Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

by keenobserver1 Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

If there is a God, he definetly isn't English.

by Shirina Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:41 am

Homosexual persons, heterosexual persons, asexual persons, and any other persons I might have missed, have identical rights within the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions of the United States. I had the right to marry when I was single and of age; all single persons of age within these fifty-one jurisdictions have the right to marry. There is no discrimination; equal rights under the law and equal protection of the law are afforded all persons.

Sorry, Rock, but that simply isn't true, nor is your definition of "homosexual."

Now here's the issue for me. I haven't really advertised this fact before simply because it never came up, but I live with two roommates -- a lesbian couple. I'm not gay myself, but having lived with them for three years now and watching their trials and tribulations, I think I understand their point of view far more than I would have if I simply read about it. I don't always agree with the actions of the gay culture, and I've told them so when appropriate, but I also know how often non-gays who aren't around gays 24/7 like I am get so many things wrong.

Thus I will offer you a brief but important education.

First and foremost, you wish to define "homosexuals" based on what they do, which is to have sexual relations with the same gender. Wrong. That would essentially be like defining "black" as mere skin color while ignoring the culture, language, religious beliefs, and many other aspects that are unique to the black race. It all really boils down to this: Being homosexual is not like being a plumber. It's not merely something you do. It's not a profession. Being homosexual is who they are ... just like being heterosexual is who YOU are and who I am. They cannot change their sexual identity any more than you can. You can't pray it away. It can't be beaten or bullied out of them. It can't be shamed or guilt-tripped out of them. It can't be discriminated out of them. They identify with being gay just as you identify with being black, and as someone who has brought up the Civil Rights movement many times, you should know how it feels to be discriminated against.

The idea that homosexuality is merely an action rather than an identity is merely an excuse offered up by those who want to be against homosexuality but can't quite bring themselves to admitting it -- so they redefine what homosexuality is based on their own perceptions instead of the perceptions of the homosexuals themselves. That is the first justification of prejudice. They reduce the entire gay culture and identity to a mere sex act because that's a lot easier to condemn.

Secondly, I know first hand the nastiness that goes on, the kind of stuff you don't hear about on the news. For instance, one of the lesbians I've known for 16 years, long before she ever came out of the closet. We were even roommates once before while living in Pennsylvania. When she did come out, everyone assumed I was gay, as well. I was taunted and threatened by the neighborhood kids. Our house was egged two or three times a week. My tires were slashed. Vulgarities were spray painted on the sidewalk in front of our house. I was on a first name basis with several police officers because of this, and it didn't stop until they sent a patrol car to do drive-bys every few hours. And that's just what happened to me, and I'm not even gay. Just LIVING with a lesbian brought that down upon my head.

And then there's the second half of this couple. During my first year living with them, the other lesbian was drummed out of her job because the guys groped her constantly, the office personnel called her an "it" (they refused to use a human pronoun), people left Bible verses from Leviticus and Deuteronomy in her locker and under her car windshield wipers, her co-workers were always trying to get her fired, and I don't even have to mention how many times she was physically threatened. She eventually began making inroads to the media for an investigative report, and when her employer found that out, they had to isolate her by moving her to a different department ... and then demanded she break all kinds of safety regulations in order to keep her job. When she refused, she was kicked to the curb.

Now, with all of that going on just with these two lesbians, I can't even imagine how widespread this is all across the country. And you know what, Rock? Those gay marriage bans do a lot more than simply ban gay marriage. Oh yes. Those bans send a message to every bigot, bully, and psycho that harassing, tormenting, and discriminating against gays is perfectly fine and Jim-Dandy in the good ole "Land of the Free." You remember how it was, right, Rock? When whites could get away with just about anything as long as it was done to a black person? Oh, I understand perfectly that the severity of gay persecution is nowhere near what it was against blacks. I get it.

But you know what? Prejudice and discrimination piss me off no matter HOW small it is and no matter who it is directed toward. I don't claim to be a part of gay culture, I'm not an expert, and I won't even say I know what it's like to walk a mile in their shoes. But after watching my two friends sink into depression after North Carolina banned gay marriage, I don't have to. I recognize pain when I see it, and that is universal.

On to your original point. You claim they have the same rights as everyone else ... that they can marry the opposite gender like everyone else. Well, Rock ... what if the shoe was on the other foot? What if you were told that you could only marry another man and, if you don't like it, well, you have the same right to marry a man just like a homosexual does. Could you change who you are, hmm? Could you suddenly decide to be homosexual? Or would you continue having a relationship with a female even though you know you could never legally marry her? I'm betting I know the answer. Tell me then how "fair" those so-called "equal" rights actually are. They can no more become straight in order to marry a member of the opposite sex than you could have become white in the 50's in order to marry a caucasian girl. Remember those laws against interracial marriage?

Just how many times do we have to re-learn this lesson before Americans start living up to the standards we have set for ourselves? I mean, once gays get their rights (which they eventually will), who will it be next? We've already had our hate-fests in regards to the Irish, Chinese, Catholics, Germans, Japanese, Africans, women, Muslims, British, Quakers, and a long list of others. Who will be the target next? Fat people? The disabled? Gingers? People whose last names begin with R?

The cycle of bigotry and unfounded hatred needs to stop. It's that simple.

by Guest Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:09 am

Shirina,

I choose to use precise definitions for everything about which I talk. This is a dispassionate statement of fact: the definitions I’ve offered above are the definitions I use.

The word “homogeneous” means “same”, and the word “sexual” refers to sexual interaction; thus, “homosexual” identifies persons that interact sexually with other persons that are “the same”, in this case, the same gender.

There is no “black race.” There are but three macro-races; Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid; all other human populations are mixtures of these three. There are Black ethnicities, which include a number of ethnicities. Most Black folk are born into this ethnicity. I was, and I was born into ethnicities that are part of an overall Black ethnicity. I’ll stop there because an exhaustive exposition of my ethnicities would take a little while. Dr. Graves may help.

The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America
Joseph L. Graves Jr.
See a brief excerpt here.
http://www.enotalone.com/personal-growth/5043.html

See this interview with Joseph L. Graves, Jr.
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-06.htm

No valid comparison of ethnically Black persons and persons that interact with person of the same gender can be made.

I have redefined nothing. “Homosexual” is defined by its component words,“homogeneous” and “sexual.” The definitions of these three words existed before my birth.

The violators responsible for the felonies you’ve documented should be in prison right now. Threatening death is now a terroristic threat in some jurisdictions. Obtaining a conviction with all the supporting evidence is a matter of prosecutors taking terroristic threats seriously. In my opinion, and I think I’m right, wrongful non-convictions are just as wrong as wrongful convictions. One problem is the temptation to call these violent acts “hate crimes.” Once that charge is made, a prosecutor must prove the presence of an emotion. It seems much simpler to get a conviction for making terroristic threats. From what you’ve documented, it appears that both the neighborhood crimes and the on-the-job crimes fall into this category.

For the record, my employment history includes homosexual co-workers, and there were no incidents such as you have described in any of those workplaces. My educational history includes homosexual professors, one of whom is in my personal top echelon, which is equivalent to “top ten.”

Your other points I believe have been addressed by me in previous posts.

by snowyflake Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:29 am

No valid comparison of ethnically Black persons and persons that interact with person of the same gender can be made.

Discrimination is discrimination. It wasn't that long ago that black people weren't even protected by the laws in America (regardless of what the constitution says). Homosexuality is no more a choice than being black is. And the fact that a certain percentage of people are homosexual suggests that they should have as much right to marry each other, adopt children and will their assets to those they love as much as anyone else. Why does anyone care if they are given this right? The only opposition to this is purely religious. There is no other impediment.

by polyglide Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:26 am

The fact that one is not doing anything wrong to another is nonsense in terms of what and what is not allowed or acceptable.

If you accept that a Gay is not responsible for his condition regarding sexuality through his genes etc; then you set a precedent and everyone whose actions are determined by their genes should have the same protection and rights.

Rapists, child abusers, murderers etc; etc; could all make a similar claim.

To suggest that homosexuals do not hurt anyone else, just ask any Muslim,
there are more ways than physical harm to make a person hurt.

In our country there has never been a chance for all the people to vote on homosexuality, nor was it ever in any manifesto, it was let in by Blair and his friends: through the back door.

by trevorw2539 Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:34 am

Quote.
And the fact that a certain percentage of people are homosexual suggests that they should have as much right to marry each other, adopt children and will their assets to those they love as much as anyone else.

My quote
Not at all. That homosexuals should have the right to marry I do not dispute.
However nature/evolution has decreed that in humanity male and female should reproduce. Each sex has a specific task in the upbringing of offspring as decreed by nature. I do not dispute that two of the same gender can bring up children with love. I do dispute that they can give the same that nature intended. As I dispute that one parent families, without the balance of shared responsibility, can again give the balance that nature intended.

Those are simply my views. I have no intention of getting into any discussion.

by snowyflake Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:46 am

If you accept that a Gay is not responsible for his condition regarding sexuality through his genes etc; then you set a precedent and everyone whose actions are determined by their genes should have the same protection and rights.

Just because you are genetically predisposed to certain behaviour does not mean you don't take responsibility for your actions. Just as hair colour, eye colour, height etc is genetically determined, so is sexuality. Having sex with a consenting adult of the same sex is a) none of your business and b) doesn't harm anyone else.

Criminal behaviour, I believe, is also genetically predetermined but environment can also switch on or off such tendencies depending on controlling factors. I also believe that people can control their tendencies when they know they are causing harm. I believe they choose not to. Many people with psychopathic personality disorders, never kill anyone or physically harm others. They go into business or politics or become evangelical preachers. Smile

Between consenting adults, homosexuality harms no one. Rapists, child molesters, serial killers do great harm and having a genetic predisposition does not absolve you of responsibility.

Homosexuality is a purely religious taboo and as we know that genetics plays a large part of who you are, I feel infinitely sad for those Muslims, Christians and other faiths who find themselves to be homosexual and must hide the truth about themselves from their families and loved ones. In Uganda, homosexuality is now a capital offense. Do you truly believe that hanging a homosexual is helpful for society? Do you truly believe as a Christian that this is the loving behaviour that Christ preached?

I don't. Reason #146 of why I am an atheist.

by polyglide Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:51 am

I do not believe humans have any right to subject homosexuals to any kind of puinishment, that is God's right.

by snowyflake Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:52 am

Not at all. That homosexuals should have the right to marry I do not dispute.
However nature/evolution has decreed that in humanity male and female should reproduce. Each sex has a specific task in the upbringing of offspring as decreed by nature. I do not dispute that two of the same gender can bring up children with love. I do dispute that they can give the same that nature intended. As I dispute that one parent families, without the balance of shared responsibility, can again give the balance that nature intended.

Decreed? Where does it say that? In the bible? If homosexuals married and never produced children you would think that homosexuality would just die out. History has shown that it doesn't and has always been present at a small percentage. So why not accept that homosexuality is a part of human nature, may have an evolutionary role to play in keeping population numbers down. And when it harms no one let them get on with living life with as much freedom and protection under the law as the rest of us.

by Shirina Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:59 pm

If you accept that a Gay is not responsible for his condition regarding sexuality through his genes etc; then you set a precedent and everyone whose actions are determined by their genes should have the same protection and rights.

For phucks sake, polyglide, STOP using the Slippery Slope fallacy. It's really starting to irritate me. Your position is a non-argument and doesn't even deserve a rebuttal (as per the nature of a fallacy, it disproves itself). If you can't offer up anything other than fallacious arguments, why bother at all?

Rapists, child abusers, murderers etc; etc; could all make a similar claim.

No, polyglide, they can't. The reason is because rapists, child abusers, murderers (etc.) all do harm to others against the victim's will. The main point here is that, even if homosexuality was a behavior rather than a genetic disposition, consenting adults should have the RIGHT to engage in it without the Sex Police showing up at their door. Your religion and your beliefs have NO right to decide for everyone who is allowed to do what between two consenting adults.

Do you know why? Well, let's see. The following link is to a site describing 33 different sexual fetishes:

LINK

Out of all of these sexual fetishes, which ones carry with them a marriage ban or an adoption ban? Go on, look it over. I dare you. And I'll save you the effort -- NONE of these fetish seekers are banned from marrying or adopting. Now, why is that, I wonder? Oh right ... it's because NONE of these fetishes are mentioned in that Prude's Guide to Bronze Age Sex euphemstically called "The Bible." Hell, even child rapists and spouse murderers are allowed to marry. Do you know who Andrea Yates is? She's an infamous child murderer here in the States, and guess what ... SHE HAS MORE KIDS! But oh no, let's focus all of our attention on homosexuality, because that's sooo much worse, isn't it.

To suggest that homosexuals do not hurt anyone else, just ask any Muslim, there are more ways than physical harm to make a person hurt.

Meaning what, exactly? Are you suggesting that Westerners shouldn't be gay because it might offend a Muslim? Seriously? WTF? You'll have to explain this further.

In our country there has never been a chance for all the people to vote on homosexuality, nor was it ever in any manifesto, it was let in by Blair and his friends: through the back door.

A majority should NEVER be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority. That is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. In other words, a flagrant misuse of democracy.

by Shirina Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:07 pm

However nature/evolution has decreed that in humanity male and female should reproduce.

No it doesn't. Nature/evolution has given humans the ABILITY to reproduce. The idea of "should" is a human imperative and has nothing to do with nature or evolution. Considering the exponential population growth, I seriously doubt we "should" be reproducing anyway.

I have no intention of getting into any discussion.

Trevor, speaking as an admin/moderator here, I really take issue with people who drop controversial postings into a discussion and then refuse to actually discuss them. You haven't broken any rules as such, but it is unfair to the rest of us to insert your views and then ignore what others say. In posting parlance, that's known as "sniping" and I do frown upon that. I can't stop you from doing it, but I don't particularly like it.

by snowyflake Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:29 pm

I do not believe humans have any right to subject homosexuals to any kind of puinishment, that is God's right.

Yet they do it everyday, polyglide, in the name of God and because it is written in a book. And you tacitly approve of the treatment of homosexuals because of your beliefs and you would oppose any legislation that provided gay people the same rights as the rest of us. I cannot understand how you can live like that.

by Guest Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:16 pm

snowyflake wrote:
No valid comparison of ethnically Black persons and persons that interact with person of the same gender can be made.
Discrimination is discrimination. It wasn't that long ago that black people weren't even protected by the laws in America (regardless of what the constitution says). Homosexuality is no more a choice than being black is. And the fact that a certain percentage of people are homosexual suggests that they should have as much right to marry each other, adopt children and will their assets to those they love as much as anyone else. Why does anyone care if they are given this right? The only opposition to this is purely religious. There is no other impediment.

You’ve viewed the definition of the underlined words that I use. Some actions are involuntary (breathing); others are voluntary. I am Black (ethnicity) by neither involuntary nor voluntary actions. Black persons cannot validly be compared with persons who interact sexually with other persons.

All single persons of age within the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions of the United States have the right to marry. There is no discrimination. All persons within the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions of the United States are guaranteed equal rights under the law and equal protection of the law.

by Guest Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:27 pm

Shirina wrote:
… even if homosexuality was a behavior…

It is.

Shirina wrote:
… consenting adults should have the RIGHT to engage in it without the Sex Police showing up at their door.

They do.

by Tosh Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:10 pm

To suggest that homosexuals do not hurt anyone else, just ask any Muslim,

Gotta be a troll, since I cannot attack you, I will let you go.

Trevor,

However nature/evolution has decreed that in humanity male and female should reproduce.

Reproduction is a genetic code and homosexuality is a genetic code, it appears nature/evolution decrees both.

Each sex has a specific task in the upbringing of offspring as decreed by nature.

I would have hoped humans had progressed beyond the outcomes of tooth and claw natural selection, you place great faith in the laws of the jungle and calling it a decree of nature does not alter its barbaric origins. You have a rather rose tinted view of nature, it does not decree morality or ethics.

There are a great deal of instructions that are " decreed by nature ", humanity is what seperates us from genetically driven beasts.

by Tosh Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:26 pm

… even if homosexuality was a behavior…

It is.

A behaviour that spans every cultural environment since records began, a behaviour that is present in at least 1500 non-human species.
The evidence suggest the behaviour has a genetic explanation, in other words " they are born that way ".

by snowyflake Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:53 pm

Homosexuality is as inate as heterosexuality and homosexuals should enjoy the same rights to marry homosexuals as heterosexuals have the right to marry heterosexuals.

Playing with words and semantics does not change the fact that homosexuals are NOT allowed to legally marry other homosexuals in America. And that is discrimination.

by Guest Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:58 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Homosexuality is as inate as heterosexuality and homosexuals should enjoy the same rights to marry homosexuals as heterosexuals have the right to marry heterosexuals.

Playing with words and semantics does not change the fact that homosexuals are NOT allowed to legally marry other homosexuals in America. And that is discrimination.

Snowy,

I use precisely defined words precisely, I play with neither words nor semantics, and I’m a bit too long at the tooth to waste finite time and energy expositing something I do not believe. Disagree or agree, but please do not doubt my integrity.

Homogenous + sexual/sexuality = homosexual/homosexuality. Heterogeneous + sexual/sexuality = heterosexual/heterosexuality. Both sets of terms are generated from and refer to sexual interactivity. The first terms of each set, homosexual and heterosexual, can be used as adjectives, “homosexual person(s) / heterosexual person(s)”, or as nouns, “homosexual(s) / heterosexual(s).” Either as adjectives modifying nouns or as stand-alone nouns, these two words refer to person that interact sexually with other persons, in the first case, persons that interact sexually with persons of the same gender, in the second case, persons that interact sexually with persons of the other gender,.

The fifty sovereign states’ governments retain authority over marriage contracts within the respective states. I believe that the governments of Puerto Rico (the sole de facto commonwealth within US territory), the US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, and any US-owned territory I’ve neglected to mention, possess delegated authority granted them by Congress over marriage contracts in their respective territories. In all of these fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions, single persons of age possess the right to marry. In all of these fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions, the right to marry is restricted to single persons of age. The only other restriction of which I am aware has to do with incarceration. Those are the only restrictions; thus, those are the only discriminatory restraints. I do not consider restricting marriage to single persons of age to be discrimination.

by snowyflake Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:15 pm

You are still playing with words and definitions when you know exactly the point I am making. I specifically stated that homosexual persons are not allowed to marry other homosexual persons in America when heterosexual persons are allowed to marry other heterosexual persons. That is discriminatory. Governments may retain authority over marriage contracts but that doesn't mean the law cannot or should not change to include all citizens of the US regardless of their sexual orientation. The right to marry is restricted if it involves a union between homosexual persons. That is discrimination. Do you consider restricting the marriage between single consenting homosexual couples of age discriminatory?

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:03 am

snowyflake wrote:
You are still playing with words and definitions when you know exactly the point I am making.

I am playing with neither words nor definitions. I am using words precisely and using definitions precisely derived.

snowyflake wrote:
I specifically stated that homosexual persons are not allowed to marry other homosexual persons in America when heterosexual persons are allowed to marry other heterosexual persons.

Neither “homosexual persons” nor “heterosexual persons” are mentioned in the laws regarding marriage in any US jurisdiction’s laws upon which I am competent to comment.

snowyflake wrote:
That is discriminatory.

The term “discriminatory” as applied to law refers to any law which forbids something to one group while allowing it to another group. Laws which forbade Black Americans from using modern restrooms while allowing White Americans to use modern restrooms were discriminatory; in this case, in my view this was discrimination. Laws which forbid no-single persons not of age from marrying while allowing single persons of age to marry are discriminatory; in this case, in my opinion, this is not discrimination.

snowyflake wrote:
Governments may retain authority over marriage contracts but that doesn't mean the law cannot or should not change to include all citizens of the US regardless of their sexual orientation.

In all fifty-on sovereign jurisdictions within the United States, the right to marry does in fact “include all citizens of the US regardless of their sexual orientation”, to use your words. The right to marry excludes non-single persons. The right to marry excludes persons not of age.

snowyflake wrote:
The right to marry is restricted if it involves a union between homosexual persons. That is discrimination. Do you consider restricting the marriage between single consenting homosexual couples of age discriminatory?

I consider restricting the right to marry to single persons of age discriminatory; I do not consider it discrimination. I am aware of no other discriminatory restrictions.

by Tosh Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:42 am

Snowy,

No offence to Texas, but he does not agree to a religious ceremony involving gays because being gay is wrong according to the Bible. Its just that simple, good old fashioned fundamentalism, its the way his brain works, its why he insists on breaking down every word or phrase to their fundamental meaning.
Done of course under the guise of accuracy and truth, in effect its just semantic pretence, playing with words in order to justify beliefs that in the 21 st century are just frankly ridiculous.
Well balanced people are well aware their religious texts are to be viewed in the context of their time. An intelligent believer would gather God's message was contemproray, one that could be adapted some 2000 years later..
Making God a homophobe is just a few doors down from stoning gays to death, all you have to do is insist on the fundamentals of words and create a fundamental message.

There is black and white thinking and there is fundamentalism, fundamentalism makes the former almost reasonable.

Seemingly the Bible describes the Big Bang because the fundamental meaning of the words he uses coincide with each other, that is the level of Proof he needs, its just ludicrous. If one were to use scientific fundamentals to describe the big bang then the similarity ends, where has his truth gone ? According to Texas, it must be true because the fundamental meaning of words creates truth, unfortunately for him the sane world disagrees, it uses a more reliable method, called evidence and reason.

Words describe truth, they do not create it, you have to have an almost mechanistic mind to think otherwise, an inability to absorb creative concepts, thinking at its most basic level, thinking without reason, a mechanism that is designed to reject any evidence against the fundamentals, and uses the meaning of words to do so.

Get a nurse in here.

by snowyflake Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:46 am

Neither “homosexual persons” nor “heterosexual persons” are mentioned in the laws regarding marriage in any US jurisdiction’s laws upon which I am competent to comment.

Neither are black, white or other persons mentioned. The fact remains that homosexuals are not permitted to marry in America and that is discrimination. And in some states there is an outright ban on gay marriage. That is discrimination. Can you imagine if there was a ban on black people marrying? Or disabled people marrying?

Words describe truth, they do not create it

How true.

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:18 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Neither “homosexual persons” nor “heterosexual persons” are mentioned in the laws regarding marriage in any US jurisdiction’s laws upon which I am competent to comment.
Neither are black, white or other persons mentioned. The fact remains that homosexuals are not permitted to marry in America…

All persons underlined above are permitted to marry in the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions within the United States.

snowyflake wrote:
… and that is discrimination.

Discriminatory restrictions upon marriage in the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions within the United States are (1) only single persons are permitted to marry, and (2) only persons of age are permitted to marry. I consider these to be appropriate discriminatory restrictions, and thus I do not consider them discrimination.

snowyflake wrote:
Words describe truth, they do not create it

How true.

True. Truth dates back to “the event”, the singularity, b’r’shythe, the point/time at which/when existence came into existence; thus, truth predates spoken/written words.

by Tosh Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:00 pm

True. Truth dates back to “the event”, the singularity, b’r’shythe, the point/time at which/when existence came into existence; thus, truth predates spoken/written words.

.

If the truth predates the spoken word and the truth dates back to the singularity, then Genesis 1:1-3 is not true and God did not speak the universe into existence.

Thats the problem with relying on semantics to make your case, you end up contradicting the very thing you are supposed to be defending. You have just proven using your own logic God did not create the universe and Genesis 1 is not true cheers

by snowyflake Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:11 pm

All persons underlined above are permitted to marry in the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions within the United States.

Thank you Rock for pointing out that homosexuals are not allowed to marry in the 51 sovereign jurisdictions within the US. Smile

by Tosh Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:47 pm

Gay people are not allowed a religious marriage ceremony because the singularity is the unspoken truth, to some this may seem insane and they are probably right.

The Scots who died at the Alamo are turning in their graves.

by Shirina Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:06 pm

All single persons of age within the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions of the United States have the right to marry. There is no discrimination.

So you say.

Rock, why don't you revisit my earlier question rather than conveniently ignoring it? I asked: What if the shoe was on the other foot and heterosexual marriage was banned. Could you change your behavior and marry another man? Or would you continue having sexual relations with women because that is who you are?

And because I think I already know the answer to this question (which is probably why you ignored it), how can you then possibly reduce homosexuality to a mere sex act? In fact, how do you KNOW anything at ALL about what it's like to be homosexual? Are you one? Do you even know any on the same level I know two (i.e. living with them 24/7)?

Or, put another way, could you literally fall in love with another male in the same way you now fall in love with women? This is the key element in regards to homophobic misrepresentations concerning what homosexuality is. People who rail against it can only do so from the standpoint of the actual sex act. But I'll put this question to you: Would I be fair in reducing heterosexual relationships to merely a sex act? Would you take issue with me if I said the only reason why you married your wife is so you could engage in sex?

If not, then why do you think it's fair to say that about homosexuals?

I'll wait right here for a cogent answer.

by Shirina Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:09 pm

It is.

I see.

Yet, heterosexual sex is also a behavior, is it not?

Why, then, isn't it banned?

And I'll direct you to my post to polyglide. Why are not those 33 sexual fetishes banned ... or the practitioners of it banned from marrying or adopting children?

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:56 pm

Shirina wrote:
All single persons of age within the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions of the United States have the right to marry. There is no discrimination.
So you say.

So the laws of fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions within the United States say.

Shirina wrote:
It is.
I see.

Yet, heterosexual sex is also a behavior, is it not?

It is.

Shirina wrote:
Why, then, isn't it banned?

Why should it be?

Shirina wrote:
Why are not those 33 sexual fetishes banned…

Why should they be?

Shirina wrote:
... or the practitioners of it banned from marrying… ?

Why should they be?

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:57 pm

delete

by snowyflake Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:00 pm

Rock, why should homosexual marriage be banned?

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:19 pm

snowyflake wrote:
All persons underlined above are permitted to marry in the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions within the United States.
Thank you Rock for pointing out that homosexuals are not allowed to marry in the 51 sovereign jurisdictions within the US.

RockOnBrother wrote:
snowyflake wrote:
Neither “homosexual persons” nor “heterosexual persons” are mentioned in the laws regarding marriage in any US jurisdiction’s laws upon which I am competent to comment.
Neither are black, white or other persons mentioned. The fact remains that homosexuals are not permitted to marry in America…
All persons underlined above are permitted to marry in the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions within the United States.

I believe you missed this: “homosexual persons.” Thank you for alerting me to my omission of this: “homosexuals.” Due to your diligence, I have been able to correct my error.

On another topic upon which you commented, the spoken/written word¹ and God’s Word² are different terms with different meanings. Our common language (even though y’all add an unnecessary “u” to perfectly good words like “favor”, “harbor”, “labor”, and “neighbor”) betrays the distinctly different actual meanings of “word” and “word.” See the Greek words and meanings below. Logos, when exhaustively exposited, fills up a bit more space than that required for its definition below.

λαλιά, lalia (lal-ee-ah‘), talk, speech, verbal or written, emphasizing the sound or script rather than the content.
λόγος, logos (log‘-os), thought, topic, subject of discourse, reasoning, the mental faculty or motive, a computation, account, cause, communication, intent, reason, emphasizing the content rather than the sound or script.

by snowyflake Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:34 pm

A homosexual is not allowed to marry another homosexual in the 51 sovereign states and that is discrimination, discriminatory and wrong.

On the other topic, words look wrong without the "u". And it is English after all (the clue is in the word! Smile

)

Later Rock, gotta get up early for work in the morning.

by Tosh Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:42 pm

the spoken/written word and God’s Word are different terms with different meanings. Our common language betrays the distinctly different actual meanings of “word” and “word.”

LMAO....more semantic guff to support Genesis and the Big Bang are one and the same truth, not a word about evidence, oops sorry I forgot words are evidence, in fact the word is evidence as longs its the word not the word. ?????????

Take a look at the fundamental meaning of truth, and try and distort that into your vacuous hypothesis.

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:06 pm

Incident #1 (Tosh, Sunday 4 November 2012 at 21:42):

Tosh wrote:
Re: Evidence for the existence of God
by Tosh on Sun 4 Nov 2012 - 21:42
the spoken/written word and God’s Word are different terms with different meanings. Our common language betrays the distinctly different actual meanings of “word” and “word.”

When quoting text which I have authored, trouble yourself to reproduce it accurately, with underlining and superscripted, and completely, including the Greek words and definitions you omitted.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Evidence for the existence of God
by RockOnBrother on Sun 4 Nov 2012 - 21:19

On another topic upon which you commented, the spoken/written word¹ and God’s Word² are different terms with different meanings. See the Greek words and meanings below.

λαλιά, lalia (lal-ee-ah‘), talk, speech, verbal or written, emphasizing the sound or script rather than the content.

λόγος, logos (log‘-os), thought, topic, subject of discourse, reasoning, the mental faculty or motive, a computation, account, cause, communication, intent, reason, emphasizing the content rather than the sound or script.

Feel free to (1) hit the “quote” button at the top right corner of this post, (2) copy the text as authored, and (3) quote away.

by Shirina Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:37 pm

So the laws of fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions within the United States say.

And simply because "the laws say" means it's not discrimination? So essentially none of the laws that discriminated against blacks were, by the same logic, also not discriminatory because, well, the "law says."

I am playing with neither words nor definitions.

You're playing with semantics, and whether by accident or intent, these games all too often lure the topic away from the difficult questions people ask of you. How convenient, is it not? Your exposition about "word" vs. "word" is a very obvious case in point. No longer is the discussion about gay rights but instead it has shifted to etymology. And while that subject is interesting in its own right, I am more than capable of resisting the siren's call of nontopical discussion.

Therefore, it's back to the topic at hand.

Neither “homosexual persons” nor “heterosexual persons” are mentioned in the laws regarding marriage in any US jurisdiction’s laws upon which I am competent to comment.

Let's discontinue the disingenuous practice of being willfully obtuse. Perhaps your obsession with verbal precision has allowed you to be deceived by the legal smokescreen, but those of us who know how to "read between the lines" are far more cognizant of what is really occurring. As many on the wrong side of history have consistently pointed out: Marriage has always been traditionally between one man and one woman. Yet, if that is the case, why did so many states suddenly find it necessary to codify that tradition in their state amendments? There MUST have been a catalyst for these states to decide, after 230+ years, to suddenly and inexplicably amend their constitutions to define marriage.

Or are you going to play the "willfully obtuse" game and insult my intelligence by saying 38 states, within 10 years of each other, just suddenly up and decided for no particular reason to begin a systematic ban on same-sex marriages? I really hope you don't go down that road because it is patently idiotic and does no credit to your own intelligence.

So why did it happen? I think you and I both know the reason, even if you can't admit it to yourself. While the laws and amendments effectively avoid being overtly discriminatory by omitting any reference to homosexuals, it only means that the authors and supporters of these amendments knew they were inherently discrimatory which is why they went about discriminating in a covert manner. We both know that, within the last 10 years, the gay community began demanding their right* to marry and "coincidentally" enough, within the last 10 years, states began amending their constitutions to ban gay marriage. Now, maybe you can be naive and clueless enough to chalk this up to mere coincidence, but I'm a little more observant than that. The logical conclusion is that legally defining marriage as between one man and one woman was designed to discriminate (mostly for religious reasons) against homosexuals.

Who ELSE could be the victim of these unconstitutional state amendments but homosexuals? I'm not so foolish and ignorant to be bamboozled by the OBVIOUS omission of the words "homosexuals," "gays," and even "same-sex" in most cases. We ALL know who these bans were targeting, and anyone who thinks these bans are non-discriminatory simply isn't using his brain. In fact, the very reason why those words were omitted was to make proving discrimination more difficult ... but proof and truth are two different things. And we KNOW the truth, don't we, Rock. We both know. You're just pretending that you don't ... and that's both morally and ethically wrong.

The term “discriminatory” as applied to law refers to any law which forbids something to one group while allowing it to another group.

Shame on you, Rock. Shame for apparently casting aside your etymological precision just when it is needed the most. Here is the legal definition of "discrimination."

In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes.

I have said before that gay marriage would have been a non-issue if states hadn't started to actively BAN gay marriage. For the last 230+ years, you simply could not get a marriage licence for a same-sex marriage. There was no legal ban, it just couldn't be done. However, once it became LAW, it became discrimination. The reason lies in the first part of the definition. The moment that gays were legally banned from marrying each other, marriage between "like and like" became a "particular privilege" granted to only one class of people: Heterosexuals. Only heterosexuals had the right to marry those like themselves but denied it to homosexuals who can only marry those UNLIKE themselves. It's like saying there's nothing wrong with a law that says, "Dogs can marry dogs, and cats can marry dogs (but not other cats)" and somehow that makes the law fair and non-discriminatory. Your argument is a ridiculous non-argument that SEEMS legitimate ... until you think about it for 10 seconds, and then it unravels like a poorly made sweater.

You know why I know? It's because, twice now, you have utterly ignored or refused to answer how you would conduct yourself if the laws were reversed and only homosexual marriage was allowed. Twice. You have ignored my question twice. If you answered it, then you would be forced to admit that homosexuals having the right to marry the opposite gender is not equal. It's the same thing as saying, "As long as we provide both blacks and whites schooling, it doesn't matter if we segregate the schools and give whites a superior education!" Of course, we all know how the courts ruled on THAT issue, right?

And then there's the last part. If homosexuality is merely a sex act as you claim then there is no reasonable distinction between the favored and disfavored classes. This can be proven by the fact that the only OTHER laws that regulate sex acts are those that cause harm to others. There is no ban on marriage to heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex now, is there? NO! Which means, legally, there is no reasonable distinction. Ergo, the test for discrimination is passed on BOTH counts of the legal definition.

(Damn, I wish I would have gone to law school *sigh*)

by Tosh Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:35 am

the spoken/written word and God’s Word are different terms with different meanings. Our common language betrays the distinctly different actual meanings of “word” and “word.”

The fundamental meaning of words has now become the fundamental meaning of the word " word ", well the evidence just keeps pouring in, a few more semantic somersaults and I will be wearing a crucifix and sandals.

Give me peace, only a compartmentalised mind can equate a quantum singularity to the Greek definition of the word " word " , and mean it.

by Guest Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:23 am

Shirina wrote:
So the laws of fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions within the United States say.
And simply because "the laws say" means it's not discrimination?

Discriminatory restrictions in the laws of fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions within the United States deny marriage rights to (1) non-single persons, and (2) persons not of age. These discriminatory restrictions, in my view, are appropriate. I do not consider them discrimination.

Shirina wrote:
So essentially none of the laws that discriminated against blacks were, by the same logic, also not discriminatory because, well, the "law says."

Laws in a number of sovereign jurisdictions within the United States discriminated against Black Americans. These laws were in fact discrimination.

Shirina wrote:
I am playing with neither words nor definitions.
You're playing with semantics…

I am playing with neither words nor definitions nor semantics.

Shirina wrote:
Neither “homosexual persons” nor “heterosexual persons” are mentioned in the laws regarding marriage in any US jurisdiction’s laws upon which I am competent to comment.
Let's discontinue the disingenuous practice of being willfully obtuse.

One cannot discontinue that which has not been (1) initiated, and (2) continued.

by Guest Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:14 am

Incident #2 (Tosh, 5 November 2012 at 0:35):

Tosh wrote:
Re: Evidence for the existence of God
by Tosh on Mon 5 Nov 2012 - 0:35
the spoken/written word and God’s Word are different terms with different meanings. Our common language betrays the distinctly different actual meanings of “word” and “word.”

[Identical replication of text originally sent 4 November 2012 at 23:06]

When quoting text which I have authored, trouble yourself to reproduce it accurately, with underlining and superscripted, and completely, including the Greek words and definitions you omitted.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Evidence for the existence of God
by RockOnBrother on Sun 4 November 2012 - 23:06
RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Evidence for the existence of God
by RockOnBrother on Sun 4 November 2012 - 21:19

On another topic upon which you commented, the spoken/written word¹ and God’s Word² are different terms with different meanings. See the Greek words and meanings below.

λαλιά, lalia (lal-ee-ah‘), talk, speech, verbal or written, emphasizing the sound or script rather than the content.

λόγος, logos (log‘-os), thought, topic, subject of discourse, reasoning, the mental faculty or motive, a computation, account, cause, communication, intent, reason, emphasizing the content rather than the sound or script.

[Identical replication of text originally sent 4 November 2012 at 23:06]

Feel free to (1) hit the “quote” button at the top right corner of this post, (2) copy the text as authored, and (3) quote away.

by Guest Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:11 am

Shirina wrote:
The term “discriminatory” as applied to law refers to any law¹ which forbids something² to one group³ while allowing it² to another group.³
… the grant by statute¹ of particular privileges² to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons,³ where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes.⁴

Substantively identical; different words.
Substantively identical; different words.
Substantively identical; different words.
Omitted by RockOnBrother.

To enhance its precision, I will add to my explanation of “discriminatory” terminology that is substantively equivalent to “where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes.”

Revised explanation: “The term ‘discriminatory’ as applied to law refers to any law which forbids something to one group while allowing it to another group where no reasonable distinction exists between the two groups.”

by Shirina Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:48 am

I have noticed Rock's "Incident #1" and "Incident #2" posts regarding Tosh not using the quote button. I also remember when Rock mercilessly spammed one of the MSNBC political boards with a similar series of posts about "Incidents of Vulgarity and Profanity" that numbered in the hundreds. I distinctly recall logging in and seeing the entire front page filled with nothing but these highly repetitive and spammy posts, and what's worse, that board wasn't even moderated, so I'm not sure what he was trying to accomplish.

So, to get to the point, if I see an "Incident #3" or anything similar to it, I will delete that post without warning. If you don't like the way Tosh is responding to you, then don't write posts to him. But I won't let this or any other thread end up with "Incident #145" like you pulled at MSNBC.

*takes off moderator hat*

As for the gay marriage issue, frankly, I'm done arguing. I've laid out in very clear and precise language my arguments and yet you refuse to acknowledge them in any meaningful way. You haven't addressed even one specific point much less refuted one ... and considering the pain I suffer in my hands all the rest of the day for typing a lengthy post, it's just not worth the effort. You can instead quibble over etymology with Tosh instead of facing real issues, if that's your desire, but consider me out of this circus.

by tlttf Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:49 pm

Got to agree Shirina, it gets so extremely monotonous, I've stopped reading Rocs posts as I don't know when he has added to them or when he's simply rehashing the same words.

by Sponsored content