Reasons Oregon gives to vote "yes" on 36 inside . . .

[Athelwulf]

So now it is wrong to be a good person, because being a good person equates to practicing one's religion, which is such a crime, because it interferes with someone else's ability to remain atheistic.

You misinterpret me. Religion shouldn't be the basis of law, as in, no one should sit down and say, "Well, it is in the Bible, so let's make it a law!". I don't think that we should do the exact opposite of what the Bible says. I believe that some of what it teaches is good. I just don't agree with it on this particular issue, is all.

Sometimes I don't know what the world is coming to.

A horrible and firey end, like the Bible says?

If you're referring to m36, it's been voted for.

No, I'm not referring to Measure 36. I'm referring to the non-existant measure saying children shouldn't grow up in single-parent households. I thought context would tell ya what I was talking about.

Our country is not doomed to be destroyed by the ignorance so charactaristic of the mental disease of liberalism.

How mature.

We think ye'r diseased too.

And about your link to http://www.newhumanist.com/bushwhacked.html, it is REALLY biased!

An eye for an eye.

Apparently, a president can't remove abortion, or do anything else moral for that matter, because religion teaches morality, and we can't have ANY expression of religion in our country, because it is unconstitutional.

Wow, ya sure like putting words into my mouth.

And moral by whose standards? Oh yeah. Yers!

Off topic:

Just because it is not in stereo?

No. Because the only music there is on it is in Spanish, and I don't know Spanish.

1150 AM has the most powerful signal strength (and s/n ratio) on the AM band in our end of the state, so you can't possibly be getting it low quality.

Why does that matter?

 

[laughing weasel]

Whose religion do we have the government follow? Do we force women to wear scarves? Do we say that they are not allowed to wear them? do we forbid gambling? What about working on the Sabbath? Should blood transfusions be allowed? All these things are not strictly bad but should be personal choices. You are allowed to practice your religion as long as it does not impose on someone else’s right not to practice your religion. Some of the meanest low lives that I know have claimed to be Christian. These are the kind of people who would steal food from an orphan. I have some friends who are “pagan”. They are not bad people they are just misled they probably think the same about me. I am glad that I live in the United States and we are able to be friends. All of our lives are richer for knowing each other.

 

[alain]

"Actually, there would. Even people who don't read the Bible or go to church know it is not right to let gay people marry."

you have a strange way of spelling 'believe'

 

[RubiksMaster]

A horrible and firey end, like the Bible says?

Actually, the Bible says Satan will come to a fiery end, not the world with everyone in it.

If it is considered "denying gay people rights," consider this. The following is not far-fetched with all the liberalism today. Someone from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) will decide she just LOVES her cat, and wants to marry it (since marriage is ONLY about love, not the institution of marriage). Why would we deny a lunatic the right to marry a cat? It is unconstitutional (note the sarcasm; I know someone out there will take me literally).

My neighbor plays his music too loud. I want to kill him, but there are laws against it. These laws are infringing upon my rights, since they are based in religion. The laws against killing people stem DIRECTLY from the ten commandments in the Bible. Therefore, we should do away with anti-murder laws. I am being persecuted for my atheistic, amoral beliefs.

The above two examples show exactly how silly it is to say we are denying gays rights.

On Athelwulf's comment to me:

How mature.

Thank you!

Wow, ya sure like putting words into my mouth

I was being facetious. That comment above about people not understanding my sarcasm was directed toward you.

I agree, for the most part, with laughing weasel. We shouldn't have to vote on laws that take religion into account, but we do (only because of the liberal legislators who went outside of their jurisdiction). It IS great to be an American, even if many people have differing opinions.



Off topic:

Why does that matter?

I was just making sure you weren't basing your opinion on the quality of sound, or the poor reception you may get.

 

[Tiassa]

Actually, the Bible says Satan will come to a fiery end, not the world with everyone in it.

I would suggest that's the point of the question, "What is the world coming to?"

Specifically, those who do not meet God's favor will meet instead a fiery death beside the Devil and his angels (Mt. 25.41).

Which brings me to a question: Why is it that many folks, when applying religion within their response to an issue, seem to get it wrong?

'Tis true, "not the world with everyone in it". True, Satan will come to a fiery end. But not Satan alone, not even merely the Devil and his angels alone. Also burning will be those who fail to meet God's standard.

Thus, in terms of the question, "What is the world coming to?" the answer of a Biblically horrible fiery end suggests that the whole world has failed to meet God's standard, that He will find none redeemable. Is the answer trite? Perhaps. But in addressing (dismissing) the issue, how is it that one comes to present the Bible wrongly?

To be honest, RM, it's nothing personal in this case, but you're it inasmuch as you're the one who did it on the day it occurred to me to ask.

You're entitled to your own thoughts and all, so that's not my point. But I will go so far as to say that pointing out the nihilistic abandonment of the human endeavor inherent in such a broad sense of condemnation as the whole world going to hell would be an easy one-liner that would dismiss the point without exposing you to an inaccurate factual assertion at its base.

However, I'm also intrigued by the earlier point in the exchange:

So now it is wrong to be a good person, because being a good person equates to practicing one's religion, which is such a crime, because it interferes with someone else's ability to remain atheistic. Sometimes I don't know what the world is coming to.

There's a twisted exaggeration in there, I think. Transfer your idea into the War on Terror, and you'll see that in attacking Osama bin Laden ... well, okay, when we attack Osama bin Laden, we will be oppressing his right to be a good person.

What I'm getting after, of course, is that you seem to overlook that many people behaving wrongly in the world think they're being good people in hurting others.

I'm not prepared to award Osama that kind of credibility carte blanche; neither will I give over to anyone whose method of "goodness" comes in the form of visiting injustice on others or preserving inequality.

"Wrong to be a good person"? Reminds me, in a way, of a bit from Hunter S. Thompson: "Shit, it doesn't pay to try to help somebody these days."

At any rate, don't let me get in the way. My puffed-up pretense to your sarcasm; I won't go so far as to claim to have raised you to the status of art.

 

[RubiksMaster]

Thus, in terms of the question, "What is the world coming to?" the answer of a Biblically horrible fiery end suggests that the whole world has failed to meet God's standard, that He will find none redeemable.

Actually, he will find some redeemable. There is the forgiveness granted through the death of Jesus. But that is straying away from the topic of the thread (oh, and it doesn't literally mean fire. It is referring to the complete death - cutting off from existence completely).

Why is it that many folks, when applying religion within their response to an issue, seem to get it wrong?

I didn't exactly get it wrong. i put it in terms so simple that most of the meaning was lost. I didn't want to go into a big discourse about the christian doctrine. I simply didn't give the whole truth in order to save time, space, and energy.

Anyway, is it wrong to impose my morals on other people? Maybe so. That is why I think it is sad that Oregon had to vote on this measure.

Also, what you said earlier about people thinking they are being good while actually hurting others, I think was directed at me. Am I being a bad person? Maybe, but I don't think so. My point is, we all have different beliefs. Mine went unchanged, and I am sure yours did too (along with everyone else against me, such as Athelwulf).

 

[Athelwulf]

RubiksMaster,

If it is considered "denying gay people rights," consider this. The following is not far-fetched with all the liberalism today. Someone from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) will decide she just LOVES her cat, and wants to marry it (since marriage is ONLY about love, not the institution of marriage). Why would we deny a lunatic the right to marry a cat? It is unconstitutional (note the sarcasm; I know someone out there will take me literally).

Ye'r funny . . .

I know it's sarcasm, but I'll respond to it literally, just for the fun of it.

Can a cat consent to a marital relationship? Not really, unless we could someday develop the technology with which to see what the cat is thinking.

Also, love between two humans is different from love between a human and an animal. Correct me if I'm wrong (kuz I just might be), but it is only another human that ya can love sexually.

Also, if I remember a past conversation of ours correctly (tell me if I do), ya said that the line should be drawn at gay marriage so this doesn't happen. Why at gay marriage? Why not at interspecies marriage?

Lastly, interspecies marriage with one's cat isn't necessary. Legally speaking, that cat is that person's property. That person can make medical decisions for the cat since it cannot speak for itself. It doesn't pay taxes. It doesn't have to move out of the house if its owner dies. It's not necessary.

O' course, . . . I should give interspecies marriage some thinking, as I shouldn't consider my beliefs concerning it solid . . .

Anyway, I declare that argument moot.

My neighbor plays his music too loud. I want to kill him, but there are laws against it. These laws are infringing upon my rights, since they are based in religion. The laws against killing people stem DIRECTLY from the ten commandments in the Bible. Therefore, we should do away with anti-murder laws. I am being persecuted for my atheistic, amoral beliefs.

There is such a thing as taking things way too literally, ya know.

We both know I don't think that I should be allowed to kill someone kuz I think that particular law is based on the Bible's doctrine. It's called common sense. No one wants to get killed. That argument is moot, kuz it makes no sense.

The above two examples show exactly how silly it is to say we are denying gays rights.

The above two moot examples, ya mean?

(Grr! Ya said the s-i-l-l-y word! *Growl* I hate that word! *Writhe*)

On Athelwulf's comment to me: Thank you!

Ya do know that was irony, right?

Off topic:

I was just making sure you weren't basing your opinion on the quality of sound, or the poor reception you may get.

All I said was that AM radio sucks . . .

Yay! Post #1,234!

 

[Bowser]

Hmm, 36 passed. I think that having gay marriage shoved in our faces by the all-knowing City Council of Portland may have created motivation and given power to the yes on 36 movement. It passed. It seems that people do have an opinion the differs from those of the few.

I wont tell you how I voted, but I think it great that the people of Oregon voted their hearts.

The HS has taken notice: the more they push their agenda, the more people will take offense to the tactic.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Equal protection under the law is so offensive, eh?

Nice to see you 'round, Bowser.

 

[RubiksMaster]

Also, love between two humans is different from love between a human and an animal.

How so?

Correct me if I'm wrong (kuz I just might be), but it is only another human that ya can love sexually.

You're wrong. I have heard of people "having feelings for" their dog (according to him, "It was a female dog, so it's not like I was gay or anything!).

(Grr! Ya said the s-i-l-l-y word! *Growl* I hate that word! *Writhe*)

It's silly of you to say such a thing!

I think it great that the people of Oregon voted their hearts.

Amen to that!

 

[guthrie]

So the fantasy of "rational" man goes up in smoke again.

 

[Bowser]

Hey Tiassa

<i>" Equal protection under the law is so offensive, eh?"</i>

People have strong feelings regarding the issue of HS unions. The few people who tried to sidestep those feelings managed only to step on many toes and bring harm to any progress that had been made towards the HS effort. Also, many of the points brought in argument against 36 were less than substantial. An individual can make arrangements that protect their intrests regarding their relationship with another. The only point that I see as valid is that regarding health insurance, but that too is a matter conserning employers and employees and insurance companies.

The all-or-nothing approach is not working. Equal protection? The law provides remedies for many of the issues brought into view by the No-On-36 crowd. I don't see any dire NEED for public recognition of HS marriage. Every HS has the same rights that I and every other individual enjoys.

 

[RubiksMaster]

I don't see any dire NEED for public recognition of HS marriage. Every HS has the same rights that I and every other individual enjoys.

Bowser had it right. EVERYONE has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, not just heterosexuals.

The legal and financial benefits that could be gained from a marriage aren't necessarily good arguments either. Afterall, many heterosexuals remain single. It's not the end of the world. Just because a handfull of gays don't want to use their freedoms in the way they want, doesn't mean that the state has to recognize their marriages as legal.

(Damn, I forgot what I was going to say next! It was good, too! I hate that!)

Until next time...

 

[Athelwulf]

Bowser, I find it funny that ya abreviate "homosexual" with "HS". Are ya, perhaps, so homophobic that ya cannot bear to type any word that contains the Greek root "homo-"? Just thought it was weird, is all.

The law provides remedies for many of the issues brought into view by the No-On-36 crowd.

We can solve all those issues with one thing: Allowing homosexual marriage! It's very simple, really.

I don't see any dire NEED for public recognition of HS marriage.

I don't see any dire NEED for public recognition of heterosexual marriage.

Every HS has the same rights that I and every other individual enjoys.

Including the right to marry whom one loves? I don't think so!

Well well, RubiksMaster, ya've returned. Now I won't be bored for ten minutes.

Bowser had it right. EVERYONE has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, not just heterosexuals.

But not everyone has the right to marry whom they actually love. That is a fact ye'r sadly ignoring.

The legal and financial benefits that could be gained from a marriage aren't necessarily good arguments either.

Even if they are many?

So let's assume they aren't good arguments for a sec. I know what is a good argument. How 'bout love?

Afterall, many heterosexuals remain single. It's not the end of the world.

And that is a good argument?!

Just because a handfull of gays don't want to use their freedoms in the way they want, doesn't mean that the state has to recognize their marriages as legal.

Ye'r funny. "A handful of gays".

*Bops RubiksMaster on the head*

Pretty much the entire homosexual population wants to be allowed to marry a person of the same sex. Don't turn a blind eye to it!

(Damn, I forgot what I was going to say next! It was good, too! I hate that!)

I shall patiently wait until ya remember what ya were gonna say.

 

[alain]

"Bowser, I find it funny that ya abreviate "homosexual" with "HS". Are ya, perhaps, so homophobic that ya cannot bear to type any word that contains the Greek root "homo-"? Just thought it was weird, is all."

agreed, or you could just call us gays if you are too lazy to write more

"The legal and financial benefits that could be gained from a marriage aren't necessarily good arguments either."
are you married?? if you are, would you have been happy to not get married because it wouldnt bring you enough money??

 

[laughing weasel]

Rubiks master are you saying that gays/HS deserve special protection under the law if they are given special status civil unions. If so then aren’t you violating my rights as a S/GCL (Gender Challenged Lesbian)/male-hetro? Why should we invent a special legal status other than to deny them evil homosexuals the rights that god gave us. I have said before that every argument raised against homosexuals was raised against Americans of African descent and it is just as wrong today as it was then. Why is it so socially acceptable to hate and detest a group or an individual based on private choices? I am less afraid of the moral damage that is caused by homosexuality than I am the rampant hatred and bigotry that is being whipped up against them. These are the same forces of ignorance that burned the library of Alexandria. They represent the darkest side of Christianity and I wish that more Christians would oppose the haters within our sect. Who gets to decide what public morality is? I do not wish any one to force their religion down my throats. There is a constant growth of catholic minorities in the United States and very soon, they could be the largest religion. What is to prevent them from democratically deciding that the government should recognize only marriages preformed in a catholic church.

 

[RubiksMaster]

Why is it so socially acceptable to hate and detest a group or an individual based on private choices?

I don't know. Ask someone who ACTUALLY hates and detests a group or an individual based on private choices.

I have NOTHING agains gay people. They are just the same as anyone else, exept for their sexuality. But who cares about someone else's sexuality? The only thing with which I have a problem, is the changing of an age-old tradition that would bring about deleterious effects on society.

Who gets to decide what public morality is?

The public. They voted. The fact is, we can't sacrifice the happiness of many (the pro-measure 36 people) for the happiness of a few (the anti-measure 36 prople).

Oh, I do know a few gay people who are against the measure.

Why should we invent a special legal status other than to deny them evil homosexuals the rights that god gave us.

The legal status was invented a long time ago.

every argument raised against homosexuals was raised against Americans of African descent and it is just as wrong today as it was then.

That's just not true. I am sorry for all the liberal, "multi-culti", heterophobic people who think this way.

Including the right to marry whom one loves?

Actually, nobody has that right, per se.

I have an idea. Why don't a gay person marry another gay (sorry, homosexual) person and then live with the person they actually love. No law establishes the necessity for married couples to actually live together.

 

[Athelwulf]

RubiksMaster,

The only thing with which I have a problem, is the changing of an age-old tradition that would bring about deleterious effects on society.

I'm still not sold on the "fact" that homosexual marriages will make our society disintergrate. And, to say it bluntly, I never will.

And why is it that being an "age-old tradition" is reason enough for some people to think it's right to deny rights?

The fact is, we can't sacrifice the happiness of many (the pro-measure 36 people) for the happiness of a few (the anti-measure 36 prople).

There was a small margin in Oregon. In fact, out of all eleven states with similar measures, Oregon had the smallest margin. Yer argument doesn't really carry weight.

Actually, nobody has that right, per se.

Actually, last time I checked, the heterosexuals have that right.

I have an idea. Why don't a gay person marry another gay (sorry, homosexual) person and then live with the person they actually love. No law establishes the necessity for married couples to actually live together.

I'm lost . . . Dazed and confused . . . Please elaborate.

1,400

 

[Mystech]

Every HS has the same rights that I and every other individual enjoys.

Save the right to legal marriage and all the hundres of legal considerations which that provides (which homosexuals would have to pay thousands to lawyers to secure for themselves) including those which can not be worked out therough other contracts such as health-care benefits, and consideration for adopting a child.

But other than that all of the same rights as everyone else . . . Oh wait except serving in the armed forces to defend the country they love despite how much the nation seems to fear and hate them.

So once you get those two big ones out of the way then homosexuals have all the same rights as any other heterosexual person. . . um. . . well unless you count the fact that in many states homosexuals can be fired because of who they date.

But really, after all of that homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals, which quite frankly is good enough. I mean if you really look at the constitution, I'm fairly certain that the 14th amendment says something like "Equal protection under the law, or thereabouts, you know give or take." We're a nation founded on providing legal wiggle room to allow the masses petty descrimination and hatreds to take shape as the laws of our land. Frankly homosexual activists are being rather Unamerican when they suggest that good god fearing Americans aught to get their heads out of their asses and hold true to the idea that all people are entitled to legal protection (wherever that came from. . . probably France).

 

[Mystech]

I think that having gay marriage shoved in our faces by the all-knowing City Council of Portland may have created motivation and given power to the yes on 36 movement.

When homosexuals campaign for their rights then it's "Shoving it in our faces" but when heterosexuals take actions to outlaw equal protection for homosexuals it's morality? Who exactly is shoving what on whom? I think you need to reevaluate your premises. Or if that's too cerebral just go jump off a cliff, frankly this country doesn't need individuals as dangerously dense as yourself.