Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
P.S. Basically everyone was a Jew at the time of crucifixion, including Jesus himself. So when you ask WWJD, you are also asking what would the Jews do - in a sense. Basic stuff, really.
not really !
Most people who use that expression----WWJD--- consider Jesus more than just an everday human being.
The Jews do/did consider him to be an everyday human being except the ones who believed in Jesus as being God, also.
P.S. Basically everyone was a Jew at the time of crucifixion, including Jesus himself. So when you ask WWJD, you are also asking what would the Jews do - in a sense. Basic stuff, really.
There is also an interesting theory advanced by the Greek writer Nikos Kazantzakis that Christ sacrificed himself so that his movement could go forward. In that theory Kazantzakis makes Judas the hero. Christ tells Judas that he is the only one who can be trusted so Christ sends Judas to denounce him to the Romans. This is why Judas throws away the thirty pieces of silver immediately after leaving the Roman garrison and then hangs himself. Of course Kazatzakis was immediately excommunicated for publishing this theory. "The Last Temptation of Christ". It also appears in his work "The Greek Passion". That must have really cheezed off the clergy in both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. I kind of like the idea.
My family was from Asia. Sadly, gays were actually hated on in China. They don't have discrimination laws, but you'll notice 99% of Asians are the "normal" straight couples. Gays did used to be accepted before the years rolled to 1xxx, but somewhere along the way they started disliking them. One guy even told a reporter that he had to go so far to marry a woman he didn't care about and had a daughter and son with her. He wished the culture were more accepting of same-sex couples.
I'm not scared of them, but there seems to be much hatred from Asians.
Besides that, I don't know much about this topic. It was weird to me at first, since I never met gay people until I went to college. We had a journalism class full of them. One of the guys remembered that people called him names in HS (he went to an all-boys school) just because of his sexual orientation. Also there is no way for them to conceive naturally, and you don't really "lose" your virginity like a straight couple does. They kind of just know each other. But it might actually be better because they have lots more in common.
I wondered how that worked, since their parents were straight. A journalism classmate noted they supported him but a lot of people think it's abnormal. Hey, as long as you're not hurting anyone right?
I was trying to get through every post in this thread, honestly, just ran out of time here...so someone let me know, did Red Wolf ever respond to questions about whether specific acts that deviate from vanilla missionary among straights is also perversion and should be rooted out and prevented by law...? Or is it "anything goes" if it's a man and a woman? It was an interesting point, I wish I had found a response.
Because I just can't say it enough, my official favorite post I've made on the topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
It's not about "deviant sexual behavior" though. A married couple can engage in plenty of "deviant" acts, come right down to it. But NO ONE has any right to expose others to see or hear about what acts they perform in the privacy of their bedrooms. In fact, if you take the tack that voyeurism and exhibitionism are "acts" then forcing another person to see or hear about any sexual act against their will is a form of rape. It violates the tenet of consentuality.
Fact is, sexual behavior among consenting adults is none of your business, the government's business, or any other organization's business, which is why although I will always believe in God, I will never participate in religion. Now if the sight of a gay couple walking hand in hand causes you to imagine what unclean acts they might perform in the privacy of their bedroom, I'd say the problem is with your brain, not with the couple which is behaving in a perfectly reasonable manner.
If they cross the line and behave innappropriately in public, to a degree of lewdness and disrespect to others, then they should be arrested, the same as a straight couple should be.
It is no part of the marriage contract from the state's perspective that the new couple go home and get it on. A person in a straight relationship who is medically incapable of sex can still be legally married. Sex is completely beside the point, and any relationship built on that foundation only is practically doomed to fail. From the state's perspective, the gay marriage debate should not be about nebulous notions dependent on personal opinion and "feelings." It should be all about contract law, and the ceremonial aspect, sexual aspect, and romantic aspect, if any, an entirely separate matter having nothing to do with law or government.
And if you or anyone want to try and say that it is a religious matter, marriage, I call shenanigans on that, because there are plenty of married athiests in the world who consider their marriage sacred and church a big joke. It's about two people committing to one another, and whether God is any part of it is entirely up to the individuals. Unless of course you'd rather live in a country with an officially sponsored religion and church structure which every citizen MUST belong to and believe in. But I'm pretty darn sure our forefathers declared independence because they had issues with that notion. So you're just gonna have to deal with people who don't agree with you.
Now if you and other religious folk are so concerned that these "deviants" are out there damning themselves, why can't you trust your God to have them well in hand? Surely their sins will be dealt with by a capable judge, lord and creator, no? I have always entirely failed to see where your judgement is called for in these kinds of situations. And I don't get why a person of strong faith is so threatened by the difference of others. Seriously man. They're not gonna be out there naked on the lawn. Just chill.
I've also seen, in this thread, a ton of argument that goes like:
Pro-g.m.: "What gives you the right to impose your morality on everyone, including those who don't agree with you or believe what you do?"
Anti-g.m.: "What gives YOU the right to impose your IMmorality one everyone? You're the one trying to change the law to suit your beliefs!"
Actually the important distinction is that if gays can marry, it will have pretty much no effect on the anti-gay, straight person's life, assuming that the tax ramifications are handled with sanity and sense (I recognize that this may be a problem. Our government/taxing authorities are neither sane nor sensible.) Yet if gays continue to not be allowed any sort of equal rights to the contractual end of marriage, lives will continue to be compromised and people will continue to have obstacles to happiness placed needlessly in their way. But I guess it's OK with the anti-gay people. They don't know these folks, it's enough to know that they are out there suffering like they should be, huh?
I was trying to get through every post in this thread, honestly, just ran out of time here...so someone let me know, did Red Wolf ever respond to questions about whether specific acts that deviate from vanilla missionary among straights is also perversion and should be rooted out and prevented by law...? Or is it "anything goes" if it's a man and a woman? It was an interesting point, I wish I had found a response.
Because I just can't say it enough, my official favorite post I've made on the topic:
I've also seen, in this thread, a ton of argument that goes like:
Pro-g.m.: "What gives you the right to impose your morality on everyone, including those who don't agree with you or believe what you do?"
Anti-g.m.: "What gives YOU the right to impose your IMmorality one everyone? You're the one trying to change the law to suit your beliefs!"
Actually the important distinction is that if gays can marry, it will have pretty much no effect on the anti-gay, straight person's life, assuming that the tax ramifications are handled with sanity and sense (I recognize that this may be a problem. Our government/taxing authorities are neither sane nor sensible.) Yet if gays continue to not be allowed any sort of equal rights to the contractual end of marriage, lives will continue to be compromised and people will continue to have obstacles to happiness placed needlessly in their way. But I guess it's OK with the anti-gay people. They don't know these folks, it's enough to know that they are out there suffering like they should be, huh?
What a load. You assume that people who disagree with gay marriage do so because they want homosexuals to suffer. Where does that come from and how can you simply assume that is their intent?
Forget for a moment, the question of gay marriage. The core of the problem is that some people attribute ideas and thoughts to others when in fact they have no basis to do so, other than their own prejudices.
Most people on one side or another of an issue, regardless of the issue, don't see their own ideas or beliefs on the matter as wanting to hurt or punish anyone, they just see things different. One day you might grow to see that as well and then be able to appreciate different perspectives without always attributing malice or harm just because someone disagrees.
What a load. You assume that people who disagree with gay marriage do so because they want homosexuals to suffer. Where does that come from and how can you simply assume that is their intent?
Forget for a moment, the question of gay marriage. The core of the problem is that some people attribute ideas and thoughts to others when in fact they have no basis to do so, other than their own prejudices.
Most people on one side or another of an issue, regardless of the issue, don't see their own ideas or beliefs on the matter as wanting to hurt or punish anyone, they just see things different. One day you might grow to see that as well and then be able to appreciate different perspectives without always attributing malice or harm just because someone disagrees.
I didn't read his or her post that way; if anything s/he was saying that anti-gm people were indifferent to any effects on gay people who want to be able to marry.
Which is a passive position, not an active one - certainly not wanting anyone to "suffer."
Quote:
Our government/taxing authorities are neither sane nor sensible.) Yet if gays continue to not be allowed any sort of equal rights to the contractual end of marriage, lives will continue to be compromised and people will continue to have obstacles to happiness placed needlessly in their way. But I guess it's OK with the anti-gay people. They don't know these folks, it's enough to know that they are out there suffering like they should be, huh?
You might want to rethink your statement:
Quote:
The core of the problem is that some people attribute ideas and thoughts to others when in fact they have no basis to do so, other than their own prejudices.
Pot, meet straw man.
So the people in this thread who have been calling gay folks deviants, pedophiles, abnormal, not biblical, sinners, perverted and whatever else...they're not attributing malice or harm? So these people are not being hurtful or punitive? They're simply able to "appreciate different perspectives"?
Interesting that the people that you claim cannot "appreciate different perspectives" are all perfectly OK with straight people and straight marriage. They simply want two gay adults to have the same legal (NOT RELIGIOUS! LEGAL! NOT RELIGIOUS!)** right to marry as two straight adults. And your problem with two gay adults being able to legally marry would be....?
Not one person has been able to articulate this, not one of you. When asked to be rational, y'all start babbling in tongues about perversion, taxes, pedophilia, how great the south is and the Bible.
Is not a single freaking one of you anti-gay marriage people capable of typing out a coherent, rational, well-reasoned, original thought?
*crickets*
**Yelling because of the tiresome individuals who are utterly incapable of understanding the difference. Not that yelling will work I suppose. Has yelling ever fixed stupidity?
Pot, meet straw man.
So the people in this thread who have been calling gay folks deviants, pedophiles, abnormal, not biblical, sinners, perverted and whatever else...they're not attributing malice or harm? So these people are not being hurtful or punitive? They're simply able to "appreciate different perspectives"?
Interesting that the people that you claim cannot "appreciate different perspectives" are all perfectly OK with straight people and straight marriage. They simply want two gay adults to have the same legal (NOT RELIGIOUS! LEGAL! NOT RELIGIOUS!)** right to marry as two straight adults. And your problem with two gay adults being able to legally marry would be....?
Not one person has been able to articulate this, not one of you. When asked to be rational, y'all start babbling in tongues about perversion, taxes, pedophilia, how great the south is and the Bible.
Is not a single freaking one of you anti-gay marriage people capable of typing out a coherent, rational, well-reasoned, original thought?
*crickets*
**Yelling because of the tiresome individuals who are utterly incapable of understanding the difference. Not that yelling will work I suppose. Has yelling ever fixed stupidity?
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem so... even arguing with facts and logic doesn't fix stupidity, and as you said, I've yet to hear one single RATIONAL (non-religious) argument against gay marriage. I even asked one poster here a direct question, twice, and got nothing but a sarcastic retort followed by silence. That basically tells me they've got nothing, so I guess I can chalk that up to a "win." Bottom line, those of us who support SSM are not hurting anyone - those who oppose it are hurting somebody, the loving couples and families who cannot receive this legal protection or recognition.
And since these are the same types who often yell "Think of the children!!!", I have to ask if they ever consider the children of gay folks (yes, many of them do have kids). Do they not care if one of the parents dies, and the other is not legally/automatically granted custody? Or what if the non-biological parent has to sign legal forms, consent to medical care, etc? Just another thing to consider, if the simple fact of "consenting adults should be allowed to marry who they choose" isn't enough of a reason.
Most people who use that expression----WWJD--- consider Jesus more than just an everday human being.
The Jews do/did consider him to be an everyday human being except the ones who believed in Jesus as being God, also.
Somebody who believes in Jesus as G-d is a Christian, not a Jew... there is the Messianic-Jewish group, but (no offense) most of us also consider them Christians by simple definition. But that's neither here nor there, since I was only responding to your comment that "Jews killed Jesus." First of all, that is an offensive and played-out argument, typically used as fodder for anti-Semitism. Also, as I said earlier, pretty much EVERYONE (including Jesus) was a Jew at that time. So what's your point?
Regardless, this is all moot in relation to the thread's topic... religion does not dictate our laws, and if you personally want to "emulate Jesus," I'm pretty sure he wouldn't support the legal suppression of homosexuals. The Bible doesn't even really discuss homosexuality, at least not if you're reading the original Hebrew or Aramaic texts. I have read it in Hebrew many many times, and there is nothing about gays in there - in fact, the word "homosexual" doesn't even exist in Hebrew!
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem so... even arguing with facts and logic doesn't fix stupidity, and as you said, I've yet to hear one single RATIONAL (non-religious) argument against gay marriage. I even asked one poster here a direct question, twice, and got nothing but a sarcastic retort followed by silence. That basically tells me they've got nothing, so I guess I can chalk that up to a "win." Bottom line, those of us who support SSM are not hurting anyone - those who oppose it are hurting somebody, the loving couples and families who cannot receive this legal protection or recognition.
And since these are the same types who often yell "Think of the children!!!", I have to ask if they ever consider the children of gay folks (yes, many of them do have kids). Do they not care if one of the parents dies, and the other is not legally/automatically granted custody? Or what if the non-biological parent has to sign legal forms, consent to medical care, etc? Just another thing to consider, if the simple fact of "consenting adults should be allowed to marry who they choose" isn't enough of a reason.
I agree, no rational thought or logical arguments, just tiresome emotional yapping. Those of us who are rational and mainstream are winning through the steady drum beat of common sense and basic human kindness.
You are correct; they have nothing but emotion and religion and fear, but like bugs batting blindly against the light, they'll die off soon enough.
Signed, daughter of a gay parent.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
