SudsyFist 0 #426 December 21, 2005 Quotewell its nice that you guys have so much interest in my personal growth. That's what we're here for. No, no need to thank us. Just smile and feel loved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #427 December 21, 2005 QuoteConducive. Good word. I used it in a Freshman English essay in college and the dumbass TA actually questioned its validity as a word. It brought my grade on the whole paper down, and I've never forgiven him for being so ignorant of his chosen subject. That's it. You're permanently inducted into my spank bank now, missie. HOT!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 3 #428 December 21, 2005 QuoteI am NOT religous. I AM an atheist. I think homosexuality is disgusting and don't want to legally support it. I don't give a shit about religous tolerance of homosexuality. I don't see why marriage needs to be redifined for a minority group. But it's not a redefinition of marriage. Didn't you look at the link? Besides being approved by God, such marriage arrangements were culturally acceptable at the time. Historically, all kinds of unions have met with approval at one time or another, in one culture or another. Are you willing to say that all those unions aren't marriage, even though the culture of which they were a part defined them so? rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #429 December 21, 2005 No I didn't look at the link. I really don't care what was approved culturally then or in the bible. I am going off of my own personal thoughts and the current cultural climate. The bible is just a another book. Oh yea and "God" has all kinds of attributes depending on who you talk to. One person says he hates gays another says he loves them. He's a very ambiguous imaginary friend don't you think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AlexCrowley 0 #430 December 21, 2005 maybe someone could check out the authenticity of this: Irish Times, August 11, 1998 Dublin, Ireland When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as "straight" as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy. Opinion: Rite and Reason by Jim Duffy A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men. Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs. While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage". The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century. Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual. Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded. Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded". Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion. Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books. While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place. At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper. Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality. For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort. It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ. Jim Duffy is a writer and historian. The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell is published by Harper Collins. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 3 #431 December 21, 2005 QuoteNo I didn't look at the link. I really don't care what was approved culturally then or in the bible. I am going off of my own personal thoughts and the current cultural climate. But there went your argument about the definition of marriage, don't you see? That's the point. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #432 December 21, 2005 yes definitions do change with time and that is the point. Gays are trying to get the current definition redifined. THAT IS my point. Why should I help or even support that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #433 December 21, 2005 Quoteyes definitions do change with time and that is the point. Gays are trying to get the current definition redifined. THAT IS my point. Why should I help or even support that? Would you have said the same thing about the issue of interracial marriage at its time? Why or why not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #434 December 21, 2005 I don't know. If I grew up during that time and if I were born to the same parents that I have now. It would have been very tough decision. I would have to have a lot of self loathing to be against inter racial marriages. Seeing as how my mother is blonde haired pale skined european and my father is mexican. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #435 December 21, 2005 SPLITTER!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #436 December 21, 2005 QuoteWhy should I help or even support that? Every heard of fairness? compassion? kindness? Freedom? I wonder what percentage of people just instinctively vote "NO" whenever something comes up that doesn't affect them. If someone else enjoys the benefit, STOMP ON IT! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 3 #437 December 21, 2005 Quoteyes definitions do change with time and that is the point. Gays are trying to get the current definition redifined. THAT IS my point. Why should I help or even support that? Are you going to go the trouble of opposing it? If not, then I suppose it doesn't matter. You can be disgusted by whatever you want, as long as you don't interfere in lives that are not yours to control. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #438 December 21, 2005 yeah sure I have heard of them. I just don't care that much about gays to worry about whether or not they as a group are happy. Why should I care about your happiness? I have my own life to worry about. My own problems to deal with. Why should I go out of my way to help gays get the definition of marriage redefined? Will it kill them if it doesn't get redefined? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #439 December 21, 2005 I don't have any interest in opposing it. I am not registered to vote and have never voted. I don't really care enough to register to vote just to vote against gays. actually I am just posting my opinions because I am bored. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites okalb 78 #440 December 21, 2005 QuoteBut there went your argument about the definition of marriage, don't you see? That's the point. Don't bother him with the facts, he has already made up his mind Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #441 December 21, 2005 QuoteWhy should I go out of my way to help gays get the definition of marriage redefined? Will it kill them if it doesn't get redefined? Let's see how far out of your way we're talking about. Lessee... What would be nice? 1) Push the Yes, gay marriage wouldn't hurt me and would help other people so I have no objection button instead of the No, fuck the gay people's happiness just out of spite button when you vote. 2) Refrain from being inserting nasty comments in conversations about gay people and gay marriage. 3) Oh wait -- there is no (3) Yeah, that's about it. Is that too much effort for your level of concern about other people who've done you no harm? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #442 December 21, 2005 your missing a part. First I would have to register to vote. hmm I just never seem to find time to do that. Why cause I really don't care enough to vote. All politicians are liars and anymore the difference between the lesser of two evils isn't much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rebecca 0 #443 December 21, 2005 Quoteyour missing a part. First I would have to register to vote. hmm I just never seem to find time to do that. Why cause I really don't care enough to vote. All politicians are liars and anymore the difference between the lesser of two evils isn't much. So, your opinion is worthless, in other words. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #444 December 21, 2005 Awwww poor baby. Did I hurt your feelings because I think homosexuality is disgusting and have no interest in supporting it? quit whining and get on with your life. Marriage isn't that important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #445 December 21, 2005 yeah I guess you could say that. But it has been fun voicing here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #446 December 21, 2005 QuoteAwwww poor baby.... quit whining. Nasty. Next! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rebecca 0 #447 December 21, 2005 Quoteyeah I guess you could say that. But it has been fun voicing here. Sound and fury signifying nothing. Personally, I'd hate to be civically impotent. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,380 #448 December 21, 2005 > I just find gay marriages disgusting. I suspect if you had two friends who were happily married, and two other friends who were denied same, that you might change your mind. >How would it ever benefit me to support gay marriages? For the same reason that women being able to vote benefits you, even if you're not a woman. For the same reason that blacks being able to marry whites, and go to 'white' schools, and drink from 'white' water fountains, benefits you. Because we all benefit from living in a place where even people we disagree with have rights. Think you're not a minority, that such things don't matter to you? Wait until someone tries to shut down your DZ and you hear the airport manager say "skydivers are a tiny segment of the population! Who the hell cares what they want?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #449 December 21, 2005 ha ha that is funny. So by your logic I should register to vote just so I can vote for gay marriages if that ever came up just so that one day if some does some thing that directly affects me I will have the support of those that I voted in favor of. hmm pretty farfetched. sorry I still don't care enough to even vote one way or another. What I do care about are those nearest to me and my lively hood. If one of those people happened to be gay it still would not convince me to register to vote just to vote for gay marriage. Why? Because I don't consider marriage as that important. They aren't going to die if they don't get married. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #450 December 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteyeah I guess you could say that. But it has been fun voicing here. Sound and fury signifying nothing. They took the flag out, and they were hitting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next Page 18 of 31 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
SudsyFist 0 #427 December 21, 2005 QuoteConducive. Good word. I used it in a Freshman English essay in college and the dumbass TA actually questioned its validity as a word. It brought my grade on the whole paper down, and I've never forgiven him for being so ignorant of his chosen subject. That's it. You're permanently inducted into my spank bank now, missie. HOT!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #428 December 21, 2005 QuoteI am NOT religous. I AM an atheist. I think homosexuality is disgusting and don't want to legally support it. I don't give a shit about religous tolerance of homosexuality. I don't see why marriage needs to be redifined for a minority group. But it's not a redefinition of marriage. Didn't you look at the link? Besides being approved by God, such marriage arrangements were culturally acceptable at the time. Historically, all kinds of unions have met with approval at one time or another, in one culture or another. Are you willing to say that all those unions aren't marriage, even though the culture of which they were a part defined them so? rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #429 December 21, 2005 No I didn't look at the link. I really don't care what was approved culturally then or in the bible. I am going off of my own personal thoughts and the current cultural climate. The bible is just a another book. Oh yea and "God" has all kinds of attributes depending on who you talk to. One person says he hates gays another says he loves them. He's a very ambiguous imaginary friend don't you think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #430 December 21, 2005 maybe someone could check out the authenticity of this: Irish Times, August 11, 1998 Dublin, Ireland When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as "straight" as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy. Opinion: Rite and Reason by Jim Duffy A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men. Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs. While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage". The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century. Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual. Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded. Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded". Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion. Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books. While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place. At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper. Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality. For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort. It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ. Jim Duffy is a writer and historian. The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell is published by Harper Collins. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #431 December 21, 2005 QuoteNo I didn't look at the link. I really don't care what was approved culturally then or in the bible. I am going off of my own personal thoughts and the current cultural climate. But there went your argument about the definition of marriage, don't you see? That's the point. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #432 December 21, 2005 yes definitions do change with time and that is the point. Gays are trying to get the current definition redifined. THAT IS my point. Why should I help or even support that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #433 December 21, 2005 Quoteyes definitions do change with time and that is the point. Gays are trying to get the current definition redifined. THAT IS my point. Why should I help or even support that? Would you have said the same thing about the issue of interracial marriage at its time? Why or why not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #434 December 21, 2005 I don't know. If I grew up during that time and if I were born to the same parents that I have now. It would have been very tough decision. I would have to have a lot of self loathing to be against inter racial marriages. Seeing as how my mother is blonde haired pale skined european and my father is mexican. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #435 December 21, 2005 SPLITTER!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #436 December 21, 2005 QuoteWhy should I help or even support that? Every heard of fairness? compassion? kindness? Freedom? I wonder what percentage of people just instinctively vote "NO" whenever something comes up that doesn't affect them. If someone else enjoys the benefit, STOMP ON IT! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 3 #437 December 21, 2005 Quoteyes definitions do change with time and that is the point. Gays are trying to get the current definition redifined. THAT IS my point. Why should I help or even support that? Are you going to go the trouble of opposing it? If not, then I suppose it doesn't matter. You can be disgusted by whatever you want, as long as you don't interfere in lives that are not yours to control. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #438 December 21, 2005 yeah sure I have heard of them. I just don't care that much about gays to worry about whether or not they as a group are happy. Why should I care about your happiness? I have my own life to worry about. My own problems to deal with. Why should I go out of my way to help gays get the definition of marriage redefined? Will it kill them if it doesn't get redefined? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #439 December 21, 2005 I don't have any interest in opposing it. I am not registered to vote and have never voted. I don't really care enough to register to vote just to vote against gays. actually I am just posting my opinions because I am bored. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites okalb 78 #440 December 21, 2005 QuoteBut there went your argument about the definition of marriage, don't you see? That's the point. Don't bother him with the facts, he has already made up his mind Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #441 December 21, 2005 QuoteWhy should I go out of my way to help gays get the definition of marriage redefined? Will it kill them if it doesn't get redefined? Let's see how far out of your way we're talking about. Lessee... What would be nice? 1) Push the Yes, gay marriage wouldn't hurt me and would help other people so I have no objection button instead of the No, fuck the gay people's happiness just out of spite button when you vote. 2) Refrain from being inserting nasty comments in conversations about gay people and gay marriage. 3) Oh wait -- there is no (3) Yeah, that's about it. Is that too much effort for your level of concern about other people who've done you no harm? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #442 December 21, 2005 your missing a part. First I would have to register to vote. hmm I just never seem to find time to do that. Why cause I really don't care enough to vote. All politicians are liars and anymore the difference between the lesser of two evils isn't much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rebecca 0 #443 December 21, 2005 Quoteyour missing a part. First I would have to register to vote. hmm I just never seem to find time to do that. Why cause I really don't care enough to vote. All politicians are liars and anymore the difference between the lesser of two evils isn't much. So, your opinion is worthless, in other words. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #444 December 21, 2005 Awwww poor baby. Did I hurt your feelings because I think homosexuality is disgusting and have no interest in supporting it? quit whining and get on with your life. Marriage isn't that important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #445 December 21, 2005 yeah I guess you could say that. But it has been fun voicing here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #446 December 21, 2005 QuoteAwwww poor baby.... quit whining. Nasty. Next! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rebecca 0 #447 December 21, 2005 Quoteyeah I guess you could say that. But it has been fun voicing here. Sound and fury signifying nothing. Personally, I'd hate to be civically impotent. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,380 #448 December 21, 2005 > I just find gay marriages disgusting. I suspect if you had two friends who were happily married, and two other friends who were denied same, that you might change your mind. >How would it ever benefit me to support gay marriages? For the same reason that women being able to vote benefits you, even if you're not a woman. For the same reason that blacks being able to marry whites, and go to 'white' schools, and drink from 'white' water fountains, benefits you. Because we all benefit from living in a place where even people we disagree with have rights. Think you're not a minority, that such things don't matter to you? Wait until someone tries to shut down your DZ and you hear the airport manager say "skydivers are a tiny segment of the population! Who the hell cares what they want?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #449 December 21, 2005 ha ha that is funny. So by your logic I should register to vote just so I can vote for gay marriages if that ever came up just so that one day if some does some thing that directly affects me I will have the support of those that I voted in favor of. hmm pretty farfetched. sorry I still don't care enough to even vote one way or another. What I do care about are those nearest to me and my lively hood. If one of those people happened to be gay it still would not convince me to register to vote just to vote for gay marriage. Why? Because I don't consider marriage as that important. They aren't going to die if they don't get married. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #450 December 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteyeah I guess you could say that. But it has been fun voicing here. Sound and fury signifying nothing. They took the flag out, and they were hitting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next Page 18 of 31 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
narcimund 0 #436 December 21, 2005 QuoteWhy should I help or even support that? Every heard of fairness? compassion? kindness? Freedom? I wonder what percentage of people just instinctively vote "NO" whenever something comes up that doesn't affect them. If someone else enjoys the benefit, STOMP ON IT! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #437 December 21, 2005 Quoteyes definitions do change with time and that is the point. Gays are trying to get the current definition redifined. THAT IS my point. Why should I help or even support that? Are you going to go the trouble of opposing it? If not, then I suppose it doesn't matter. You can be disgusted by whatever you want, as long as you don't interfere in lives that are not yours to control. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #438 December 21, 2005 yeah sure I have heard of them. I just don't care that much about gays to worry about whether or not they as a group are happy. Why should I care about your happiness? I have my own life to worry about. My own problems to deal with. Why should I go out of my way to help gays get the definition of marriage redefined? Will it kill them if it doesn't get redefined? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #439 December 21, 2005 I don't have any interest in opposing it. I am not registered to vote and have never voted. I don't really care enough to register to vote just to vote against gays. actually I am just posting my opinions because I am bored. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 78 #440 December 21, 2005 QuoteBut there went your argument about the definition of marriage, don't you see? That's the point. Don't bother him with the facts, he has already made up his mind Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #441 December 21, 2005 QuoteWhy should I go out of my way to help gays get the definition of marriage redefined? Will it kill them if it doesn't get redefined? Let's see how far out of your way we're talking about. Lessee... What would be nice? 1) Push the Yes, gay marriage wouldn't hurt me and would help other people so I have no objection button instead of the No, fuck the gay people's happiness just out of spite button when you vote. 2) Refrain from being inserting nasty comments in conversations about gay people and gay marriage. 3) Oh wait -- there is no (3) Yeah, that's about it. Is that too much effort for your level of concern about other people who've done you no harm? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #442 December 21, 2005 your missing a part. First I would have to register to vote. hmm I just never seem to find time to do that. Why cause I really don't care enough to vote. All politicians are liars and anymore the difference between the lesser of two evils isn't much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #443 December 21, 2005 Quoteyour missing a part. First I would have to register to vote. hmm I just never seem to find time to do that. Why cause I really don't care enough to vote. All politicians are liars and anymore the difference between the lesser of two evils isn't much. So, your opinion is worthless, in other words. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #444 December 21, 2005 Awwww poor baby. Did I hurt your feelings because I think homosexuality is disgusting and have no interest in supporting it? quit whining and get on with your life. Marriage isn't that important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #445 December 21, 2005 yeah I guess you could say that. But it has been fun voicing here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #446 December 21, 2005 QuoteAwwww poor baby.... quit whining. Nasty. Next! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #447 December 21, 2005 Quoteyeah I guess you could say that. But it has been fun voicing here. Sound and fury signifying nothing. Personally, I'd hate to be civically impotent. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #448 December 21, 2005 > I just find gay marriages disgusting. I suspect if you had two friends who were happily married, and two other friends who were denied same, that you might change your mind. >How would it ever benefit me to support gay marriages? For the same reason that women being able to vote benefits you, even if you're not a woman. For the same reason that blacks being able to marry whites, and go to 'white' schools, and drink from 'white' water fountains, benefits you. Because we all benefit from living in a place where even people we disagree with have rights. Think you're not a minority, that such things don't matter to you? Wait until someone tries to shut down your DZ and you hear the airport manager say "skydivers are a tiny segment of the population! Who the hell cares what they want?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #449 December 21, 2005 ha ha that is funny. So by your logic I should register to vote just so I can vote for gay marriages if that ever came up just so that one day if some does some thing that directly affects me I will have the support of those that I voted in favor of. hmm pretty farfetched. sorry I still don't care enough to even vote one way or another. What I do care about are those nearest to me and my lively hood. If one of those people happened to be gay it still would not convince me to register to vote just to vote for gay marriage. Why? Because I don't consider marriage as that important. They aren't going to die if they don't get married. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #450 December 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteyeah I guess you could say that. But it has been fun voicing here. Sound and fury signifying nothing. They took the flag out, and they were hitting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
