LBGTQ

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Wise One » 2008 Nov 16 18:29

Third grade? You must be kidding. I may never get there. Kindergarten is more my speed.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Uji » 2008 Nov 19 18:40

Frank Strickler wrote:... To begin with I'm a bible beliveing Christian... To know what Jesus had to say about marrage please read Mathew chapter 19. and Mark chapter 10.


Well, Mr. Strickler, what about the rest of the bible?

    It encourages polygamy: Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15
    It encourage adultery: Hosea 1:2, Hosea 3:1-2 (This Hosea guy must have been quite a Dude.)
    It encourage the buying and selling of wives: 1 Samuel 18:25-27
    It discourages sex in marriage: 1 Corinthians 7:29
    It even encourages divorce: Deuteronomy 22:13, Deuteronomy 24:1-2
And it's not just the Old Testament. Paul finds marriage a lousy idea altogether -- though it seems that it's better to marry than to burn: 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 1 Corinthians 7:7-9

This is some serious family values, Dude. You must believe this stuff too. You can't cherry pick; either the Bible is the word of god or it's not.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Coondog » 2008 Nov 21 11:28

Hey! Take it easy on Frank.....he's from California!

Let me begin by saying that I've read the Bible......even all the begats, and I can tell you that reading the Bible, even on the level of a kindergartner, is not remotely close to understanding it. Maybe, as said diety is unfathomably complex, we have not the capacity to understand it. As it is a work authored by a perfect diety, perhaps the inability of mere mortals to reach a concensus as to it's contents resides in our inherent nature as hedonistic, egocentric busybodies.

Ah, but many will suggest that there exist no inconsistencies and that the meaning of every word is crystal clear to those of scholarly superiority in the interpretation theological lore. One may, therefore, profess a lack of authority to judge.....then proceed to judge with impunity.

Coondog :violent5:

So....are we redeemed or condemned? And.........where did Cain's wife come from?

PostScript: If it's a matter of rights, then it's constitutional. If it's right or wrong, then it's morality. If it's a matter of Marriage vs Civil Union, then it's semantics. So let's consider semantics. Biblically speaking, Adam got to name all the stuff. He found an apple and he found an orange. He recognized that they were both of the nature of fruit, round, grew on trees and were good to eat. He was not one to descriminate on the basis of color. But, he did not name the orange,
'apple'. Otherwise, Eve might have put cider in his screwdriver instead of orange juice. Yuck!

There is functional utility, harmony and rationality in the ability to differentiate between one circumstance and another. Thus, in deference to Frank and in the interest of both semantics and Adam's 5:00 p.m. libations, there is no reason we can't have different names for different fruits.....both of which may equally satisfy the daily requirement of vitimin C.

Frank Strickler

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Frank Strickler » 2008 Nov 22 16:27

Is it normal on this forum to insult people?

"Wise One" implies that he alone does research, UJI implies That I don't know exactly what I believe and Coondog implies that people from California should be sheltered.

In reply to UJI's post on bible verses, Please Note.

In Exodus chapter 21, and Deuteronomy chapter 21 God is not encouraging polymagy, meerly dealing with some new rules for an existing practice.
Although polygamy is not legal in Isreal today, it is still being practiced in many of the Islamic countries.
Read and study for yourself if you're a seeker of truth and not just a spreader of half truths.

In the book of Hosea, God was using the life experiences of the prophet to demonstrate to Israel that they were playing the harlot with Him. He is not encouraging adultry.

1st. Samuel chapter 18 is not God condoning buying and selling wives. It is telling of a plot by King Saul to get David killed. Saul was willing to use one of his own daughters in his plot.

Deuteronomy 22: 13 through the end of the chapter not only does not condone divorce, it even deals with reasons why in some circumstances divorce will not be allowed. You should read the whole chapter before making a judgement.

As for Deuteronomy chapter 24, Jesus Himself deals with that much better than I ever could in Mathew, chapter 19.

In 1st. Corinthians, chapter 7, verses 1 through 11 Paul is explaining the principals of Marrage. In verse 12 Paul states that the rest is from him and not from the Lord.

Maybe you should become better informed before becomming a critic.

Frank Strickler

resigned

Lack of tolerance

Postby resigned » 2008 Nov 23 09:15

Frank, good posting. It seems that most folks here on the forum say they are tolerant of almost everyone, but they are not tolerant of Christians. Many have negative views of Christians and as youand I know there are many good Christians in the world who quietly go around doing Christ's work. Yes there are some who give Christians a bad name but that occurs in all areas of life.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Coondog » 2008 Nov 23 20:36

It's not intolerance....its more a plethra of individual perspectives occasionally at odds. It's hard, sometimes, even to agree with someone without salting some wound or another.

But, to address the topic....loosely, advancement of civilization relies on the ever increasing complexity of language. If we refer to all plastic food wraps as Cling Wrap, we have no way to distinguish the superior quality of Sam's Premium wrap from, say, Glad Wrap.

Similarly, can we not remain tollerant of, if not indifferent to, same sex relationships by refering to them as something other than that which defines the more typical male-female arrangement? Instead of marriage....we could just call it Epoxy.

Coondog :joker: Another problem solved.

I don't know if Californians need to be sheltered, but I do know they need inflammable shrubbery!

Frank Strickler

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Frank Strickler » 2008 Nov 23 20:49

Well Coondog,
Only the Californians stupid enough to live in high risk fire areas need to have non flamable shrubs and trees.
I do have to admit there are a lot of stupid people in this state. After they are mostly liberals, and most liberals have never had an origional thought.

And yes I'm being insulting but you guys fired first.

Frank Strickler

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Coondog » 2008 Nov 24 22:07

Aw, shucks, Frank!

All my thoughts, liberal and conservative, are original. At least, no one else will own up to them.

Sometimes thoughts just drop down as from a seemingly empty sky and envelope my head like a soggy wool blanket on a hot July day. One such thought revolves around the concept of insults. A truely effective insult should be specific and sufficiently hurtful to someone on a personal basis, allowing for either tearful dejection or the proper personal and specific response, "Go *@%$#* Yourself!"

Labeling and degrading an entire, loosely defined group merely exhibits narrow mindedness and bigotry, insulting only the issuer and having little or no affect, real or feigned, on the targeted group.

In short, it is just as infantile to denegrate liberals as it is to denegrate Christians........or Californians. Unless,of course, it is accomplished in a humorous fashion.

Coondog :joker:

On the other hand, evangelical, fundamentalist, right-wing conservatives.....................................

Frank Strickler

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Frank Strickler » 2008 Nov 24 22:43

Humorous Coondog????

Ha Ha Ha. I've read a lot of posts on this forum, and most of the ones pertaining to Christians are more hateful and hurtful than funny.

However if one conciders the source, the hurt turns to pitty.

Frank Strickler

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby fangz1956 » 2008 Nov 25 13:39

Jeanne Carstensen and Richard Rodriguez write in Salon:

I think Proposition 8 was also galvanized by insecurity around gay families.

I agree. But the real challenge to the family right now is male irresponsibility and misbehavior toward women. If the Hispanic Catholic and evangelical churches really wanted to protect the family, they should address the issue of wife beating in Hispanic families and the misbehaviors of the father against the mother. But no, they go after gay marriage. It doesn't take any brilliance to notice that this is hypocrisy of such magnitude that you blame the gay couple living next door for the fact that you've just beaten your wife.

The pro-8 campaign calls itself the Protect Family Movement, even though the issue of family was the very reason gays needed to have marriage. There are partners in gay unions now who have children, and those children need to be protected. If my partner and I had children, either through a previous marriage or because we adopted them, I would need to be able to take them to the emergency room. I would need to be able to protect them with the parental rights that marriage would give me. It was for the benefit of the family that marriage was extended to homosexuals.

Religions have the capacity for being noble and ennobling but they are also the expression of some of the darkest impulses in us -- to go after the "other." For Christians, if the other isn't the Muslim, it's the homosexual. That is the most discouraging part.

Speaking of hypocrisy, churches have plenty of sexual skeletons in their closet.

Right. The Mormon Church has this incredible notoriety in America for polygamy and has been persecuted because of it. The very church that became notorious because of polygamy is now insisting that marriage is one man and one woman. That is, at least, an irony of history. But as a number of Mormon women friends of mine say, the same church that espouses the centrality of family in their lives is also the church that urges them to reject their gay children.

This issue is far more complex than some folks would have us believe. For the complete article, go here:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/ ... newsletter

:hmm:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Amy Probenski
Posts: 457
Joined: 2007 Aug 28 17:06

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Amy Probenski » 2008 Dec 03 12:28

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more...

Hilarious video, that makes a point.

:usa2: And even shows a way to economic salvation! :usa2:

Oh, and here are some funny takeoffs on those wonderful Mac vs. PC commercials:
Too bad Prop 8 was voted in. It will certainly fall one day, because public attitudes are changing for the better.

User avatar
Amy Probenski
Posts: 457
Joined: 2007 Aug 28 17:06

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Amy Probenski » 2008 Dec 06 08:45

I have not replied to any of your postings up to now, but they have descended to such depths of illogic that I can no longer stand silent.
Frank Strickler wrote:My vote did not say stop to anyone's way of life.
What rubbish! You voted to invalidate marriages that were, at the time of your vote, legal and valid in California.

Obliterating a valid and legal marriage between two people does not "stop anyone's way of life"? Of course it does.

People who, like you, who voted for the abominable Proposition 8 would not tolerate an attempt to invalidate their own marriages. And yet they launched an attack on the marriages of others, a most cruel and mean-spirited invasion into personal lives. It was an unprovoked attack that benefits nobody and brings only unhappiness to good citizens.

:encore: Watch Jack Black in the musical posted in prior message. It has astonished the country! :encore:

PS. This just in, an interview with the creator and performers of the Prop. 8, The Musical. (short annoying ad at the start)

PPS. Here's what it might be like if the shoe were on the other foot:
[youtube]TFg7ivCSIHA[/youtube]

Frank Strickler

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Frank Strickler » 2008 Dec 08 08:14

History lesson Amy,

Prop. 8 was the second vote on the matter. Gay marriage was voted down once, and a judge

over turned the law,thus taking away the rights of California voters. The voters meerly took

back their say in the matter.

Those who choose to have a legal union in California still have all the rights of married

people.

Frank Strickler

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Wise One » 2008 Dec 08 14:46

Although Frank Strickler appears to be contemptuous of facts and research that don't align with his ideology, I'm going to help Amy out here anyway.
Frank Strickler wrote:Prop. 8 was the second vote on the matter. Gay marriage was voted down once, and a judge over turned the law,thus taking away the rights of California voters. The voters meerly took back their say in the matter.
What a strange "history lesson"! What really happened is that bigots voted in a law that was contrary to California's constitution, so of course a court was obliged to invalidate a bad law. The court took away no "rights of California voters"... it just enforced the constitutional rights of the California people.
Bigots, ever determined to impose their prejudices on others, then attacked the California constitution itself, via Prop. 8, and succeeded in the latest election.

Frank Strickler wrote:Those who choose to have a legal union in California still have all the rights of married people.
This is incorrect, as is partially explained in this reference. There are other differences too, but the ones that appear here are:
  • Marriage can occur for persons under the age of 18, under some circumstances. Civil unions (registered domestic partnerships) cannot.
  • Domestic partners are not eligible for any property tax exclusion or exemption based on their relationship, but married persons are eligible
  • Partners' earned income is not treated as community property for state income tax purposes as it is for married persons.
  • Married persons can exclude purchases or transfers of real property between them, but registered domestic partners are not eligible for this interspousal exclusion.
  • Domestic partners who terminate their partnership via legal dissolution are not eligible for the interspousal exclusion of property, as married persons are, and therefore face reassessment of all real property, additional taxes, etc.
  • Domestic partners do not get a Veterans' Exemption for property assessments. On death, the surviving registered domestic partner is not eligible for the exemption as a married spouse would be.
  • Domestic partners do not get a Disabled Veterans' Exemption that married persons get, which provide an exemption from property taxes if the person is permanently disabled because of injury incurred in military service.
The elephant in the room is not treatment under California law, but treatment under federal law which is clearly and consistently biased against domestic partners. Creating and preserving functional legal recognition for registered domestic partnerships in the states will be crucial to obtaining federal recognition, because it is thought by many legal scholars that the "full faith and credit" and "equal protection" clauses of the US Constitution may provide the means for extending the same benefits that marriages now enjoy, to civil unions.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

Frank Strickler

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Frank Strickler » 2008 Dec 08 18:57

For what the Domestic Partnership in California currently reads go to wikipeda "Domestic partnership in California"

resigned

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby resigned » 2009 Jan 17 07:21

nudgewink wrote:Does anybody see what I am seeing? That Sweetness and Beckon are cut from the same bolt of cloth?

One is pressed a little more neatly than the other, but the shape of the garment is about the same in both cases. Bigots? You decide for yourself, but their own words seem to remove all doubt.

:thumbup: But I rubberneck when passing car wrecks, so I say to both of you -- keep it up! :thumbup:


I don't think you are a fool, but what's my opinion compared to that of thousands of others. and I might add that a sharp tongue does not mean you have a keen mind. :pompom:

User avatar
Sweetness 'n Light
Posts: 101
Joined: 2007 Jul 21 19:39

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Sweetness 'n Light » 2009 Jan 18 17:34

nudgewink wrote:Does anybody see what I am seeing? That Sweetness and Beckon are cut from the same bolt of cloth?

One is pressed a little more neatly than the other, but the shape of the garment is about the same in both cases. Bigots? You decide for yourself, but their own words seem to remove all doubt.

Well I think that is just stupid is what I think. And anyway I don't even know the other Beck person who sometimes might be kind of mean to me anyway. So there is nothing the same about us and I don't even know why you say I might be a bigut anyway since I am religious and patriotic in every way not like most of those illegal aileens that the government doesn't even care about even though they steal our jobs and welfare and get to drive even though I don't, and are mostly terrorists anyway.

So maybe you can keep your opinions to yourself about insulting people you don't even know, huh? That way you might learn something about who the real dangerous people are that we have to keep watchful about all the time or they will make really bad crimes and terrorist things maybe. I have lots of ideas about this stuff even if a lot of the people sometimes roll eyes when they don't think I can see them but I can.

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Uji » 2009 Jan 19 10:19

"Sweetness" rules! More...more...! :sip:

resigned

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby resigned » 2009 Jan 19 10:30

S&L, have I been mean to you? If so I am sorry. I have to admit though that you just don't seem real to me. I find your postings to be funny but don't mean to put you down.

On to bigger things; A bigot is defined as one fanatically devoted to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and intolerant of those who differ. Between you and me, I figure that could fit a lot of people on this forum. If you disagree or espouse another idea different than their own, there are some who try to label you or me or others. I imagine that "whats his face" is intolerant of alot of issues, groups of people etc. including Christians so would that make him a bigot?

Just my humble opinion.

User avatar
Juggler
Posts: 710
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Re: Prejudice & Proposition 8

Postby Juggler » 2009 Mar 22 11:21

Love is never having to say "you're sorry."

[youtube]Yy-Qae9R2b0[/youtube]