes, the people of ND voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a women.

As of yet in this incremental intrusion on individual and states rights by the progressive liberal ideals we still as an individual and a state have decided to honor a traditional marriage thru the eyes of the law. Yes

So why do YOU not "respect" that belief? I see no valid reason not to allow same sex marriage. 

I guess you are happier ridiculing it as you do every thread that mentions it on FBO. For the most part, my ridiculing comes in to play after other people start throwing a hissy fit.

Just curious btr, what did you think of the article svnmag shared? I haven't read it yet. Mainly because I have never seen a reason to take him seriously. No offense. 

Multi, what did you think of it?

You guys seemed to skip right over that one.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

I read svnmag'ss article up until this part...

The chief obstacle to "progress" is normal sexuality's normal result: the family, nature's buffer between the child and the state, which weakens the state's moral authority and therefore dilutes the devotion to the collective that progressive authoritarianism requires.  Some conservatives wonder why leftists should care about gaining for homosexuals the "right" to participate in marriage, an institution they have hitherto belittled.  The reason is that homosexual marriage is a compromise solution for progressives who know they cannot banish marriage outright.  Institutions of civilization which create a natural counterweight to the collectivist state, but which cannot immediately be destroyed, must be infiltrated and undermined from within.





gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

btr, it is because of the constant "hissy fit" you engage in "ridiculing" everyone that holds a differing view on here about maintaining what most people (ND at least) still believe marriage should be that you have shared in past discussions that I have a hard time believing if you were being honest, you would not be happier if a Federal judge over ruled the voters of ND.

It is because a small number of people throw "hissy fits" "ridiculing" others beliefs and demanding theirs be accepted that these discussions even take place.

Perhaps if gay guys would just stick to doing each others hair and arguing over which dinnerware pattern they want and less time "ridiculing" others beliefs, these "hissy fits" wouldn't be an issue.

So why would that particular passage make you stop reading svnmags article?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

BringingTheRain Said:
I read svnmag'ss article up until this part...

The chief obstacle to "progress" is normal sexuality's normal result: the family, nature's buffer between the child and the state, which weakens the state's moral authority and therefore dilutes the devotion to the collective that progressive authoritarianism requires.  Some conservatives wonder why leftists should care about gaining for homosexuals the "right" to participate in marriage, an institution they have hitherto belittled.  The reason is that homosexual marriage is a compromise solution for degenerates who know they cannot banish marriage outright.  Institutions of civilization which create a natural counterweight to the collectivist state, but which cannot immediately be destroyed, must be infiltrated and undermined from within.





Fixed it for you.

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

What sustained activity would result in an individual being labeled as a "degenerate"?  Is the prefix "de" too hurtful?  Perhaps you should not recklessly post on FBO.  It's like a condom on Free Speech.  Condoms stifle proliferation of queers; as does abortion, shellfish, education and ridicule.

 Nuke the Whales

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

What sustained activity would result in an individual being labeled as a "degenerate

The opposite of progressive.  I don't see liberal as progressive.  Society either advances, remains the same, or degenerates.  I think bad behavior degenerates society, while instilling truth, caring, concern for others etc into our children advances society.  Simply pick any bad behavior and if we as a society accept it then it becomes degenerating to the whole of society. 

Please understand I don't use words simply to call names, but rather as the dictionary intended.  Any bad behavior that society accepts becomes a social degrading behavior.  Behaviors like concern for others, generosity etc  taught to our children advances society.  The history of the world shows us that nations do not remain socially stable for long periods of time.  They are fluctuating from advancement to degeneration.  We look at history and see degeneration usually leads to the end of that governing which brought it about.  We may on purpose fundamentally change a nation. 

Old Jake's picture
Old Jake
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/08

multi-species-angler Said:
How come rape isn't in the ten commandments? you can rape someone and get in to heaven, but if you say the lords name with a shitty attitude you burn for eternity......seems legit.

I think that may be the part about coveting your neighbor's ass?

Old Jake's picture
Old Jake
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/08

multi-species-angler Said:
well....unless its gay rape

I'm certain coveting your neighbor's ass applies here.

Old Jake's picture
Old Jake
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/08

multi-species-angler Said:
And when has any gay person, group, or organization ever discussed or disputed age of consent? here again the anti-gay side keeps bringing pedophilia and child molestation into the argument.

I don't know Old Jake...what is the age of consent? it was never an issue till you brought it up. well, never an issue with the gay community. I guess a lot of churches raise that consentual age topic a lot.

Age of consent is certainly an issue with a very small segment of the gay community as has been previously mentioned. Personally I don't believe there is a set age of consent. Some people mature faster than others both intellectually and physically. Some people never seem to grow up intellectually.

In my opinion, the main reason some in the gay community want to call their unions "marriage" is to spite those people who believe it is contrary to their religious beliefs.
Personally I see nothing wrong with allowing civil unions with the same legal benefits of marriage. For the most part my beliefs would be each to his/her own as long as you're not harming someone else.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:
btr, it is because of the constant "hissy fit" you engage in "ridiculing" everyone that holds a differing view on here about maintaining what most people (ND at least) still believe marriage should be that you have shared in past discussions that I have a hard time believing if you were being honest, you would not be happier if a Federal judge over ruled the voters of ND. I have never started a topic on this site concerning gay marriage. I have only responded to other posts after I see arguements that I don't agree with. There is a difference between disagreeing with the peoples decision 10 years ago, and the process. 

It is because a small number of people throw "hissy fits" "ridiculing" others beliefs and demanding theirs be accepted that these discussions even take place. When your beliefs affect law and the reasons behind the beliefs don't hold water, you can expect people to disagree with them. 

Perhaps if gay guys would just stick to doing each others hair and arguing over which dinnerware pattern they want and less time "ridiculing" others beliefs, these "hissy fits" wouldn't be an issue.
The same could be said for the anti gay marriage supporters. The difference here is that anti gay marriage supporters are not losing any rights, and the same sex supporters are seeking to gain rights.  
So why would that particular passage make you stop reading svnmags article? Because I laughted out loud when I read it. 

bobkat's picture
bobkat
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

 I just got a bright idea while reding this thread!
Let's STERILIZE all non gay people!  After all, they are the ones that are having kids that are programmed to be gay!   People like Dick Cheney and a lot of others that have gay kids,    Take Em out of the genetic pool,  G et rid of those biological parents of gay kids!  that would fix the problem forever,  

for or the thousandth time though, pedophilia and homosexuality are two different conditions.  One harmless, and the other not!  Society needs to be protected against Pedophiles, but gays are as harmless as straights.   Read up on medical studies about some of this stuff GST and Plainsman,    Seems if medical science came up with a cure for some cancer you!'d be happy to believe it, but if the same researchers using the same methods determine that homosexuality is determined LONG before birth, you'd not only disbelieve to but ridicule it,  

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 Its hard to argue about topics like this with people that set their rules of life by a collection of millenia old stories copied from dozens of other religions and compiled in a book in which all of it's events and characters take place approximately within the circle on the map below....

I don't know about others, but I like to think there was other stuff going on around the world back then.


multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

gst Said:

multi, I hate to break it to you, but you would NOT be the first person I would turn to for theological interpretation.

Yes, thats what it really boils down to isn't it.....interpretation.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

gst Said:

multi-species-angler Said:
ok GST, I played ball...lets keep it fun. now you answer my question from earlier, even though its off topic and doesn't prove anything....just fun food for thought

guess who?

born of a virgin

born on dec. 25th

performed miracles

birth accompanied by a star in the east

3 kings

baptized at age 30

traveled with 12 deciples

was betrayed, then crucified

buried for 3 days

then resurrected

who am I?

As you choose to hide your comments behind a made up moniker on an internet site I have no idea who you are.

Multi you and I have had previous discussions about religion and faith. If you go back thru them you should be able to draw what you are seeking from them.

chicken

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

gst Said:

multi-species-angler Said:

no GST, in my opinion, even though it has been prcaticed and legal in other places and times I do not think any man or woman over 18 should be able to marry or have sex with a 13 year old.

still has nothing to do with gay people.

Multi, thanks for finally answering a question.

Now unfortunately from your comments there are a couple more for you.

Where have I ever equated pedophilia to gay people?

I have not. Please stop inferring I have as it is a lie.

If you have followed along in other threads, I have pretty steadfastly brought up the marriage laws as this is what this is all about, laws regulating who can be married.

And now it comes down to this.

If YOU wish to be able to maintain YOUR ideals on the AGE of marriage even though other states have clearly written laws not in accordance with your views, why then should I or any other person not be able to hold to our ideals about marriage being between a man and a woman despite what other states have done in this regard?

If this is you making your point....it's pretty weak sauce

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:
btr, it is because of the constant "hissy fit" you engage in "ridiculing" everyone that holds a differing view on here about maintaining what most people (ND at least) still believe marriage should be that you have shared in past discussions that I have a hard time believing if you were being honest, you would not be happier if a Federal judge over ruled the voters of ND. I have never started a topic on this site concerning gay marriage. I have only responded to other posts after I see arguements that I don't agree with. There is a difference between disagreeing with the peoples decision 10 years ago, and the process. 

It is because a small number of people throw "hissy fits" "ridiculing" others beliefs and demanding theirs be accepted that these discussions even take place. When your beliefs affect law and the reasons behind the beliefs don't hold water, you can expect people to disagree with them. 

Perhaps if gay guys would just stick to doing each others hair and arguing over which dinnerware pattern they want and less time "ridiculing" others beliefs, these "hissy fits" wouldn't be an issue.
The same could be said for the anti gay marriage supporters. The difference here is that anti gay marriage supporters are not losing any rights, and the same sex supporters are seeking to gain rights.  
So why would that particular passage make you stop reading svnmags article? Because I laughted out loud when I read it. 

btr, I do not believe I said you have "started" a topic on this site regarding gay marriage as you suggest in the 1st underlined statement.

You have how ever "engaged" in them condemning and "ridiculing" those that believe in traditional marriage.

btr, your claiming the "reasons" behind ND laws governing marriage that  you reference in the 2nd underlined statement as not "holding water" are really nothing more than your opinion you wish to force onto the voters of ND.

btr the 3rd underlined statement is simply so much bullshit.

Most on here have said they have no problem with the state granting the "right" of the civil union to allow the very same "rights" as allowed by traditional marriage outside of the title of it being a marriage which in itself is NOT a "right".

And btr, had you not stopped reading svnmags article when you did, perhaps you would have read the very next statement.

"Institutions of civilization which create a natural counterweight to the collectivist state, but which cannot immediately be destroyed, must be infiltrated and undermined from within."

It is a tactic as old as history itself. We are watching it transpire in this nation as we speak.

But your fellow leftists of course do not wish to admit they are willing to go this far.

But a lack of honesty hardly offsets the actions and intents themselves.

Don't believe it?

Explain why, when there is an acceptance to allow a civil union which would grant the very same "rights" as one has under a marriage EXCEPT the title (which as I said earlier in and of itself is NOT a "right" ) the leftist gay progressive activist is not satisfied unless they have infiltrated and undermined the very title of which traditional marriage has been held for centuries?

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

bobkat Said:
 I just got a bright idea while reding this thread!
Let's STERILIZE all non gay people!  After all, they are the ones that are having kids that are programmed to be gay!   People like Dick Cheney and a lot of others that have gay kids,    Take Em out of the genetic pool,  G et rid of those biological parents of gay kids!  that would fix the problem forever,  

for or the thousandth time though, pedophilia and homosexuality are two different conditions.  One harmless, and the other not!  Society needs to be protected against Pedophiles, but gays are as harmless as straights.   Read up on medical studies about some of this stuff GST and Plainsman,    Seems if medical science came up with a cure for some cancer you!'d be happy to believe it, but if the same researchers using the same methods determine that homosexuality is determined LONG before birth, you'd not only disbelieve to but ridicule it,  

bobcat, perhaps you are simply getting to old to read and comprehend. Or perhaps the liberal tendencies to make bullshit claims are just too strong to resist.

I am not speaking of "pedophilia", I am speaking of marriage laws banning or allowing the union of two people based on age and the legal "rights" that accompany these marriages of a 40 year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl in some states right here in the good old USA. 

I am comparing ones beliefs towards these laws and holding them up to compare to the condemnation some hold for those whose beliefs support traditional marriage. 

Nothing more.
 
So bobcat I will pose to you the same question I have posed to others.

Is it your personal belief a 40 year old man should be able to marry a 13 year old girl and have the legal "rights" that accompany a state approved marriage such as engaging in sex?

Yes?

No?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
 

gst Said:

multi-species-angler Said:
ok GST, I played ball...lets keep it fun. now you answer my question from earlier, even though its off topic and doesn't prove anything....just fun food for thought

guess who?

born of a virgin

born on dec. 25th

performed miracles

birth accompanied by a star in the east

3 kings

baptized at age 30

traveled with 12 deciples

was betrayed, then crucified

buried for 3 days

then resurrected

who am I?

As you choose to hide your comments behind a made up moniker on an internet site I have no idea who you are.

Multi you and I have had previous discussions about religion and faith. If you go back thru them you should be able to draw what you are seeking from them.

chicken

multi if you wish to delve into another 20 page thread about religion and evolution, why not just go back and resurrect the previous ones?

What is being discussed here is the laws governing marriage.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
 

gst Said:

multi-species-angler Said:

no GST, in my opinion, even though it has been prcaticed and legal in other places and times I do not think any man or woman over 18 should be able to marry or have sex with a 13 year old.

still has nothing to do with gay people.

Multi, thanks for finally answering a question.

Now unfortunately from your comments there are a couple more for you.

Where have I ever equated pedophilia to gay people?

I have not. Please stop inferring I have as it is a lie.

If you have followed along in other threads, I have pretty steadfastly brought up the marriage laws as this is what this is all about, laws regulating who can be married.

And now it comes down to this.

If YOU wish to be able to maintain YOUR ideals on the AGE of marriage even though other states have clearly written laws not in accordance with your views, why then should I or any other person not be able to hold to our ideals about marriage being between a man and a woman despite what other states have done in this regard?

If this is you making your point....it's pretty weak sauce

call it what you wish multi.

The fact remains from your own words in this thread, you condemn others for their beliefs in what the laws governing marriage should allow regarding sexual orientation, yet demand others should follow YOUR beliefs in what the laws governing marriage should allow when it comes to age even though several states disagree with you.

I would offer up most people here would call that being a hypocrite.

701FishSlayer's picture
701FishSlayer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/5/09

Simple discussions......Impossible since 2009.

 

 

 

 

Pages