OT: Wanna know why Kerry lost Ohio?

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:41 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:Why shouldn't gay people be able to get married?

God hates queers, or something like that. I think that's somewhere in the Bible, maybe between the slavery stuff and the part with the talking snake.

Seriously, anyone that thinks homosexuality is a choice should check in to the lobotomy clinic.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:51 pm

If they accepted that homosexuality had genetic causes, that would mean God created homosexuals, despite the prohibitions in the Bible.

I read somewhere that the gay vote comprised 4% of the electorate while the Jewish vote for instance was only 3%. That was surprising because Jewish voters are a recognized bloc but gay voters don't seem to be.

cdastros · Post by **cdastros** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:54 pm

I read somewhere that 23% of the gay vote went to Bush.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:58 pm

Yeah apparently not too much lower than in 2000.

Despite the fact that it was the Republicans who pushed to get these gay marriage ballot initiatives in the 11 states to drive the evangelical vote to the polls.

And some of them, like the one in Ohio supposedly prohibited not only gay marriages but civil unions, meaning no legal rights for things like hospital visitations.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:15 pm

Bill, anyone else...

Have you ever seen a real hottie? You know, one that attracted you in a strong way? Ever had one that shared your enthusiasm? Now I know some of you would shank anything in a skirt without thinking twice, but how many of you had the choice to either dive in or walk away? That's right, every one of us has that choice. How I feel about the chick has no bearing on whether or not I have a choice. There are some who are heterosexual who choose to remain single and celibate. Paul (in the bible, not PK...he's not single, and he sure as hell isn't celibate!

) chose this life for himself, not because he couldn't help it, but because he chose to. Many people choose to walk away from a situation like that, for whatever reason. Me, I'd walk away because my wife and kids are worth more that 30 minutes of sweatin' and gruntin' with some other chick, and because I believe that sex was designed for a man and woman in marriage. Have I always stuck to that principle? No, I haven't, but I made a choice. It wasn't the right one. I've never cheated on my wife, but when I was younger, I chose to dip the wick more than once. There are consequences for it, but I never believed I couldn't help it.

I'm not talking about whether or not someone has homosexual feelings. That can't always be helped. I've seen women that made my liver quiver, and I've had opportunities since I've been married to jump in. But no matter how strong the feeling, I'm not jumping. Sometimes that's a difficult decision to make, especially if I let myself get too close. I know people who have homosexual feelings who never act on them. I know heterosexuals that won't keep their pants zipped. Which is worse? The hetero is, because he/she has made the choice to act.

I've felt suicidal before. Feeling suicidal is one thing, pulling the trigger is quite another. Premarital/extramarital sex is outlined in the faith as sin. Is it unforgivable? Of course not. Homosexuality has been captured by the church as one of THE biggest sins ever. The church must bear the lion's share of the blame as to the rift and animosity between homosexuals and the church.

Are there people predisposed to homosexual feelings? There very well may be. I know a child can be born with an addiction to drugs or alcohol, born with multiple genetalia, etc. It's a sick world, and our sin through the ages has caused it.

The bible never speaks out against homosexual feelings, just actions. Look, the whole gay marriage thing boils down to this for me: If the state governments want to allow civil unions, then that's ok with me. I don't approve of the lifestyle, but it's not my life. My opinion will be just that. But as a husband and father, I will oppose with all the strength in me any deviation in the definition of marriage, because marriage is an institution designed by God himself, and He has put the parameters on what it constitutes: "For this reason, a man will leave his mother and father and be united with his wife."

Let them have their civil unions...but they aren't coming within a mile of marriage. Marriage is sacred.

cdastros · Post by **cdastros** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:39 pm

"Homosexuality has been captured by the church as one of THE biggest sins ever."

Why did you say that? I cant remember the last time I have been in church and homosexuality is talked about if it is talked about at all. I think churches get a bad rap in this case as keeping people away from the gay lifestyle is not the main goal for the church. I think the media plays it up to be the biggest sin in the church but that is not the case.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:59 pm

tealboy03 wrote: Let them have their civil unions...but they aren't coming within a mile of marriage. Marriage is sacred.

Tell that to the 50% of couples that end up divorced. Maybe after banning gays we should ban divorce as well.

The hypocrisy of some Christians is amazing (not pointing to you Teal, just in general). If they oppose gays and abortion, then they should stand up against divorce and child abuse. Yet, what we have a 50% divorce rate and pastors coming out of the woodwork as child molestors. Oh, and the whole kill a doctor to prevent abortions idea is simply twisted as well.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:05 pm

I fully believe in the sanctity of marriage. Marriage to me is a union between two people who love each other and have dedicated the rest of their lives to share their love. I also believe that another ideal goal of marriage is to bring into this world a child or children that represent your love for your partner and also give you and your partner an opportunity to instill in your child(ren) the values you share as a couple.

In a world full of violence and hate I don't see how one can disapprove of 2 people forming a union (through marriage or whatever) that does nothing but promote peace and love.

Marriage is one of those things that walks with one foot in religion and one foot in politics. No matter where you get married (church, courthouse) one thing is necessary to do so: a marriage license. You do not get a marriage license through your church, those come compliments of the government. Marriage has more to do with government IMO than church because of that fact. Where the idea of what marriage is differs is in religion. Look at how the idea of marriage for the Muslim religion differs from that of the Catholic Church. A woman in a Muslim marriage is not an equal like a woman in a Catholic marriage is. To me that's as wrong as wrong can be but who am I to tell them they shouldn't allow a marriage with those ideals and values?

How can a marriage between two people that will share the same ideals and values you have, with the exception of sexuality, be worse than one who treats women like total sh@t? If 2 men want to get married, so be it. If 2 women want to get married, so be it. We've got way too much to worry about in this world than stopping 2 people that love each other from sharing their lives together.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:20 pm

matthewk wrote:The hypocrisy of some Christians is amazing (not pointing to you Teal, just in general). If they oppose gays and abortion, then they should stand up against divorce and child abuse. Yet, what we have a 50% divorce rate and pastors coming out of the woodwork as child molestors. Oh, and the whole kill a doctor to prevent abortions idea is simply twisted as well.

I think the key word in your diatribe is *some.* I really don't know any Christians that are proponents of divorce, child abuse, child molestation, etc. I could be wrong and it certainly may be different in your area. I certainly have never met anyone that would kill an abortion doctor. Considering that it hasn't happened very frequently, I'm assuming that it is a very very small percentage of Christians that would even consider doing that.

I'm sure many many non-Christians and *gasp* even Democrats voted for banning gay marriage.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 pm

Leebo33 wrote:
matthewk wrote:The hypocrisy of some Christians is amazing (not pointing to you Teal, just in general).
I think the key word in your diatribe is *some.*

That's obvious, Leebo, he admitted it himself. He was using a subset(some) to make a sweeping generalization (in general).

At least he spelled it out for us.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:38 pm

I know dozens and dozens of people here that haven't stepped into a church in years and would rather read TV Guide than the Bible that would probably vote against gay marriage. It would be interesting to see how people of other religions voted on the issue.

I see just as much hypocrisy among atheists and agnostics as I do Christians.

ubrakto · Post by **ubrakto** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:43 pm

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd like to hear more about that talking snake Bill mentioned.

Oh and to stay on topic. Teal (and other who agree with this last post), I want to understand where you're coming from on the marriage thing, I really do. But in this country you should also have to account for the fact that not everyone considers marriage a religious institution (and that not all religious institutions have the same "rules" regarding marriage). Maybe it started that way (I really don't know), but it's not the case anymore, or at least not in this country. For a lot of people it's also a civil and legal matter.

If a religous sect (for lack of better phrasing) wants to tell its churches (insert appropriate building name here) that they are not to conduct a gay marriage that's fine. That's a matter of faith and shouldn't be messed with. But for the government to say the entire institution of marriage is off limits to a certain segment of the population (be it based on race, sexual preference, etc.) is repression. And the idea of adding it to the Constitution of the United States (or individual state constitutions) is abhorrent (IMO).

Respectfully,
Todd

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:49 pm

tealboy03 wrote:Bill, anyone else...

Have you ever seen a real hottie? You know, one that attracted you in a strong way? Ever had one that shared your enthusiasm? Now I know some of you would shank anything in a skirt without thinking twice, but how many of you had the choice to either dive in or walk away? That's right, every one of us has that choice. How I feel about the chick has no bearing on whether or not I have a choice. There are some who are heterosexual who choose to remain single and celibate. Paul (in the bible, not PK...he's not single, and he sure as hell isn't celibate! ) chose this life for himself, not because he couldn't help it, but because he chose to. Many people choose to walk away from a situation like that, for whatever reason. Me, I'd walk away because my wife and kids are worth more that 30 minutes of sweatin' and gruntin' with some other chick, and because I believe that sex was designed for a man and woman in marriage. Have I always stuck to that principle? No, I haven't, but I made a choice. It wasn't the right one. I've never cheated on my wife, but when I was younger, I chose to dip the wick more than once. There are consequences for it, but I never believed I couldn't help it.

And this has to do with homosexuality because....

Seriously I have no idea where you're going with this.

I've felt suicidal before. Feeling suicidal is one thing, pulling the trigger is quite another. Premarital/extramarital sex is outlined in the faith as sin. Is it unforgivable? Of course not. Homosexuality has been captured by the church as one of THE biggest sins ever. The church must bear the lion's share of the blame as to the rift and animosity between homosexuals and the church.

Hmm. Ok I think I see what you're getting at. So you have compared seeing a "hottie" and not jumping her and wanting, but not acting on, shooting yourself in the noggin' to being gay. Those must be some *serious* suicidal tendancies Teal. So, I think, you're saying that if you're homosexual you shouldn't ACT on that, rather you should just stuff your hormones down your throat and live a lie the rest of your life even though the idea of having sex with a woman, for a gay man, is akin to you wanting to screw Richard Simmons. Am I following what you're saying?

Are there people predisposed to homosexual feelings? There very well may be. I know a child can be born with an addiction to drugs or alcohol, born with multiple genetalia, etc. It's a sick world, and our sin through the ages has caused it.

Wow. I mean...wow. Ok when did that sick age start because there have been homosexuals since there have been people.

Let them have their civil unions...but they aren't coming within a mile of marriage. Marriage is sacred.

And this is the language that scares the ever loving s*** out of me. Homosexuals aren't a "them". They are us. They're PEOPLE that are no better or no worse than you or me. This is no different, in my view, to being blatantly racist. This is the same kind of talk that you heard during Jim Crow and the separate but equal nonsense of a generation ago. "Let them have their own water fountains and restaurants Just keep 'em away from me." I'm not speaking direcly about you Teal, but the language here sounds eerily familiar and I hear it a LOT in Ohio, especially where I grew up near Cincy.

And marriage is sacred? To whom? You? Me? When I got married it wasn't official until Probate made it so. It had very little to do with God, at least as far as Ohio was concerned. The rest was just window dressing. It was great and all. The cake was especially good. I see a wedding as being more custom than anything else.

What's worse: FOX having TV shows like "Please Marry my Dumb Ass Father" or "Who Wants to Marry a Gazillionaire!" or two women that have lived together for 30 years that want the same legal rights that my wife and I have? I don't care, at all, who gets married and who doesn't. How that impacts ME and my marriage I really cannot wrap my brain around. If John wants to marry Paul..knock yourself out boys and try not to be a member of the 50% divorce club that is sweeping the great US of A because marriage is so sacred that half of them break apart.

As for the whole predisposition debate: do people that feel that being gay is a choice really think that these people WANT this lifestyle? Being gay in this country puts a target on your back along with a sign that says "Kick Me." You think they want to sign up for that? If that's the case then the entire gay population has the IQ of a split pea.

brendanrfoley · Post by **brendanrfoley** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:55 pm

Ubrakto captured it perfectly.

Marriage differs from religion to religion, so let them handle the same sex issue. But once the government starts cutting marriage off to different people because of the majority's religious beliefs, it becomes repression.

And Kazuya, you may consider homosexuality an abberation, but so is being left handed. Last time I checked, lefties still have rights.

skidmark · Post by **skidmark** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:58 pm

matthewk wrote:
The hypocrisy of some Christians is amazing (not pointing to you Teal, just in general). If they oppose gays and abortion, then they should stand up against divorce and child abuse. Yet, what we have a 50% divorce rate and pastors coming out of the woodwork as child molestors. Oh, and the whole kill a doctor to prevent abortions idea is simply twisted as well.

Who says they don't oppose 50% divorce rate? That's kind of the whole purpose of the argument to begin with. People don't view marriage as they ought to and that's why divorce rate is so high. They think love is just an emotion that they can feel one day and then it dies off the next, rather than a commitment. Religious circles view marriage and its foundation as something that God has instituted for man. The government also recognizes this institution, and their perspective is that if gay marriage becomes recognized legally, then the definition of what marriage is will suffer. You'll then have even further erosion of marriage as a part of society which will lead to even higher divorce rates.

And spare me another hypothetical example of a loving homosexual family vs. child-beating heterosexuals with a drug problem. Its a flawed premise because obviously child-beating drug addicts have no business raising kids - even if they happen to go to church or are even priests.

"God hates homos, says so in the Bible... right around slavery" - this is every bit as ignorant as the "Christians=taliban" sentiment. God loves all sinners - in fact He suffered and died for those who practice homosexuality every bit as much as He died for born again Christians. We need to quit tying slavery, treatment of women, and all these other ills of society past to Christianity. Yes, our religious forefathers had slaves, but so did everybody else at the time. They didn't have slaves because they were religious, and, truth be told, Christian principles are what led to our eventual rise from it. Check the treatment of women before the Reformation... Quit believing the lie that restoring morals to America = reinstating slavery because it is an ignorant thought that is tied to a genocidic mantra as it attempts to portray one.

I'm off to get my lobotomy now.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:02 pm

brendanrfoley wrote:And Kazuya, you may consider homosexuality an abberation, but so is being left handed. Last time I checked, lefties still have rights.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. If you thought I did, you're mistaken.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:07 pm

Nobody equated the Taliban with Christianity. It's a particular sect of Christians who want to be theocrats like the Taliban.

Suprising that the slippery-slope argument against gay marriage haven't been brought up. You know, if you allow gay marriage, then it'll open the doors to incest, poligamy, bestiality, etc.

skidmark · Post by **skidmark** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:07 pm

Bill_Abner wrote: Wow. I mean...wow. Ok when did that sick age start because there have been homosexuals since there have been people.

It started right after that "talking snake" bit. Sin introduced a corruption into this world that was not part of its design.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:10 pm

Bill_Abner wrote:Being gay in this country puts a target on your back along with a sign that says "Kick Me."

I was just thinking as I read this that you could replace "gay" with "Christian" and "country" with "DSP Forum."

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:11 pm

Leebo33 wrote:I think the key word in your diatribe is *some.* I really don't know any Christians that are proponents of divorce, child abuse, child molestation, etc. I could be wrong.

There also are countless Christians who support the death penalty, which is hypocritical as hell.

The Commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill," not "Thou shalt not kill unless the person being killed has killed."

Any Christian who supports the death penalty is a hypocrite, period. Plus don't people realize that since murderers care so little about others' lives that they probably don't give a sh*t about theirs? Most murderers crave the notoriety that a death penalty case brings. It's the shot at media glory that their meaningless lives never had before they went on Death Row.

I'd rather see murderers tossed into solitary for life, rotting away in a cell. I may not believe in the death penalty, but I also don't believe in prisoners' rights. Prisoners surrendered those rights when they commited crimes.

Prisoners' rights ranks right up there with jumbo shrimp as the ultimate oxymoron.

Take care,
PK

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:15 pm

pk500 wrote:
Leebo33 wrote:I think the key word in your diatribe is *some.* I really don't know any Christians that are proponents of divorce, child abuse, child molestation, etc. I could be wrong.
There also are countless Christians who support the death penalty, which is hypocritical as hell.

The Commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill," not "Thou shalt not kill unless the person being killed has killed."

Any Christian who supports the death penalty is a hypocrite, period. Plus don't people realize that since murderers care so little about others' lives that they probably don't give a sh*t about theirs? Most murderers crave the notoriety that a death penalty case brings. It's the shot at media glory that their meaningless lives never had before they went on Death Row.

I'd rather see murderers tossed into solitary for life, rotting away in a cell. I may not believe in the death penalty, but I also don't believe in prisoners' rights. Prisoners surrendered those rights when they commited crimes.

Prisoners' rights ranks right up there with jumbo shrimp as the ultimate oxymoron.

Take care,
PK

Aren't we all hypocrites in some way? There are probably a lot of people against stealing that would never think about walking into Best Buy and sticking 10 CDs in their pocket, but would download 10 CDs for free. Why pick on Christians?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:21 pm

You're comparing capital punishment with peer-to-peer file sharing? Come on, Lee, I know you're a much smarter guy than that.

And since when does the term "Christian" only refer to Protestants? As a Catholic, I'm not a "Christian?"

Take care,
PK

skidmark · Post by **skidmark** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:22 pm

pk500 wrote:The Commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill," not "Thou shalt not kill unless the person being killed has killed."

What's the point of having the law without a penalty for it? The Bible not only puts the law out there, but also its punishment - Gen 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed", Exodus 21:12 "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death", and a quick showing of government and its authority in the NT: Romans 13:3-4 "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

I don't see how believing that is hypocritical.

At this point that I would like to put out two principles:
1. A lot of people don't believe the Bible because they haven't studied it 2. A lot of people do believe the Bible because they haven't studied it

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:25 pm

This is just like every other thing that revolves around faith or opinion...I feel like I'm spinning my wheels here, fellas, but that doesn't change my opinion. Now, before anyone else lumps me in with Jim Crow lovers and racist bigots, let's just stop that noise. There is ZERO correlation between my thoughts that homosexuals shouldn't have access to marriage and Jim Crow. That's just stupid. So stop it.

One man...one woman. Marriage IS sacred, whether that helps your argument or not. Governments would have no idea of the statute of marriage outside of Levitical Law. Are there laws against stealing? Where do you suppose they got that law? You Shall Not Steal ring a bell?

Look, you can think what you want. The simple fact is, 11 states overwhelmingly voted gay marriage down. That's 11 out of 11. So you can have your opinion on it if you wish.

And in case you missed it...I don't like the idea of civil unions, but I have no problem with it if they want to do that. But there's no need for marriage to be brought into it. Marriage is, has always been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

For the record, the church's divorce rate is deplorable, and I hate it. But that in no way justifies any other form of marriage. That's comparing apples to oranges.

"Why did you say that?"

Referring to homosexuality as a church hot button, that's because it is. The church, in general, has been pretty openly hostile toward homosexuals, which is pretty hypocritical considering all the fat asses, gossips, adulterers, theives, charlatans, and pedophiles we seem to tolerate in our own pews. The sin should always be separated from the person. The person we should treat with care and respect. The sin we should call by its name.

I know that's not terribly popular, but popularity has never been the point...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:25 pm

skidmark wrote:Romans 13:3-4 "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

Thanks for proving my point with this verse, even though I'm sure it wasn't your intent. It doesn't define "wrath." You interpret my stance as if I think murderers should walk the streets free. Trust me, one O.J. Simpson is too many.

What part of my post in which I said murderers should be locked up in solitary for the rest of their lives don't you understand? Don't you think that's a bit more wrath-worthy than taking a needle in the arm and feeling a bit queasy for about 30 seconds before dying?

I sure as hell do, especially for someone who is so callous about human life while taking another one that they probably don't give a sh*t about losing their own.

Take care,
PK