The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Lightsnake3,287 pages
Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I'm making your argument for you? I'm stating that if you allow homosexuals to get married, you open the door for issues like this. You're mentioning 17 and 30, so? I can say the average 18, 19, 20 year old can't rationalize like a 30 year old. So why do we have a cap of 18? Who are we to decide what is rational? (The who are we argument isn't mine but I'm using it to prove my point".

A problem: Our legal system doesn't work with the 'maybes' here. It might lead to something else, it might not, but that does not matter to this issue alone.
Moreover, such issues are flawed. Countries with same sex marriage legalized don't have rampant beastiality and child molestation due to it.
I agree, the cap at 18 is a bit silly, but that is a different kettle of fish, age =/= gender. And there is little 'sanctity' of marriage to give back


It's either government or religion, all depends on who you want your rules established by. But guess what, religion and the majority of this country prohibits same sex marriages, so you're SOL.

The reason most countries have it established is due to the older, more religious people. The support for Same Sex Marriage is much greater amongst the younger generation. And frankly, people should check their religions at the door before voting on social issues. If they can prohibit same sex marriage, why the heck can't Muslims and Jews vote to prohibit pork? To Christianity as well, sin is sin, so let's start hear people want to ban divorce and plenty of other things.


YOU said, or at least I think it was you, that people deserve to be happy and we are infringing on their happiness.

...

Right.


Is this untrue?


Slavery didn't work. Those civilizations didn't last. Most, if not all Judaic customs have worked for 4,000 years.

Don't be silly, the Judean cultures went through a myriad of changes...for starters, they stopped keeping slaves.
In the Torah, ancient Judea was certainly a slaveholding society


Then I would have to use your argument against you. What defines a minor? Why isn't a 20 year old defined as a minor? People have the ability to rationalize at different ages. We put a cap on 18 so we don't have to pick and choose. If you think same sex marriages are allowed, then why not change the minor age to 14, or 15, or 21, or 23? A pedophile has a thing for people under the legal age. I'm telling you again, for the last time, being under 18 doesn't mean you can't rationalize, or consent to sex.

Yes, that's why I support a more sane age of consent. But this is neither here nor there to an argument of same sex marriage


Great. So religion and the majority of the US is against it. What is your point?

Religion being against it means nothing. This is a secular country. The majority of the US citizens can be against it, too. That doesn't make it any more legally valid. Frankly, most of the country was against...quite a bit once upon a time.


ROFL Yea that's what i'm saying. Because I don't want them to. Not because it's immoral, or takes us down a dangerous path, but because I want it to.

YOU think it's immoral. That shouldn't mean much in today's society, with divorce being allowed. And 'dangerous path?' WHAT path? The countries with same sex marriage legalized haven't plunged into this hell of sin and debauchery you seem to imply they would.


Self Centered rofl. This self centered dogma has kept my people alive for 4,000 years while everyone else was annihilated.

Our people survived because they knew how to adapt to almost any situation, survive the worst and could fight off most anyone who wanted their heads

Let me guess, you're one of those people who don't believe in G-d because you can't see him right? Intro to Philosophy, for dummies..

Basic human rights? Since when was it EVER a basic human right for same sexes to get married? Please, show me.


Marriage IS a right in this country, and so is choice. Denying two consenting adults their choice for the law to recognize their union is discrimination.

Publius II Boss

If they can prohibit same sex marriage, why the heck can't Muslims and Jews vote to prohibit pork? To Christianity as well, sin is sin, so let's start hear people want to ban divorce and plenty of other things.
This is genius.

SIDIOUS 66 Senior Member

Originally posted by Publius II
And if 80% of kids in need of adoption aren't being adopted, you shouldn't let the gay couples who will actually take care of them take them in?

Please, don't behind a facade of compassion. You're prejudiced, and you're willing to let kids rot in shitty foster systems if it means a gay couple won't get them. You sicken me.

Don't you dare tell me what i would be willing to do. You don't know shit about me, child. Are gays the only ones willing to adopt? No.

If you aren't comparing their actions, the comparison is useless.
Ummm no it is not.

You just missed the point entirely. Someone being "mixed up" means they're different, it doesn't make them bad. Having a sexual attraction to children is indeed different,
And it is also not normal, mentally.

The very fact that you compared them directly to pedophiles means that you are trying to imply guilt by (nonexistent) association. I'm going to go ahead and compare gays ("mixed-up/abnormal"😉 to geniuses ("mixed-up/abnormal"😉 again. Address it this time.
Being a genius does not mean your mind is mixed up. It means that you use more of your mind than most. Bad comparison.

You're either actually incapable of understanding what I'm saying, which is difficult for me to accept, or you're simply trying to evade my points in a very pathetic attempt to gain ground.

No matter how hard you try, you are not going to convince me that being gay is perfectly natural, normal, whatever.

A mans body was made to have sex with a woman. Your anal is not designed to have something stuck up it. It is made for your waste products to exit.

This is still about what you consider natural and unnatural, and the stigma you apply to one or the other. [b]Respond to this.
No, no. You are just making bad comparisons, by comparing a heart transplant to a sex change. That is ridiculous. A heart transplant is to replace another heart that is functioning abnormally.

Sex change are for people, who in their minds believe that they shouldn't of been born who they are. Most of them believe that their original sex was a mistake. Do you agree with them?

See the above, and stop evading my points.

LOL

Because people like you - primitive, dogmatic, dense, backwards - won't allow for the separation of church and state. Or the promotion of basic civil rights, for that matter. I don't buy into the words of the Bible, I won't live by them, and there's absolutely no reason everyone else should.
I am not going to get into a Bible arguement with you. While i do not believe the Bible to be false, i do believe most christians twist the truths. But what is clearly said in the Bible, is that a man should not sleep with another man. But see i am not going to use that arguement against you, because you don't go by the Bible.

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Don't you dare tell me what i would be willing to do. You don't know shit about me, child. Are gays the only ones willing to adopt? No.

Ummm no it is not.

And it is also not normal, mentally.

Being a genius does not mean your mind is mixed up. It means that you use more of your mind than most. Bad comparison.

No matter how hard you try, you are not going to convince me that being gay is perfectly natural, normal, whatever.

A mans body was made to have sex with a woman. Your anal is not designed to have something stuck up it. It is made for your waste products to exit.

No, no. You are just making bad comparisons, by comparing a heart transplant to a sex change. That is ridiculous. A heart transplant is to replace another heart that is functioning abnormally.

Sex change are for people, who in their minds believe that they shouldn't of been born who they are. Most of them believe that their original sex was a mistake. Do you agree with them?

LOL

I am not going to get into a Bible arguement with you. While i do not believe the Bible to be false, i do believe most christians twist the truths. But what is clearly said in the Bible, is that a man should not sleep with another man. But see i am not going to use that arguement against you, because you don't go by the Bible.

So pretty much you're a Christian who thinks gays are committing unnatural deeds with an unnatural mind. No doubt they're going to burn for being the way God made them. Everything you consider to be unnatural is unnatural. But everything else that is unnatural is okay? What negative effects to gays have on society and humanity as a whole that straight people don't produce?

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Publius II
I'm ignoring the rest because you, like S66, are arguing in circles, and I don't have the patience for this anymore.
Which it doesn't.

So you say.

"Everyone" else? You joking?

Everyone else? Remind me which civilization has survived from 4,000 years ago. Now we have
Christianity and Islam which as some of the basic principles and values of Judaism.

I have no problem believing that there is an entity in the universe that operates on a level beyond our understanding. What I take issue with, for very good reason, is the idea that that entity cares about how we wear our hair. That seems more like something that someone looking to gain power and control over his primitive, gullible peers would worry about, to establish some sort of order based on what his society considered the norm. There's a reason the concept of gods and spirits arose in nearly every part of the world at some point; to explain the inexplicable. Science and logic do that now.

See, this is because you don't understand WHY the rules are the way they are. If you just ask I would explain. Instead you read something, and automatically think it's ridiculous because you do not understand it. Nor do you understand the difference between oral law, written law, G-d's law, and rabbinical law.
Science and logic explain the inexplicable? Really? While science has advanced a great deal, there is a ridiculous amount of things science can't explain. Logic? You mean if you can't use your 5 senses in regards to something, it doesn't exist?
1.) Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain all allow for same sex marriage. Connecticut and Massachussetts both currently allow for it, and California did until just recently. You understand what Proposition 8 did? It dissolved several thousand marriages. I'm sure your friends and relatives wouldn't mind if that happened.

I believe I have addressed my problem with proposition 8 pages ago, if you only read. I said that while I agreed with it banning same sex marriages, it caused a lot of problems for heterosexual domestic partners.

2.) When was it EVER a basic human right for black people or women to vote? That's right; when a few people in power stopped being blind, prejudiced idiots and extended it to them. You've demonstrated a disturbing willingness to pick and choose when it comes to what the Constitution has to say. Here's something: All men are created equal.

All men are created equal? Are you going to explain that, or are you going to tell me it means exactly what it says, no questions asked? Here's another one, the sanctity of marriage is between a man and a woman, so either there's a contradiction, or there's no contradiction. Either way you can't just throw out a blanket statement like that and expect it to explain your argument.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
The reason most countries have it established is due to the older, more religious people. The support for Same Sex Marriage is much greater amongst the younger generation. And frankly, people should check their religions at the door before voting on social issues. If they can prohibit same sex marriage, why the heck can't Muslims and Jews vote to prohibit pork? To Christianity as well, sin is sin, so let's start hear people want to ban divorce and plenty of other things.

Well, the Torah and the Quran prohibit pork and I'm all for it. Problem with this is you can't really enforce the prohibition of pork. You can however enforce the prohibition of same sex marriages. And I think you can use your religion which gave you your ethics and morals, to vote on social issues.

Is this untrue?

I want a million dollars. I'll go rob a bank because it makes me happy. I'm not doing anyone any harm and the bank is 100% insured.

Don't be silly, the Judean cultures went through a myriad of changes...for starters, they stopped keeping slaves.
In the Torah, ancient Judea was certainly a slaveholding society

Have you read the actual torah or the Reform Judaism guide to Torah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_slave_trade
Educate yourself.

Yes, that's why I support a more sane age of consent. But this is neither here nor there to an argument of same sex marriage

My point is this. 50 years ago, same sex marriages weren't an issue. Now they are. If we allow this, 50 years from now, we can make the legal age 13. Then we can allow bestiality. It all leads to another issue.

Religion being against it means nothing. This is a secular country. The majority of the US citizens can be against it, too. That doesn't make it any more legally valid. Frankly, most of the country was against...quite a bit once upon a time.

Secular country? The US is a Judeo-Christian country, and the only one of its kind on the planet. It was founded by WASPS. Secular my ass.

Our people survived because they knew how to adapt to almost any situation, survive the worst and could fight off most anyone who wanted their

Or the idea that we've had the same torah, the same morals and principles, since its inception.

Marriage IS a right in this country, and so is choice. Denying two consenting adults their choice for the law to recognize their union is discrimination. [/B]

Marriage is a right because marriage is defined as between a man and a woman so it's not discrimination, for the majority of the country, it's law.

On another note, if you guys want to debate this further I don't want to do it here. I hate drawing out an argument that could last a few hours, to a week or so because then I have to go back and read posts and do all kinds of unnecessary work. IF you want to debate this, figure out a better way than here. I'm not saying either one of you are wrong nor am I insulting anyone, it's just getting a little tiresmoe.

Publius II Boss

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Don't you dare tell me what i would be willing to do. You don't know shit about me, child.
Yeah, I'm sure you have legions of adopted kids running around singing your praise and glory. Don't kid yourself, and don't try to fool me.

Are gays the only ones willing to adopt? No.
You said that gays shouldn't be allowed to to adopt because they would make bad parents (a completely unsubstantiated and inane claim). I said that 80% of children who need to be adopted aren't adopted, and that if gay couples are willing to adopt they should be allowed to.

Got it?

S66: ummmm no that isnt what adopt means

Ummm no it is not.
I don't even know why I waste my time with you.

S66: lol i dont even no why i waste my time with u!

And it is also not normal, mentally.
If you define "normal" as the way the majority of people function, then again, geniuses and savants shouldn't have the right to get married either. They're freaks whose brains work differently from ours, after all.

Being a genius does not mean your mind is mixed up. It means that you use more of your mind than most. Bad comparison.
Wrong. You're probably one of those people who buys into the myth that humans only use ten percent of their brains.

The brains of geniuses work differently from the vast majority of people, which means they are abnormal, which means, by your definition of "normal," that they are "mixed up." So yes, it is a perfect comparison, although I highly doubt you're actually capable of grasping that.

No matter how hard you try, you are not going to convince me that being gay is perfectly natural, normal, whatever.
Pretend I give a shit what you think.

S66: pretend i give a poop what you think

A mans body was made to have sex with a woman. Your anal is not designed to have something stuck up it. It is made for your waste products to exit.
Hands weren't made for punching. People punch with their hands. Therefore, punching is unnatural and we should never ever do it. Also, we shouldn't play volleyball, because we aren't supposed to slap things with our hands because they weren't made to slap things. Nor should we kick things, or prop ourselves up on our elbows, or bend down and kneel on our knees, or kiss, because it's all "unnatural" because our bodies weren't "made" to be used like that.

You should also stop typing, although that has less to do with how "natural" it is and more to do with the fact that you're polluting cyberspace (also "unnatural"😉 with your idiocy, which is unnatural as well; the human brain was made to make you act stupid.

No, no. You are just making bad comparisons, by comparing a heart transplant to a sex change. That is ridiculous. A heart transplant is to replace another heart that is functioning abnormally.
The comparison wasn't about the actual surgery, idiot. It was about your claim that a sex-change was "unnatural" and therefore shouldn't happen. Heart transplants are "unnatural," too.

Sex change are for people, who in their minds believe that they shouldn't of been born who they are. Most of them believe that their original sex was a mistake. Do you agree with them?
Sure.

LOL
That's unnatural. God never intended for you type, because

I am not going to get into a Bible arguement with you. While i do not believe the Bible to be false, i do believe most christians twist the truths. But what is clearly said in the Bible, is that a man should not sleep with another man. But see i am not going to use that arguement against you, because you don't go by the Bible.
First good move you've made since this started.

Darth Sexy Restricted

faunus, lets agree to disagree because neither of us wants to continue this on a daily/weekly basis.

Publius II Boss

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
So you say.
You made the contention that legalizing same sex marriage would make the legalization of child molestation and bestiality the next logical step, and that this would lead to the downfall of society. That being the retarded contention that it is, you failed to provide logical reasons as to why

Everyone else? Remind me which civilization has survived from 4,000 years ago. Now we have
Christianity and Islam which as some of the basic principles and values of Judaism.
Hinduism and its countless deviations (Buddhism, Jainism) have survived and flourished for millennia; Hinduism itself is significantly older than Judaism.

And your contention that your morals and traditions are what kept Jews alive for four thousand years is completely unfounded. Did banning homosexual relations save them from the Holocaust? No. At various points in time, circumstances, their own perseverance, and the pity showed by others in power saved the Jewish race.

See, this is because you don't understand WHY the rules are the way they are. If you just ask I would explain. Instead you read something, and automatically think it's ridiculous because you do not understand it. Nor do you understand the difference between oral law, written law, G-d's law, and rabbinical law.
The point being that I don't care. They are all aspects of your religion, and I don't follow your religion. The thirteen million people that conform to them to some degree do not have power over the other six and a half billion people who don't.

Science and logic explain the inexplicable? Really? While science has advanced a great deal, there is a ridiculous amount of things science can't explain.
I'm sure the Torah discusses quantum mechanics in full detail.

Logic? You mean if you can't use your 5 senses in regards to something, it doesn't exist?
When the **** did I say that? Are you reading what I'm typing?

All men are created equal? Are you going to explain that, or are you going to tell me it means exactly what it says, no questions asked?
Double standards, much?

"We shouldn't touch the Constitution, but let's ignore the parts of it that we don't like."

It's no surprise considering your stance; followers of Jewish traditions of great and knowledgeable and get all the rights, but homosexuals never had defined rights in the first place, so who gives a shit about them?

Here's another one, the sanctity of marriage is between a man and a woman, so either there's a contradiction, or there's no contradiction.
That is purely a religious perspective. This country is not run by religious zealots, DS.

Either way you can't just throw out a blanket statement like that and expect it to explain your argument.
The past three pages explain my argument.

Consider this my last post on the topic. I won't go around in circles anymore.

Edit:

faunus, lets agree to disagree because neither of us wants to continue this on a daily/weekly basis.
You specifically said you didn't want to agree to disagree, but fair enough.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Publius II
You made the contention that legalizing same sex marriage would make the legalization of child molestation and bestiality the next logical step, and that this would lead to the downfall of society. That being the retarded contention that it is, you failed to provide logical reasons as to why

What I did was give examples of how legalizing something like homosexual marriages, would open the door to other things such as A, B, C. They were just examples Faunus.

Hinduism and its countless deviations (Buddhism, Jainism) have survived and flourished for millennia; Hinduism itself is significantly older than Judaism.

Granted, but when I was speaking of Judaism, I wasn't speaking about a particular religion. I was speaking about the people. Our people have survived for 4,000 years because we adhere to the morals and principles of the torah.

And your contention that your morals and traditions are what kept Jews alive for four thousand years is completely unfounded. Did banning homosexual relations save them from the Holocaust? No. At various points in time, circumstances, their own perseverance, and the pity showed by others in power saved the Jewish race.

Unfounded rofl. I love your example. You do realize that in terms of oppression, the Jews have had more of it than anyone else. You can say because we're the chosen people or you can state other reasons. Also, do you realize that slavery in Egypt was a shitload times worse than the Holocaust? Your example in this case is absolutely ridiculous, seeing as how you don't know what you're talking about. I advise you to learn more about a religion before arguing about it.

The point being that I don't care. They are all aspects of your religion, and I don't follow your religion. The thirteen million people that conform to them to some degree do not have power over the other six and a half billion people who don't.

How about the 1 billion+ Muslims who forbid homosexuality? Or the Christians that dominate America? I'm not just talking about my religion, I'm talking about the 3 major ones. Your logic comes from the idea that you don't like religion. Mine comes from a religious background. SO how can you tell me my logic is wrong unless you are willing to state religion is wrong, at least in some aspects.

I'm sure the Torah discusses quantum mechanics in full detail.

Nope, but it discusses things you can't possibly explain, nor can science.

"We shouldn't touch the Constitution, but let's ignore the parts of it that we don't like."

What parts are we ignoring? The sanctity of marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Just because you throw out a blanket statement, doesn't change that fact.

It's no surprise considering your stance; followers of Jewish traditions of great and knowledgeable and get all the rights, but homosexuals never had defined rights in the first place, so who gives a shit about them?

As being part of the most oppressed people since the beginning of time, I find this ridiculously hilarious.

That is purely a religious perspective. This country is not run by religious zealots, DS.

Who is talking about religous zealots? I love your absolutes. This country is a Judeo-Christian country and was founded by Christians so as much as you hate it, it's a HUGE part of our country.

You specifically said you didn't want to agree to disagree, but fair enough.

I changed by stance saying that I would rather argue with this in a quicker setting than KMC, where we would come to an understanding within an hour or two, rather than giving you a headache or myself a headache by doing this for weeks.

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Well, the Torah and the Quran prohibit pork and I'm all for it. Problem with this is you can't really enforce the prohibition of pork. You can however enforce the prohibition of same sex marriages. And I think you can use your religion which gave you your ethics and morals, to vote on social issues.

Yes, you can promote the banning of pork. You just make it illegal to sell it and crack down on it.

and you ca use your religion to vote on moral and social issues. Problem is, when you start using it to deny freedoms and start using religion to enroach in on secular societies, we have problems


I want a million dollars. I'll go rob a bank because it makes me happy. I'm not doing anyone any harm and the bank is 100% insured.

Yes, because allowing two people to be married is so equivalent to enrichment at the cost of others. You're aware you're kind of, you know, hurting the banks and the insurance companies and all, right?
I'm sorry, can one opponent of same sex marriage learn how to use an analogy?


Have you read the actual torah or the Reform Judaism guide to Torah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_slave_trade
Educate yourself.

Yeah, I have. Point?


My point is this. 50 years ago, same sex marriages weren't an issue. Now they are. If we allow this, 50 years from now, we can make the legal age 13. Then we can allow bestiality. It all leads to another issue.

And one hundred years ago, interracial marriage wasn't an issue.
And 'then we can allow?' Accordong to what? Last I checked, animals cannot give consent. Another man or woman can. 13 year olds are in the same boat there.
Again, that's now how the system works. And by this logic, we should just ban interracial marriage. I mean, look what it's led to.


Secular country? The US is a Judeo-Christian country, and the only one of its kind on the planet. It was founded by WASPS. Secular my ass.

Yes, secular. The founding fathers set it up that way because they saw exactly the troubles that'd occurred in Europe.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both refute the idea of the US being a nation founded on religion. And all of them being WASPs? Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would like a word with you, what with their deism. Adams' religious skepticism as well. In fact, while a good chunk of them were Christians, they sure as heck didn't let it show, either in the Articles of Confederation or the later COnstitution.
Jefferson and Madison spoke of the wall of separation between politics and religion. To quote the Treaty of Tripoli:
[B] As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


Or the idea that we've had the same torah, the same morals and principles, since its inception.

And? This hasn't had much to do with continued survival.

Marriage is a right because marriage is defined as between a man and a woman so it's not discrimination, for the majority of the country, it's law.

Bullshit. Who 'defines' it that way? It was once defined as a bond between a man and women. Or between a white man and white woman. Or designated women as property.
Extending it to two consenting adults doesn't strike me as egregious. In fact, with marriage as a right, according to US law, you need a reason to deny people something. A compelling state interest.
You can't just say, "That's the status quo."

On another note, if you guys want to debate this further I don't want to do it here. I hate drawing out an argument that could last a few hours, to a week or so because then I have to go back and read posts and do all kinds of unnecessary work. IF you want to debate this, figure out a better way than here. I'm not saying either one of you are wrong nor am I insulting anyone, it's just getting a little tiresmoe. [/B]

Then I'll wait.

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
[B]What I did was give examples of how legalizing something like homosexual marriages, would open the door to other things such as A, B, C. They were just examples Faunus.

And it doesn't MATTER. By this logic, ban interracial marriages, ban marriage period.
Our justice system does NOT take stuff like "It can lead to so much" into account. That's not how it works

Granted, but when I was speaking of Judaism, I wasn't speaking about a particular religion. I was speaking about the people. Our people have survived for 4,000 years because we adhere to the morals and principles of the torah.

NO, we haven't. Adherence to the Torah didn't save the Jews from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, it didn't save them in Christian Europe. Adaptation and skilled maneuvering did.


Unfounded rofl. I love your example. You do realize that in terms of oppression, the Jews have had more of it than anyone else. You can say because we're the chosen people or you can state other reasons. Also, do you realize that slavery in Egypt was a shitload times worse than the Holocaust? Your example in this case is absolutely ridiculous, seeing as how you don't know what you're talking about. I advise you to learn more about a religion before arguing about it.

Let's not make bold claims like Egyptian slavery was worse than the Holocaust....that's a HIGHLY bold claim.


How about the 1 billion+ Muslims who forbid homosexuality? Or the Christians that dominate America? I'm not just talking about my religion, I'm talking about the 3 major ones. Your logic comes from the idea that you don't like religion. Mine comes from a religious background. SO how can you tell me my logic is wrong unless you are willing to state religion is wrong, at least in some aspects.

Since when does mob rule determine anything? Muslims are against ALCOHOL as a religion, should I never have another sip of wine? Why do societies have to follow what religion somehow goes with? You're gonna run into conflict.
Last I checked, whatever these religion believes? It doesn't matter. Frankly, this country was founded not to ruled by either a dictatorship. OR a mob rule.


What parts are we ignoring? The sanctity of marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Just because you throw out a blanket statement, doesn't change that fact.

So what? Why does what it's 'always been' matter? Tradition isn't something to take in. Unless I can pay a bridge price to a girl's dad.


As being part of the most oppressed people since the beginning of time, I find this ridiculously hilarious.

You're aware, DS, that us Jews, as a whole, voted very well against Prop 8 and Prop 2? Probably because, after being oppressed for so long, we know to stop oppression when we see it?

Who is talking about religous zealots? I love your absolutes. This country is a Judeo-Christian country and was founded by Christians so as much as you hate it, it's a HUGE part of our country.

This has been taken care of.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake

NO, we haven't. Adherence to the Torah didn't save the Jews from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, it didn't save them in Christian Europe. Adaptation and skilled maneuvering did.


Adaptation? Please show me this adaptation. We have kept our values and morals throughout millennia.

Let's not make bold claims like Egyptian slavery was worse than the Holocaust....that's a HIGHLY bold claim.

This is a fact taught in most Yeshivas. Some even use it when a question of "Why did G-d allow this" arises. You are talking about 6 million deaths in less than a decade versus tens of millions of deaths in a few centuries.

Since when does mob rule determine anything? Muslims are against ALCOHOL as a religion, should I never have another sip of wine? Why do societies have to follow what religion somehow goes with? You're gonna run into conflict.
Last I checked, whatever these religion believes? It doesn't matter. Frankly, this country was founded not to ruled by either a dictatorship. OR a mob rule.

Then lets allow everything LS. Lets reduce the legal age to 13. You're in no position to tell me at what age one can give consent. Let us allow everything since everyone is equal, no culture is better than any other culture, we should tolerate everything and everyone, and ergo, there is no ideal way to live.

So what? Why does what it's 'always been' matter? Tradition isn't something to take in. Unless I can pay a bridge price to a girl's dad.

Tradition of values that this country was based upon. 50 years from now people are going to want to marry 13 year olds. You're going to use this logic as well?

You're aware, DS, that us Jews, as a whole, voted very well against Prop 8 and Prop 2? Probably because, after being oppressed for so long, we know to stop oppression when we see it?

Reform Jews voted against Proposition 8. Reform Jews are 99% liberal. The religious Jews ALL voted for proposition 8. I don't have much respect for reform Jews who decide which part of the torah is right and which is wrong.

This has been taken care of. [/B]

Except that this country IS a Judeo-Christian country. It operates on those principles and I believe that is a main reason why most of the country believes in the sanctity of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. And i don't know your aim so I can't contact you.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake

Yes, because allowing two people to be married is so equivalent to enrichment at the cost of others. You're aware you're kind of, you know, hurting the banks and the insurance companies and all, right?
I'm sorry, can one opponent of same sex marriage learn how to use an analogy?

It's a hell of a lot better than proponents of same sex marriages. "Oh everyone deserves to be happy", or "who are you to (insert here)". Why don't you go look at naked pictures of kids, because it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone around you. We should allow that then right?

[quote]Yeah, I have. Point?


Do you understand the difference between slaves and servants?

And one hundred years ago, interracial marriage wasn't an issue.
And 'then we can allow?' Accordong to what? Last I checked, animals cannot give consent. Another man or woman can. 13 year olds are in the same boat there.
Again, that's now how the system works. And by this logic, we should just ban interracial marriage. I mean, look what it's led to.

Again, you're in no position to explain at what age consent can be given.

Yes, secular. The founding fathers set it up that way because they saw exactly the troubles that'd occurred in Europe.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both refute the idea of the US being a nation founded on religion. And all of them being WASPs? Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would like a word with you, what with their deism. Adams' religious skepticism as well. In fact, while a good chunk of them were Christians, they sure as heck didn't let it show, either in the Articles of Confederation or the later COnstitution.
Jefferson and Madison spoke of the wall of separation between politics and religion. To quote the Treaty of Tripoli:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I said this country was founded by WASPS, I didn't say every single founder was one. And I do believe in a considerable amount of separation of church in state, but like it or not, a lot of the laws, morals and values of this country, were founded upon christian principles. Btw, you do know the original purpose of separation of Church and State was so government doesn't interfere with people's rights of practicing certain religions. Obviously you missed that part. Here, I'll give another article to read, since you seem to know so much about Separation of Church and State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Bullshit. Who 'defines' it that way? It was once defined as a bond between a man and women. Or between a white man and white woman. Or designated women as property.
Extending it to two consenting adults doesn't strike me as egregious. In fact, with marriage as a right, according to US law, you need a reason to deny people something. A compelling state interest.
You can't just say, "That's the status quo."

Bullshit. It was ALWAYS defined between man and woman, never between man and man.

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Adaptation? Please show me this adaptation. We have kept our values and morals throughout millennia.

Are you familiar with history in the slightest?


This is a fact taught in most Yeshivas. Some even use it when a question of "Why did G-d allow this" arises. You are talking about 6 million deaths in less than a decade versus tens of millions of deaths in a few centuries.

There's a slight issue here: The assumption that Exodus is historically sound.


Then lets allow everything LS. Lets reduce the legal age to 13. You're in no position to tell me at what age one can give consent.

Absurd. I can, however, cite the medical fact that 13 year olds lack the decision making abilities occupied by those later in their teens.
Let's 'allow everything?' How did 'between two consenting adults' lead to 'allow everything?' You can't use a slippery slope argument fallacy like this

Let us allow everything since everyone is equal, no culture is better than any other culture, we should tolerate everything and everyone, and ergo, there is no ideal way to live.

Getting worked up like this and relying on it reveals your argument's weakness


Tradition of values that this country was based upon.

Which is why the Founding Fathers were breaking tradition of such, right?
Even if this was true, why do we have to be slave to the morality of centuries past?

50 years from now people are going to want to marry 13 year olds. You're going to use this logic as well?

Over reliance on slippery slope. You're that that people marrying 13 year olds wouldn't be a new thing, right? Up to...what, the late 1800s, that wasn't unusual in the slightest? That'd be a REGRESSION to 'traditional values.'
Hell, it even happens elsewhere in the world. People have indeed pushed for it before. When a 13 year old has body development and decision making capability equivalent to an adult, THEN you can talk. Until then, stop inserting your assumptions into a serious debate


Reform Jews voted against Proposition 8. Reform Jews are 99% liberal. The religious Jews ALL voted for proposition 8. I don't have much respect for reform Jews who decide which part of the torah is right and which is wrong.

'All?' Strange, because I know quite a few Hasidic/Orthodox ones who voted against Prop 2. It's not deciding what part of the Torah is right or wrong. A few facts:
1. We don't live in Ancient Judea and the laws of such don't mean a thing
2. Thinking something is inwardly wrong doesn't mean we should throw our morality over the place for them. I'm not going to force other people to follow my morality on issues like that. Their sexual preference is between them and whatever higher power and I see no reason I can't allow them their happiness in a country where everyone is entitled to the pursuit of it


Except that this country IS a Judeo-Christian country. It operates on those principles and I believe that is a main reason why most of the country believes in the sanctity of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. And i don't know your aim so I can't contact you.

'Except it is?' According to WHO, exactly? According to the Constitution? The Declaration? Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Aaron Burr? Very strange how so much of the above refutes the insertion of religion into policy.
Newsflash, DS, but what the majority believes doesn't mean a THING to social issues. Discrimination can-and has- come from the majority a good deal of the time and the Founders knew this.
And what are the 'principles' of Judeo-Christian morality this country is based on, because while I see the incorporation of principles of law and the sort into our Constitution and history, I see NOTHING to support that we're bound by every rule in the book, which goes against the principles this country WAS founded on.

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
It's a hell of a lot better than proponents of same sex marriages. "Oh everyone deserves to be happy", or "who are you to (insert here)". Why don't you go look at naked pictures of kids, because it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone around you. We should allow that then right?

Ok. STOP. Likening this to things that are so absurdly out there they have nothing to do with the issue whatsoever. Child pornography KIND of hurts the children being exploited, for a start.
And no, it isn't 'better' than the proponents who think that basic rights of marriage should be allowed to people able to consent to a legal marriage.

Do you understand the difference between slaves and servants?


Are you familiar with what slavery in the ancient world mostly meant? African slavery was a relative phenomenon in the Western world, given in the Middle Eastern and African cultures, slavery was utterly different. It could, however, still be for life and the Torah gives instructions on how to treat slaves.


Again, you're in no position to explain at what age consent can be given.

I'll just let all the science do it for me. What's your point here? How are the comparisons of same sex marriage to AGE OF CONSENT related by a sane degree?


I said this country was founded by WASPS, I didn't say every single founder was one.

It seems the most prominent of them, including the men most responsible for its policy kind of hurt this argument.

And I do believe in a considerable amount of separation of church in state, but like it or not, a lot of the laws, morals and values of this country, were founded upon christian principles.

I keep hearing this. You've yet to really back it up.

And again, even if it was. IF. Why does it matter?


Btw, you do know the original purpose of separation of Church and State was so government doesn't interfere with people's rights of practicing certain religions. Obviously you missed that part. Here, I'll give another article to read, since you seem to know so much about Separation of Church and State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

You're aware it was both? Mainly due to the Catholic Church's interference with government's in Europe. It's why the first Amendment contains both the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.


Bullshit. It was ALWAYS defined between man and woman, never between man and man.

So? If status quo of marriage is so important to you, let's bring back polygamy, turn wives to property, allow bride prices and dowries, ban interracial marriage and set the age of consent back to, oh, let's saaay....13-15? And legalize marrying your cousin.

Don't play this game. Marriage can-and has- changed. Setting it between 'two consenting adults' means...what problem beyond 'I don't like it?'

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Are you familiar with history in the slightest?

Actually I am very familiar. Are you? And that little English book you read at your "temple" as you drive to it on Friday Night doesn't count.

There's a slight issue here: The assumption that Exodus is historically sound.

Oh Jesus here we go. Then this debate ends right here, because if you think it's not, we're coming from two different perspectives.

Absurd. I can, however, cite the medical fact that 13 year olds lack the decision making abilities occupied by those later in their teens.
Let's 'allow everything?' How did 'between two consenting adults' lead to 'allow everything?' You can't use a slippery slope argument fallacy like this

Getting worked up like this and relying on it reveals your argument's weakness


I'm not worked up at all. Please show me the medical fact. While you're at it, show me at what age people obtain decision making abilities.

Which is why the Founding Fathers were breaking tradition of such, right?
Even if this was true, why do we have to be slave to the morality of centuries past?

Rofl. Slave to the morality. Ok. Lets be slave to the current moral level. This might be just my opinion, but our society has been declining in morals and values since the 40s. So lets keep it up.

Over reliance on slippery slope. You're that that people marrying 13 year olds wouldn't be a new thing, right? Up to...what, the late 1800s, that wasn't unusual in the slightest? That'd be a REGRESSION to 'traditional values.'
Hell, it even happens elsewhere in the world. People have indeed pushed for it before. When a 13 year old has body development and decision making capability equivalent to an adult, THEN you can talk. Until then, stop inserting your assumptions into a serious debate

Not an assumption unless you can show me where the medical evidence states at what age one is deemed "mature". If you can't, don't bring it up. It happening elsewhere in the world doesn't make it right. However, why not? We can allow homosexuals to get married, and later on we can minors fit for consensual sex and/or marriage.

'All?' Strange, because I know quite a few Hasidic/Orthodox ones who voted against Prop 2. It's not deciding what part of the Torah is right or wrong. A few facts:
1. We don't live in Ancient Judea and the laws of such don't mean a thing
2. Thinking something is inwardly wrong doesn't mean we should throw our morality over the place for them. I'm not going to force other people to follow my morality on issues like that. Their sexual preference is between them and whatever higher power and I see no reason I can't allow them their happiness in a country where everyone is entitled to the pursuit of it

1. You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Oral Laws, Written Laws, rabbical laws, G-d's laws.
2. You call it inward, I call it maintaining values. Your argument fails here because you're stating their sexual preference is between them. I don't care what people do behind closed doors, but when there is the issue of marriage, which is public thing, I tend to go against it.

'Except it is?' According to WHO, exactly? According to the Constitution? The Declaration? Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Aaron Burr? Very strange how so much of the above refutes the insertion of religion into policy.
Newsflash, DS, but what the majority believes doesn't mean a THING to social issues. Discrimination can-and has- come from the majority a good deal of the time and the Founders knew this.
And what are the 'principles' of Judeo-Christian morality this country is based on, because while I see the incorporation of principles of law and the sort into our Constitution and history, I see NOTHING to support that we're bound by every rule in the book, which goes against the principles this country WAS founded on.

Ah yes, reform Judaism. Lets pick and choose what's right and what's wrong because it conforms to our ideal life, or what we think is an ideal life. And again, you seem be unable to grasp between the letter of the law or constitution, and the spirit. I just explained to you why the separation of church and state was created. Educate yourself with it.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Ok. STOP. Likening this to things that are so absurdly out there they have nothing to do with the issue whatsoever. Child pornography KIND of hurts the children being exploited, for a start.
And no, it isn't 'better' than the proponents who think that basic rights of marriage should be allowed to people able to consent to a legal marriage.

Really? So every time someone looks at some child porn on the internet, children are being hurt? Sorry LS, stick to an argument. By your logic I should be allowed to do it because it makes me happy. Double Standards much?

Are you familiar with what slavery in the ancient world mostly meant? African slavery was a relative phenomenon in the Western world, given in the Middle Eastern and African cultures, slavery was utterly different. It could, however, still be for life and the Torah gives instructions on how to treat slaves.

What is your point exactly? The Torah neither opposed nor condemned slavery. Does the fact that slavery was prominent up until the 19th century, make it right?

I'll just let all the science do it for me. What's your point here? How are the comparisons of same sex marriage to AGE OF CONSENT related by a sane degree?

I love this. Let science do it for you, but stop talking about it and prove it.

And again, even if it was. IF. Why does it matter?

Because I believe in our constitution and the morals and values this country was founded upon and I don't think changing that would benefit anybody. Can homosexuals not live together just because they can't legally get married? Explain to me how this really hurts them? Assume that I'm neutral here.

You're aware it was both? Mainly due to the Catholic Church's interference with government's in Europe. It's why the first Amendment contains both the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

Now it's both? Make up your mind. I'm aware of the "spirit" of the concept.

So? If status quo of marriage is so important to you, let's bring back polygamy, turn wives to property, allow bride prices and dowries, ban interracial marriage and set the age of consent back to, oh, let's saaay....13-15? And legalize marrying your cousin.[/qupte]
Hell, if you allow same sex marriages, might as well do all of the above.

[quote]Don't play this game. Marriage can-and has- changed. Setting it between 'two consenting adults' means...what problem beyond 'I don't like it?'


Marriage has always been between man and woman, this has never changed. And you'll need more of a reason for same sex marriages, other than "why not?"

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Actually I am very familiar. Are you? And that little English book you read at your "temple" as you drive to it on Friday Night doesn't count.

'History.' Not the Torah, HISTORY. Because you're demonstrating that you are not familiar with it.


Oh Jesus here we go. Then this debate ends right here, because if you think it's not, we're coming from two different perspectives.

The perspectives here result from differing views on political issues.


I'm not worked up at all. Please show me the medical fact. While you're at it, show me at what age people obtain decision making abilities.

There isn't a set age, but it's a general rule people can make informed decisions at 18 as opposed to 13. And 'show you' this fact? DS, it's common knowledge a 13 year old is less developed than those older, why do I need to present this?


Rofl. Slave to the morality. Ok. Lets be slave to the current moral level. This might be just my opinion, but our society has been declining in morals and values since the 40s. So lets keep it up.

I'm sorry, should I have spoken differently? Because you know exactly what I meant. I think the 'of centuries past' should have made it clear
And 'declining in moral values?' Yes, we let those awful blacks marry our pure white women, we allowed women to have more freedom. What are these 'moral values' exactly here?


Not an assumption unless you can show me where the medical evidence states at what age one is deemed "mature". If you can't, don't bring it up. It happening elsewhere in the world doesn't make it right. However, why not? We can allow homosexuals to get married, and later on we can minors fit for consensual sex and/or marriage.

Separate arguments entirely, thanks. You could make the same based on interracial marriage in that they don't correlate at all.
For one, let's look at the ages of puberty. Generally...12-15, when the body begins developing, that's a start.
http://www.apa.org/journals/pag/homepage.html
I'd recommend reading a bit that the APA has put out.


1. You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Oral Laws, Written Laws, rabbical laws, G-d's laws.

I'm sorry, when we live in societies where such law is valid, then you can talk. Until then, unless you have a recording of God saying something of the sort-and if God does, he's rather sociopathic for including homosexuality in the development.

2. You call it inward, I call it maintaining values.

What ARE these 'values' now? Where do they come from?

Your argument fails here because you're stating their sexual preference is between them. I don't care what people do behind closed doors, but when there is the issue of marriage, which is public thing, I tend to go against it.

Marriage is between them and the government and any house of worship they want to have it confirmed in. Again, just change homosexual with 'interracial' and look at all the disturbing parallels.
What ARE these moral values in a government recognized marriage?

Ah yes, reform Judaism. Lets pick and choose what's right and what's wrong because it conforms to our ideal life, or what we think is an ideal life. And again, you seem be unable to grasp between the letter of the law or constitution, and the spirit. I just explained to you why the separation of church and state was created. Educate yourself with it.


No, DS, you said something about it, I corrected you. Separation of Church and State originated when the European governments mainly got sick and tired of the Church muscling in on their affairs. The First Amendment allowed for the religions to remain out of the government and for the government incapable of interfering.

And Reform Judaism. Recognizing that things can change over time.

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Really? So every time someone looks at some child porn on the internet, children are being hurt? Sorry LS, stick to an argument. By your logic I should be allowed to do it because it makes me happy. Double Standards much?

Where do you THINK they get the child pornography? Survey says, exploitation of children. YES, someone is being hurt I'd say and they would be financing it. Looking at child pornography is also a good indication you're dealing with someone who might branch out.

Seriously, why do you keep focusing on total misdirection? Why are you likening homosexual marriage to looking at child pornography exactly?


What is your point exactly? The Torah neither opposed nor condemned slavery. Does the fact that slavery was prominent up until the 19th century, make it right?

I see you missed my point entirely. The fact it was 'prominent' throughout and was traditional should hurt your argument.


I love this. Let science do it for you, but stop talking about it and prove it.

Posted a link to the APA's article on development. Otherwise, open a biology or psychology textbook. I can find more later if you prefer.


Because I believe in our constitution and the morals and values this country was founded upon and I don't think changing that would benefit anybody.

WHAT are these moral values? WHERE are they found? I've asked this more than once and you continue to just say it as it's the most obvious thing in the world, it isn't. I've pointed out several times exactly what the flaw in this is, I can use more historic instances given you yourself have cited slavery as a problem with traditionalism. 'Changing' it benefits nobody? How many times do you think we've changed something? Blacks can marry whites now, women aren't property. Women can vote, blacks aren't property..

Every single time these were challenged, we had conservatives fighting it tooth and nail.

Can homosexuals not live together just because they can't legally get married? Explain to me how this really hurts them? Assume that I'm neutral here.

I can't 'assume' you're neutral here because you're not. I know I'm not going to convince you for obvious reasons, but I can certainly argue it.
You can tell them that they're essentially second class citizens because even though they can both legally consent to marriage under the law, they can't be recognized for it. They can have no rights in adopting or raising children. Laws concerning inheritance, medical disclosure? They cannot share in any of it. There are well over 400 benefits for married couples, and common law marriages aren't recognized by all but...what, two states, if that?


Now it's both? Make up your mind. I'm aware of the "spirit" of the concept.

The reason for the separation of church and state was for both to protect people from government interference and keep the government free from religion
And what's the 'spirit' here, exactly? You keep saying things without elaboration.


Marriage has always been between man and woman, this has never changed.

Add 'of the same race' and you'd also be right. Again...why should we care about the tradition here when so many other traditions have been overwritten? We live in a rather more enlightened era as opposed to the forties.


And you'll need more of a reason for same sex marriages, other than "why not?"

Actually, it's the opponents who need a reason to ban it. That's how the law works: You need a reason to discriminate.