[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

I respected your comment up until the last sentence. In the end you are just another homophobe, and bigot... just quit trying to convince me that it's ok.

Hmmm, score? I guess this is the point where I should start stuttering and defending myself. Interweb protocol is such a dicey thing. And there are so many people out there whose opinion truly matters. Bye.

[jeff4598]

I have no gripe with any person- but ideas CAN hurt people so I don't apologize for calling out rudeness! Peace.

[jeff4598]

I think post#96 involves a bit of misdirection- The 15th and 19th amendments- as I read them give general rights to specific groups of people they do not give "racial" or "gender" rights to all people. So to imply that there is no "homosexual right" is misleading. When people of all races and both genders are given equal rights in these amendments they are presumed to be granted all rights as a citizen. To argue that homosexuals need a specific amendment to be assured they have the rights of other citizens raises the question of where the parsing stops- Is it OK to deny the short, stout or stuttering their general rights until the constitution specifies that they have them?

[DieselDiner]

Originally Posted by jeff4598

I think post#96 involves a bit of misdirection- The 15th and 19th amendments- as I read them give general rights to specific groups of people they do not give "racial" or "gender" rights to all people. So to imply that there is no "homosexual right" is misleading. When people of all races and both genders are given equal rights in these amendments they are presumed to be granted all rights as a citizen. To argue that homosexuals need a specific amendment to be assured they have the rights of other citizens raises the question of where the parsing stops- Is it OK to deny the short, stout or stuttering their general rights until the constitution specifies that they have them?

The amendments are very explicit about who and what they address - no parsing needed. People who try to infer more to those amendments than is contained are wrong. It's that simple.

Nowhere have I written that "homosexuals need a specific amendment".

What I have written is that the 14th amendment appears to most directly address the issue in existing law.

And with that, I'm done.

[andrew777]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

No need to defend your feeling or ideas, I never do that myself... I simply disagree with you, and buy calling you a homophobe and a bigot I simply go by the actual definition based on your statements, and is not meant as an insult.

Strong spelling and grammar.

Let me start by saying that gays can get married. It has never been illegal for gays to marry, it just has to be to someone of the opposite sex, since that is part of the definition of marriage, not only according to generations of tradition, but also by our government.

It is also worth noting that marriage, like driving, is not a right, but a privilege. The same way in which only those who are supposedly capable and competent are allowed to drive, only those who are capable and competent of being married are allowed to get married. Being blind will instantly mean you do not qualify for the privilege of driving and being gay will similarly instantly disqualify you from having the privilege of marriage.

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by andrew777

Strong spelling and grammar.

Let me start by saying that gays can get married. It has never been illegal for gays to marry, it just has to be to someone of the opposite sex, since that is part of the definition of marriage, not only according to generations of tradition, but also by our government.

It is also worth noting that marriage, like driving, is not a right, but a privilege. The same way in which only those who are supposedly capable and competent are allowed to drive, only those who are capable and competent of being married are allowed to get married. Being blind will instantly mean you do not qualify for the privilege of driving and being gay will similarly instantly disqualify you from having the privilege of marriage.

Blind people cannot drive because they pose a threat to others if they do. Gay people aren't about to go run over some folks if they get married.

If society always operated on "generations of tradition" then we'd all be running around with multiple wives and farm animals. In fact the ancient cultures upon which modern society is founded were accepting and sometimes even encouraging of homosexuality if you really want to take your argument full-circle. Society needs to change with the ebb and flow of the cultural zeitgeist. Being progressive is all about progressing.

Would you support a civil union granting the gay couple all of the same benefits as a marriage, provided that the term "marriage" was reserved only for heterosexual couples?

[andrew777]

I don't really mention any specific tradition, but in the Christian tradition, which is much more rooted in our history than others, marriage has always been between a man and a woman and has for centuries been considered sacred.

Originally Posted by PINeely

Would you support a civil union granting the gay couple all of the same benefits as a marriage, provided that the term "marriage" was reserved only for heterosexual couples?

Yes, but as I see it the issue isn't about gays getting equal rights from the government, since most aren't happy with civil unions. They all want to be "married" and that is a direct insult to all normal people who are in a traditional marriage. It would be as if I walk-around all day in black-face saying and doing stereo-typical things all because "I also have the right to be black... you know... it doesn't do any harm to anyone...I'm not about to go run some folks over"

[xbook]

Originally Posted by andrew777

I don't really mention any specific tradition, but in the Christian tradition, which is much more rooted in our history than others, marriage has always been between a man and a woman and has for centuries been considered sacred.
...blah blah blah...

The word DOWRY strongly disagrees with your opinion that western civilization has considered marriage sacred for centuries.

[Ashley Schaeffer BMW]

Is this board very liberal leaning?

From the babble of some of these posts and the thread criticizing Obama that got deleted im guessing so.....

Anyways, just thinking out loud.... or through my keyboard. Carry on.

[Id]

Originally Posted by andrew777

Yes, but as I see it the issue isn't about gays getting equal rights from the government, since most aren't happy with civil unions. They all want to be "married" and that is a direct insult to all normal people who are in a traditional marriage. It would be as if I walk-around all day in black-face saying and doing stereo-typical things all because "I also have the right to be black... you know... it doesn't do any harm to anyone...I'm not about to go run some folks over"

That makes absolutely no sense.

How is it in any way an insult? Taking that logic, I'm insulted by religious people taking the concept of the winter solstice and turning it into a fairy story about some blue eyed middle eastern dude who spoke about peace, love and forgiveness.

[Ashley Schaeffer BMW]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

There is a difference between criticizing Obama and making veiled racists remarks. The forum's policy is pretty clear about that. Here is a good test before hitting reply... if you think it might be racist, it probably is.

For the record I never made a racist remark but I think I know the post you are talking about. If thats why it got deleted then fine. I think the individual post could have been deleted instead of doing away with the entire conversation but thats just my opinion.

Some people jump at the chance to be offended and name call because they cant intelligently defend their position though.

But if you preach tolerance... shouldnt you tolerate intolerance??

lol jk.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

Yup, we are talking about the same post. And I agree, I don't know why they deleted all of it. But no, there is no reason to tolerate intolerance. In any case, it is a private forum, and in the end they can do whatever they want.

I do believe we have some decent conversations around here, some people just like to push buttons, and sometimes I'm guilty of that as well. But if you cross a line you'll get an infraction... and I've gotten them before as well, mostly on the general and technical M3 forum though.

But a racist remark is just cheap.

I missed something evidently. May have been my OP that went south? Walk away from the computer for a day and just see what happens. This is a very sensitive board and clientele.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

Yup, although I disagreed with your orginal post (nothing new ), it was a fair opinion.... unfortunately some members have nothing better to add than latent racism. And as always they have no idea why it was racist, even when I give them a heads up that this might be against forum rules.

Regarding your comment of this being a sensitive board and clientele... we all know that is not true. Look at some of my threads and posts. But if someone "criticizes" the (black) president, and use the words "hood", "smoking crack", and "living in a clean white house"... it is pretty obvious what they mean.

+1

I'm not overly sensitive, but blatant racism should never be acceptable IMO.

[BKsBimmer]

Wow, I can't believe I'm actually seeing thoughtful discourse on this forum that isn't descending into a shit storm. Congratulations, that's progress!

[Curt2000]

I'm a Christian, not an angry conservative. I believe that everyone has to make their own choice when it comes to what they believe in. Jesus's number one teaching was that brotherly love is universal, love your neighbor, love your enemy, honor your father/mother etc...In fact he challenged practically every social and racial prejudice there was at the time. He also contradicted and rescinded the 'old law' (Leviticus) which is what a lot of people cite when trying to refute Biblical teachings on Homosexuality i.e. don't eat shellfish, don't touch a woman while she is on her period, don't touch someone with boils or soars etc...Unlike the shellfish argument the issue of homosexuality was addressed again in the new testament. Bloggers have pontificated their interpretation of new testament references (Romans 1:26) to homosexuality as rules against prostitution not homosexuality but just because these interpretations are found on the internet doesn't mean they are true.

Bottom line with homosexuality and gay marriage is: Everywhere you find the word marriage in the Bible, the Hebrew word is literally defined as a union of a man and a woman, furthermore any fornication outside of wedlock is a sin...therefore since a man and a man cannot be married in a Biblical sense their fornication is a sin. The govt can issue whatever civil union legislature they want but to call that union a judeo-christian 'marriage' is not only not possible but is the meddling of the govt in church affairs.

Isaiah 5:20-23 best describes the gay marriage movements IMO, people who were raised with Christian values but want to justify their sins because it has evolved into an entire lifestyle.

So lets take a look at the plank in my own eye...rampant materialism...I'd say most Americans struggle with this and its become 'the American way' so its a lifestyle that I take part in every day that is in-fact a sin. Does this make me a hypocrite? Only if I am selective on who I show love to. I have my struggles and you have yours weather you admit them or not. I try to treat others as I would like to be treated regardless of their beliefs. This is what Jesus taught, not militant Bible beating! How can anyone see the merit in Christianity if they are constantly assaulted by its so-called faithful believers?

I've heard the 'Bible scoffed at inter racial marriages' argument as well...This is in reference to 2 Cor 6:14 but that passage has nothing to do with race...its warning against believers marrying non-believers (i.e. a Jew marrying a Muslim, there would be much discourse in a relationship with such theological differences). Only a racist will twist the verse by interpreting it in a way that advances their own prejudices...but since those kinds of people tend to blog online and you feel like quoting them to express your opinion of all Christians then so be it.

If you are interested in my opinions of the original topic they can be found here: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=767370

[Desert_Fox]

This is why im sometimes embarrassed to tell people im a registered Republican or have right-wing views. I guess im part of that non-religious sect of the party...

[Ashley Schaeffer BMW]

You should be embarrassed to claim affiliation with any of the 2 major parties these days.....

Its turned into team sports and reality tv.

[PINeely]

Just today in my state:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/miss-mayor-...ry?id=18614617

The man was openly gay and had a good shot at becoming the mayor of Clarksdale where I work sometimes.

[PINeely]

There's a lot of speculation that he was killed because he was gay and getting close to a political seat. Thought I'd add it since we were on the subject of gays and intolerance.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by PINeely

There's a lot of speculation that he was killed because he was gay and getting close to a political seat. Thought I'd add it since we were on the subject of gays and intolerance.

speculation by who? The investigators have stated they don't think it's a hate crime.

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

speculation by who? The investigators have stated they don't think it's a hate crime.

Just people who I've talked to so far, however there is no precedent for a hate crime against gays in Mississippi so they wouldn't be able to call it that.

Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-307
Penalty may be enhanced where the offense was committed by reason of the "actual or perceived race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, national origin or gender of the victim."

The fact that they brought up hate crimes is likely because the victim was black, and there has been a lot of controversy about that going on here lately too:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/03/justic...ppi-hate-crime
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/justic...ppi-hate-crime
http://www.clarionledger.com/article...-hit-run-death

I plan to call Coahoma County SD when I get home and ask if they will clarify.

[Mr Tonka]

As far as i can see no "official" report has even mentioned that him being gay has anything to do with it. Granted, i'm not following it as closely as you are, i actually only read the article you posted. Seems from that no one has labeled it as a hate crime of any type.

A tragedy indeed, but lets not jump to him dying due to being gay.