Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
It is traditional in that it is between man and woman as god and Jesus intended. Many of the things you said wrong with marriage are also deplorable, but that doesn't mean we should make it worse by allowing more things that are clearly against god's words.
Okay, please remove your religious views from this, you live in America where there is separation of church and state. This premise was created specifically for mindless bible-thumpers such as yourself. Your religion has ZERO say in what happens in this country.
So, straight people have done such a cracker jack job with marriage that we shouldn't let gay people get a crack at it? Is that what you're telling me? Again, try to wrap your cinderblock-thick skull around the fact that your religion has no place in governing the freedoms of others. None. Nada. Zilch.
So, based on the law, and not your secret decoder ring club of crazies, what stance could you possibly have on preventing gay people from marrying each other?
It is unnatural and immoral. That is not religious, just the truth.
Still no one has shown how it is a right.
"So, straight people have done such a cracker jack job with marriage that we shouldn't let gay people get a crack at it?"
Nope, I never gave that line of reasoning, I was responding to your points. I said just because they have failed in some respects, doesn't mean we should make the situation worse. Please don't put arguments in my mouth.
It is called logic and pointing out a logical fallacy. Sorry for the Yoda talk.
Actually, it is called relating the freedom two consenting adults should have to getting a driver's license. My apologies if your "logic" seems intrinsically flawed since you're comparing inalienable rights of human beings to a learned skill.
You're basically equating being gay to crashing into a parked car on your road test. Thank god for your flawless logic or else this could've gotten confusing.
How is it an inalienable human right? Sure a church or whomever can marry you and your partner, it doesn't mean a society/state has to accept this. It is not an alienable right, such as life, liberty, et cetera.
The Christians cannot even agree on this, there are several churches that will marry same sex couples. So that is not the issue. Religion is not the issue. Religion is no the issue. Religion is not the issue. Some believe on e way others believe the other. Neither has any legitimate or binding way to claim victory on the issue. The real issue is in the civil arena and this is where the rights come in. The "Sally Ride" scenario plays out across the country every day. Her committed partner of 27 years is being denied federal benefits that any hetero couple would get. It is sad.
I think a lot of people misunderstand the problem here.
The anti gay marriage folks are denying benefits and some legal rights afforded to other couples due to their sexual preference. This is a civil matter, since there are plenty of churches that will perform and bless the union. They are imposing their beliefs on others.
The pro folks however are simply asking to be granted the same benefits of marriage as the others. They are not asking people to change their beliefs. The pro people are not hindering anybody with their beliefs.
It is unnatural and immoral. That is not religious, just the truth.
Proof?
Unnatural - our human parts and intimate relationships are made for procreation. Using these things for other purposes is going against nature, ie unnatural.
Immoral - it is abusing one's body for unnatural and sinful desires. It leads to much higher incidence rates of STDs, AIDS, depression, suicide, et cetera. It is harmful to society and oneself, both physically and mentally, to make this point simple.
This is fascinating; I've only ever read about people like you, kiko.
Funny that you say that, cause I have a hard time convincing myself he's not trolling. I mean I've heard about the argument he's presenting several times, but like you, have never actually "met" anyone who truly believes that. It's just bizarre.
How much do you hate going to Bonnaroo, kiko? I can only imagine all of the immoral acts you've witnessed there.
Kiko...think about the basis for determining who can and cannot drive. Seem pretty reasonable? Now think about the basis for restricting gay people from marrying. Do you see the disconnect?
There is a difference because one could harm people if we distinguish incorrectly. The other is unnatural and wrong. I'm not sure which would be a bigger mistake, allowing harm or allowing immorality.
Ok. Let's go deeper. You have made these distinctions, now think about the source of these distinctions.
The first is objectively reasonable. Certain people create the danger of causing quantifiable physical harm on others if they were allowed to drive, so they are prohibited.
Your second distinction is subjective. While many agree with you, it is based on a particular set of beliefs and not objective facts. You may think that allowing gay people to marry would cause even more harm than allowing dangerous drivers to drive, but this is based purely on your personal beliefs which are not backed up with quantifiable evidence.
To take it even further, your subjective beliefs (that many share, admittedly) lead to state action preventing an entire group of people from participating in an activity that is allowed for all non-members of that group, simply because they are members of that group. This will eventually be an issue of equal protection under the law.
This is fascinating; I've only ever read about people like you, kiko.
Funny that you say that, cause I have a hard time convincing myself he's not trolling. I mean I've heard about the argument he's presenting several times, but like you, have never actually "met" anyone who truly believes that. It's just bizarre.
How much do you hate going to Bonnaroo, kiko? I can only imagine all of the immoral acts you've witnessed there.
I admit, it's a tough position to keep going. Though the "it's not a right" argument seems to get by sometimes. Anyway, I gtg. Fun times.
It is unnatural and immoral. That is not religious, just the truth.
Hi, you live in f*cking America. Land of the free. Founded by people fleeing religious persecution in England? Ring any bells? You are using religion to persecute another group of people, which is LITERALLY the exact thing that led to this country being founded.
I'm also not going to bother listening to someone who just compared being gay to failing a driver's test tell me about morality.
No one has shown how it is wrong, have they? Can you prove that being gay shortens your life span, or causes harm to others? Can you prove being gay corrupts children or that a gay person can't be as kind and loving as a straight person?
Nope, I never gave that line of reasoning, I was responding to your points. I said just because they have failed in some respects, doesn't mean we should make the situation worse. Please don't put arguments in my mouth.
Durka.F*ckin'.Dur.
Dude, what planet are you on? You gave that EXACT line of reasoning by saying everythign you've said in the past hour. My point (that you clearly missed) was that things CAN'T GET WORSE. Marriage is a joke, as are people who try to uphold this facade of marriage being some pure union of holiness.
How is it an inalienable human right? Sure a church or whomever can marry you and your partner, it doesn't mean a society/state has to accept this. It is not an alienable right, such as life, liberty, et cetera.
Is your right to marry some swamp donkey frat mattress skank your inalienable right? Yes, it is. As much as the thought of you reproducing induces relentless projectile vomiting, that is indeed your right.
And just like "society doesn't have to accept gay marriage," society doesn't have to accept a world without gay marriage.
And please, finish that quote that you idiotically included in your final selling point. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's right, folks. Kiko over here used the word "liberty" to say why gay people should NOT be allowed to marry.
Keeks, by any chance do you know what the word "liberty" means in this context? The ability for people to have "agency." Agency meaning "control over ones actions." So, the quote you used (and couldn't even finish, for some reason) literally says it is an inalienable right for people to have control over their own actions. You telling them they can't marry one another is withholding their liberty, you narrow-minded hate-mongering neanderthal.
Bonnaroo 2008-2013
0ct 11 Pearl Jam
Oct 12 Pearl Jam
March 16 Arcade Fire
April 29 Arcade Fire
Sept 4 Wilco
Sept 9 The Hold Steady
Oct 16 Pearl Jam
Oct 17 Gaslight Anthem
well i guess you wanted a debate, so here is goes:
it has nothing to do with god, and everything to do with trying to deny rights to people.
if you believe certain groups of people should have rights others don't get, then you are a bigot. plain and simple.
the end.
Yes but you are presuming marriage is a right. Where is this legal right claimed? It certainly isn't in the constitution.
Isn't marriage, at its root, a contract? Unless the individuals entering the contract are proven legally incapable of entering into a contract, shouldn't they be allowed to enter into the contract?
(Juggs..... feel free to correct my interpretation of contract law)
Bonnaroo 2008-2013
0ct 11 Pearl Jam
Oct 12 Pearl Jam
March 16 Arcade Fire
April 29 Arcade Fire
Sept 4 Wilco
Sept 9 The Hold Steady
Oct 16 Pearl Jam
Oct 17 Gaslight Anthem
Post by wannaberoo'ing on Aug 2, 2012 16:43:26 GMT -5
Strange days have found us Strange days have tracked us down They're going to destroy Our casual joys We shall go on playing Or find a new town
- The Doors
This is just how I feel in general about the whole world lately, every muthaquacking time I turn on the news, some strange shiz is happening. I'm gonna find me a new town, out in the middle of nowhere and just live off the land.
I'll only venture back into civilization for shows of course.
30-40 years from now, our nation will be looking back at the same-sex marriage debate with the same amount of embarrassment that we have when discussing our treatment of Native Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, and Women.
Agreed. Our generations' children and grandchildren will cringe when they hear their grandparents use words like "gay" or "fag".
I don't think they are acceptable to say now, but they are definitely more prevalent in our collective vernacular now than they will be in say 15-20 years.
Religion is not the issue. The real issue is in the civil arena and this is where the rights come in. They are imposing their beliefs on others.
For once, I disagree with you on something.
You're right: this is a situation where the beliefs of one (representing a whole - in this case, a corporation) ARE being imposed on others.
But I disagree with your assessment that it's not about religion. Dan Cathy's views are purely based on his religious beliefs. While I neither agree with his views nor condone his use of his company as a bully pulpit, he is entitled to express said views insofar as his conscience dictates. His company has always maintained a strict "closed on Sundays" policy, so it should have come as no surprise that the Cathy family holds these religious-based views.
This kerfuffle arose not when he or any other member of the family/company began passing out homophobic literature with their nuggets or waffle fries. No, it erupted when the public reacted strongly against his expression of his views. Again, I don't agree with his views, but I wholeheartedly support his honest transparency. I wish all corporate CEOs would reveal their stance on issues so I could more easily determine which of their subsidiaries I will choose to give or withhold my consumer dollars.
The problem I have with this whole brouhaha is that the Cathy family is in THE CHICKEN SELLING BUSINESS; they're not supposed to be the MORALITY POLICE SQUAD. They should keep their homophobic noses in the kitchens & stores and leave politics out of the whole mess.
I think the thing that bothers me the most is how little respect we have for one another. We are all unique individuals. We look different, think different, speak different, worship different. Why is it so surprising that we love different. I'm different from you, you're different from me. I respect that and wish others did too. Everybody deserves to be happy & live the life they want to live. Everybody deserves to be treated equal, regardless of our differences.
I went from page 1 straight to page 4. Somewhere in the middle this whole thread got derailed. Damn you that guy.
Where's Bonnie and Kyle, we need to take this motherfuckin thread back.
Here, though I wouldn't have been any help to derail this... This thread took a turn... I'm kinda glad that I wasn't here. You guys all know I stay out of most debates. But this is the one debate that will make me flip out. Seems that Kiko has stepped out and that is for the best.
Welcome back Bonz, but I do not find it strange that your presence being requested in the Orgy thread and then you showing up, like it was the quacking Bonzai Bat Signal.
Unnatural - our human parts and intimate relationships are made for procreation. Using these things for other purposes is going against nature, ie unnatural.
Damn, I guess you've never gotten a BJ or Handy, since they aren't for procreation and all. Your sex life must be boring as all get out.
Unnatural - our human parts and intimate relationships are made for procreation. Using these things for other purposes is going against nature, ie unnatural.
Damn, I guess you've never gotten a BJ or Handy, since they aren't for procreation and all. Your sex life must be boring as all get out.
I'm pretty sure you have to be into "hand stuff" to even be allowed to join Inforoo.
Certain groups of people are very selective in what parts of the Bible they wish to follow - not the parts that are inconvenient for them certainly, but the parts that help validate issues on which they already had their mind made up. Like for example, "gay people are different than me, therefore I fear them, therefore I hate them. Can someone find something in the Bible please to make them go away?"
I am a Christian who still believes in a Jesus that loved everyone and would be (is) very disappointed in how He sees people act in His name these days. I cannot imagine a scenario where me being intolerant to a group of people or denying them basic human dignities (there, we don't even have to use the term "right" if that's too ecumenical for you), gets me into Heaven or endears me to Jesus.
Golden Rule baby, Golden Rule. And by the way, that's in the Bible. Yes, Matthew and Luke. Oh, and Leviticus. You know, the book that tells us God wants us to hate gay people.
I had an amazing chicken sandwich yesterday. Love that chicken from Popeye's.
Post by billypilgrim on Aug 2, 2012 22:39:35 GMT -5
It's like anything else. We're least tolerant of people who display what we consider our own weaknesses. Look at Larry Craig. Look at Mark Foley. Look at generations of Catholic priests (not all, obviously, but more than, oh say, Methodist dentists). The list goes on and on. The people who are most vocal about their opposition to homosexuality are the ones who are mostly likely to get caught with their hands in the pickle jar. (Clumsy simile, I know, but I'm drunk.) There's never anything brave or upstanding about saying that some other group deserves fewer rights than you. And anyone who espouses bigotry with the excuse that it's what GOD wants is either a summers breeze in a sac or a douchebag's puppet.