[Kopribear]

Hi ^^ this is a controversial issue, but one which I must face in an upcoming mock debate. I realize that I'm purposely attempting to start a flame (*crosses fingers*), but I'd like to be prepared with all sides of both argument, so I'd like to hear the responses of others. I may interject a few times because I get rather uppidy about the issue.

Keep it clean, and no personal attacks or deragatory terms if you please.

[KaVir]

What on earth has this got to do with muds?

And don't you think there's enough flamebait on these forums already? Coming from the person who's been whining about other people flaming, I'd have thought you'd show a little more common sense.

[Kopribear]

...I was under the impression that, in the Tavern, it doesn't have to have anything to do with MUDs.

Also, KaVir, try comprehending what someone has written. I wasn't complaining about the flaming itself (which I actually said was amusing if you've forgotten) I was complaining about the redundancy. Almost every thread has gone into the same Medievia debate.

At any rate, this isn't a resolved issue in different parts of the country, very much unlike the Medievia issue, and it is for a purpose. A selfish purpose, yes, but purpose nonetheless.

So if anyone with a CONTRIBUTION would like to participate, I'd still like to hear what they have to say.

[Valg]

I'd prefer to not see TMS overrun with non-MUD-related traffic. There's any number of political websites that fill the niche you're looking for.

[Jazuela]

Originally Posted by Tavern of the Blue Hand Come in, have a drink! The place to post about anything, as long as it doesn't belong in one of the other forums. Forum Led by: Orion Elder, Synozeer

I'd say Kupribear's thread fits the description perfectly. If Orion or Synozeer intended for the Tavern to include only posts that were mud-related, I'm sure both of them are intelligent enough to have mentioned that. There've been plenty of threads in this folder that weren't mud related.

I don't particularly feel that the topic of gay rights is conducive to no-spam no-flame discussion or debate, however. Given the obvious lack of self-restraint exhibited by several regular contributors, it probably should've been reserved for a forum that welcomes intelligent thought and maturity.

Even so, she's not breaking any rules, or even coming close to crossing any lines by posting this thread here.

[Ilkidarios]

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ May 16 2005,09:38) I'd say Kopribear's thread fits the description perfectly.

Sure, when some Iron Realms lap dog starts a poll, people agree with her point that the Tavern is an okay medium for this sort of thing. But God forbid someone like me start a poll, otherwise everyone tells me to "stop posting things like this". What the #### is happening here? Is Realms staging a takeover?

[Ilkidarios]

This thread is too vague. It doesn't say what kind of rights. For instance, I support civil unions but not marriage. I still think they should get equal treatment in the eyes of government and in their everyday lives, but there's no need to get married. I also don't think the government has the authority to reform the rules of marriage, after all, marriage is a religious practice. Besides, they can have all the benefits of marriage in a civil union.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ May 16 2005,09:38) Originally Posted by Tavern of the Blue Hand Come in, have a drink! The place to post about anything, as long as it doesn't belong in one of the other forums. Forum Led by: Orion Elder, Synozeer I'd say Kupribear's thread fits the description perfectly. If Orion or Synozeer intended for the Tavern to include only posts that were mud-related, I'm sure both of them are intelligent enough to have mentioned that. There've been plenty of threads in this folder that weren't mud related. I don't particularly feel that the topic of gay rights is conducive to no-spam no-flame discussion or debate, however. Given the obvious lack of self-restraint exhibited by several regular contributors, it probably should've been reserved for a forum that welcomes intelligent thought and maturity. Even so, she's not breaking any rules, or even coming close to crossing any lines by posting this thread here.

I never stated (nor intended to state) that it was a rules problem, or that anyone should be banned. Rather that I'd prefer if irrelevant-to-MUDs topics didn't become common.

You could use TMS for all kinds of discussions, but I think the forums as a whole would profit if people did use them for the reason people would read forums on a site dedicated to MUDs.

For a parallel experience, feel free to visit the ACLU's Lesbian/Gay rights page and ask them what features they look for in a MUD client. Let me know how it turns out.

[Ilkidarios]

Isn't there a seperation of church and state? Don't priests marry people? Since when can some lawman from Massachusetts determine who can get married?

[Kopribear]

Sorry, specifications:

Civil unions. Not marriage. Marriage is a church thing. I mean rights granted by state and country.

Also, I'd prefer not to be called a lapdog. I didn't attack you, I'd appreciate the same treatment in return.

[Threshold]

This thread is total garbage.

Can SOMEONE start moderating?

Political crap has no place here, even in the general discussion forum. There are enough flames as is, no?

[Kopribear]

Yes. Muaha, we are planning a takeover. A hostile one. Involving massive gummybear troops. *rolls eyes*

And this hasn't become a flame now, has it? It's currently just a discussion. If you don't like it, lovely, then stop opening the thread, and stop replying to it. You're just boosting it to the top of the list.

[Ilkidarios]

Well, in that case, I don't see what the problem is with gays having civil unions. Seems fine to me.

[Fifi]

Gay rights in regard to some specific political contraversy, or just generally?

Generally, and this applies to the rights of everyone in the united states, as long as you as a group are taxed at the same rate per capita you are entitled to the privileges and protections afforded every other tax payer. (This includes the right to leave your worldly goods to your significant other without those goods falling subject to death tax.)

[Jazuela]

Originally Posted by (Fifi @ May 16 2005,18:44) Gay rights in regard to some specific political contraversy, or just generally? Generally, and this applies to the rights of everyone in the united states, as long as you as a group are taxed at the same rate per capita you are entitled to the privileges and protections afforded every other tax payer. (This includes the right to leave your worldly goods to your significant other without those goods falling subject to death tax.)

Yes, you have the right to leave your estate to your SO. But a blood relative *or legally married spouse* has the legal right to overturn it.

Your SO is not allowed into your hospital room if you're involved in a car accident. Family only, and your significant other is not considered family unless legally married to you.

Your SO is not allowed to benefit from your health insurance in most situations (though this is changing slowly).

You and your SO are not allowed to file "married, filing jointly." You MUST file single, even if filing as a joint/married couple would benefit you.

These are all discrimatory practices by the government, all because they have chosen to define marriage as requiring one male and one female - something typically and historically reserved for Judeo-Christian religions.

This is why many people support civil unions - it allows the churches to continue doing what they do - while at the same time, recognizing the *legalities* involved in gay couples who choose to live in a life-partnership with each other.

[Fifi]

Actually the issue I am referring to is this:

When you die you can leave your estate to anyone. However, if you leave it to anyone but a spouse there are taxes on those monies or goods. However, anything your spouse inherits is not subject to that same tax. So, the whole moral issue of marriage vs civil union aside, if someone spends a life with someone not a legal spouse that person doesn't have that tax privledge. I can't help thinking it's easier to rewrite tax law than the constitution, but I'm no politician, so what do I know?

[tehScarecrow]

I didn't vote. Saying "gay rights, yes or no?" doesn't even begin to address the complexity of the issue, besides to perhaps be biased towards "yes".

[Hardestadt]

Originally Posted by (Kopribear @ May 17 2005,02:46) Sorry, specifications: Civil unions. Not marriage. Marriage is a church thing. I mean rights granted by state and country. Also, I'd prefer not to be called a lapdog. I didn't attack you, I'd appreciate the same treatment in return.

I hope for your sake, you're in the middle of the bible belt. Then you'd have an excuse for your spiteful ignorance.

-H

[Kopribear]

Spiteful ignorance? I'm sorry that I didn't have time to give a lengthy explanation of what exactly I meant. But you asked for it... oh yes, hold on to your seats, this is going to be long.

Just a pre-note... this isn't aimed at anyone, and it isn't in response to any argument going on. It's something I wrote to get my thoughts in order... and to reply to an ignorant and hateful comment made on a different forum. Enjoy.



If men exist solely to spread their seed, and women solely to bear children, then why are there sterile men and infertile women? This chauvinistic and inhumane belief is unfounded without religion, thus it is no argument against homosexuality. Unless the claim that it is an ‘act of God’ is made, the argument cannot be founded… and dogma is a very weak foundation.

To say that homosexuals should be shunned because they bear no children is to say that all couples that can bear no children should be shunned, and the individuals incapable be destroyed, for they have no use to humanity. If not, then they be forced to lead a life of solitude, or at least a life without marriage. Yet we discriminate. It is not different, be that the sole argument. A man and a man bearing no children is the same as a man and a woman bearing no children. Neither couple bears children. Just because one thinks a man and a woman are the only acceptable couple does not mean that it is a founded or just argument, nor does it make it correct.

If sex is not for pleasure, but for procreation, then condoms and all form of birth control should be gotten rid of. There is no need if this self-righteous belief is correct. To say that homosexuals are in the wrong because their sexual activity bears no offspring and then to turn around and use a contraceptive in one’s own sexual relationship is one of the purest forms of hypocrisy. Anti-gay for this reason? Quit using condoms and only have sex if you plan on having children. Don’t want children? No sex for you. Otherwise this argument loses all credibility and validity.

For the people who say it is against Christian beliefs, I ask you this: is hypocrisy not also against Christianity? Is one not a hypocrite if he condemns his brother for his sins, and turns around to mask his own? Does the Bible not ask:

For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?
Job 27:8

Nowhere in the Good Book is the quote “Thou shalt deny thy brother healthcare be he of the homosexual persuasion.” Nor does it state anything to do with homosexuality being a choice! Yes, the lifestyle is, but I refer you to my previous arguments.
The Bible does state, however….

Job 20:4-5
4 Knowest thou not this of old, since man was placed upon earth,
5 That the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the
hypocrite but for a moment?

Job 27:4
4 My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit.

Proverbs 11:9
9 An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through
knowledge shall the just be delivered.

Matthew 7:1
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:46
46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Luke 6:31
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them
likewise.

Luke 6:36
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Matthew 5:43-44
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you;

Matthew 19:19
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself.

Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:27
27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them
which hate you,

John 13:34
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;
as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Galatians 5:14
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself.

Galatians 5:25
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

1 Thessalonians 3:12
12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward
another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:

1 Thessalonians 4:8
8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath
also given unto us his holy Spirit.

1 Peter 2:17
17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

1 Peter 3:8
8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another,
love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

I John 3:11
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
should love one another.

I John 3:14
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love
the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

I John 3:23
23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of
his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us
commandment.

I John 4:7
7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one
that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

I John 4:11
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

I John 4:12
12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God
dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

I John 4:16
16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and
God in him.

I John 4:20
20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar:
for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he
love God whom he hath not seen?

And so on. Believe it right or wrong, it is not anyone’s place to judge anyone else. Believe it right or wrong, homosexuals are not a sexuality, but human. That is undeniable.

Also undeniable are the rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

The ONLY stipulation to these rights is that if, in exercising one’s rights, one interferes with the rights of another, they have gone too far and, beyond that boundary, it is no longer their right. Homosexuals are no exception. Civil union interferes with the rights of no one. “I have to see it,” isn’t a valid argument, because I have to see people pick their noses in public. I have to see bad grammar all over the internet. I have to see HETEROsexual PDA, which is no less disgusting (and is even sometimes more) than any of that. PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. I have no right to stop them from pursuing that happiness, because though may bother me, it’s not harming me or infringing upon my rights.
Giving gays the ability to share benefits with their partners is not infringing upon anyone’s rights. Legally binding them hurts no one. They aren’t asking to be recognized by God, or to be wed in a church while the Pope douses them with holy water. They just want the same rights as every other human in the USA has. Denying them their pursuit of happiness to wed takes away a right that is guaranteed to them! Perhaps the Framers didn’t have gays in mind when they wrote it, but for heaven’s sake, they didn’t have women, racial minorities, or for that matter anyone not a rich white male in mind either! Yet look at America now. Denying civil unions is just as unconstitutional as denying an American citizen 18 years of age or older who is properly registered the right to vote.

So perhaps you are thinking that homosexuality is wrong because there is something wrong with gay people. Well, physically there’s nothing wrong aside from health problems that everyone has. No difference there. Brain-wise? Again, physically their brain waves are the same as heterosexual people’s brainwaves, or as similar as two different brain’s waves can be. Psychologically the only problems are those that straight people develop, too… depression, bipolarity, DID, schizophrenia… all usually caused by either an abusive home life (likely because the parents of said homosexual is anti-gay and tried to beat it out of them) or because of the ignorant, self-righteous, oppressive bigots who spurn and chastise them… same way heteros develop problems, just that the event happen for different reasons. Hate does tend to make people sick when exposed to it for very long…

Another argument is that the gay community is indiscriminate. Well, if the worry is of promiscuity, how about you make up your damned mind? Either allow them the opportunity to bind themselves to a single partner of their choice, or realize that the denial of such an opportunity tends to lead to a less monogamous lifestyle. If marriage did not exist, few humans would remain bound to one partner forever. Marriage for love wasn’t an idea introduced until much after the Renaissance, and judging by the divorce rate (of heterosexuals alone) in the United States, the novelty of the idea seems to have worn off. There are more practical reasons to marry, now, so why marry for a silly thing called love? ß your secret mentality? Then stop the hypocrisy, and stop assuming that homosexuals wouldn’t unite out of love. That’s not for anyone to decide, because no one baby-sits the heteros who marry, lest it be the church in which case that has nothing to do with civil unions anyway.

No one’s asking you to be gay, or an activist in the new civil rights cause, or even to like the idea. The only request is this: stop the hypocrisy, stop the discrimination, and start looking at everyone as a human, not as a sexuality.




So... I'm ignorant? Okay...

~Kopri


(Sorry about the length!!

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Kopribear @ May 16 2005,16:54) And this hasn't become a flame now, has it?

Sure it has- complete with name calling (e.g. ignorant).

[Kopribear]

hush. It wasn't when I made that post.

[Delerak]

How entertaining..

[Ilkidarios]

Originally Posted by (Hardestadt @ May 16 2005,19:47) Originally Posted by (Kopribear @ May 17 2005,02:46) Sorry, specifications: Civil unions. Not marriage. Marriage is a church thing. I mean rights granted by state and country. Also, I'd prefer not to be called a lapdog. I didn't attack you, I'd appreciate the same treatment in return. I hope for your sake, you're in the middle of the bible belt. Then you'd have an excuse for your spiteful ignorance. -H

What's the problem with civil unions? How is her statement ignorant? Marriage is an invention of the church, and it should be allowed to regulate it the way it pleases. There IS a seperation of church & state. The church should be allowed to make its decisions and the government should stay out of it. Gays don't need to be married, marriage is between a man & a woman, but they should be allowed civil unions that afford all the benefits of marriage because they should be held equal by the government.

[Lanthum]

Originally Posted by (Kopribear @ May 16 2005,19:33) For the people who say it is against Christian beliefs, I ask you this: is hypocrisy not also against Christianity? Is one not a hypocrite if he condemns his brother for his sins, and turns around to mask his own?

Yes, hypocrisy is wrong.  But that doesn't make homosexuality any less wrong in God's eye.  Yes, more Chrisitians should worry about taking the plank out of their own eye like Jesus said in Matthew 7:5 ... but that doesn't excuse doing a sin just because the one who pointed it out is a sinner also.

I'm not sure where I stand in accordance with most other Christians, but I know this - homosexuality is a sin.  It's an ACT, and it's a sin.  But I'm a sinner also, and I'm no better than any other sinner.  I'd like to believe that any single act isn't the whole of the person.  And that the person should be loved despite their actions.  Just as all those Bible verses you quoted say.

I don't like the act - but I feel we [the people] should offer everyone the same GOVERNMENTAL rights.  I agree with Ilkidarios - civil unions should be allowed and should be afforded the same judicial protection as marriages.  But I strongly believe that the government should not be able to force the church into performing gay marriages.  It hasn't been the definition of marriage from the beginning, and it shouldn't be changed now!

Originally Posted by (Kopribear @ May 16 2005,19:33) Believe it right or wrong, it is not anyone’s place to judge anyone else.

After all the scripture you quoted, I hope you are not saying that's what the Bible says. It just says that however you judge someone - so shall you be judged. Make sure you quote the rest of that passage along with the corresponding ones.

We as humans judge ever day. If you were walking down the street and you saw someone walking towards you in all black clothing carrying a bloody knife ... I bet you'd judge REAL quick! It'd the basis of reasoning ... all the scripture warns us of is that we need to remember that by whatever measure we judge other's and their actions - our actions and us will be judged the same way - just as harshly.


(Climbs down off the soapbox mumblling) "Sorry, sorry ... that's enough"

[Kopribear]

*takes notes* thank yooou...

But the semantics about my statement of judgement... no, I didn't mean that it was from the bible. That was a personal interjection... and I think you know that I didn't mean a man with a bloody knife. I meant don't judge others by sexuality, or any other unchangeable factor that makes them different.

[Jazuela]

We can judge, and do judge, people by their differences all the time. In fact it's pretty important to do so.

Examples:

I wouldn't hire someone with a severe speech impediment to work as a switchboard operator in my company. I have nothing against people with speech impediments, but they just plain aren't qualified to do the job.

I wouldn't hire a man as a model for womens' swimsuits, for the same reason. He is not qualified.

Both examples are judgments. And both are completely valid.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way...

Homosexuals aren't any more or less qualified than heterosexuals to visit their SOs in the hospital, inherit estates without counter-claims by blood relatives, adopt children, jointly own property and be responsible -and benefit- from joint tax returns.

And because they are no more or less qualified, because there is nothing to distinguish any criteria specific to heterosexuals that would disqualify homosexuals *according to law and not religion*, they should have the exact same rights as heterosexuals to each of those things, and anything else that applies.

[AC1]

"Marriage" has both a legal and religious meaning, which is irksome and the cause of much of the current misunderstandings.  It isn't just a religious blessing, it is also a  contract between (currently) a man, a woman and the state, and is subject to the courts -- which has nothing at all to do with religion.  So you get the term "civil union" to try to differentiate the government part from the church part, sort sort like the difference between a real high school diploma (with all the cultural baggage the high school experience implies) and a GED.  The thing is that it is a fake distinction.  If a man and a woman get unioned at city hall by a clerk, magistrate or judged they are still called a married couple.  You get a marriage license, not a civil union license.  You still have to choose the "married" box on all the forms you fill out.  There are plenty of Christian churches that already perform blessing ceremonies on homosexual couples, partly on the grounds that all love comes from God and God doesn't make mistakes.  They can't call them marriages because to legally be a marriage they would need a marriage certificate, which they can't get in most districts.  It is an icky mess.

Of course no minister would be forced to perform a wedding ceremony for any couple that they have moral objections to.  What kind of nutjob would even want a hostile minister on their big day?  Forcing a minister to perform any religious ceremony would impose on their own rights.  A priest doesn't have to bury you if he doesn't like you, so why would he have to marry you?  That is just silly alarmist crap.  There are potential human rights difficulties in tangental issues though.  Like if your church has a church hall that they routinely rent out for wedding receptions even if the ceremony was not performed in that church (many churches with large halls or reception rooms rent these out, it is a source of revenue and some churches do not have large enough halls of their own) would they be able to refuse to rent out their hall for a gay wedding reception?  I don't know, renting out your hall to a third party is a legal contract, not a religious one, so there is a potential arguement there.  Again, I don't see why you would even want to use the hall of a group hostile to you when there are perfectly good hotels and resturants ready to rent out space for the reception, but some people like to fight, I guess.  



Oh, Kopribear,  you didn't address the "slippery slope" arguement.  The one that goes along the lines that if gays are allowed to be legally married then pedophiles, polygamists and other devients will want the right to be married too.  

I don't see it myself.  I mean, I can see pedophiles wanting the right to marry since it isn't illegal to have sex with your spouce, but I doubt they could get it just because homosexuals did.  Children are barred from all sorts of legal activities, and I don't see that changing starting with marriage -- you'd have more support for letting pre-pubecent kids vote or go to adult jail than you would for letting them get married.  I don't expect to see Pedophile Pride parades anytime soon.  

Poligamy is even more of a no-brainer.  Yes, supporters of poligamy, polyandry and polyamory probably would want to have their relationships legally recognised as well, but so what?  There are already poligamists living among us, doing stupid things like marrying, divorcing that wife while still living together as a family to legally marry the next, repeat as needed.  It would be more complicated than the current one man, one wife system, but there is no reason why voluntary polyamory should be prohibited by law.  To protect their contractual rights, the existing spouce(s) would have to agree to each additional marriage: secretly having multiple spouces would still be illegal and in that case only the first marriage contract would be legally binding.  So marriage licenses would have to have room for more than two signatures, big deal.  There are religions that support multiple marriages, and those religions should be respected even if you don't agree with them.


I am a Christian, but I firmly believe that you can't force another person into heaven.  You can't ever know what is in their hearts, and in all but the most repressive societies you can't know much about their behavior either.  Plenty of people who have gone on to become anti-christian (rather than simply non-christian) did so because of harm caused by people believed to be upstanding members of the church, but who were also rapists, child molesters, batterers, murderers, thieves, hypocrits and downright evil people -- yet were not suspected, or in some cases had even admitted to their sins and publicly prayed about them and been forgiven, without anyone bothering to inform the secular authorities that a crime, not just a sin but a crime, had been going on.  It's no wonder those kids grew up bitter, and now hate organized religion.  If they thought it over,  people who belive in devils, demons and other active evil (which isn't all Christians) would probably come to the conclusion that evil people had been deliberately planted among their congregations to drive others away from God.   But I'm getting off track, you can't ever know who is or is not really a godly person.  The guy who looks like a pilar of the church and says all the right things could be a monster.  The guy who looks like a lost soul could be a saint.  You can't force anyone to live a godly life, even if you can control their acts you certainly can not control their thoughts or beliefs, and trying to control other people just makes you look like an ass.  

I honestly don't know what God thinks about homosexuality.  There is that one line in Leviticus that is translated very differently in the various versions of the Bible but that definately seems to indicate God isn't into hot man-on-man action.  But Leviticus doesn't say anything about girl-on-girl action, so is God ok with lesbians?  And it isn't just a case of women neglecting to be mentioned, a few verses away it says that if a woman has sex with an animal both the woman and the animal should be killed.  However, it doesn't mention what should happen if a man has sex with an animal, so I guess that means G*d has some compassion for lonely sheep herders?     Besides, didn't Jesus do away with the old laws and guidlines of the old testiment when he released The Comandments V2.0?  You know, the simple yet elegant Love God and Love your neighbour.  Because if he didn't, then I've eatten way to much bacon in my life.  And worked on the Sabbath, both Saturdays and Sundays.  Not to mention all the chairs I've sat on and food I've prepared while I've been menstrating.  Or the number of times I have failed to sacrifice two doves when I stopped menstrating.  I am SO unclean it isn't even funny.  In fact, I can't remember anyone I know ever performing a ritual purification -- even a lot of jews don't bother with most of this stuff.  I'm certainly not going to claim to speak for God about this stuff, He is perfectly able to speak for Himself if He wants to.




Angela Christine


http://www.amnestyusa.org/outfront/index.do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus
http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Lau...Leviticus.html

[Zaq]

I'll just slip in a note here:  

Over the past seven years, republicans have made an alarming move to take control over the branches of government.  Regardless of the facts, I'm sure it has something to do with being unsatisfied at filibustering Clinton's nominees in the past.

During these seven years, republicans have:

Taken over congress by means of redistricting texas and slipping into the majority.

Created an extensive abuse of lobbying practices almost effectively making it a fourth branch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep21.html

Consistently abused the sacred barrier of the seperation of church and state- A) Using pulpits to influence voting B) Allowing the audacious pursuits to allow creationism into schools just to name a few

Squandered the national spending and the foriegn policies of the world - A) The oil for food scandal was actually a US creation B) Money laundering in texas  C) Illegal activity within the congressional house D) Tyranny

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep21.html

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-...lForFood.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7723344/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar11.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Mar7.html


You want to have a gay rights debate?  I suggest you take a look at where it comes from first.

I shouldn't even have to supply every reference.

[Kopribear]

Originally Posted by Oh, Kopribear, you didn't address the "slippery slope" arguement. The one that goes along the lines that if gays are allowed to be legally married then pedophiles, polygamists and other devients will want the right to be married too.

I'm quite unsure as to how one can compare two adults being civilly united to pedophilia. I see your point, it just doesn't seem likely at all. Congress knows how to draw lines. But they also know how to cross them. I'd like to see a pedophile's argument as to why he/she can marry a child. That pursuit of happiness is infringing upon parental rights... and the well being of the child.

As for everything else... *takes more notes*

[Ilkidarios]

Originally Posted by (Zaq @ May 17 2005,17<!--emo&[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]B) Allowing the audacious pursuits to allow creationism into schools just to name a few

I'll have you know that the theory of Intelligent Design has the same right to be taught as the theory of Evolution.  I myself think that they should teach both in school.  My family happens to believe in Evolution, but I wouldn't want to force my beliefs on someone else who has different ideas. Intelligent Design and Evolution are both theories on equal footing, Intelligent Design isn't strictly a religious belief, but there are all kinds of people who believe in some form of it. We haven't proven either, so right now they're both on the same level as String Theory.