I am not anti Christian (Jesus is a cool dude). I just am inquisitive, and wish a mature discussion on why gays should not be married, based on any other facts besides the equivalent of Aesops fables. (bible)

But there can be never be mature discussion when one side does not respect the other. The thread isn't about religion but to use your example do you really think that any Christian is going to want listen to you once you call their central religious text a fable?

I see you think I am still mocking Chritianity.

I am mocking what man has put on it to confuse believers.

I believe in Jesus, but I do not subscribe to any "group"

Jesus would be disgusted by the intolerance displayed by modern Christians, and treat alot of them like he treated the merchants in the temple.

The prevelent feeling in America, is that Jesus hates gays, when it is a proven fact he preferred the company of sinners. (paradox eh?, do they sin or not?)
(OTOH)
So give me a point, non religious, that makes it not ok for gays to marry. Since some folks have a right to be atheist.

Jesus rules, yes. But we do not "crusade" anymore

Whether you are or not or who in particular that you're aiming at is immaterial. It's going to be taken that way by anyone who doesn't share your disdain. Mocking and insults are poison to the exchange of ideas.

CaptainHaplo pretty much lays it out in the preceding pages. I've already got the forum nanny's on my ass for objecting to being called a bigot so I think i'll pass.

Dude this is not a pro-christian board. According to many here Jesus not only does not rule, any mention of him should be kept hidden from public view.

"Get in trouble"? Who has "gotten in trouble" for posting anything within the forum rules? Examples, please.

In your very first post in this thread you said
Did you "get in trouble" for that? Did you get anything more than disagreement? Can you cite examples of how that works? You've accused several people of attacking you directly, including me. Can you give an example of a direct attack? I agree that calling everyone who is against same-sex marriage a "bigot" is painting with a very broad brush, but it strikes me as more an opinion than an attack, pretty much the same as calling everyone who supports it "anti-religious".

I have done so repeatedly. Not everyone has morals that come from the Bible. Or even religion for that matter. But lets skip the entire moral arguement.

There are financial considerations. As stated way earlier - marriage does not require monogamy - and homosexuality has massively increased risks to health compared to heterosexuality. People vote with their pocketbooks as well as their morals - the city of Asheville incurred a significant jump in its insurance costs when it started offering same sex partner benefits. That cost was passed on to the other city employees in part - but the majority of it got loaded onto the backs of the taxpayers. Considering the debt the city already has - not everyone agrees that their taxes should go up yet again to fund a higher costs of care for everyone because a few want to engage in extremely risky behavior and make others pay for it.

You asked for one - I gave you one. If you want more - go look at the entire thread.

I do not know to whom the forum 'nanny' remark refers, but no moderator has contacted any member in regards to the content of this thread. We, like many of you, continue to watch the proceedings in rapt fascination.

The Management

:haha:

Any christian that knows their text wouldn't have much of a problem with his comment, "christians" might though.

Can anyone top that for a display of false victim mentality?
It really is a doozy of magnificent proportions.

That is my understanding also....and having just checked the moderators section I can also confirm there is no reference to this thread to be found there.

While that may be the case - there I would say that there should have been action some time ago.

Anyone who has disagreed with gay marraige has been called a bigot innumerable times - accused of marrying their cousin and told to "grow up". Not to mention, stupid and [redacted].... which in and of itself violates the rules here. Statements looking forward to the death of people probably are not within the guidelines either....

I mean come on - this thing STARTED with name calling.....
But it seems that its ok as long as your bashing people who are anti-gay marriage.

I haven't brought it up until now - but the above quotes were only in the first 4 pages - and there are more. Discussions are hard enough as it is in this medium - allowing blanket statements that say anyone who is anti-gay marraige is somehow a stupid bigot who marries their cousin..... well lets just say that those kinds of allowed comments don't make discourse any easier.

You're wasting your time Hap, they see only what they want to see.

This country most of you live in is what it is, an area where every scientific/social/etc. innovation can be considered an improvement and essential advance for the betterment of humanity (lol), and so I'm sure being part of the homosexual/transsexual/bisexual/hermaphrodite/whatever community will be considered THE cutting edge of fashion worldwide the day when there will be this kind of people living in the White House for some years. It's trendy to be dark-skinned these days, after all.



http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/915804haha.jpg

The case for same-sex marriage is based on civil liberties.

America was founded by men and women who wanted to escape from the oppressive tyrannies of Europe. America was founded on the principle that a man (or woman) should be free to live his life as he wishes, within reasonable limits.

The 1789 U.S. Bill of Rights codifies the principle that individual liberty must be protected as much as possible.

Over the years, the notion of what is an accepted right has evolved. Blacks were not considered to be human beings in 1789 and it was not until the 1960s that they achieved full legal equality. Women faced the same struggle.

Gays are the latest group to demand full equality. They want the right to get married. The Surpreme Court in Loring v. Virginia stated that the right to get married is a basic civil right.

Once you recognize that: 1) each individual is equal before the law; and 2) you can not discriminate against an individual based on his/her race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, then there is no rational argument to justify why black, mixed race and heterosexual couples are allowed to get married, but homosexual couples may not.

Team Haplo, you are up. :arrgh!:

Here is a news item which shows that this issue is no longer left-right. In Massachusetts, the Republicans are backing an openly gay, pro same-sex marriage candidate because he has the best chance to win:

Are there any compelling reasons other than religious that gay marriage should not be accepted and instituted? What does the gay couple achieve, receive, obtain or gain as a result of winning the right to marriage? Is itmonetary gain, self-esteem or just a equal right? What, in their lives, is being suppressed by not having the right to marriage? Is this just the fight for the right?

Based on what, exactly? Yes, people get to state opinions, even wrong ones. Most of the "bigot" comments were directed generally at all people who oppose gay marriage. While impolite and possibly not true, and unquestionably an insult, the term reflects an actual belief held by the user. And, as Mookie said "then don't act like one". I don't know what is in anyone's mind, so I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but to their minds the term is valid and true, so they use it.

Yes it did, but again it was used generically. I don't see you objecting when people on the right talk about "Stupid lefties", and that happens at least once a week here. It now becomes a case of goose and gander.

"They" aren't the only ones. Again, goose and gander.

Besides, all this occurred last week when everyone was more worked up about the issue. I think this is just a distraction by Team Haplo to cover up the fact that they don't have a strong argument. :ping:

But you only care when it's someone who holds a different opinion than you. In your little world the goose gets cooked and the gander is allowed a free pass to say whatever it wants.

Don't bother to reply. I think i'll take a break from you for awhile.

Be fair, the religious argement is no more compelling than all the other failed arguements.

So onto matters of measure.
Since the last big bigotted marriage amendment in NC took 96 years to get rid of how long will it take for this amendment to be struck off?

An interesting statement, is this the same person who has been complaining about posts that only exist in his imagination?
But hey I will make it OK for you
Would you like the religious one sorted or the recent one man horde posting about tax?:hmmm:
Religion is on topic.
If I use time travel it can appear you were correct so here goes...

And back to the present...wow august you were right this forum is full of that :yep:
well "not quite" since that doesn't cover the "many" people.
So we need more time travellers to go back and make the same posts to show you are not just making it up.:salute: