paul386
Member
+22|6666
Now before my comment let me give you a little background on me. For most of my life I would call myself a neo-conservative. Gun-ho shoot before you think, screw the weirdo's, gays should be shot kinda of a guy. Then I watched Ron Paul debate at the CNN debates in November. I became fascinated. I read several books and spend literally hundreds of hours reading about such subjects as freedom and economics. Now I would say I am quite a different person and I would describe myself as libertarian.

Now onto the topic of the thread. California votes on gay-marriage. And this reminds of the follow quotes by John Stuart Mill:

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. . . ."

"The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

People tend to see government as a way of controlling others the way they see fit. I believed this myself up until recently, so I understand how it is so. However I hope people can learn that an individual should be free to do as they wish, or as Thomas Jefferson said:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
liquix
Member
+51|6875|Peoples Republic of Portland
The true colors of a person are shown when they are called to pass judgment upon those who wish to share the freedoms they themselves enjoy.
Mavik
Member
+22|6197|Germany
Is it to late to get John Stuart Mill as chancellor in Germany?


Homosexuality is often compared to child abuse, as in "if you let them have their way, why not allow raping children as well".
The difference that in the latter case one part does not wish to take part (euphemistically speaking..), while in the first both sides consent to it, even want it - as any heterosexual couple would.

A funny comparison comes to my mind: What if all of a sudden some government or religious leader would conclude, that tea/coffee must not be taken with sugar. "If the Allmighty had wanted tea/coffee to be sweet, he would have created it that way!"

Ah well, just me again, babbling along.


Speaking of the bible, I am sure most of you will remember this little text:

"I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific
laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing
odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is
in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.  15:19-24). The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify?  Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that
we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone
them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private
family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?
(Lev. 20:14) "
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6914|Connecticut

Mavik wrote:

Is it to late to get John Stuart Mill as chancellor in Germany?


Homosexuality is often compared to child abuse, as in "if you let them have their way, why not allow raping children as well".
The difference that in the latter case one part does not wish to take part (euphemistically speaking..), while in the first both sides consent to it, even want it - as any heterosexual couple would.

A funny comparison comes to my mind: What if all of a sudden some government or religious leader would conclude, that tea/coffee must not be taken with sugar. "If the Allmighty had wanted tea/coffee to be sweet, he would have created it that way!"

Ah well, just me again, babbling along.


Speaking of the bible, I am sure most of you will remember this little text:

"I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific
laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing
odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is
in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.  15:19-24). The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify?  Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that
we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone
them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private
family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?
(Lev. 20:14) "
Oh, snap. What?
Malloy must go
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7096|Canberra, AUS
Geez, Leviticus is a nasty piece of work.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Mavik
Member
+22|6197|Germany

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Oh, snap. What?
How may I be of service?

If you refer to the "wall of text", it is a fake letter to a priest, asking for advise on how to live by the laws and rules found in the bible.
It has been around the internet for some years now.
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6914|Connecticut

Mavik wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Oh, snap. What?
How may I be of service?

If you refer to the "wall of text", it is a fake letter to a priest, asking for advise on how to live by the laws and rules found in the bible.
It has been around the internet for some years now.
Ok, I have never seen it though. Perhaps because it is not something I would search for though. I bet if I wanted to I could watch a man fucking a bear on the internet, Im sure its out there but I have never seen it because I have never searched for it.
Malloy must go
Mavik
Member
+22|6197|Germany
I never searched for it.
I found it in my mailbox as one of those fun mails.

Actually - I searched for it now, so I could copy/paste it here.
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6382|Washington DC

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Mavik wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Oh, snap. What?
How may I be of service?

If you refer to the "wall of text", it is a fake letter to a priest, asking for advise on how to live by the laws and rules found in the bible.
It has been around the internet for some years now.
Ok, I have never seen it though. Perhaps because it is not something I would search for though. I bet if I wanted to I could watch a man fucking a bear on the internet, Im sure its out there but I have never seen it because I have never searched for it.
i've seen a man fucking a girl on top of a dead bear

I didn't search for it tbh, m3thod linked me
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6248
Link?

Mavik wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Oh, snap. What?
How may I be of service?

If you refer to the "wall of text", it is a fake letter to a priest, asking for advise on how to live by the laws and rules found in the bible.
It has been around the internet for some years now.
Actually, IIRC it was a letter to a radio host who used a quote from the bible against gays/gay marriage.
Mavik
Member
+22|6197|Germany

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Link?

Actually, IIRC it was a letter to a radio host who used a quote from the bible against gays/gay marriage.
Just grabbed the text - from a site which was for sure not the original source - and closed the window again - searched for "neighbour different crops", was the first link in google.

And the correct circumstances elude me - as always in the www - but you might be right here.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6912|Northern California
Interesting, I was all ready to comment on topic, but the subject matter of this thread has nothing to do with the OP or ensuing thread.  Anyone going to make a thread "California: Gay Marriage ban on November Ballot?"  If so, I have an opinion to add.
paul386
Member
+22|6666

IRONCHEF wrote:

Interesting, I was all ready to comment on topic, but the subject matter of this thread has nothing to do with the OP or ensuing thread.  Anyone going to make a thread "California: Gay Marriage ban on November Ballot?"  If so, I have an opinion to add.
I am ready for an on topic contribution to be made to this thread.
Magpie
international welder....Douchebag Dude, <3 ur mom
+257|6947|Milkystania, yurop
How gay is it to vote on a gay subject....

Spoiler (highlight to read):
Let them marry , and be as miserable as the rest of us
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6866|The Land of Scott Walker
Gay marriage will revolutionize tv divorce court shows with a new meaning of unreconcilable differences.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6826|North Carolina
Separate marriage from the state, replace all legal recognitions of marital union with the secular institution of civil unions (and allow gay civil unions), and let churches bicker over gay marriage ceremonies.

It's that simple.  Separation of church and state FTW
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6764|tropical regions of london
libertarians are going to lose the election for mccain
usmarine2
Banned
+233|6212|Dublin, Ohio

paul386 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Interesting, I was all ready to comment on topic, but the subject matter of this thread has nothing to do with the OP or ensuing thread.  Anyone going to make a thread "California: Gay Marriage ban on November Ballot?"  If so, I have an opinion to add.
I am ready for an on topic contribution to be made to this thread.
owned
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7106|United States of America

Turquoise wrote:

Separate marriage from the state, replace all legal recognitions of marital union with the secular institution of civil unions (and allow gay civil unions), and let churches bicker over gay marriage ceremonies.

It's that simple.  Separation of church and state FTW
I'd support that. I am against the idea of a "gay marriage" because I believe it is the man and woman idea. However, if you make the governmental recognition all civil unions when joining hetero's and homo's, it allows for the m-word to be saved for use in the religious context.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6826|North Carolina

God Save the Queen wrote:

libertarians are going to lose the election for mccain
Bob Barr probably will end up being McCain's Nader, but that's fine with me.  I'd still take Obama over McCain.

...and Barr is actually more Republican than McCain.  The only changes Barr has made to fit with the Libertarian party involve supporting the legalization of marijuana and withdrawing from Iraq.  Other than that, he's mostly neocon in his stances.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6826|North Carolina

DesertFox- wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Separate marriage from the state, replace all legal recognitions of marital union with the secular institution of civil unions (and allow gay civil unions), and let churches bicker over gay marriage ceremonies.

It's that simple.  Separation of church and state FTW
I'd support that. I am against the idea of a "gay marriage" because I believe it is the man and woman idea. However, if you make the governmental recognition all civil unions when joining hetero's and homo's, it allows for the m-word to be saved for use in the religious context.
Yeah, pretty much.  I personally don't give much of a shit about the gay marriage issue because I'm neither gay nor religious, but...  we might as well further the separation of church and state in order to resolve this.  That's where the problem started anyway.

A consensual act between two adults is no business of the state except for tax purposes.
ReTox
Member
+100|6920|State of RETOXification

liquix wrote:

The true colors of a person are shown when they are called to pass judgment upon those who wish to share the freedoms they themselves enjoy.
Couldn't be put any better.
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6961|byah
Well I dont want it to pass. If this passes then all states will soon follow (except Alabama). We need a leader to scare the gays back into the closet again. Disease might go back up again.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7053|949

Turquoise wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Separate marriage from the state, replace all legal recognitions of marital union with the secular institution of civil unions (and allow gay civil unions), and let churches bicker over gay marriage ceremonies.

It's that simple.  Separation of church and state FTW
I'd support that. I am against the idea of a "gay marriage" because I believe it is the man and woman idea. However, if you make the governmental recognition all civil unions when joining hetero's and homo's, it allows for the m-word to be saved for use in the religious context.
Yeah, pretty much.  I personally don't give much of a shit about the gay marriage issue because I'm neither gay nor religious, but...  we might as well further the separation of church and state in order to resolve this.  That's where the problem started anyway.

A consensual act between two adults is no business of the state except for tax purposes.
So the main beef you guys have is the fact that the word "marriage" is used?  What about all the other colloquial uses for that word?  As far as the state is concerned, "marriage" and "civil union" are the same, except for "gay marriage" because for some weird reason people are afraid of combining the two.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-07-17 18:11:14)

imortal
Member
+240|7086|Austin, TX

DesertFox- wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Separate marriage from the state, replace all legal recognitions of marital union with the secular institution of civil unions (and allow gay civil unions), and let churches bicker over gay marriage ceremonies.

It's that simple.  Separation of church and state FTW
I'd support that. I am against the idea of a "gay marriage" because I believe it is the man and woman idea. However, if you make the governmental recognition all civil unions when joining hetero's and homo's, it allows for the m-word to be saved for use in the religious context.
I just think the term"marriage" should be used for those who have been married by an ordained minister.  If homosexuals can find one who will marry them, then so be it. 

The goverment should stay out of it, but if they have to, then use "civil union" to describe to people merging to form a single family unit, regardless of sexual orientation or the genders involved; it is none of the govenments business.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard