Gay Marriage.

Author	Message
OzzFan Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28	Message 1232765 - Posted: 16 May 2012, 2:32:29 UTC - in response to Message 1232700. I believe I addressed CMPO's comments directly, if s/he finds my response unsatisfactory, then I'll try again. If Guy believed my response was evasive, then I believe his would be the first post in this thread to accuse me of such behavior, and I do not believe mocking is a suitable response to a first offense. This is a public forum, not a courtroom & with your education, you could have phrased it better - regardless of what you reply, that phrase was insulting, no 2 ways about it. No disrespect or offence Bobby, stop acting like a lawyer & if you are one, please realise, you're not in a courtroom! How is it insulting, and how is it moreso than school-yard mockery? It doesn't matter if this is a courtroom or not. ID has been backed into a corner and he's lashing out, and Bobby is telling him to act mature. There's nothing offensive about it. ID: 1232765 ·

Ex: "Socialist" Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2	Message 1232868 - Posted: 18 May 2012, 17:41:59 UTC - in response to Message 1232514. Last modified: 18 May 2012, 17:47:51 UTC Edit] ;-) I found where the bible says gay is ok, actually it says a whole lot about what is ok...: Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. Full quote not just a line. Chapter verse and line. Then I'll take you the Greek. You are quite the ignorant fool. As I said, eros is not in the Bible. That sounds like a personal attack. Fool... I've got a whole list of words to describe you... But out of respect for the forums and everyone else here, I keep those to myself. Ignorance is being closed minded. Ignorance is not being able to answer clear simple questions. Ignorance is... oh i gotta stop. #resist ID: 1232868 ·

rob smith Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22231 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380	Message 1232882 - Posted: 18 May 2012, 17:54:38 UTC ID, I would take issue with you. Your quote is about how you treat the person "your neighbour", as a person. It does not mean "love their actions", but love (respect) the person. These are two very different actions by an individual - you can get on well with your gay neighbour (or work colleague), that is respect them, but you don't have to accept their life style. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? ID: 1232882 ·

bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3	Message 1233004 - Posted: 18 May 2012, 20:45:24 UTC - in response to Message 1232983. you have encountered another discussion for which you are ill equipped to participate. lol to engage Guy, he was similarly evasive LOL! Ignorance is not being able to answer clear simple questions. ROFL! Pot? Kettle? ROFLMAO! The original post containing the first comment has already been removed at my request. I have also requested a review of other posts that reference it. I happen to believe that "evasive" is likely the best description for your behavior in our dialog on "gaussian distribution" starting here. What clear simple question have you posed that was evaded, or the answer lead you to wonder about the ignorance of its author? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... ID: 1233004 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0	Message 1233132 - Posted: 18 May 2012, 23:36:32 UTC Yes, love the sinner, but hate the sin. Im not for jailing gay people. Im not making it up as I go along. [smile] The act of wanting to save the family unit, which is the foundation of this country is a natural thing for me to do. It is basic. It is beyond Faith yet still rooted in it. It is natural for a mother to grab a child from harm, just as it is natural for me to work now and stop the hunting and gathering. It's just human nature and build into our design. To see the family unit redefined is unnatural. Since we a designed this way it is natural for law to reflect this. And I would say that over 230 years of natural marriage is enough to reject gay marriage. A direct vote will tell you this very fact. ID: 1233132 ·

bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3	Message 1233138 - Posted: 18 May 2012, 23:47:58 UTC - in response to Message 1233132. Yes, love the sinner, but hate the sin. Im not for jailing gay people. Im not making it up as I go along. [smile] The act of wanting to save the family unit, which is the foundation of this country is a natural thing for me to do. It is basic. It is beyond Faith yet still rooted in it. It is natural for a mother to grab a child from harm, just as it is natural for me to work now and stop the hunting and gathering. It's just human nature and build into our design. To see the family unit redefined is unnatural. Since we a designed this way it is natural for law to reflect this. And I would say that over 230 years of natural marriage is enough to reject gay marriage. A direct vote will tell you this very fact. On that basis the US is unnatural, 230 years ago it broke with the "natural law" rule of monarchs. What harm to the "family unit" is caused by allowing two people to marry? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... ID: 1233138 ·

bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3	Message 1233151 - Posted: 19 May 2012, 0:08:57 UTC - in response to Message 1233147. Last modified: 19 May 2012, 0:10:57 UTC What clear simple question have you posed that was evaded, or the answer lead you to wonder about the ignorance of its author? Want me to actually list them? Why not? [ETA]Or more clearly. Yes. The question was not intended to be rhetorical.[/ETA] I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... ID: 1233151 ·

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0	Message 1233159 - Posted: 19 May 2012, 1:20:51 UTC So the support is for Bible defined Marriage? Janice ID: 1233159 ·

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0	Message 1233189 - Posted: 19 May 2012, 2:29:37 UTC - in response to Message 1233187. Guy, what does any(or the vast majority) have to do with the subject at hand? Janice ID: 1233189 ·

W-K 666 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19103 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67	Message 1233369 - Posted: 19 May 2012, 12:00:23 UTC - in response to Message 1233359. For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. Even in christianity that has not always been the case. So shall we start again? ID: 1233369 ·

rob smith Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22231 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380	Message 1233418 - Posted: 19 May 2012, 13:43:11 UTC Guy, I think our definition of "on" and "off" topic is a long way from the norm. Are you attempting to say that the dog and the cheetah have joined together, voluntarily, in a sort of canine/feline marriage? The reality of the story behind the video is that the two animals were "pushed" together by humans, and have (probably) never been allowed to "socially interact" in a "natural" manner with others of their own species. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? ID: 1233418 ·

bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3	Message 1233441 - Posted: 19 May 2012, 14:39:24 UTC - in response to Message 1233359. For those of you who assert (indirectly) that there are no absolutes, rights or wrongs (I'll call you "NARWs" from now on), I have a question for you. Let's start from the beginning. For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. Now, I'm not going to ask if this is right or wrong because I know from your perspective, there are NARWs. Question: Is this OK? Not OK? or Doesn't matter? Your assertion that marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman for thousands of years has already been shown to be incorrect. Marriage, has been, and in some cultures still is, between one man and many women. As marriage has been shown to change in form over time, it seems to me that it doesn't matter that it change its form again to include same sex couples. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... ID: 1233441 ·

Ex: "Socialist" Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2	Message 1233476 - Posted: 19 May 2012, 15:40:11 UTC Agreed Bobby. Simply put, times change. #resist ID: 1233476 ·

bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3	Message 1233541 - Posted: 19 May 2012, 17:49:20 UTC - in response to Message 1233191. Absolutely nothing from your perspective. Bobby asked me a question, I answered it. Your question should be directed to him. Point being, questions that lead to a mutually beneficial learning experience are being ignored. Guy, you're quite right I did. Rather than further derail this thread I started another here to address the questions you raised. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... ID: 1233541 ·

©2024 University of California

SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.