lauras 0
Recommended Posts
pajarito 0
QuoteOk, yes, define immoral sexuality and moral sexuality.
My definitions:
Immoral - having multiple partners, aving an STD and knowingly sleeping around, have babies for welfare
Moral - being monogomous in a loving relationship, if you happen to contract an STD talking about it with your partner and dealing with it together, having some sort of birth control so as not to make unwanted babies
This thread is wearing me out.
So where do you get your moral standard? Why is it immoral, according to your standard which may be different from another's standard which may be different from another's standard, to have multiple partners?
Anyway:
Moral sex = Sex within the confines of marriage (between one man & one woman)
Immoral sex = Sex outside the confines of marriage (between one man & one woman)
pajarito 0
QuoteWow. Let's see if I get this right: according to you & your interpretaion of what is the "right" religion or belief system, Ruthie & Janet get to burn in hell because they love one another. Even though they're good people who do admiral things for others.
That's pretty cool.
It's not "my" standard in that "I" didn't make it up.
They won't burn in hell because they love one another or because they do admirable things.
lauras 0
QuoteMoral sex = Sex within the confines of marriage (between one man & one woman)
Immoral sex = Sex outside the confines of marriage (between one man & one woman) "
And how were you (or your religious leaders) planning on enforcing this?
alison 0
Quote
And how were you (or your religious leaders) planning on enforcing this?
I realize this question was not posed to me, but...
It is "enforced" only by one's own conscience and desire to do what is right. The idea that morals need to be enforced by some external entity is silly, since the entire concept of morals has to do with what a person believes. If someone doesn't believe that sex is only moral within the confines of marriage, then they will probably have sex outside of marriage. No one can "force" them to do otherwise, but just because I can't control what other people do doesn't mean I have to support it. Even if I could force people to do what I think is right, it would basically be meaningless because they would simply be going through the motions.
So, no, I can't force anyone to abstain from homosexual sex or sex outside of marriage. But I can do what little is in my power (e.g. voting against gay marriage) to defend the morals to which I subscribe.
Alison
wmw999 2,452
Here is an interesting discussion from a Mennonite (whose church is also being torn by this) giving an analysis of both sides of this issue. It takes a loving view of both sides.
Food for thought.
Wendy W.
Food for thought.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
okalb 104
I have dealt with closed minded people like this my whole life. You are wasting your breath. People who take excerpts from the bible and define morality based on them yet ignore anything in the bible that does not support their hatred, fear and prejudices are not worth arguing with.
The bottom line is that legal rights of people has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religious fanatics that try to make it so are actually the people that I believe are destroying the ideals that this country was built on. The constitution of this country was written to protect the people from all types of persecution. People who try to alter the constitution to deny ANY American the rights that are awarded to ANY other truly do not understand what this country is all about. While I have nothing against people believing anything they want to believe, I do have a problem when they try to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us. By not allowing gays the same rights as anyone else in this country they are doing just that.
One thing that I learned growing up the way I did was that race, creed, color or sexual preference mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Peoples actions and behavior towards others is what matters. There are good and bad people in the world and who they sleep or what they pray to with has nothing to do with it. If more people grew up the way I did, the world would probably be a better more tolerant place.
The bottom line is that legal rights of people has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religious fanatics that try to make it so are actually the people that I believe are destroying the ideals that this country was built on. The constitution of this country was written to protect the people from all types of persecution. People who try to alter the constitution to deny ANY American the rights that are awarded to ANY other truly do not understand what this country is all about. While I have nothing against people believing anything they want to believe, I do have a problem when they try to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us. By not allowing gays the same rights as anyone else in this country they are doing just that.
One thing that I learned growing up the way I did was that race, creed, color or sexual preference mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Peoples actions and behavior towards others is what matters. There are good and bad people in the world and who they sleep or what they pray to with has nothing to do with it. If more people grew up the way I did, the world would probably be a better more tolerant place.
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana
Interesting thread.
Civil Unions (for both same/hetero sex couples) have been legal for 3-4 months now here in New Zealand.
The sky hasn't fallen in as the moral right said it would. Presumably the same thing in Belgium, The Netherlands (that have permitted gay marriage) and also true I suspect in a lot of european countries that allow same-sex civil unions.
Russ
Civil Unions (for both same/hetero sex couples) have been legal for 3-4 months now here in New Zealand.
The sky hasn't fallen in as the moral right said it would. Presumably the same thing in Belgium, The Netherlands (that have permitted gay marriage) and also true I suspect in a lot of european countries that allow same-sex civil unions.
Russ
QuoteOne thing that I learned growing up the way I did was that race, creed, color or sexual preference mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Peoples actions and behavior towards others is what matters. There are good and bad people in the world and who they sleep or what they pray to with has nothing to do with it. If more people grew up the way I did, the world would probably be a better more tolerant place.
Beautiful, Oren. The whole post is wonderful, but that section above is what my original post was all about. While I didn't grow up the way you did, and my parents would totally disagree with me about my beliefs (as far as I know), I do feel that I am "on your/their side." I'm not gay, but it absolutely breaks my heart to see how much hatred and persecution there is for people who are "different."
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
I pray for it to go to vote so I can vote YES!! 
QuoteThey won't burn in hell because they love one another or because they do admirable things.
No they won't burn in hell because they are gay. But I surely will burn in hell for what I'm about to say.
Christianity is a joke!!!
But guess what? I don't believe in hell and I surely don't believe in your God because your God does NOT exist. A creator (call it God if you want may exist), but the Christian, Jewish, Islamic God are all man made created to control the masses (this crap about you will burn in hell unless you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior is laughable). I can't believe you people allow yourselves to be brainwashed. But you do. Go figure?
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
Don't forget - it's ok to pass judgement (against what Christianity and the Bible tell you to....judge not lest ye be judged yourself) and kill people via the military (thou shall not kill). But sleeping with the member of the same sex and trying to live a happy, peaceful life??? OMG! I wonder who is really the immoral, sinful group here?
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
QuoteQuoteMoral sex = Sex within the confines of marriage (between one man & one woman)
Immoral sex = Sex outside the confines of marriage (between one man & one woman) "
And how were you (or your religious leaders) planning on enforcing this?
I guess I need to point out the obvious again...probably already been done by someone else in this long-ass thread.
Laws are already/still on the books....
Adultery
Fornication
Cohabitation
Sodomy
...and others
no opinion stated...just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteOne thing that I learned growing up the way I did was that race, creed, color or sexual preference mean nothing in the grand scheme of things
The gays have no "rights" for marriage, just as someone can't marry a poodle. I mean if you think about it a poodle will not whine about how long you were at the dropzone, How much you drink.
call it what you will and it's still not a marriage. Like I said before I will not provide medical benefits(like self induced aids) for a sham.
I do not hate gays. it's not a marriage and 90%f US agrees with me.
Quotedo have a problem when they try to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us.
this is what the gays and the extreme left is doing to us.
I have to ask... what do you think of bisexuals? By your definition, they are half good and half bad. Are they good, moral people when in a relationship or having sex with a person of their opposite sex but sinful and immoral when with someone of the same sex? Are you turned on seeing two women together? Is that ok in your book?
QuoteI have to ask... what do you think of bisexuals? By your definition, they are half good and half bad. Are they good, moral people when in a relationship or having sex with a person of their opposite sex but sinful and immoral when with someone of the same sex? Are you turned on seeing two women together? Is that ok in your book?
I don't see any references to morality in his last post....I agree with him on all points made - marry the poodle = less grief.
, just don't ask me to pay for it.
I can understand that you are fighting for the right to marry same-sex...but, like he said, you don't have the right as yet.
Hey, could this be one of the "inalienable rights"?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteDon't forget - it's ok to pass judgement (against what Christianity and the Bible tell you to....judge not lest ye be judged yourself) and kill people via the military (thou shall not kill). But sleeping with the member of the same sex and trying to live a happy, peaceful life??? OMG! I wonder who is really the immoral, sinful group here?
All of them?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
okalb 104
QuoteQuoteThe gays have no "rights" for marriage, just as someone can't marry a poodle.
Putting a smiley after it and making a joke out of it does not make this comment any less offensive. This is by far the most moronic of all of the homophobic and bigoted arguments I have heard against same sex marriage. As much as the Christian Coalition and ilk try to make it so, marriage in the US has NOTHING to do with religion. Some people MAY choose to hold a religious ceremony of some sort or another, but that means nothing to those that don't follow that religion. Marriage is a legal arrangement entered into between 2 people. Since I have never yet met a poodle that is able to sign a legal document or meet the standard that make it possible to enter into a legally binding agreement, the argument is just plain stupid.QuoteI do not hate gays. it's not a marriage and 90%f US agrees with me.
At one point 90% of the people in this country also believed that there was nothing wrong with keeping slaves, women shouldn't vote and you certainly shouldn't enjoy any super-evil alcohol. Most of these people came to their collective senses eventually and realized that they were wrong. It's called growth. Even if the bible said otherwise.Quotethis is what the gays and the extreme left is doing to us.
You are completely off -base on that one, on so many different levels. Yet another sweeping generalization that the evil liberals and fags must be behind the decimation of "your" cultural comfort level. Hm, what's next? Immigrants?
There is no LEGAL basis for argument against gay marriage. Unless you're telling me that the religious fanatics of this country, God and the Supreme Court had a conference call about it and decided that you were right. Trying to say that certain people can do certain things while others cannot is pure discrimination and can't be tolerated. Anyone who calls themselves a patriot and can't see that, truly does not understand the meaning of being a citizen and patriot of the USA.Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana
I never said they, gays were good or bad. I am sure there are both. However when you choose to redefine a relationship as something it's not then I have a problem. Just as I would if a guy would marry a poodle (or girl got to be PC) and want me to pay for health insurance for their SO
Have I used the words " sinful and immoral?"
never saw any?
Have I used the words " sinful and immoral?"
QuoteAre you turned on seeing two women together?
never saw any?
QuotePutting a smiley after it and making a joke out of it does not make this comment any less offensive. This is by far the most moronic of all of the homophobic and bigoted arguments I have heard against same sex marriage
you are so closed minded that you fail to see my point.
Quote
At one point 90% of the people in this country also believed that there was nothing wrong with keeping slaves, women shouldn't vote and you certainly shouldn't enjoy any super-evil alcohol. Most of these people came to their collective senses eventually and realized that they were wrong. It's called growth. Even if the bible said otherwise.
please support your claim with facts. I do not believe 90% of the US ever thought it was ok to have slaves.
at the time women prolly should not have voted.
Quoteyou certainly shouldn't enjoy any super-evil alcohol
I can see why outlawing alcohol as well as tobacco would not be a bad idea. Think of the lives it would save.
QuoteThere is no LEGAL basis for argument against gay marriage
yes there are you refuse to see them. A duck is a duck no matter what you choose to call it.
btw calm down, relax, and reframe from personal attacks.
I wasn't referring specifically to his last post. Maybe I should have made that more clear.
TomAiello 26
QuoteThere is no LEGAL basis for argument against gay marriage.
???
I think there's plenty of legal basis. The question is if there is a moral or ethical basis for the laws.
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
okalb 104
QuoteQuoteThere is no LEGAL basis for argument against gay marriage.
???
I think there's plenty of legal basis. The question is if there is a moral or ethical basis for the laws.
Thank you, you are absolutely right. I sit corrected
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana
okalb 104
QuoteQuoteyou are so closed minded that you fail to see my point.
I saw your point and then showed why is made absolutely no sense whatsoever.Quoteplease support your claim with facts. I do not believe 90% of the US ever thought it was ok to have slaves.
I could very well be wrong about the exact number here but I am pretty sure you understood the meaning of the statement.Quoteat the time women prolly should not have voted.
I am not even going to dignify this statement with a responseQuoteI can see why outlawing alcohol as well as tobacco would not be a bad idea. Think of the lives it would save.
Once again not worth responding toQuoteyes there are you refuse to see them. A duck is a duck no matter what you choose to call it
I don't refuse to see them. Nobody has made one that doesn't argue thier religious or moral beliefsQuotebtw calm down, relax, and reframe from personal attacks.
I am perfectly calm and relaxed. Nowhere in any of my posts have I made a personal attack. I said that the argument about poodles is moronic which it is. You on the other hand did not debate a single one of my statements by any means other than saying that I was wrong.
As for your argument that you don't want to pay for the benefits, I feel your pain. I don't want to eat the costs of the tax exempt status that religious organizations get either. I also don't ever have any intention of having children but I pay for the education of other peoples children through my taxes. That is the cost of living in the USA.
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana
There are laws against it in many states, so there is a legal basis.
However, IMO, there isn't a constitutional basis. Eventually, though, a case will end up in the supreme court, and they can clarify.
However, logic would lead one to conclude that if there was a constitutional basis for denying homosexuals the freedom to marry whomever they choose, that certain people wouldn't be pushing so hard to amend the constitution to specify it.
However, IMO, there isn't a constitutional basis. Eventually, though, a case will end up in the supreme court, and they can clarify.
However, logic would lead one to conclude that if there was a constitutional basis for denying homosexuals the freedom to marry whomever they choose, that certain people wouldn't be pushing so hard to amend the constitution to specify it.
That's pretty cool.
edit: spelling
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites