Quote: Rockdog is better known as "Weinerdog" on the Browns site, a supporter of Barrack Husein Obama, big government, wealth distribution, gay marriage, atheism, increased welfare spending, amenesty for illegals and all Green initiatives no matter the cost. He is a school teacher who feels underpaid and pension slighted who uses a an old English/East Chicago/Brit slang to communicate. He is really harmless, but loves to scatch his nails on the chaulk board. Take his rambling with a grain of salt and laugh if you can. I am sure he will eventually take a stand on the side of gay marriage and enlighten us all.
Although some of this is your rambling I appreciate the endorsement Tingcreek!
What you are calling non-procreational rape, even today, makes up a very small fraction of the total count. As rape was originally defined, the non-precreational acts you describe were not considered so.
You are dealing with a very small percentage of the total, such that, for the purposes I am describing, they can be ignored.
At no point did I DEFINE rape. I described WHY IT IS that such crime is considered more serious than a simple assault. What I am doing is stating that the modern definition of rape is a recent event. The characteristics of the crime for thousands of years have been as I described, whether or not rare, non-procreational acts are described using that term, or not.
You can technically assault someone by throwing flower petals at them. Using such a non-typical event to dismiss what are obvious, inherent characteristics of an assault is non-rational, or, in other words, something phil would do.
Likewise, a man-woman couple who don't want have children is atypical; also, their desires might change. The fact that some couples do not want children has nothing whatsoever to do with the FACT that couples having children is what we want to happen. As soon as having no children becomes the norm, the race will die out inevitably.
Take a man and a woman couple and GUARANTEE that they will not mutually, biologically produce children, assuming their are healthy.
Same-sex couple cannot do this by definition. Ironically, this is because they are THE SAME and NOT DIFFERENT.
Just for one point, for many hundreds of years, there was no safe method to terminate a pregnancy, and the mortality rate for both infants and mothers was dramatically higher than today. Also, significant possibility that any childbirth would render further births impossible. The "damage" or "harm" inflicted by rape was very much greater than it is today. A pregnancy is not seen as a very real risk to life and abortions are safe.
So, when I suggest what the inherent characteristics of something are, and that something has existed for thousands of years, some people might have the thought that these things tend to shift somewhat over long periods of time, and how they are looked at in the last twenty years or so is fairly meaningless compared to their meaning over nearly the entire span of civilized humanity.
Quote: In which way does this argument differ than the argument for interracial marriage? You can easily replace gay marriage and interracial marriage for your argument since neither one was seen as "traditional for 200+ years of American history. Yet one is legal, and one is not. Do you really not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance there?
Quote: In which way does this argument differ than the argument for interracial marriage? You can easily replace gay marriage and interracial marriage for your argument since neither one was seen as "traditional for 200+ years of American history. Yet one is legal, and one is not. Do you really not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance there?
You're joking.
Actually, no, I don't believe that he is, and I agree with him completely.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: ...... however, it seems to me that the way to overcome that is not by trying to figuratively shove peoples' noses in it. That is not the way to gain widespread acceptance of your right to live your life as you choose. You want to change an institution. You want to make it something it has never been before. .
So, by allowing gay marriage we are "shoving people's noses in WHAT exactly? Seems to me the people shoving their noses where they don't belong are the ones telling us how to live our lives, no? I don't want to change an institution at all. Where did I say that?
Lol.. sooner or later lib-speak rears it's ugly head. Who is telling who how to live their lives? You gays can engage in any perverted act that your hearts desire. No one cares. Since when is marriage a prerequisite for sex these days anyway?
You most certainly do want to change an institution. What would you call deviating from the long held tradition that marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman? Sounds like change to me.
Quote: In which way does this argument differ than the argument for interracial marriage? You can easily replace gay marriage and interracial marriage for your argument since neither one was seen as "traditional for 200+ years of American history. Yet one is legal, and one is not. Do you really not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance there?
You're joking.
Actually, no, I don't believe that he is, and I agree with him completely.
And why am I not surprised.
I am interracially married, but my Asian mate has a vagina.
You and your mate have a mutual and consensual feeling of shared love. I'd imagine many of these same-sex couples have the exact same feeling for each other that the two of you share. Is there a reason, barring any sort of religious dogma, why same-sex couples shouldn't be married?
Quote: Well, DancinDawg will graduate Kent State next year, she wants to do OSU Law School. I want as many opportunities available to her as possible
She is NOT old enough to be graduating from KSU yet (I know, next year, not this year). Bah! I haven't aged a day since I met your kids, how could they have aged?
Quote: In which way does this argument differ than the argument for interracial marriage? You can easily replace gay marriage and interracial marriage for your argument since neither one was seen as "traditional for 200+ years of American history. Yet one is legal, and one is not. Do you really not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance there?
You're joking.
Actually, no, I don't believe that he is, and I agree with him completely.
And why am I not surprised.
I am interracially married, but my Asian mate has a vagina.
Does that help clear things up?
It still doesn't change the fact that for over 200 years of American history, that marriage was not seen as traditional, and that "tradition" is no reason why we shouldn't expand equal rights to all Americans, regardless of the sex the consenting adult they choose to marry.
In fact, until the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967, interracial couples were JAILED just because they married each other. 50 years from now, gay marriage will be as accepted as interracial marriage is today. And those people will be as shocked by how resistant people were to accept gay marriage as legitimate as we are shocked by racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage.
DOMA is dead... gone, it is clearly discriminatory and fails the tenth amendment test. The federal government can't re-define marriage for its convenience if it does not like a states definition. And marriage is defined at the state level.
The California case is a bit more challenging, I think the real issue is how the issues of gays are addressed in state law, the laws outside of the definition of marriage that are important. It could go either way, but my feeling is that the court will rule on the California case, and limit it to California.
Quote: In fact, until the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967, interracial couples were JAILED just because they married each other. 50 years from now, gay marriage will be as accepted as interracial marriage is today. And those people will be as shocked by how resistant people were to accept gay marriage as legitimate as we are shocked by racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage.
50 years ago the Bible didn't say interracial marriage was wrong, it also didn't say being of this race or that was a sin. That's why people look back at those people (several of whom were wearing hoods) with shock.
50 years from now the Bible will still say that homosexuality is a sin, and that's not going to change ever.
Not being self righteous, Lord knows I'm nowhere near righteous apart from him, but if he says its wrong, I'll be found standing up for what he says is right.
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
Also: Deuteronomy 7:3-4 You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4 for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
Should we ban interfaith marriages as well?
Your argument is based solely on YOUR religious beliefs, which is fine. But YOUR religious beliefs shouldn't trump other people's rights just because YOUR religion in a country founded on freedom of religion doesn't like a certain action. Why should other people be subjected to your religious faith? Even if homosexuality is a sin, prohibiting gay people from getting married does not stop them from being gay, so I've never understood the religious argument in the first place. And it is one of MANY sins, many of which each and every one of us commits each day, but yet our rights aren't trampled. He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone
Quote: I've never understood the religious argument in the first place.
Many believe we're a Christian nation. Mainly because of references to God in the pledge, currency, state mottos, etc. A lot of this comes from the belief that the founding fathers practiced Christianity that is similar to modern day. This is far from the truth but a lot of it is rooted in this false belief about being founded as a Christian nation.
There's also the Treaty of Tripoli which firmly roots us into a secular nation. However, this is usually glossed over in U.S. History classes. Here's a nice image of the article in question which roots us as a secular nation.
The funny F symbol is actually a fancy way to write an S. We were quite pretentious back then
Quote: In which way does this argument differ than the argument for interracial marriage? You can easily replace gay marriage and interracial marriage for your argument since neither one was seen as "traditional for 200+ years of American history. Yet one is legal, and one is not. Do you really not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance there?
You're joking.
Actually, no, I don't believe that he is, and I agree with him completely.
I hadn't given that an ounce of thought,, but yeah,, it's kinda the same thing. or I should say it was, until it wasn't anymore.
I suspect that at some point, same sex marriage will be viewed in the same manner.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: In fact, until the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967, interracial couples were JAILED just because they married each other. 50 years from now, gay marriage will be as accepted as interracial marriage is today. And those people will be as shocked by how resistant people were to accept gay marriage as legitimate as we are shocked by racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage.
50 years ago the Bible didn't say interracial marriage was wrong, it also didn't say being of this race or that was a sin. That's why people look back at those people (several of whom were wearing hoods) with shock.
50 years from now the Bible will still say that homosexuality is a sin, and that's not going to change ever.
Not being self righteous, Lord knows I'm nowhere near righteous apart from him, but if he says its wrong, I'll be found standing up for what he says is right.
What the heck does the Bible have to do with anything?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: 50 years from now the Bible will still say that homosexuality is a sin, and that's not going to change ever.
Depending on who you talk to, it doesn't say that. I'm not going to debate bible translation, though. We've done that here before and it's pretty much pointless.
The Bible also states that we should not tattoo our bodies, shouldn't eat a rare steak (or any meat that still has blood) and many other things that we do but I don't hear everyone up in arms about those parts.
It's funny how only certain parts are brought out when we choose to use them to further our own.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
Rockdog is better known as "Weinerdog" on the Browns site, a supporter of Barrack Husein Obama, big government, wealth distribution, gay marriage, atheism, increased welfare spending, amenesty for illegals and all Green initiatives no matter the cost. He is a school teacher who feels underpaid and pension slighted who uses a an old English/East Chicago/Brit slang to communicate. He is really harmless, but loves to scatch his nails on the chaulk board. Take his rambling with a grain of salt and laugh if you can. I am sure he will eventually take a stand on the side of gay marriage and enlighten us all.
So his political views are the opposite of yours which entitles you to somehow label him in some uncomplimentary manner. Don't you understand it is that very train of thought as to why our nation and its people are so divided?
You sir don't help solve problems, you are one of the problems.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Rockdog is better known as "Weinerdog" on the Browns site, a supporter of Barrack Husein Obama, big government, wealth distribution, gay marriage, atheism, increased welfare spending, amenesty for illegals and all Green initiatives no matter the cost. He is a school teacher who feels underpaid and pension slighted who uses a an old English/East Chicago/Brit slang to communicate. He is really harmless, but loves to scatch his nails on the chaulk board. Take his rambling with a grain of salt and laugh if you can. I am sure he will eventually take a stand on the side of gay marriage and enlighten us all.
So his political views are the opposite of yours which entitles you to somehow label him in some uncomplimentary manner. Don't you understand it is that very train of thought as to why our nation and its people are so divided?
You sir don't help solve problems, you are one of the problems.
Thank you and well said...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: 50 years from now the Bible will still say that homosexuality is a sin, and that's not going to change ever.
Not being self righteous, Lord knows I'm nowhere near righteous apart from him, but if he says its wrong, I'll be found standing up for what he says is right.
That's pretty funny actually.
You do know what happened in the story of Sodom and Ghomora right?
Lott and his family were judged by their actions, not everyone elses. The bible tells us to "spread the word", not inflict our religious beliefs upon everyone else.
So according to "The bible", you will be judged by your actions, not everyone elses. And you have no right to inflict your beliefs upon others.
I'd say. after reading the bible a lot myself, your job is to keep your houses in order and not judge others. You remember what it said about judging others don't you?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Quote: The Bible also states that we should not tattoo our bodies, shouldn't eat a rare steak (or any meat that still has blood) and many other things that we do but I don't hear everyone up in arms about those parts.
It's funny how only certain parts are brought out when we choose to use them to further our own.
I was just having this conversation with a friend the other day.
The New Testament says that Jesus came to save us through Grace, and Grace does not require works. Grace is freely given, and must simply be accepted.
The New testament says that, because of this, the Old testament Law is not binding upon those who are redeemed through Christ. Further, we are told to go forth and sin no more. I don't believe that this means that we will never commit a sin, but rather that because of God's Grace, we are forgiven our sins just as if they had never happened.
However ..... this is not a license to sin. I don't know where the line is drawn ...... but I doubt that God wants us to violate the 10 Commandments on a daily bases and claim faith in a hypocritical fashion. The Old testament Law is gone for those who believe in Christ, but I would think that we are expected to try and obey His Commandments.
I'm not going to say anything further about the marriage aspect of this thread ..... but I do think that God wants us to live lives pleasing to Him.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: 50 years from now, gay marriage will be as accepted as interracial marriage is today. And those people will be as shocked by how resistant people were to accept gay marriage as legitimate as we are shocked by racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage.
I don't really have a problem with gay marriage from a political standpoint. I don't agree with it in my faith, but that's for me to deal with.. not for the government to make mandates to my religion...
But I wonder, 50 years from now, when gay marriage is accepted, and I believe it will... I wonder what people will be fighting for... marrying an avatar? a hologram? polygamy? interalien? Because if you think the fight ends here...
Quote: However ..... this is not a license to sin. I don't know where the line is drawn ...... but I doubt that God wants us to violate the 10 Commandments on a daily bases and claim faith in a hypocritical fashion. The Old testament Law is gone for those who believe in Christ, but I would think that we are expected to try and obey His Commandments.
I agree with this 100%.
So I guess at that point the question becomes.... Is it for each of us to be responsible to do this in our own life and be responsible for our own actions in this regard, or to mandate it in our laws for everyone?
That's where I think I differ with many. I feel each person is accountable for themselves. That mandating religious teachings or moral beliefs upon everyone is not the job of Christians or any religion.
The way our nations laws are currently, we do not have the right to discriminate or withhold equality from anyone. By the laws of the land, it would seem keeping gay marriage illegal is in fact discriminatory. So by the law of the land, I feel it should be legal.
The only reason I could see it shouldn't be, is by some religious moral code. Which is something I feel each of us should keep in our own life without inflicting our moral and religious beliefs on everyone.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Sin and the Bible have nothing to do with constitutional rights. The question is, are gay people citizens of the United States? If they ARE citizens then they must be afforded ALL of the rights every other citizen enjoys. Period. Anything less is discrimination.
Quote: The Bible also states that we should not tattoo our bodies, shouldn't eat a rare steak (or any meat that still has blood) and many other things that we do but I don't hear everyone up in arms about those parts.
It's funny how only certain parts are brought out when we choose to use them to further our own.
Pasteur should be in heaven. Old testament restrictions on food were based on death that occurred as a result of poor sanitation and a lack of ice. Most of the restrictions are have direct and defensible reasoning when sanitary practice was understood.
You are aware that straight couples are sometimes incapable of having babies right?
And why is "biologically" creating children a requirement for marriage? Adopted kids are just as loved as "biological" children. And guess what else? Some couples don't want children. At all. And yet they still are married. Shocking, I know.
All this once again is a complete logical fallacy. People are already gay. Allowing gay people to get married does not turn everyone else gay. Prohibiting gay people from getting married does not turn them straight. All allowing gay people to get married does is give people who have committed themselves to a long-term, monogamous relationship the same rights as heterosexual couples.
I honestly don't see why this matters so much to people. If a gay couple is married or not impacts your life 0%, but it impacts their lives enormously.
Quote: How shall we grant them the right to mutually and biologically create children?
By focusing lots of positive thoughts?
Maybe changing the label will help?
At first I thought you'd just forgotten to use the established 'purple sarcasm' font... but then, I remembered who was posting...
WE DON'T grant them (... or wish for them) anything of the sort.... because procreation isn't a constitutional mandate or requirement of ANY US citizen... gay or hetero.
This has NOTHING to do with procreation, the Bible, or any other held "religious belief system."
It has EVERYTHING to do with the application of what rights shall be bestowed upon (or withheld from) "certain members" of American Society.... as outlined by The Constitution of The United States of America.
This is an issue of 'Hardazz National Law,' Nelson... not your personal idea of "The Way Things Ought To Be."
__________________________
Cloud the issue with side arguments all you will, one thing is certain: denying ANY Americans rights and privileges that are enjoyed by other Americans is discrimination, pure and simple.
This is a constitutional issue only.... not a religious or even "moral" one... because concepts such as "morality" are always evaluated from a point of bias by everyone.... and even religious dogma has changed over the passage of time. (Do I need to remind you of the 'Game Changer' Jesus represented, as we "Modern Christians" transitioned from Old Testament to New?)
We have, in our Constitution, provisions that provide for ALL Americans to enjoy the same canon of rights and responsibilities... provisions which have been systematically denied "certain" Americans since the Constitution and Bill Of Rights were established. Native Americans. "Captive African Immigrants." (love that euphemism...) Chinese "Coolies." Japanese internment camps. American-born offspring of migrant workers....
The list goes on and on.... and so does the list of excuses for separating these people from the 'American Dream,' as long as there are knuckle-draggin' neanderthals who persist in seeing American Freedom as a 'zero-sum game.'
Why? -because it's Human Nature... and our Founding Fathers were astute enough to understand that Human Nature will always draw distinctions- and use those distinctions to justify oppression. Thinking such as this:
It's the: "Irish/Italians/Africans/Chinese/Japanese/Albanians/Romanians/Russians/Germans/Catholics/Muslims/Greek Orthodoxes/ Mormons/Unitarians/Jehovah's Witnesses/Moonies/ [insert subclass of Americans here] who are the problem. Keep them down/out, and everything will be great!" attitude that made the Founding Fathers set up this Grand Social Experiment in the first place. They were personal leaders of "an oppressed class"... and sought to enact policy that would protect American citizens from such institutionalized 'second-class citizenship.'
_________________________________
When will this country's principles EVER rise beyond its "lowest common denominator?" Must they always be a chain on the leg of Uncle Sam, as he limps toward the horizon?
There are people who state (in an attempt to legitimize their prejudices): "The Founding Fathers never had this in mind, when they framed the Constitution..."
I say: "Good on them.... because they were wise enough to know that they didn't know everything... and were also wise enough to give their progeny the means to sort it out."
...and that's exactly what's happening now, Nelson... almost 240 years later. For yet another group of "Americans" who have been denied equal treatment.
_______________________________
Stuff such as "procreation," "God's Law," Old/New Testament chapter and verse, and "sliding-slope" arguments such as "morality are side issues, at best.... and do nothing to change the fact that a significant portion of America's populace are being denied rights that are taken for granted by others.
It's the very definition of discrimination.... and it's wrong- according to the guidelines we all were given (by birthright or naturalization) by the Constitution that sets our nation's policy.
_________________________
THIS has to do with the overriding Law Of The Land... whether some citizens, such as yourself, like it- or not.
Fair is fair. Equal is equal.
To advocate for anything less than that absolute is to allow bigotry to influence National Policy.
I'd like to think that Our Nation is just a bit better than the least of its citizens, thank you very much.
Why do I, as a heterosexual male in a monogamous marriage care so much about the rights of some gays that I may (or may not) know?
...because I trace my family's ethnic ancestry back to American Slavery.
...and If they, like me- can be free, so should others.
As my Uncle Spence says: "Either get yourself right about this- or get left (in the dust)."
Marriage is a condition wherein the partners have certain rights and abilities relative to each other, AND their children. The primary reason the State or Collective We takes any notice of "Marriage" at all is due to procreation. This goes back many thousands of years. It came before organized government on a large scale, it is not a religious or moral issue.
I'm short, and I can"t dribble and run at the same time, but I want all the rights of an NBA player. Why should I not have them?
The reason is that I am not capable of fulfilling the primary function of an NBA player. I can't play basketball.
So, let's change the meaning of basketball to something else. It's not about scoring points, it's just a bunch of guys hanging out together.
"Discrimination" does not mean "to treat badly or wrongly". It means "to perceive a difference". Are you so afraid of making a choice, so totally unwilling to state that there is, in fact, something different here, such that rather than identify what is clearly obvious you would prefer to just change the definition?
Somebody brought up adopted children, I am amazed it took so long. Now, certainly people love and care for their adopted children, and also certainly there are couples that mistreat their mutually, biologically created offspring.
HOWEVER - Which condition is MORE LIKELY to create a situation where both members of a couple are INVESTED in that childs care, and share a bond, which is like NO OTHER, and likely to keep the couple together for the nurturing of that child?
The ties of blood, and family, are strong and fundamentally important. There is a reason that the expression "blood is thicker than water" is an ancient one. The meaning is related to marriage. Marriage is the mechanism by which two separate "bloods" become one.
I do not wish to deny ANY right to ANY person. Nor should they be denied to me. However, I am not and will never be an NBA player, and have no inherent "right" to call myself one.
Clem, would your father have demanded the right to call himself Caucasian? From what you have described in the past, I don't think so. Same rights and treatment, sure, but he would not re-define what he was, nor what a Caucasian was, as a way to get those rights. I'm pretty sure he would, in fact, discriminate and see, believe, and understand that there was a difference, and no mere changing of label would affect that.
Gosh, excellent contribution to the discussion, and man, what a sharp rebuttal!
How about you pick a specific point you disagree with and describe how and why?
If you would prefer to just whine about how "everybody should be treated the same", then send me a tryout application for the Cavaliers.
I know there are ways for old guys who can't jump to play basketball. I don't want that, it's not the same, they're treated differently, I wanna be in the NBA. It's my constitutional right!
Gosh, excellent contribution to the discussion, and man, what a sharp rebuttal!
How about you pick a specific point you disagree with and describe how and why?
If you would prefer to just whine about how "everybody should be treated the same", then send me a tryout application for the Cavaliers.
I know there are ways for old guys who can't jump to play basketball. I don't want that, it's not the same, they're treated differently, I wanna be in the NBA. It's my constitutional right!
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
