Gay rights

[Savag3]

first off, you are all looking at this in the wrong perspective. the question isn't "should gays be allowed to marry", it's more along the lines of "why aren't gays allowed to marry". Looking at it from a historical perspective, homosexuality has always been taboo. No matter who, what, when, where, why, or how, the fact is that homosexuality is abnormal. Whether it is a genetic defect or something that is chosen, there are people who lare attracted to members of the same sex.

It seems as if people get off topic on this subject all too often, mainly with things such as "religion" and "government". First off, i would like to announce to everybody reading this(yes, the few of you who will actually put up with my ramblings) that i am a strong christian. Believe it or not, i am actually harrassed for my views and beliefs than my gay and lesbian friends are. Ironic, is it not? It's also quite hypocritcal of you to think that all christians hate gays, when in reality it may be you who hate christians, It is not my intention to offend anyone here, but i will always state my point and make sure to back it up.

Now that you know that i am a christian, i think it's important that you realize the fact that i accept homosexuals. i have several good friends who are gay and i will not judge them based on their choice. This does not mean that i have to agree with them on it, it simply means that it will not affect the way that i look at them. The christian community as a whole needs to wake up, in my opinion. Rejecting gays is wrong, just flat out wrong. The Bible states clearly that we are not supposed to judge and are to accept all into our community. How are we supposed to do that when some sects of christianity cast out the homosexuals amoung them?! is that not true hypocracy?! remember, i am talking about the 5% of christians who are like this, not the 95% that are loving.

Lastly, regarding religion and government. When the USA was founded in 1776, only 10% of it's population was christian. The idea that it was founded on christian morals is NOT true. Secondly, the separation of church and state was proposed in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Quakers of Pennsylvania stating that "The newly-formed government will in no way prohibit your practices, so long as they remain in common decency and practical law." This implies that religion was being protected by the government in its sanctity, not religion infecting the government. Most importantly, the government used the morals found in the Bible because they acknowledged the fact that they were near perfect for managing a country. Anybody who disagrees should read in Exodus (second book of the Bible) and find the 10 commanments.

this is for flea: you have no idea what you are talking about. we dont slaughter goats. that was old testament law written for the Jews. Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifce for our sins, therefore there was no need for anymore sacrifices. Jesus is referred to as the "Lamb of God" because He was the "Lamb" that was slain to free us of our debt. so when you call the Bible outdated, please for the sake of all of us, know what you're talking about.

[SpoonMan999]

Yeah Flea...that was just an anti religion rant.

And Savag3 you contridicted yourself by saying it wasn't founded on Christian morals then saying the Bible was used to help establish our laws...

[[/sarcasm]]

Yes, it is was an anti-religion rant. Or more specifically, an anti-Christian rant. I don't think that something that is two thousand years old should be governing our country, since this was meant to be a secular nation in the first place.

EDIT: Also, this country was founded on common sense morals, not particularly religious ones, since the Bible wasn't the first thing ever to say 'killing people is bad'.

[Savag3]

It isn't governing our country, you just think it is. You're seeing something that isn't there. I'm sorry, i did not mean to contradict myself. I was meaning to say that it was not founded by christians but still took many of their morals. and yes, i know that not killing somebody is not a new concept. what is a radical idea is still caring about those who despise you and what you stand for.

Flea, please stop being such a hypocrite. What if i went on an anti-gay rant?

[[/sarcasm]]

The word 'God' is on the dollar bill and is in the pledge and national anthem, you swear on the bible when you go to court, and gay marriage is trying to be outlawed by the President (don't get me wrong, Bush is a great president, just too religious) and you're trying to say that religion isn't governing the country? It seems to me like you're trying not to see something that is there.

[xDBD]

Flea, I agree to an EXTENT. You're being extremely stereotypical. There ARE 'evil' Christians that I deem a problem. It's the Christians who barge into your property with their gospel and won't leave after being asked too. It's the Christians who condemn you for your beliefs. It's the Christians who KNOW their beliefs are right, and if you disagree, you're hellbound.

Then, you have the Christians who just follow their faith, go to church, and live. Occasionally, they will ask you to come to church with them, but if you tell them you aren't interested, that's that. They live their life, and let you live yours, and try to do it in harmony. What is wrong with that? So what if they pray for forgiveness and sacrafise animals? It doesn't affect you, now does it? No. Christians who practice in their own enviroment are just like people who have sex in their enviroment.. just so you don't catch them doing the deed in the town square, is it a direct issue to you or your children? No.

But, if you were walking your child downtown when you caught two lovebirds beyond third base, it would be a problem, wouldn't it? Yeah, your young child, innocent mind and all, has been soiled with an image of sexual intercourse. You can compare these "evil Christians," to those people who **** in public. What about the people who have sex in their house? The Christians who practice and live in their own can be compared to those.



Tolerance isn't about abolishing anything. It's about accepting everything, and learning to live with differences. Just because you don't agree really doesn't give you any right to b-tch. When a religious Zealot is in your yard and don't leave, feel free to condemn THEM. Don't condemn the whole religion because of a few mistakes. That's just plain retarded, and beyond closed minded.

I think you should just accepte Christians for what they are. I think you should also rethink your idea of tolerance. Descrimination, which is basically what you're applying ot Christians, gets you no where at all.

[DaCougarMech]

the problem with any issue from any perspective is that there are always those who take a side to the extreme. unfortunately, they are most often the people interviewed or accepted to represent a side. the problem with the issue of gay rights is that on one side, ultraconservative religious zealots who are not necessarily Christian will wrongly cite everything they can from their religious texts and can often be hypocritical. especially in their advocation of death upon homosexual people. on the other side, you have the extreme radical liberals who have bought into the bulls**t from conservatives and now hate all religion. indeed, these liberals have fallen into a trap and now only believe that their own way of thinking is correct. as far as i can see, our enemy in this issue isnt liberals or conservatives. it is the trap of a closed mind

[[/sarcasm]]

If it came across that I have a vendetta against all Christians, no, I don't. I'm not talking about the people that don't care or just ask a couple harmless questions.. I'm referring to those that continuously refer to me as a 'no-nothing Atheist' when they've got nothing better to say about me, or those that say that I'm just trying to get attention or 'be different' by being what I am. I'm just hoping that we'll eventually become a completely secular nation, with religious references taken out of what I've listed above because I'm sure the government is just thinking that 'Well, the majority is Christian, so we're good.. Oh, the non-Christians? There aren't enough of them to matter'.

[TYLER]

Although i don't like it, I think homosexuals should be able to marry. Marriage is about love, if two people of the same sex deeply love each other, let them marry, don't make a big deal about it.

[DaCougarMech]

and that is the entire basis of the people who want for homosexuals to be married

[neurotiK]

It's kind of like immediate post 9/11 America where people were saying they hated Muslims, when they only hated the extremeists, or nowadays when people from other countries say they hate Americans when they either hate our president (I don't) or they hate the stereotypical American. That's all it really is, stereotyping.

[xDBD]

and that is the entire basis of the people who want for homosexuals to be married

No, negative hombre. Some people don't mind gay marriage, as the post a few scrolls up, but many people, myself included, are totally appaled gay marriage is even an issue. It's all about choice. We can choose the most powerful man in the nation, for Christs sake, but we can't choose who we want to lay with? What we take into our bodies? How late we stay out in public? It goes so far beyond just not caring about gays getting married. Are any of you familiar with Anarchism? I'm not talking the stereotypical Anarcists who want to blow up dams and kill the president. I'm talking deep down, real anarchists. Get familiar with them if you aren't. Alot of that makes an increadible amount of sense.

[[/sarcasm]]

I can see where you're coming from in the whole Anarchy thing, but I don't feel that it would work. If the government just wouldn't mess with the issues like gay marriage or really anything that would associate soley on their religion and not exactly sense. Secularity of the government would be much better than a radical change like Anarchy.


Edit: I didn't quite say it right the first time, changed a few words to make it less controversial...

[xDBD]

I'm speakong about Anarchy on a deeper level. Civilization is evil. What I'm saying is the average person in America can tell you when Britney and Kevin's child is due, and how many pimples Jessica Simpson has on her lower back.. but you didn't know two hundred years before, an indian massacre happened a mile from your house?

How many people can grow medicinal herbs? How many peopl even know the NAMES of five medicinal herbs that could be grown in your front yard?

If you needed a gallon of milk, and a store was a half mile away, the average American would get in their car and drive to the store and buy it. That same average American owns a bike and rides it to be Cliche via exercising.

Anarchism will work, because we really don't have a choice. Do you honestly believe we can continue living this lifestyle forever, that it will never break down and return to roots? Mabye not in our lifetime, but we really don't have a choice.


Welcome to Anarchism: Everything's accepted, because there's nothing to stop it. You just, simply put, live. Just live..

[[/sarcasm]]

It's ironic that you say through Anarchism, you can live. In Anarchy, there is no government, which means no regulated laws, and therefore no reprocussions from stealing from or killing your neighbor other than something on a conscious level.

Also, in Anarchism, you aren't considered a country, and therefore you would break ties with other countries and that's never good. I just don't see how people can look to Anarchism because of just a couple problems, like the government wanting to preserve life via outlawing of certain drugs. The examples you gave of 'problems' in the nation aren't really problems at all, because who really cares if anyone other than a pharmacist doesn't know the name of 5 medicinal drugs or whether you're a cliche bike rider, or a lazy car driver? I'm pretty sure that even if there was anarchism, that would still exist.

[xDBD]

I'm willing to die for the cause.. if my computer was to shut off tomorrow, I would be fine. If all the gas was suddenly gone, i'd get by just fine. If electricity, god forbid, goes out, I can still make it. We weren't born living this style of life, and we're definitely gonna go out eventually. Anarchism can be peaceful, too. I don't know WHAT kind of Anarchists you know(if you know any at all), but NONE of my friends want to kill people or abolish anything.

"....no reprocussions from stealing from or killing your neighbor other than something on a conscious level..."

Not true. EVERY Anarchist//Primitivist I know holds morals very high. I've never met one Anarchist who was hell bent destrying the government and just go apeshit looting and killing people. It's the average civilians you have to worry about there. I've never met an anarchist who wanted to kill anyone unless the survival of themselves or others were directly in harm's way. Hell, ALL the Anarcists(myself included) hold animals lives higher than our own. Food is fine, but if you kill it, you better use it for something.

"...therefore you would break ties with other countries and that's never good..."

Would that really be a bad thing, Mr. Flea? Look how dependat we are on foreign oil. We, as a whole species, are spoiled beyond the point of stinking rotten. We depend on oil so much it's ridiculous. Could the average person imagine life without gasoline or cars, even though that's our most natural way of living? That gallon of milk might actually make you work a little. Take a look at this page: http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html Look at all the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS we Import from China alone. That's only the top 10, too. You can suffice EVERYTHING you need in your front yards and the woods thereof. You could grow Cannabis and poppies for pain and stress relief; corn, tomatoes, potatoes, beans, squash, watermellon, peaches, oranges, etc for your non-meat food, you could go to the river and catch fish, and you could also kill everything else you need to eat. All those deer, pigs, squirrels, turkey, etc. you kill could all go toward your clothing. Shelter? I know of some caves not too far from here, and I also know of thousands of trees within throwing-of-a-rock distance. Alas, mud is a very easially made & attainable resource that can also be used for building.

"...like the government wanting to preserve life via outlawing of certain drugs..."

If you enjoy certain substances being illegal, quit taking asprin, quit taking caffeine, stop drinking the occasional beer, quit eating chocolate and hot peppers.. they all posess psychoactive/theraputic properties, and many of these properties can be used recreationally. Hell, your own body naturally produces one of the most potent psychoactive compounds known to man, DMT. Cannabinoids in one form or another are also present in the naturally occuring human body. Drugs are on the same level as gay marriage. Both are(sadly) taboo to our culture. How can you tell a gay man who to sleep with and live with for the rest of his life? How can you tell a stoner his ways are immoral? If you gave any answer but "you can't" to either one of those, you're pretty hypocritical.

"...because who really cares if anyone other than a pharmacist doesn't know the name of 5 medicinal drugs..."

We're using non-renuable resources at a very staggering rate. One day, we're going to run out. One day, there will be nothing else to rape mother earth of. What are we, or those people who aren't pharmacists, going to do? What's gonna happen when we sprain an ankle, and there's no pharmacist or doctors left because there's no power left to synth any drugs or provide transportation? Well, if I was in such a situation, I'd know that Opium, a direct product of a certain Poppy, is probably the most effective pain releiver ever. Opium derrivitives produce all forms of opioid painkillers, including Hydrocodone, Oxycodone, Methadone, Hydromorphone, Darvocet, and Heroin(Yes, heroin is a VERY effective painkiller. It's also extremely impure and addictive, hence the deaths.) Cannabis is also one of the most effective natural pain/stress killers known to man. Both opium and Cannabis are illegal. Supression of this knowledge can lead to a very ignorant nation, provided a national power crisis arises. Hell, remember the New York blackout? All because a few power plants went down. What if they all went down.. for good? I know I would know how to grow and harvest, and build, everything I need to support my life and insure that my own genes do get passed on.

"...whether you're a cliche bike rider, or a lazy car driver? I'm pretty sure that even if there was anarchism, that would still exist...."

You obviously know nothing about Anarchism, man. It's not about being cliche or any of that shit. In Primitivism, there WOULD be no "lazy car drivers." Eventually, be it a mass extension or a massive collapse in civilization as we know it, one day we(or rather, mother earth) will definitely revert back to our natural state. Now what were you saying about Anarchism, pup? Nothing of fact or revelance? Yeah, I know so. All you know is the textbook definition, and that doesn't even suffice.



This ties into gay marriage because the principal of TRUE freedom applies to Anarchism. With nobody to tell you know*, and really nobody to care, where would the problem be?

*Pun definitely intended

[SpreadNeedleXP]

From a religious standpoint, this just doesnt stand.

And if you are an athiest, look at the standpoint that it is much more disease friendly.

So my vote? No.

[Foog]

DBD- (notice your user title)

you bring up a lot of really good points. I think that Anarchy is a great idea..but that's just it. It's an ideology that probably won't be brought into being. Why? Human nature. Sure, you CAN grow all of those plants, you CAN bike or run or walk everywhere you need/want to go. Sure, that's possible..But the amount of work that these methods entail is so much higher than the standard of work that a human does in a day that it will never be done by the social majority. You're right when you say that we're all spoiled rotten..I don't think that anyone will want to do the amount of work that is needed to survive in the primitive hunter/gatherer state that once existed. Everyone (myself included, i'm not gonna lie) is too lazy. So there's the flaw in Anarchy...there's the flaw in society, and that's why it's impossible to stop us consuming everything in sight.

After all, you're always right *wink*

[xDBD]

DBD- (notice your user title)

you bring up a lot of really good points. I think that Anarchy is a great idea..but that's just it. It's an ideology that probably won't be brought into being. Why? Human nature. Sure, you CAN grow all of those plants, you CAN bike or run or walk everywhere you need/want to go. Sure, that's possible..But the amount of work that these methods entail is so much higher than the standard of work that a human does in a day that it will never be done by the social majority. You're right when you say that we're all spoiled rotten..I don't think that anyone will want to do the amount of work that is needed to survive in the primitive hunter/gatherer state that once existed. Everyone (myself included, i'm not gonna lie) is too lazy. So there's the flaw in Anarchy...there's the flaw in society, and that's why it's impossible to stop us consuming everything in sight.

After all, you're always right *wink*

Exactly the flaw myself and my partners in "crime" are trying to fix. I will admit, I do use a car WHEN I HAVE TOO, IE school, work, etc. If my destination is within ten miles, I will use a bike to get there. I don't intentionally rape mother earth of all her precious resources just so I can play my gamecube 15 hours a day or 100 miles a day for pleasure. The time comes when I can get my "own"(I'm also a strong believer in that no one is a "true" land owner) land I will definitely live on a very minimal scale. I will grow many of my own crops and I will hunt/raise animals to provide for most of my meat I consume. Ideally, I strive to have to work in the "conventional" as little as possible and live off of the land and what she provides. I was dead serious when I said I would die for the cause.

I realize pretty much everything I say on things like this are opinions, but when assclowns insist Anarchism is all about killing people with no laws and destroying the government (or anything in a more polite fashion, as was done in this thread) with no formal/credible knowledge on the subject at hand, and especially the people who practice it, I do get quite defensive.

[[/sarcasm]]

I wasn't calling Anarchists murderers, I was just saying that if someone were to kill someone, they could get off the chain just by migrating to another community. I dislike Anarchism because it would hinder scientific progression, which is very important to me because I have questions that I want answered with proven facts, and if I had passion for anything other than law, I would aid the cause that I find important.

I am against the use of addictive, or possibly fatal narcotic/otherwise substances not because I think that everyone deserves life, but because if you're dead, you can't assist society in any way, which is also the way I feel about those that are severely retarded.

It's obvious that we have very different viewpoints in life, you being one to value work ethic and nature, as what I can draw from your posts, but I apologize if I've interpreted your cause wrong, and me being one to understand that money IS, in fact, the key to happiness, and those that don't work hard enough to do what they want with their lives have nobody to blame but themselves, save for those in economically inactive countries. I am glad, however, that you share many of the same ideals as me, and I can definately see where you are coming from on most stances. Therefore, I salute you.