Massachusetts to allow gay marriage

“lee - Here's another way of putting it.

Look at these definitions for "symbol".

sym·bol ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smbl)
n.

1. Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible. See Synonyms at sign.

2. A printed or written sign used to represent an operation, element, quantity, quality, or relation, as in mathematics or music.

3. Psychology. An object or image that an individual unconsciously uses to represent repressed thoughts, feelings, or impulses: a phallic symbol.

crash mean symbol as #3

I meant symbol as #2 (a word)

Understand now?”

“lee -

Also, to quote myself, since you left this out. Here's what I said as well. This is from yesterday.

Nigal,

It doesn't have to hurt traditional marriage to be wrong. Who told you it did? Was it the same dude who told you that God doesn't know "G-d" is a symbol for "God"? You gotta stop hanging out with that guy.”
Sarge
8:55:55 PM
7/21/05

Now, is that symbol as #2, or #3 above.

Answer honestly and report back.

Thanks.”

“(jeapordy music playing)”

“I am having fun and in a humourous mood . .. so I'll keep going.

Do you believe that Jesus died for our sins??

What is that, if not symbolic??”

“Phaed, here's the breakdown. Christians believe marriage is what is based on the moral authority of a higher-power who says so. Your bigotry is based on your own decision, which to me is worse because you can only blame yourself for your own bigoted convictions.

Christians don't have the right to decide what other people should believe. I'm all for Christians being able to marry whomever they see fit, so I don't really see the bigotry here.

If you TRULY believe that people should have the right to marry, regardless of sexual persuasion based on Constitutional rights in the pursuit of happiness and liberty, then you should be FIGHTING FOR the rights for all, including consenting adult incestual lovers, and consenting polygamists, and bisexuals marrying in at least groups of three, etc.

If you say so. I believe homosexuals should have the right to engage in a marriage with a partner that they love in the same fashion that heterosexuals can. THAT'S what I believe. Those other things are irrelevent to the conversation, despite the fact you have no argument without them.

They shouldn't have to petition you for acceptance, you should freely grant this right to all who want it because a "higher morality" has no bearing on the concept of marriage.

A higher morality in that context shouldn't have a bearing on the legal concept of marriage, that's for damn sure. Keep your God out of non-Christians' personal lives.

I admit if I didn't have Christian principles, I'd be for any kind of marriages, whatever makes people happy is fine. Your argument that, "let's look at the 'merit' of each one" is saying, "let's see if you should have the freedom to be happy and have the same equal freedoms as I do because maybe you don't deserve it, freako". I say keep marriage as it is based on what it's been, or free it up for everyone and not let the Phaedrus' of the world restrict them and "judge" them whether they should be allowed to or not based on their merits. That's all. It's not a slippery slope, it's a positive-slope-for-all-who-seek-happiness-and-equal-rights. One thing SHOULD lead to another when it comes to equal rights and pursuing happiness between consenting adults. You should embrace that concept instead of implying it'll slide to "lower" things and all h-ll breaks loose. Kidding, I can say hell.
last edited: 7/22/05 11:55:39 AM”
Buck
11:50:45 AM
7/22/05

Blah blah blah. That made about as much sense as everything Stratdewd ever wrote.”

“Hope I haen't been timed out.

Work was interfering.


I say .. .. . \



uhmmmmmm


Both 2 and 3?????




Damn.....”

“Make a joke if you want, but only # 2 fits.

In Crash's use of the word, only # 3 fits.

The 2 are clearly different meanings. Now that you have gained much knowledge, go back and read the posts in context.

I'll wait here for your apology, holding my breath.
last edited: 7/22/05 2:35:51 PM”

“Do you believe that Jesus died for our sins??

What is that, if not symbolic? - lee

1. I am not against symbolism in the religious sense. If you'll note, crash is the one who mentioned that, not me. Oh wait, I think I'm repeating myself here. Sorry.

2. Jesus died for our sins for reasons God deemed necessary. If there was any "symbolism" there, it wasn't by me. My acknowledging His death on the cross is not a symbolic act. It's a real act. What Jesus did, symbolic or not, is not anything I've done. If you have a criticism of symbolism, take it up with God and Jesus.

3. Jesus died on the cross to take the place of sinners. It was a literal "way out" of hell. If you think that's symbolic, call me when you get to hell. I want to know what symbolic pain feels like.”

“Good G-D man!!!!


Every post of mine has been laced with apologies!!!!




Before I apoligize let's climb back out of the rabbit hole.

Not ALL the way out .. .after all . ..we don't want to go back to some stupid discussion about why gays can or can't marry.


Just far enough out so that you understand where I got on board.


1. There was discussion (CB, me, whoever)of the symbology (whatever definition you choose)involved in nigals use of the spelling G-D.

2. You cracked that it was an attempt to "trick" god... as if he didn't know that Nigal can't spell.

3. You referenced, at some point the Pharisees . .. and how they had warned against people who can't spell.

I ASSUMED at some level that you were launching a

"NIgal's worshipping false idols" sort attack.


that is where I thought I would call you on the "symbology" issue (what ever that means).

Because, of course, as an atheist and heathen .. . ..

Whether it be Nigal's spelling symbols or your "he died for our sins" symbols, or communion symbols, or cross symbols or whatever . .. .


its all just a fiction.”

“I ASSUMED at some level that you were launching a

"NIgal's worshipping false idols" sort attack. - lee

Hmm. Then you didn't read my post. I explained it plainly. I mentioned that the Pharisee thing was about being legalistic, and Jesus warned against legalism.

Should I repost it for you or can you find it?”

“Let me repost it, because not only does it clearly explain I was talking about legalism, and not a false gods attack, as you clearly misunderstood, but it also clearly explains that I'm talking about symbols as "words" (#2) and not in the phychological sense (#3), as you also clearly misunderstood.

PS - The "legalism" referenced, is the Jewish policy of not writing the word "God" as it's a "symbol" (#2) of God, which violates the 4th commandment (which I also referenced above somewhere).


-----

For years now I have found that for some strange reason it really bugs some Christians. I don’t know why and I really don’t care.

It's because it's a bogus rule that Jesus warned against when speaking to the Pharisees.

"G-d" is written because "God" is an image of God. It's legalism to the extreme. Only problem is, it's hypocritical. Both "G-d" and "God" are symbols for the same thing.”
Sarge
12:44:24 PM
7/22/05
last edited: 7/22/05 2:57:10 PM”

“RE: gay marriage.


I don't care whether churches sanction marriage between two consenting adults or not.

That is entirely the provenance of the church in question.

I don't imagine the Catholic church will ever sanction a gay marriage in our lifetimes (not that there is an organization with more closet queens in it).

O the other hand many other christian congregations do sanction gay marriage.


Who cares?

Let churches do what their respecitve congregants want.





States and the federal government however, supported as they are by the tax dollars of gays, straights and everyone, should endeavor to treat its citizens equally to the extent possible.

the government has absolutely NO business imposing narrow religious defintitions on the broad public.

Two consenting adults should be able to go down to city hall, or their back yard, or the beach and have a ceremony that joins them as a couple with the federal and state rights, entitlments and benefits associated with any couple that gets married by jumping over a broom in chruch, or at an altar or wherever.”

“Sarge --

I am sorry I followed you down that rabbit hole.


I want the last two hours of my life back.”

“Apology accepted.”

“Awww. Lee and Sarge are cute together!”

“Christians don't have the right to decide what other people should believe. I'm all for Christians being able to marry whomever they see fit, so I don't really see the bigotry here. - Phaed

And you don't have the right to decide what other people should believe or who they can marry either, correct? So you suggesting others should be allowed to marry or not based on "merit" (such as incest and polygamist or bisexuals) is not very accepting of those who differ from you on the concept of marriage.

I believe homosexuals should have the right to engage in a marriage with a partner that they love in the same fashion that heterosexuals can. THAT'S what I believe. Those other things are irrelevent to the conversation, despite the fact you have no argument without them.

If you are suggesting that other people's desire to marry that you call "slippery slope" people are 'irrelevant', then you are a bigoted against them. You should defend the right of ALL people to marry and be excited for all to experience happiness and joy and committed love, regardless of sexual persuasion or number of people as long as it harms no one else and they are consenting adults.

A higher morality in that context shouldn't have a bearing on the legal concept of marriage, that's for damn sure. Keep your God out of non-Christians' personal lives.

And YOUR personal morality in that context shouldn't have a bearing on the legal concept of marriage, that's for dang sure. Keep your personal morals and ideas out of Americans personal lives. You shouldn't be so against polygamy and consentual incest and bisexual more-than-two marriages. Stay out of it with your personal bigotry trying to limit others.

Blah blah blah. That made about as much sense as everything Stratdewd ever wrote.”

Ha ha! That's because it points to the obvious hypocrisy in your own logic. You say certain types of people should prove by merit they are allowed to marry (that's your bigotry), and that gay marriage won't lead to a slipper-slope (slipping into what, people you don't think should have the legal right to marry?), and you say one-thing-doesn't-necessary-lead-to-another... what, are you saying gay marriage won't necessarily give freedoms and happiness to others under the Constitution to marry as well, such as bisexuals wanting to marry as threesomes, or polygamists?

Phaed, if you want to be fair, be fair to all, not just gay and heterosexual couples, but to ALL who seek the social acceptability and comforts of marital bliss. Don't let your personal views and bigotry get in the way of others seeking happiness. It's not fair.”

“Let's just get one thing straight (hhhahhahha pun intended).

I'm pitching . ..I ain't no catcher.”

“Are you realy Micael jackson??

or are you "bad" . .

Billy jean????




What is the meaning of it?”

“It symbolizes my vict-ry dance.”

“TTFN

Sarge has left the building!”

“States and the federal government however, supported as they are by the tax dollars of gays, straights and everyone, should endeavor to treat its citizens equally to the extent possible.

A bisexual in love with a man AND a woman should be free to marry them, right? They are naturally bi, for cryin' out loud, don't make them choose one or the other... they have every right to be happy in marriage as gays and heteros, right?

the government has absolutely NO business imposing narrow religious defintitions on the broad public.

If so, let's not have such a narrow definition of marriage as ONLY between a gay and heterosexual couple.

Two consenting adults should be able to go down to city hall, or their back yard, or the beach and have a ceremony that joins them as a couple with the federal and state rights, entitlments and benefits associated with any couple that gets married by jumping over a broom in chruch, or at an altar or wherever.”

So you're arguing to open up marriage to an incestual couple of consenting adults?”

“Buck, you obviously can't have a discussion about the issue at hand, so you're forced to bring in irrelevencies to cover your argument's inadequacies.

Bigomy and incest are not the point.

I'll type this slowly for you:

Gay couples should be afforded the same legal protections as married couples. If you can argue against that without bringing your personal religion or the idiotic spectre of mass deviancy into the discussion, please do. If not, please feel free to ingore this message and continue ranting about aunt Laura and her lesbian donkey.”

“I worry.











[this re: sarge's suddenly dancing abilities]
last edited: 7/22/05 3:23:34 PM”

“Sarge I am sure could help with this, words and defintions thereof are a speciality.


the word marriage is like the word Kleenex.



I think that when Sarge and Buck say "marriage" they mean the religous sacrement.

I think that when the rest of us say 'marriage" we mean any old tissue that'll catch the boogers.


Everybody following so far???”

“If churches want to restrict marriage to the religous sacrement . ...that's great. More power to them.



but the federal and state governments cannot, repeat cannot, be in the business of restricting their definition of "marriage" to one defined by religious precepts.

the federal and state governments are excluding a class of citizens based on religious belief.


they should be, and have been, sued. And they should be, and have been, proved wrong in the courts.”

“Totally agree with you lee. Problem is, you are not going to win over anyone with that idea.

This issue is just like half the other issues we argue about on a daily basis. Try this one on...


I had a discussion with my grandmother last night regarding (sorry, I cannot remember his name at the moment) the guy that was receintly accused of the bombing of the abortion clinic in Atlanta (I think?)

She feels that people like this should be awarded for acts like this. She disagrees with abortion and feels that more people should be willing to die to stop it.

It is impossible to agrue this point so after about 30 minutes, I stopped. I did not want to say something that I would regret (and I almost did).

That is why I do not argue my point of view here. Ii have my views on certain things and so does Sarge and Buck and you.




Man...It is really hot in my office!!!!!!”

“Eric Rudolph.


Yup.


I'm about as inflexible as they come on this stuff.


Like your grandma.


But on the opposite side I suspect!”

“Buck, you obviously can't have a discussion about the issue at hand, so you're forced to bring in irrelevencies to cover your argument's inadequacies. - Phaed

Obviously you DON'T WANT to discuss the issue at hand, which is "what is marriage and who should it include or exclude".

You seem it okay to exclude others based based on your personal bigotry while at the same time hypocritically saying morality should stay out of marriage. Sorta odd.

Bigomy and incest are not the point. - Phaed

See, there you go again... you don't care to discuss what should be EXLUDED from marriage because it shows your own bigotry, you only want to discuss one group of people who you think SHOULD be included. I guess you expect all people to have to prove and fight for the basic right to marry as you do, which unnerves you. That's okay, we're bigots to some degree and we all want the line drawn somewhere, no matter where it is. Your line is drawn just a little differently but it still excludes so many people from their right to pursue happiness through marriage.

Oh, the logic in that.

Gay couples should be afforded the same legal protections as married couples. If you can argue against that without bringing your personal religion or the idiotic spectre of mass deviancy into the discussion, please do.

Ha ha! Oh Phaed, caught in your own trap! I'm not bringing my religion into this, I'm keeping religion OUT of it and saying ALL should be able to marry under your non-religious non-moral argument.

You call bisexual marriage "idiotic" and "deviant". Now THAT'S bigotry on a popsicle stick. Who are YOU to say such things about the rights of others?”

“Let me ask you REAL SIMPLY, Phaed (and I suspect your still try and squirm out of your trapped logic and not answer this):

If you were to define marriage and what it should be in our society, how would you define it?”

“There was a guy whose story was related on this board the other day who might have liked to marry a horse. Unfortunately, the horse split him wide open, so the whole thing became a moot point.

So who is to say when trans-species relationships will become a marital issue?”

““Let me ask you REAL SIMPLY, Phaed (and I suspect your still try and squirm out of your trapped logic and not answer this):

If you were to define marriage and what it should be in our society, how would you define it?”
Buck
1:44:18 PM
7/22/05

I wouldn't. Now, as for marriage in our laws, I would define it as a financial and right-of-property legal union between two people.
last edited: 7/22/05 4:08:59 PM”

“Oh, and there would need to be a few more rights along with it: the rights of visitation, familial rights in regard to personal well-being, joint custody of children, etc. You know, all the things that are currently legally afforded to the heterosexual married couples.
last edited: 7/22/05 4:08:26 PM”

“All that could apply to trans-species marriage as well.”

“Phaedrus - So a 45 year old male could marry a 7 year old girl?

With your definition, he could. And she'd get free braces.”

“Now, as for marriage in our laws, I would define it as a financial and right-of-property legal union between two people. - Phaed

Phaed, on what basis are you excluding a bisexual from marrying his male and female lovers so he can be happily committed to each for life and have all the benefits of marriage between them?

Sarge, I think all this discussion is based upon legal consenting adults and not 7 year olds... I'm guessing that's just a given.”

“Damn! I guess I cannot marry my sweetheart, 3 year old cocker spanniel then, huh?”

“Anti-cyclite!!

PEDALFILE!”

““Damn! I guess I cannot marry my sweetheart, 3 year old cocker spanniel then, huh?”

You can marry a cocker spaniel or a weiner dog, but that's it.
last edited: 7/22/05 4:57:25 PM”

““Anti-cyclite!!

PEDALFILE!”

OMG! That is like the greatest comeback I have seen in weeks! I know ya can't see me but I am gafawing.”

“Just to throw an origanal spin on this whole thing I think it should be up to the states to decide on this issue for themselves. Ohio voted on it, I voted for gay marraige, it didn't pass. Democracey has been done.”

“I completely agree w/ @.”

“Phaed, on what basis are you excluding a bisexual from marrying his male and female lovers so he can be happily committed to each for life and have all the benefits of marriage between them?

Buckleberry fairy
7/22/05

A heterosexual couple doesn't currently have that right. I'm talking about two adults. Discussing group marriages would make a strange conversation to include corporate-like arrangments. Can you imagine having to marry into the company? It'd be way scarier than labor unions!”

“saying that allowing gay marriage means we have to allow you to marry a duck or your sister or 20 hampsters is ludicrous. beastiality, incest, and polygamy are separate topics and merit being discussed under their own terms.”

“Crash puts it nicely.

The argument of is the logical equivalent of saying, "if you oppose a woman's right to an abortion - why not oppose a women's right to have her wisdom teeth extracted?" Why allthisfuss aboutthe rights of innoent fetuses if you ignore the rights of innocent, unerupted teeth?”

“I'd say men marrying men is ludicrous. There are people in this country who'd disagree with you that beastiality, incest and polygamy are ludicrous aw well. They are not separate topics.”

“pedxing - What we are discussing is real disagreements.

I have never heard somebody protest a woman's right to have her wisdom teeth extracted, have you?

There are people who want the rights to beastitality, incest and polygamy.”

“The topics are structurally similar and yes, there are people who argue all surgical procedures are wrong. If you want more controversy then how about blood transfusions?”

“Very good way to put it Ped. I never thought of it that way.”