U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 11-05-2008, 05:30 PM
 
14,755 posts, read 14,505,265 times
Reputation: 8152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2 View Post
The sad fact is ALL religious experiences should be PERSONAL relationships with whomever your GOD is.

Being spiritual is not about going one day a week to a building where you make amenda for all the crap you did wrong during the week.

That is what most Organized religous people are doing. They are very holy for about 3 hours on Sunday and that is It. I should know, I attended church and religious schools for 12 years of my life. I know what your kind do on Tuesday and it is a **** poor example of what a religious person should be.

They never practice what they preach. Why should they when they can just show up on Sunday and put up a great front?

If you do not resonate with a spiritual person who has no church affiliations but has a deeply personal relationship with their God- then you are a pretty lousy example of a religious person and all the years you spend on Sundays sitting in a pew will not save you from true lack of character.

This says a lot more about you than it does me and my spirituality.

God loves everyone, even gay people.
Why can't you?
Aren't you supposed to attempt to be like God?
We were made in his image. Even gay people.
I work in a reasonably large entity where, if I didn't respect everybody, I couldn't do my job and I would be immobilized. My friendships mirror that same kind of diversity.

About religion, I have a religion because of the great education I received and because I prefer not to be unchurched. I am not that involved in my parish and don't go every single Sunday. My tithing is sporadic. To some extent, I poke fun at all religions, including my own, because of how pompous and self-regarding they can be.

This has nothing to do with love and respect. It's that I don't agree with this. The ANECDOTES of longevity in same-sex relationships that are posted, in my mind and in talking with others, seem to be exceptions and not the norm. It's an extension of the fact that I think children should be entitled to a mother (female) and a father (male) ,if this can be done. If that doesn't work, well than, there are a lot of single parents who do a good job. I think that, on one of the 20/20 or 60 minutes or other news-type of documentaries, they profiled the kids raised by same-sex parents and followed them over a number of years and the prognosis was not good.

I think I will accept statistically valid data. This has nothing to do with love, acceptance and tolerance. Some are making it out to be divided along those lines. It's not.

 
Old 11-05-2008, 05:35 PM
 
3 posts, read 6,718 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandyCo View Post
Okay, everyone, there were nine other threads on this hot topic and now no one has anything to say? Let me stir the pot again then.

I'm voting "no" on Proposition 8. Why?

1. It discriminates against gay people.
2. It has nothing to do with schools, and what our children are taught.
3. One of the biggest contributors to the this proposition is the Mormon Church. They already have Utah; why are they butting into California's business?
4. Every consenting adult ought to have the right to marry the partner of their choice.
5. Marriage is not always a religious ceremony. Churches are free to not marry gays and lesbians if they so choose. A marriage can be performed in a county courthouse. What's the religious objection to that?
6. To those who want a compromise, no. I'm not interested in a compromise, because it still treats gays and lesbians as "less than". They are human beings, just like everyone else, and should be allowed to marry. Period.

Thank you; I shall now step down from my soap box.

I voted yes on proposition 8 because it is my personal belief that marriage is a sacred union between a Man and a Woman. I don't believe reserving the right of marriage to a man and a women is treating gays and lesbians as "less than." I am LDS and I don't believe that the LDS church is trying to "butt into California's business" There are many members of the LDS faith in California also. I simply beilieve it's people taking a stand on their beliefs as Americans in trying to protect something they value and hold highly sacred.
Thats my opinion
 
Old 11-05-2008, 05:42 PM
 
3,288 posts, read 2,641,497 times
Reputation: 812
Quote:
Originally Posted by A00972247 View Post
I voted yes on proposition 8 because it is my personal belief that marriage is a sacred union between a Man and a Woman. I don't believe reserving the right of marriage to a man and a women is treating gays and lesbians as "less than."
Your opinion is just logically wrong then. You are saying that gay couples do not have the right to marry, whereas straight couples do. How does this make them equal?

Black people can ride the bus, but we're equal they just need to sit in the back.
 
Old 11-05-2008, 05:45 PM
 
Location: NorCal, baby!
85 posts, read 189,872 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Oy vey... this is why I no longer moderate the religion board.
Good for the religion board


Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
And your religious beliefs (and mine) are irrelevant to the government's laws... so what is your point?
Point is that you bring up your personal religion, who cares in the context of your argument?



Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Uh, okay... thanks. It's not a ploy, it really is against the TOS to go off on a different topic...
Then perhaps you should not make your religious arguments in this thread, what gives?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
like I said already, I have discussed this topic ad nauseum, and if you're too lazy to look up my arguments, I am too lazy to re-type them.
I find it interesting that you say you do not have time to make an argument yet you have written a plethora of posts within the hour of making that statement. Ya, I am sure that is the reason



Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Fine, believe that if you must... but to summarize (just so you'll be quiet already),
Thank you very much, all I asked for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
the Sodom & Gomorrah passage has been interpreted to speak against rape, not homosexuality. Everyone in town was a man, so they had no choice in whom to have relations with - like men in prison, who doubtfully identify as gay outside of prison walls.
Everyone in town was a man--where in the world do you get that idea? Not only is that a sad attempt to try to argue from silence but clearly contradicts the passage since Lot had both a wife and daughters. Lot even offered the daughters to the men, and guess what, they declined.

They had no choice? The point is not what people called themselves. As I am sure that you know, the people in Sodom did not use the word "gay." What is clear by the passage is what they wanted, and what is equally clear is that they had a choice.

When Lot calls their request for having sex with his guests "wicked" there is no mention of rape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Furthermore, the passage of "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" is fuzzy, since "as with" actually means "in addition to" by old English definition. I am Jewish... so obviously I learned in Synagogue, and have studied the language since I was able to read English (about 30 years). I also spent time in Israel, where I learned a lot more of the colloquial language. I am fluent in reading and writing, but not in speaking - especially modern Hebrew, on which I am quite rusty. How about you?
This is laughable, at best. So, you say that you are fluent in reading Hebrew yet you use an old english definition to explain a Hebrew word? What an old english definition might be is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what does the Hebrew word mean and then you take that meaning and translate it into its present english equivalent. miskebe isha is written in the form of comparison and could, under no circumstance, be transalted as "in addition to." Go back to your synagogue and ask the Rabbi where this construction, with any noun, could be translated as such. As a matter of fact, the LXX, written by Jewish scholars of the ancient text does not translate it as such.

My degree is actually in biblical languages. My undergrad and graduate Hebrew courses were under professors who all received their PhDs from Hebrew Union in Cincinnati.

I figured that you would have some kind of "arguments" along these lines. If you do not believe it, fine. But I would suggest that you keep your cute little explanations to yourself because you only end up looking the fool, and we don't want that, do we?
 
Old 11-05-2008, 05:50 PM
 
Location: San Diego
276 posts, read 669,427 times
Reputation: 212
Wow, you liberals have a driving need to spew anger no matter what! If my boy had won last night I'd be out celebrating not squabbling on some message board. Then again, maybe this is your way of celebrating. Yikes, what an unhappy bunch you are!
 
Old 11-05-2008, 05:53 PM
 
Location: yeah
5,627 posts, read 9,983,039 times
Reputation: 2583
Who authored the part of the Bible that says marriage can be only a man and a woman? Also, did they write it in English, or is "marriage" a word of their language? I would assume that people who live their lives by these principles could answer a few simple questions.
 
Old 11-05-2008, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
24,773 posts, read 27,759,250 times
Reputation: 11615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mika>Kimi View Post
Good for the religion board




Point is that you bring up your personal religion, who cares in the context of your argument?





Then perhaps you should not make your religious arguments in this thread, what gives?



I find it interesting that you say you do not have time to make an argument yet you have written a plethora of posts within the hour of making that statement. Ya, I am sure that is the reason





Thank you very much, all I asked for.



Everyone in town was a man--where in the world do you get that idea? Not only is that a sad attempt to try to argue from silence but clearly contradicts the passage since Lot had both a wife and daughters. Lot even offered the daughters to the men, and guess what, they declined.

They had no choice? The point is not what people called themselves. As I am sure that you know, the people in Sodom did not use the word "gay." What is clear by the passage is what they wanted, and what is equally clear is that they had a choice.

When Lot calls their request for having sex with his guests "wicked" there is no mention of rape.



This is laughable, at best. So, you say that you are fluent in reading Hebrew yet you use an old english definition to explain a Hebrew word? What an old english definition might be is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what does the Hebrew word mean and then you take that meaning and translate it into its present english equivalent. miskebe isha is written in the form of comparison and could, under no circumstance, be transalted as "in addition to." Go back to your synagogue and ask the Rabbi where this construction, with any noun, could be translated as such. As a matter of fact, the LXX, written by Jewish scholars of the ancient text does not translate it as such.

My degree is actually in biblical languages. My undergrad and graduate Hebrew courses were under professors who all received their PhDs from Hebrew Union in Cincinnati.

I figured that you would have some kind of "arguments" along these lines. If you do not believe it, fine. But I would suggest that you keep your cute little explanations to yourself because you only end up looking the fool, and we don't want that, do we?
To quote your own words, good for you. I never claimed to be a Biblical scholar, and I certainly wasn't the one who brought religion into the argument... just responding to the plethora of religion-related arguments that were on here, and giving my own response and opinion. I thought you respected all beliefs, but I guess that was just smoke being blown up my you-know-what. And FYI, my personal religious beliefs are as relevant as the Christians, which have been mentioned numerous times on here. The only reason I even stated my affiliation was to show that not ALL religions are homophobic. If people are going to use the "freedom of religion" argument against gay marriage, it's only fair that other religions should be able to chime in & say "wait, not us too!"

As for not having the time to argue this, the responses I've given since didn't require much thought - I type 80wpm, and can crank out a logical response from my mind in a few seconds. Getting into a deep Biblical debate would require research and time, which I do not have right now... in fact I shouldn't even be posting on here during the day, and usually I don't (just got sucked into this debate). I fully admit my lack of knowledge in deep Biblical discussion, but as a reference librarian I can literally research anything - and not using Google or Wikipedia, LMAO. But that would take hours upon hours, and I don't care enough about you to devote that kind of time. Actually, I'm done with this discussion altogether... it's pointless and way overdone by now. Have a nice life, and I hope you aren't affected by this issue as I have been over the years - well, maybe that would be a good thing, as it would give you some humanity and perspective.
 
Old 11-05-2008, 06:05 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,257 posts, read 13,412,655 times
Reputation: 5414
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanna_house View Post
Wow, you liberals have a driving need to spew anger no matter what! If my boy had won last night I'd be out celebrating not squabbling on some message board. Then again, maybe this is your way of celebrating. Yikes, what an unhappy bunch you are!
Great way to avoid my questions and response to you. I have found whenever I ask tough questions conservatives on here always just pretend they didn't see it and ignore the question, even when I ask again. It amazes me how many people say things they can't actually back up.

Well ignorance is bliss, it's always easier to be happy that way....
 
Old 11-05-2008, 06:33 PM
 
Location: San Diego
276 posts, read 669,427 times
Reputation: 212
Quote:
It's not and I'm not sure what that has to do with anything besides being another unfair law like Prop 8.
Because marriage has nothing to do with same-sex unions! I still can't get an answer as to why homosexuals don't push their own institution if they want to be joined to the government so much. Fighting for the rights of civil unions would be so much less of an uphill battle! Why are so drawn to the idea of 'marriage'? Do heterosexual relationships seem that appealing?

Quote:
No you don't b/c you just took away someone's freedom AND right to marry. Just b/c you tell yourself something doesn't make it true.
I didn't take anything AWAY from them. It was never theirs legally to begin with! The people had spoken and the CA Supreme court legislated from the bench and ignored the votes of the people! We simply didn't stand for having our rights taken away from us! The Supreme Courts job is not to legislate law, but interpret law.

Quote:
How is allowing two STRANGERS to get married "intruding" on your marriage?? How does it affect your marriage at all? ANSWER THIS b/c I don't get it at all.
It diminishes the sanctity of the union, for one. It also will begin to infiltrate the school system when they begin indoctrinating our children by teaching them that is an appropriate lifestyle, without parental consent. Once it is legal it now has to become acceptable, and that will affect us all deeply!

Quote:
With regards to the state, it serves mainly serves for LEGAL purposes and spousal rights. It doesn't, and should not, have anything to do with religion.
It has nothing to do with religion in the first place, as far as the government goes. As I have stated, the government found it beneficial to encourage the institution of marriage because it is an essential backbone to any great nation, but it does not change the meaning to what marriage IS! Marriage was already defined well before the founding of this great country.
 
Old 11-05-2008, 06:36 PM
 
Location: San Diego
276 posts, read 669,427 times
Reputation: 212
I am hardly intimidated by any questions you would have. All you seem to have are questions with no desire for answers. No real answers anyhow, because you choose to dwell in willful ignorance. But alas, I don't live to humor fools!

Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and attack you. -Matthew 7:6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Great way to avoid my questions and response to you. I have found whenever I ask tough questions conservatives on here always just pretend they didn't see it and ignore the question, even when I ask again. It amazes me how many people say things they can't actually back up.

Well ignorance is bliss, it's always easier to be happy that way....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top