[Kopribear]

...It is rather ridiculous and stupid, though, you must admit. Plus grammatically very incorrect.

See Kobebear, I could care less what you think. So keep your thoughts to yourself, I read them, but I won't remember them by the time I Push that little "Add Reply" button down there.
Seriously.


Here are my views, Gays should be shot. Male or Female.
Along with anyone that has sex with animals.
Racism is bad, and I would hate it if the government took away all the firearms of the law abiding citizens.
But that won't stop me from being as racist as I want in a MUD.
All those sex offenders and rapists should be hung by the end of a rope.
Along with the leader of North Korea, though I respect the #### out of the guy.
I always believed that theory that "Two countries that have MCdonald's in them, won't ever go to war"
But don't worry. I am of Russian Descent and "Native American's" Not "indians", should have been handled better.

History Books are written by the Winners, by the way.

This is my last post by the way for this topic, Kopribear. So either Email me or get over it.

[Kopribear]

You, my friend, never make any sense in any of your posts. Have you ever considered making a complete sentence? Following through with a whole thought? ...checking your facts before you post?

[Jeena]

[dragon master]

It was started by wealthy Democrats to organize poor southerners in an attempt to keep Republicans(remember the parties weren't the same back then, Abraham Licoln was a Republican) out of the south. Since African American people were the major supporters of Republicans at the time, the creators of the Klan mainly had them targeted, justifying their attacks with the racism that was rampant in the South at the time. The Klan has since then changed, become even less political and more about spreading hate.

And I'm assuming when you say "keep blacks in their place", you mean from the Klan's perspective and don't mean that African Americans actually deserve to be treated like that.

[Kopribear]

Vultuuures... stop picking apart what she said. I think, as a history professor, she knows these things, and in an effort to not give us a history lecture, accidentally oversimplified what she meant to say. Jeena does not seem like a white supremacist to me.

By the way, just to defend my statements before they are also picked apart, I was referring to the KKK -after- they became much more radical (among other things) than originally intended.

<3
Kopri

[Lanthum]

WOW! I just had to comment on this quote (and there are a few others JUST like it). I was originally going to stay out of this discussion after my initial post ... but I didn't realize this board was populated by so many highly educated, scholarly theologians.

Maybe you could point me to a few stories (not just mere verses) in the Bible that support any of these claims? I must have missed those when reading it ... I mean, I can google too for a few verses here and there that LOOK like that - but when studying the stories they are in, AND understanding the time in history they take place ... these bold claims seem pure FICTION to me.

[Singer]

Although I am very liberal, and do not agree with these things. Here is a few samples.

SODOMY IS AN ABOMINABLE SIN, WORTHY OF DEATH.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13. "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32.
See also Leviticus 18:22, Genesis 19, Romans 1:18-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11, I Timothy 1:10, and Jude 7.

[Jazuela]

Singer, that's according to the bible you choose to use as your personal moral and ethic set of rules. Not everyone is Christian, and the government is -required- by law of the Constitution to remain a seperate entity from religion.

Remove all reference to "sin" and quotes from bibles to support your opinion, and try again. Find a reason WITHIN THE LAW that supports your opinion that gays should not be allowed to form legal civil unions and receive benefits that heterosexuals already enjoy.

Furthermore..even if we were to use your bible to support the law - you realize that not all homosexuals engage in sodomy right? And that some heterosexuals enjoy it with partners of the opposite sex, right? And that lesbians lack the equipment required to perform it at all, right?

So - according to the "Sodomy is a sin" theory - lesbians should be free to join in civil unions, because they don't commit sodomy. And heterosexual men and women who commit sodomy should have their marriage licenses revoked.

Also remember, according to the very same bible you use as your support system: Jesus died for your sins. So it's OKAY to commit Sodomy, since Jesus forgives you. And therefore all claims to "sinful" activities are moot.

[Jeena]

Wow folks read the entire message before commenting. The fellow said he didn't agree with these things and just googled them.

And of course I was speaking from the KKK point of view earlier. Sheesh.

As for myself, I'm sorry, but there was never a time when the KKK was an okay institution. Yes, it's purported reason for organizing was as a political group and to help the poor. They even said they were a religious organization like the masons. They had secret meetings and handshakes and the whole nine yards. But it was a political group who did not simply use politics in order to push it's agenda. In the very early stages, it harrassed people, was largely responsible for threats against blacks and whites who supported black rights. Frequently, threats were carried out.

Now, all that aside...
Let's face it...it's no one's business what goes on in the bedroom of another person. If one important thing is kept in mind.
"No other person's rights are violated."
Honestly, who cares who is gay and who is not? I don't. No one should. Being homosexual has nothing to do with whether a person is a hard worker, or is a caring person, or is able to fight as a soldier. It has to do with who that person has sex with. A private act which is no one's business.

[Singer]

I agree with Jeena, except on the KKK issue where I declare ignorance.

[Singer]

Oh I just have to comment on this.

Firstly, read the point Jeena makes.

If you follow your argument to conclusion, all the sins are ok, since Jesus died for our sins.

It doesn't make sence.

Note though that I agree that it is noncense to derive Homosexuals of rights due to quotes from the bible.

[Alleria]

You can actually bring the bible into play here for deriving homosexuals out of rights. The bible contradicts itself in many ways. One in particular was brought up by Singer. If Jesus died for our sins, and if he forgives us for them all, then why would someone go to #### for sins if they are being forgivin? (I spelled that wrong, I know)


Just a thought.

[dragon master]

First of all, I never said the KKK was a good thing, EVER. It was always a bad thing, from having an ickyish goal with a very bad means to go about it to having very bad goals in general with very bad means to go about them.

Second, he Bible is just one big story or I guess a whole bunch of little ones, so I don't see what you mean about not finding stories.

Leviticus 20 opens with the "The LORD said to Moses," and goes on to say things like gays should be killed, as should adulterers, disrespectuful children, fortune tellers, and such like that. So, if the stories in the bible are true, God actually said that.

If you want something more storyish, (because maybe you do believe that although the bible is perfect right, God lies in places like Leviticus 20) that actually tells about God doing something awful, how about this:

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up, baldhead," they shouted, "go up, baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24)

These aren't isolated occurences either, there are all sorts of death and destruction as well as encouragement upon things like slavery. The Old Testament encourages all sorts of dreadful things that aren't usually accepted by today's moral standards. Yet, there are lawmakers who look at this same book and take the anti-gay quotes and use them to make laws.

[Ilkidarios]

Not if you think like I do, like I said earlier, in my beliefs the old and new testement gods are two different dieties.

[AC1]

"Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine. " -- Henry S. Haskins

[Kopribear]

So... in my opinion the bible arguments are over to be honest. Redundancy is fine and well for a while... basic points:

The bible says that homosexuality is wrong.

The bible also contradicts itself all over the place.

I agree that the diety in the Old Testament and the One in the New Testament are completely different...

But anyway, as was stated before, since there is separation of church and state, taking away the religious argument and trying to argue for depriving people (gay or not) of their rights is almost impossible. ...but I'd like to see it tried. So...

Putting personal opinions and religious bias aside, who can give me an argument that shows the legitimacy or even legality of depriving law abiding individuals of their rights?

<3
Kopri

[shadowfyr]

Hmm. Lets see:

Health - Probably not. Gay or straight, its the presense of a disease that is a problem, not 'who' is exposed. However, the CDC has stated that nudity is actualy a slightly lower risk to disease transfer, since diseases don't survive sunlight or exposure to dry and/or cold environments and clothes provide dark, warmth and moisture (sweat), yet you won't find one person arguing for the 'healthy' nature of nudity, unless its a nudist. Same with homosexuality. Its benefit is lack of pregnacy, which is definitely also a health issue, so 'could' by a bit of a stretch be considered 'safer'. But definitely a stretch. What is true is that there is a lot of inuendo, but no evidence of 'any' greater health risk, aside from that arising from promiscuity, which those trying to enter into civil unions are either not interesting in or willing to give up.

Child health - Bad idea to argue this. Every study every done so far suggests that if anything homosexuals are 'more' dedicated to and empathic with the needs of children they raise. It might actually be a major boon to be raised by one.

Psychological - Same as child health to some extent. The anti-gay crowd screams about exposure to them 'turning' people gay and even claims they conspire to convert people. Again, every study in existance indicates that children raised among them have no higher a percentage of homosexuality than society in general. I'll repeat that, all these horrible conspiring gays are failing to convert any more people to it than would already have shown the behaviour, to word it so the loony right wingers comprehend it. Note, I didn't say 'believe' it, just understand it.

Hmm. What's left? Gross out factor? Maybe for two men together, but most males would have no problem with two girls they know involving themselves with each other, while he watched. lol Double standard at its best. That pretty much 'only' leaves religion. Unfortunately, Christianity and Islam are still edging out all the 'sane' ones by at least a slight margin:



Yep, I would love to hear about the 'legal', 'medical', etc. reasons, without finding out that the author claiming them pulled the whole article out of religious propoganda, pseudo scientific groups like the Discovery Institute or his own ass.

[AC1]

[Kopribear]

There wouldn't be an expanse in anything... it'd be just like a heterosexual couple marrying. Two lesbians + two gay males could= two hetero couples if not for pre-stated sexual persuasion. It equals out.

And... sad social commentary that 'inevitable' comes before 'divorce'.

Plus, we're talking about civil unions remember. We don't want the zealots getting uppidy.