March 29, 2024, 08:35:31 AM

Author Topic: Gays Thread.  (Read 243363 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Daft Trini

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1020 on: May 15, 2012, 05:22:58 AM »
BHO is first and foremost a Politician: One in six of his bundlers is openly gay. Funds were drying up from this community. Every election cycle he had changed his views either for or against. In 1994 he supported same sex marriage, in 2004 he was against it, in 2006 against it, 2008 against it, 2008 post elections to 2010 evolving, 2010 he employed the first openly gay Maitre D at the White House. I'm sure his campaign/election team ran the numbers and felt that this was a secure way to go: He has the black vote (% wise the largest voting block opposed to same sex marriage) even if he took this open stance on same sex marriage, the majority would still vote for him. BHO has to make this elections about social issues and not his record.  :beermug:

I really felt the christians defending the bible could have articulated a stronger argument  :-\

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1021 on: May 15, 2012, 06:11:09 AM »
BHO is first and foremost a Politician: One in six of his bundlers is openly gay. Funds were drying up from this community. Every election cycle he had changed his views either for or against. In 1994 he supported same sex marriage, in 2004 he was against it, in 2006 against it, 2008 against it, 2008 post elections to 2010 evolving, 2010 he employed the first openly gay Maitre D at the White House. I'm sure his campaign/election team ran the numbers and felt that this was a secure way to go: He has the black vote (% wise the largest voting block opposed to same sex marriage) even if he took this open stance on same sex marriage, the majority would still vote for him. BHO has to make this elections about social issues and not his record.  :beermug:

I really felt the christians defending the bible could have articulated a stronger argument  :-\

Agree with your point of him simply being a politician which reinforces my sentiment of politics and politicians being devoid of any kind of integrity. Don't know why people still pin all their hopes on them.

But what 'stronger argument' should I(?) have made?
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline kicker

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1022 on: May 15, 2012, 07:26:18 AM »

What were the sociological/economic reason for marriage expressed in the Bible?

Kicker was implying that slavery, apartheid and by proxy racisim had religious roots. That is not true as any student of history should know.

Where did I imply that? I said that the separatists used the bible to justify their actions when it was called into question -Any student of history should know that.  There's a big difference between saying that and saying that slavery and apartheid had religious roots - even though there are some that will argue that as well (it was not my argument - I don't know enough to support that).

And Bakes' point was not that the socio-economics of marriage are discussed in the bible - his point is that even despite the construct of marriage being highly "economic and sociological", the bible still does comment on it - so to denounce a discussion of slavery, apartheid and the bible on the basis of it being "economic and sociological" makes no sense. 
Live life 90 minutes at a time....Football is life.......

Offline kicker

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1023 on: May 15, 2012, 07:37:23 AM »

Understandable, but it's not like a send yuh the question by PM, it is for anyone ot answer or comment on...

but I ask the question because the context of this debate is about laws governing same-sex relationships. I know we gone off on a "what the Bible say" tangent but even if we accept that the Bible say that homosexuality is sin...then what? The Bible can't be a foundation for law-making in a democracy where you claim to have separation of Church and State.

How different would it be from a state run under Sharia law if we use one religion or ten religions to justify a legal definition of marriage?

The component of marriage in the public debate is not the religious one, but the social and economic one. The debate is about same-sex couples that operate in society in the same way as traditional couples being granted equal economic and social rights under the law. Rights to healthcare coverage, next of kin status, child support, child visitation priveleges in the event of a break-up etc.

Those in opposition to same-sex marriage recognition under the law need to come out and say that they believe same-sex couples are less equal than heterosexual couples and why?

I don't vote, I don't participate in politics, I have no party allegiance. I simply observe politics with wry cynicism.

I state my opinions on matters (when I feel like it) whether they are of a religious basis or not.

To the rest of your post, you will be better served being answered by someone who actually does participates in politics, not by me.

I entered this discussion when the Bible was brought in and all the replies have revolved around that.

lol Toppa you can answer the question without being a voter - come on.  You don't need to "participate in politics" to have an opinion on equal rights - that makes no sense.  The point that JDB is making is the greater point - it's the point that I made earlier too - and as lefty pointed it out - EVERYONE in this thread opposed to same-sex marriage side steps it.  In fact this whole long discussion about whether the bible condemns or condones homosexual marriage is an intentional distraction from the equal rights issue at hand.
Live life 90 minutes at a time....Football is life.......

Offline FF

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *
  • Posts: 7513
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1024 on: May 15, 2012, 07:41:42 AM »

I don't vote, I don't participate in politics, I have no party allegiance. I simply observe politics with wry cynicism.

I state my opinions on matters (when I feel like it) whether they are of a religious basis or not.

To the rest of your post, you will be better served being answered by someone who actually does participates in politics, not by me.

I entered this discussion when the Bible was brought in and all the replies have revolved around that.


That's a shame... it should really be the other way around for the very least.
THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1025 on: May 15, 2012, 08:08:14 AM »

What were the sociological/economic reason for marriage expressed in the Bible?

Kicker was implying that slavery, apartheid and by proxy racisim had religious roots. That is not true as any student of history should know.

Where did I imply that? I said that the separatists used the bible to justify their actions when it was called into question -Any student of history should know that.  There's a big difference between saying that and saying that slavery and apartheid had religious roots - even though there are some that will argue that as well (it was not my argument - I don't know enough to support that).

And Bakes' point was not that the socio-economics of marriage are discussed in the bible - his point is that even despite the construct of marriage being highly "economic and sociological", the bible still does comment on it - so to denounce a discussion of slavery, apartheid and the bible on the basis of it being "economic and sociological" makes no sense. 

This is what you said:

Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.


Were you not implying that people who oppose homosexual marriage based on the scriptures are akin to those who justified slavery and apartheid?

Well in case you did not know, the Bible is VERY clear in its condemnation of homosexuality whereas nothing in the Bible could have been used to justify the trans-atlantic slave trade, slavery in the Americas or apartheid in South Africa.  ::)

So take your time and don't try to act as though you weren't making that comparison. Hence my 'anyone who could read...' comment.

And that was not what Bakes was saying.
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1026 on: May 15, 2012, 08:12:20 AM »

Understandable, but it's not like a send yuh the question by PM, it is for anyone ot answer or comment on...

but I ask the question because the context of this debate is about laws governing same-sex relationships. I know we gone off on a "what the Bible say" tangent but even if we accept that the Bible say that homosexuality is sin...then what? The Bible can't be a foundation for law-making in a democracy where you claim to have separation of Church and State.

How different would it be from a state run under Sharia law if we use one religion or ten religions to justify a legal definition of marriage?

The component of marriage in the public debate is not the religious one, but the social and economic one. The debate is about same-sex couples that operate in society in the same way as traditional couples being granted equal economic and social rights under the law. Rights to healthcare coverage, next of kin status, child support, child visitation priveleges in the event of a break-up etc.

Those in opposition to same-sex marriage recognition under the law need to come out and say that they believe same-sex couples are less equal than heterosexual couples and why?

I don't vote, I don't participate in politics, I have no party allegiance. I simply observe politics with wry cynicism.

I state my opinions on matters (when I feel like it) whether they are of a religious basis or not.

To the rest of your post, you will be better served being answered by someone who actually does participates in politics, not by me.

I entered this discussion when the Bible was brought in and all the replies have revolved around that.

lol Toppa you can answer the question without being a voter - come on.  You don't need to "participate in politics" to have an opinion on equal rights - that makes no sense.  The point that JDB is making is the greater point - it's the point that I made earlier too - and as lefty pointed it out - EVERYONE in this thread opposed to same-sex marriage side steps it.  In fact this whole long discussion about whether the bible condemns or condones homosexual marriage is an intentional distraction from the equal rights issue at hand.

Smarty pants - you are discussing a different issue. You are getting into the realm of the state and secular affairs on which I am quite content not to express an opinion. I will maintain my neutrality on those things. Let the state do what it wants but when it comes down to it: you can change the laws of man but you can't change the laws of God. I am not going to sanction gay marriage or say that it is OK. That seems to bother people like you a great deal, but ho hum.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 08:14:23 AM by Toppa »
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1027 on: May 15, 2012, 08:12:41 AM »

I don't vote, I don't participate in politics, I have no party allegiance. I simply observe politics with wry cynicism.

I state my opinions on matters (when I feel like it) whether they are of a religious basis or not.

To the rest of your post, you will be better served being answered by someone who actually does participates in politics, not by me.

I entered this discussion when the Bible was brought in and all the replies have revolved around that.


That's a shame... it should really be the other way around for the very least.

Why, though?
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline NYtriniwhiteboy..

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3349
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1028 on: May 15, 2012, 08:40:07 AM »
toppa as much as i disagree with yuh view yuh were at least attempting to make some points..but as yuh bring up man marrying animals..that is de stupidest point pple bring up when it comes to gay marriage.
We are talking about two consenting adults! So throw away that argument.
Back in Trini...

Offline dinho

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8591
  • Yesterday is Yesterday and Today is Today!
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1029 on: May 15, 2012, 08:41:22 AM »
I endorse a civil union with all the social and economic rights mentioned afforded to same-sex couples.

What i doh endorse is same sex couples going to a church, before a priest or minister, putting a hand on a Bible and being married in a religious ceremony. That to me is against the central tenet of any Bible-centric religion, which is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I can't believe people here actually arguing that the Bible does not expressly prohibit same sex marriage as if there is some kinda backdoor provision or technicality to allow such.

It is not about believing that same-sex couples are less than equal in any way, that is just an accusation used by proponents of same sex marriages to label opponents as discriminatory for holding on to what they know as true in their religion. From a purely legal and constitutional perspective, it is difficult to oppose anyone's rights to anything, but when you view these things from a religious perspective i can't see how that could ever be right (i admittedly view it from this perspective). And the fact of the matter is that the line of separation between church and state is blurred.

Funny place this world is, and sometimes i shudder to think of what the world is coming to.

I believe in the future, likely in my lifetime, that there will be no big distinction between the genders... Children will grow up with a choice, be it heterosexual or homosexual seeing as anything goes under the prevailing societal norms. Its only a matter of time.
         

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1030 on: May 15, 2012, 08:45:21 AM »
toppa as much as i disagree with yuh view yuh were at least attempting to make some points..but as yuh bring up man marrying animals..that is de stupidest point pple bring up when it comes to gay marriage.
We are talking about two consenting adults! So throw away that argument.


 ::)

Excuse me, if you were following along you would see that it was in response to Bakes trying to reason that because the Bible does not explicitly say that homosexual marriages are prohibited that it could be logical to assume that it might be ok.

So I mentioned that the Bible also does not explicitly say that a man/woman cannot marry an animal, would he also say that a Bestial marriage could be a possibility according to the Bible?

Chill yuh bills.

And I would also like to add that 'consent' is not the issue here whether you're talking about homosexuals or animals. That is the stupidest point ppple bring up when it comes to gay marriage!!!  ::)
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline NYtriniwhiteboy..

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3349
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1031 on: May 15, 2012, 08:47:41 AM »
see my edit toppa..i apologised

oh now see the edit didnt post..but i was saying i read again and saw what you were saying..Glad to see you agree on the point people like to bring up about animals tho
Back in Trini...

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1032 on: May 15, 2012, 08:49:27 AM »
see my edit toppa..i apologised

oh now see the edit didnt post..but i was saying i read again and saw what you were saying..Glad to see you agree on the point people like to bring up about animals tho

Ok, I didn't see the edit but thank you. And I was actually be facetious in the last part. *smiles* Sorry.
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline kicker

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1033 on: May 15, 2012, 08:50:14 AM »
This is what you said:

Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.


Were you not implying that people who oppose homosexual marriage based on the scriptures are akin to those who justified slavery and apartheid?

No. I was just saying that the practice of picking and choosing language from a large pool of data/information to support your point doesn't always yield a conclusive argument - the segregationist piece was an example of such.  First you accuse me of implying that slavery had it's roots in the religion - now you're saying I'm implying that one set of people are akin to another set of people...are you just throwing everything against the wall and hoping for something to stick?

Well in case you did not know, the Bible is VERY clear in its condemnation of homosexuality whereas nothing in the Bible could have been used to justify the trans-atlantic slave trade, slavery in the Americas or apartheid in South Africa.  ::)

Ok if you say so.  I was talking about Apartheid in America btw.

So take your time and don't try to act as though you weren't making that comparison. Hence my 'anyone who could read...' comment.

Easy lol.  Doh buff meh so nuh... I wasn't trying to act as though anything - I think I explained myself clearly - If you don't understand it, then we can just leave it there.

And that was not what Bakes was saying.

That is what he was saying - but I'll leave it to him to clarify

Anyways I was saying, the larger point for me is about equal rights...I think that the use of the bible to support a position against same-sex marriage is a distraction from that larger more important issue.  Despite me disagreeing with his overall position, I think Preacher put it in good perspective in his last post:

"I've simply stated what I believe. I ain't judging nobody or condemning anyone either.  The same Bible I quote states that all men are condemned but for God's grace.  Anyone could reach to heaven with a pure heart and find the answers they need."

Truetrini also made a good point about our understanding of sexuality evolving since the days the bible was written - I think that speaks volumes... On the other side of the coin, I concur with alot of what is being said by JDB and Bakes too...so across the spectrum there is a common ground if we willing to share it. 
Live life 90 minutes at a time....Football is life.......

Offline kicker

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1034 on: May 15, 2012, 08:57:20 AM »
It is not about believing that same-sex couples are less than equal in any way, that is just an accusation used by proponents of same sex marriages to label opponents as discriminatory for holding on to what they know as true in their religion.

That's actually not true.

And if you think the only people using the bible to define marriage are those holding on to what is true in their religion, I think yuh being real naive...

I believe in the future, likely in my lifetime, that there will be no big distinction between the genders... Children will grow up with a choice, be it heterosexual or homosexual seeing as anything goes under the prevailing societal norms. Its only a matter of time.[/b]

You really think sexual orientation is a choice? I find that opinion hard to reason with.  I didn't choose my sexual orientation....I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that gays chose to be gay.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 09:06:49 AM by kicker »
Live life 90 minutes at a time....Football is life.......

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1035 on: May 15, 2012, 09:01:12 AM »
This is what you said:

Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.


Were you not implying that people who oppose homosexual marriage based on the scriptures are akin to those who justified slavery and apartheid?

No. I was just saying that the practice of picking and choosing language from a large pool of data/information to support your point doesn't always yield a conclusive argument - the segregationist piece was an example of such.  First you accuse me of implying that slavery had it's roots in the religion - now you're saying I'm implying that one set of people are akin to another set of people...are you just throwing everything against the wall and hoping for something to stick?

Well in case you did not know, the Bible is VERY clear in its condemnation of homosexuality whereas nothing in the Bible could have been used to justify the trans-atlantic slave trade, slavery in the Americas or apartheid in South Africa.  ::)

Ok if you say so.  I was talking about Apartheid in America btw.

So take your time and don't try to act as though you weren't making that comparison. Hence my 'anyone who could read...' comment.

Easy lol.  Doh buff meh so nuh... I wasn't trying to act as though anything - I think I explained myself clearly - If you don't understand it, then we can just leave it there.

And that was not what Bakes was saying.

That is what he was saying - but I'll leave it to him to clarify

Anyways I was saying, the larger point for me is about equal rights...I think that the use of the bible to support a position against same-sex marriage is a distraction from that larger more important issue.  Despite me disagreeing with his overall position, I think Preacher put it in good perspective in his last post:

"I've simply stated what I believe. I ain't judging nobody or condemning anyone either.  The same Bible I quote states that all men are condemned but for God's grace.  Anyone could reach to heaven with a pure heart and find the answers they need."

Truetrini also made a good point about our understanding of sexuality evolving since the days the bible was written - I think that speaks volumes... On the other side of the coin, I concur with alot of what is being said by JDB and Bakes too...so across the spectrum there is a common ground if we willing to share it. 

Well let me say that this 'marriage' debate is not a matter of 'equal rights' to me as you can claim any and everything is your right and cry discrimination if you're not getting it.

I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman and that is the way it has been since the beginning.

What gay rights groups are trying to do is re-define what a marriage is to include their 'unions'. But how can it be a 'rights violation' if that right had never been accorded such relationships in the first place? There is no rights violation.

If you are saying that people who maintain the view that marriage is solely between a man and a woman should change their perspective because one group has a loud mouth and they call you ignorant and bigoted if you don't agree with them, well...we're never going to see eye-to-eye as I have no intention of changing my view and have not been provided with any satisfactory reasons as to why I should.

Because even when offered all the civil rights as accorded to married heter-sexual couples they still cry discrimination because of the term civil union as opposed to marriage which tells me that it is much deeper than just legal rights.
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1036 on: May 15, 2012, 09:16:41 AM »
It is not about believing that same-sex couples are less than equal in any way, that is just an accusation used by proponents of same sex marriages to label opponents as discriminatory for holding on to what they know as true in their religion.

That's actually not true.

And if you think the only people using the bible to define marriage are those holding on to what is true in their religion, I think yuh being real naive...

I believe in the future, likely in my lifetime, that there will be no big distinction between the genders... Children will grow up with a choice, be it heterosexual or homosexual seeing as anything goes under the prevailing societal norms. Its only a matter of time.[/b]

You really think sexual orientation is a choice? I find that opinion hard to reason with.  I didn't choose my sexual orientation....I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that gays chose to be gay.

I know you're talking to Dinho and not to me but there are all sorts of sexual proclivities - not just homosexuality but others that are still, for the time being, considered...'vices' at best. Are we to just accept that they are all just inate and only deserving of a shrug?

For me, it is still a matter of right and wrong.

www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline dinho

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8591
  • Yesterday is Yesterday and Today is Today!
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1037 on: May 15, 2012, 09:18:38 AM »
Quote
I believe in the future, likely in my lifetime, that there will be no big distinction between the genders... Children will grow up with a choice, be it heterosexual or homosexual seeing as anything goes under the prevailing societal norms. Its only a matter of time.[/b]

You really think sexual orientation is a choice? I find that opinion hard to reason with.  I didn't choose my sexual orientation....I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that gays chose to be gay.

Maybe you chose unconsciously.. Maybe if from birth you grew up on an island with only homosexuals you would be open to the idea because of what that environment would have taught you.

Yes, i do think some gays born so while others become so as a product of their environment, experiences and upbringing.

For one example, what about the women who born completely heterosexual and have had toxic relationships with men that turn them off men completely.. Then through companionship with women, they develop feelings that eventually progress into homosexual relationships?? Were they born so or did they choose?
         

Offline NYtriniwhiteboy..

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3349
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1038 on: May 15, 2012, 09:24:37 AM »
Dinho Kinsey kind of addresses what you saying with putting sexuality on a spectrum. Can't remember exactly what the scale was maybe 1-6 with 1 being exclusively heterosexual and six being exclusively homosexual. And found that in society many people are 4 and 2s etc.
Experiences can then make a person act on certain feelings that may have been buried within them etc.

Personally I just find it hard that some people believe that being gay is exclusively a choice. Why would so many people choose to make their lives hell, being bullied and marginalized in society..Just doesn't add up
Back in Trini...

Offline kicker

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1039 on: May 15, 2012, 09:36:38 AM »

Well let me say that this 'marriage' debate is not a matter of 'equal rights' to me as you can claim any and everything is your right and cry discrimination if you're not getting it.

Based on what I've read and heard, I think Obama supports gay-marriage from an equal rights perspective - or at least that is his stated reasoning.  I don't think he's trying to change people's view on the biblical "definition" of marriage.  And this thread is entitled Obama supports same-sex marriage...so I dunno how you can say that discussion of equal rights has no place in this debate - If you want to make your own rules about this debate, then start yuh own thread.

I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman and that is the way it has been since the beginning.

What gay rights groups are trying to do is re-define what a marriage is to include their 'unions'. But how can it be a 'rights violation' if that right had never been accorded such relationships in the first place? There is no rights violation.

Really? This hour of the day you coming with this reasoning? Come on - That rights-violation logic is just semantics to make a point... If you were to stand on any proper platform with this logic you'd would be deemed a fool...I'll leave that there.

If you are saying that people who maintain the view that marriage is solely between a man and a woman should change their perspective because one group has a loud mouth and they call you ignorant and bigoted if you don't agree with them, well...we're never going to see eye-to-eye as I have no intention of changing my view and have not been provided with any satisfactory reasons as to why I should.

Yeah that's exactly why you should change your view - because a loud mouth group calls you ignorant and bigoted for disagreeing with them... You finally starting to see the light.... Again- this hour of the day? lol

Because even when offered all the civil rights as accorded to married heter-sexual couples they still cry discrimination because of the term civil union as opposed to marriage which tells me that it is much deeper than just legal rights.

Well the truth is that civil unions generally don't grant all the same rights and protections granted under marriage, and the disparities vary from state to state - a couple's civil union is also only recognized in the state in which that couple resides...so it is in fact discriminatory...they aren't just "crying discrimination".

..So do you still think it's deeper than just equal rights? If so, what do you deem to be the real issue...other than them just being loud mouths of course. 

« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 09:39:19 AM by kicker »
Live life 90 minutes at a time....Football is life.......

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1040 on: May 15, 2012, 09:37:54 AM »
Quote
I believe in the future, likely in my lifetime, that there will be no big distinction between the genders... Children will grow up with a choice, be it heterosexual or homosexual seeing as anything goes under the prevailing societal norms. Its only a matter of time.[/b]

You really think sexual orientation is a choice? I find that opinion hard to reason with.  I didn't choose my sexual orientation....I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that gays chose to be gay.

Maybe you chose unconsciously.. Maybe if from birth you grew up on an island with only homosexuals you would be open to the idea because of what that environment would have taught you.

Yes, i do think some gays born so while others become so as a product of their environment, experiences and upbringing.

For one example, what about the women who born completely heterosexual and have had toxic relationships with men that turn them off men completely.. Then through companionship with women, they develop feelings that eventually progress into homosexual relationships?? Were they born so or did they choose?

'I'm gay by CHOICE': Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon faces gay backlash after claiming she chooses to be homosexual

Cynthia Nixon has sparked a backlash after claiming she is gay by choice.
The former Sex and the City star is engaged to her long-term partner Christine Marinoni - with who she has an 11-month-old son Max
She was previously in a relationship with Danny Mozes for 15 years and had two children, Samantha, 15, and nine-year-old Charlie, with him.
She touched on her decision to become a lesbian during a recent speech which angered parts of the
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community.
And she sort to explain her position in a fresh interview with the New York Times on Sunday.
She said: 'I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line "I've been straight and I've been gay, and gay is better."
'And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it's not, but for me it's a choice, and you don't get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it's a choice, then we could opt out.

'I say it doesn't matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.'

Cynthia, 45, insists she hasn't always been gay and finds it 'offensive' that people say she has.
She continued: 'Why can't it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we're just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don't think that they should define the terms of the debate.
'I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn't realise I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I've been out with.'
And she claimed the homosexuals who are bent out of shape about her feelings on the issue are bigots.
She said: 'Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate?
'It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate.
'I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive.'I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.'
Cynthia went public with her romance with redhead Christine, 44, just a year after her relationship college sweetheart Danny ended in 2003.
Christine gave birth to the couple’s first child together last February, a baby boy they gave the colourful moniker Max Ellington Nixon-Marinoni.
Influential gay blogger and activist John Aravosis is one of those displeased by her choice of words.

He said: 'It's not a "choice," unless you consider my opting to date a guy with brown hair versus a guy with blonde hair a "choice."
'It's only a choice among flavours I already like.'
And he claimed she was just giving people peddling anti-gay views extra ammunition.
He said: 'Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights.'
Gay blogger, Perez Hilton weighed in too, saying: 'We totally hear her out and true, we cannot define her "gayness," but it wasn’t a choice for us. We were BORN gay. And millions of gay people around the world feel the same way.'
Her comments also attracted a strong reaction on Twitter, with one user posting: 'Two steps forward and three steps back, Cynthia tsk tsk.'
'You can CHOOSE to live your life openly or stay in the closet, but we’re NOT “Gay by Choice” #SorryCynthia,' wrote another.
Added another: 'Must admit Cynthia Nixon has done us no favours by saying its her 'choice' to be gay.'
The actress is currently promoting her new Broadway play Wit in which she plays a professor stricken with ovarian cancer.
Nixon, who dealt with a bout of breast cancer in 2006, unveiled a bald head on Live with Kelly today after shaving her head for the part.

He said: 'It's not a "choice," unless you consider my opting to date a guy with brown hair versus a guy with blonde hair a "choice."
'It's only a choice among flavours I already like.'
And he claimed she was just giving people peddling anti-gay views extra ammunition.
He said: 'Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights.'
Gay blogger, Perez Hilton weighed in too, saying: 'We totally hear her out and true, we cannot define her "gayness," but it wasn’t a choice for us. We were BORN gay. And millions of gay people around the world feel the same way.'
Her comments also attracted a strong reaction on Twitter, with one user posting: 'Two steps forward and three steps back, Cynthia tsk tsk.'
'You can CHOOSE to live your life openly or stay in the closet, but we’re NOT “Gay by Choice” #SorryCynthia,' wrote another.
Added another: 'Must admit Cynthia Nixon has done us no favours by saying its her 'choice' to be gay.'
The actress is currently promoting her new Broadway play Wit in which she plays a professor stricken with ovarian cancer.
Nixon, who dealt with a bout of breast cancer in 2006, unveiled a bald head on Live with Kelly today after shaving her head for the part.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090942/Cynthia-Nixon-Im-gay-choice.html#ixzz1ux9T7Pgu
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 09:51:57 AM by Toppa »
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1041 on: May 15, 2012, 09:51:16 AM »
Dinho Kinsey kind of addresses what you saying with putting sexuality on a spectrum. Can't remember exactly what the scale was maybe 1-6 with 1 being exclusively heterosexual and six being exclusively homosexual. And found that in society many people are 4 and 2s etc.
Experiences can then make a person act on certain feelings that may have been buried within them etc.

Personally I just find it hard that some people believe that being gay is exclusively a choice. Why would so many people choose to make their lives hell, being bullied and marginalized in society..Just doesn't add up

Kinsey, dude?

Kinsey conducted a lot of his research in prisons and stuff. We covered him a great deal in one of my sociology classes and his research was hardly scientific. his samples weren't even random and a lot of it was extrapolation.

And I'm really not saying this based on my clearly established views. My first degree is in Sociology and this class was called Sociology of Sexuality and we read as much research and books as there exists on the topic of sexuality.

Mind you, this was of course the most liberal of courses and nothing in the research ever gave a clear-cut response that sexuality is inate. Actually the furthest they go is to say it is a combination of nature and nurture. Which is why I am usually upset when people act as though science proves that sexuality is inate - it does no such thing.
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline kicker

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1042 on: May 15, 2012, 09:56:52 AM »
Based on reading that piece, I think Cynthia Nixon is bisexual (in theory can be attracted to either sex) - her choice appears to be the lifestyle or sexual partner...not her sexual orientation...she has decided to be with women, but throughout her life has been attracted to men as well...that's bisexual - not gay....or maybe her sexual orientation has changed...that a possibility?  She's calling it choice, for lack of a better term, but maybe she's just not attracted to men anymore -not really a choice per se - but a change in orientation...or something changed in her...who knows?

There are bisexual people out there who chose to live straight lifestyles because of societal pressure or because the person they fall in love with is of the opposite sex - but they are open to either in theory...  I actually know girls who have dated guys then ended up with girls, and are referred to as lebians... but technically they are really bisexual. 

I think the point that NYTWB is making is probably a fair point... there are probably alot more bisexuals out there than we recognize...alot of them are lumped into straight or gay depending on their choice of partner....doesn't convince me that sexual orientation itself is a choice. 
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 10:00:27 AM by kicker »
Live life 90 minutes at a time....Football is life.......

Offline NYtriniwhiteboy..

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3349
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1043 on: May 15, 2012, 10:07:32 AM »
yeah kicker that's all I am talking about. It is not all black and white. There are definitely shades of grey and some make choices to stick with one sex or the other despite possibly being attracted to the next.

Toppa - I mentioned kinsey as he is one person that attempted to do some studies. Sure there are more but I never did any research on it. I wasn't saying that he was totally right or wrong, but it is a theory that was put forth and to me makes some sense putting human sexuality on a continuum, rather than just two categories.

Back in Trini...

Offline Daft Trini

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1044 on: May 15, 2012, 10:24:55 AM »
I use to think homosexuality was a choice till my cousin "came out". He's a prominent Dr in the US and an expert in his discipline, some even consider him a genius. I mean a doctor/scientist should be able to know the difference between born a certain way or choosing to be a certain way right. The dude is surrounded by some sweet med students/healthcare professionals all day long and if his "dick" eh getting hard for dem... then he's gay...! Then again my wife had a cocktail party where 2 doctors broke out in an argument over the issue of "being born or choosing" to be gay. One doctor made a clever argument saying that being gay cannot be natural, since gay sex is not natural, because a man's arse is not anatomically designed for penile penetration or reception.

If in the end these people love each other and function like you and me, then by all means, look at the pros and cons, consider the unintended consequences and allow them to marry...!

Offline JDB

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
  • Red, White and Black till death
    • View Profile
    • We Reach
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1045 on: May 15, 2012, 11:02:58 AM »
What i doh endorse is same sex couples going to a church, before a priest or minister, putting a hand on a Bible and being married in a religious ceremony. That to me is against the central tenet of any Bible-centric religion, which is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

I don't know that this is even at issue. No one is suggesting that religions be forced to join same-sex couple sin matrimony if it is against their rules. The government's function is marriage is separate to the denominational recognition


From a purely legal and constitutional perspective, it is difficult to oppose anyone's rights to anything, but when you view these things from a religious perspective i can't see how that could ever be right (i admittedly view it from this perspective). And the fact of the matter is that the line of separation between church and state is blurred.

There are very clear lines about when it is acceptable to deny one's rights, usually when yuh break societies rules and norms. These rules and norms are set by what is generally accepted as part of society. The reason we having this debate as Truetrini alluded to is that social mores have changed. There are no rules against being homosexual. When there were rules against it, same sex couples were forbidden by society. Now is the time to examine if there should be rules against them have similar rights to heterosexual couples when they fulfill similar roles in society.



Because even when offered all the civil rights as accorded to married heter-sexual couples they still cry discrimination because of the term civil union as opposed to marriage which tells me that it is much deeper than just legal rights.


Unfortunately this is not the case. The marriage/civil union distinction is used across the country to limit the rights of same-sex couples. that is why States that have agreed to recognize same-sex couples rights have had to go the route of recognizing it as marriage. In North Carolina last week there was the opposite case where to deny same-sex couples rights they set a broad definition of what is not a mrriage that could have unintended consequences for heterosexual common-law couples.



One doctor made a clever argument saying that being gay cannot be natural, since gay sex is not natural, because a man's arse is not anatomically designed for penile penetration or reception.

Not a very clever argument at all. Being gay is not "natural" because it doesn't result in offspring through natural means, not because of the way people get off.

Not to be graphic or obscene but... is a woman's mouth anatomically designed for reception, or her hand, or her cleavage? How many different ways do heterosexual couples express themselves that is not "penis in vagina". Conversely how many homosexual couples are in relationships without anal intercourse being a central part of the relationship. For homosexual couples, as for heterosexual, companionship is defined by more than "who putting what in where".

« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 11:21:47 AM by JDB »
THE WARRIORS WILL NOT BE DENIED.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1046 on: May 15, 2012, 11:24:10 AM »

Excuse me but you started off saying that the Bible never spoke of the exclusivity of marriage being between a man and a woman - I showed you evidence of this.

You also made another gaffe and im[lied that the Bible never mentions 'marriage' in the first place. I provided evidence of this.

But based on your reasoning...would you also say that God would be in favour of a man marrying an animal? Since the Bible doesn't expressly prohibit it, of course.

I mean, I could understand arguing for arguing sake - but this just makes ZERO sense. I am really surprised.

You STILL haven't shown me anything where the bible says that marriage is EXCLUSIVELY between man and woman... as I said, an inference can be drawn, but an inference is much, MUCH different from an express statement forbidding it.  And thanks for pointing out the references to 'marriage'... I meant to type "definition of marriage" but that's what I typed instead so I accept the correction.

As for me saying what God would be in favor of... I never put myself in God head to say what he would or would not be in favor of.  All that I have ever been saying all along is that folks pointing to the Bible for support against gay marriage can't find it there.  To answer your question though, no the bible doesn't prohibit man marrying animal, as far as I know... but I think you spend too much time out there in Wackizona if you seriously making a comparison between homosexual marriage and (implied) bestiality.  The bible doesn't prohibit the wanton use of nuclear weapons, abandoning newborns in the trash and a host of other things that are looked upon disfavorably in contemporary society, but those evolved with social mores over the years.  So too have attitudes towards gay marriage... and we are still at the vanguard, so understandably some ah allyuh still stuck in the past.

So then what was he talking about if it were not the Mosaic law such as circumcision and observing the sabbath?

Also, the fact that the Jews were no longer required to follow the Mosaic law and the fact that Christ's sacrifice also extended to the gentiles, made the Mosaic law obsolete.

ob·so·lete/ˌäbsəˈlēt/

Adjective:

No longer produced or used; out of date.
 
Verb:

Cause (a product or idea) to be or become obsolete by replacing it with something new: "we're obsoleting last year's designs".

Thanks for your cut and paste definition of "obsolete"... it adds nothing to the discussion though, I think we all understand it's meaning.  The issue is it's application... and to what.  There is a difference between the Old Covenant, and the Laws of Moses, generally. The Old Covenant governs the spiritual contract between God and the Children of Abraham... from whom we are all spiritually descended.  Mosaic law isn't a spiritual provision, as much as it governs judicial and procedural protocol which Jews were to follow.  These are separate from the "Old Covenant"... which is what was fulfilled by Christ (I came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it).  Christ himself never declared Mosaic law obsolete.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 12:28:14 PM by Bakes »

Offline Preacher

  • We doh smoke or drink or pop pills. When we light the mic is strickly jess skills
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1047 on: May 15, 2012, 11:56:06 AM »
Bakes, your head in the clouds and I'm not sure why you intent on leaving it there on this issue.  You would think a man of your profession would see that 1 + 1=2   The historical context of all the scriptures presented is in no way mysterious or vague in it's language.  Was Eve Adam's wife?  Did God make it so?  Whatever you can't see, you doh want to see.  Which is fine by me. 
What should should the All Wise, All knowing God should have done to make it clear in your eyes?   What would you have added? 

Here's another.  Lev. 18:22
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination

I'm sure I don't need to unpack the historical and sociological context of this verse. 

What do you think the All Wise Father missed to imply clarity on this issue? 
In Everything give thanks for this is the will of God concerning you.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1048 on: May 15, 2012, 12:01:36 PM »
hahaha Ok, homosexuality is roundly condemned, Sodom and Gomorrah got fire and brimstone for that amongst other things and yet you would sit down and say that a homosexual marriage might be ok afterall! LOL

So as I asked before, would God also approve of a man marrying an animal?

I already answered your question, but I will point you back to my response.  The bible doesn't condemn incest, in fact it tacitly accepts it.  Who did Cain take for a wife after he slew Abel?  Yet despite him being a murderer and in-breeder he received God's protection for the rest of his life.  Clearly this either points to God being accepting of incest, or that he is far more complex than simple rigid interpretation of the words of the bible might suggest. 

Mind you... and this goes to Truetrini as well, if we are talking God's intent, we cannot rely on the bible as the sole authority for understanding divine intent.  The bible is just a collection of books voted on by the Catholic church at the Council of Trent in 1546.  There may be any number of ex-canonical works that may have shed light on divine intent were it not for the exclusion by the Catholic church.  The result is that we have the word of "God" as filtered thru Catholic eyes.  This doesn't invalidate what's in the "bible"... but just reminds us that what's there is not exclusive or absolute.

What were the sociological/economic reason for marriage expressed in the Bible?

Kicker was implying that slavery, apartheid and by proxy racisim had religious roots. That is not true as any student of history should know.

My friend, if you could find where I said there were "sociological/economic" reasons for marriage as expressed in the Bible, then please post it for me.

Were YOU saying that there were sociological/economic reasons for slavery and apartheid in the bible? I don't think so, so please don't distort the analogy.

I see Kicker done address this... but again, what he was saying is that proponents of these used justifications they found in the bible to support their positions.  He didn't say the justifications they used were valid.  I'm sure you can see how the analogy applies here.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 12:33:11 PM by Bakes »

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1049 on: May 15, 2012, 12:18:29 PM »

And Bakes' point was not that the socio-economics of marriage are discussed in the bible - his point is that even despite the construct of marriage being highly "economic and sociological", the bible still does comment on it - so to denounce a discussion of slavery, apartheid and the bible on the basis of it being "economic and sociological" makes no sense. 



And that was not what Bakes was saying.

That is indeed what I was saying... to be precise, the bible doesn't discuss the sociological/economic origins of marriage as we know it today but that doesn't mean that modern marriage isn't rooted in sociological/economic bases.

What gay rights groups are trying to do is re-define what a marriage is to include their 'unions'. But how can it be a 'rights violation' if that right had never been accorded such relationships in the first place? There is no rights violation.

You could say this about any "right".... right to vote, right to contraception, right to gender equality in the workplace, racial equality in all of society... none of these "rights" existed "in the first place", instead contemporary society has evolved to recognize them.  Maybe your argument is that evolution should include some rights and not others.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 12:35:54 PM by Bakes »

 

1]; } ?>