RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (43) < ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 >   
  Topic: Will a "Gay Gene" Refute Evolution?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,20:57   

Quote
It should be obvious to anyone that gay "marriage" will consist of tax burden shift from those gay couples getting married to those that are not married.


What is obvious is that the fiscal burden can be adjusted in any way that a government wishes (if democratic, within the limits of electability).In an ideal world, fairness might be an important criterion, also stability (family units -in the broadest sense, straight, gay or other- are likely to be more stable than single people). Slanting the burden could either encourage or discourage people to set up as couples, and to have no, less or more children, depending on what short or long term objectives are aimed at.

If you feel financially disadvantaged, blame the tax regime. It is separate from any moral consideration.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,20:58   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 24 2006,01:33)
You're in quite a conundrum.

Actually, Thordaddy, I couldn't possibly care less.

Can someone wake me up when he's finished his rant?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,21:01   

PuckSR,

You didn't notice who the new FBI's most wanted happened to be, did you?

You can't answer the above scenarios unless you stay within the confines of the liberal context.

The institution of marriage is a "discriminatory and intolerant" institution.  This says nothing of the "discriminatory and intolerant" nature of any real institution.

Gay "marriage" must have either the effect of stamping out discrimination and intolerance completely or the institution of marriage IS STILL discriminatory and intolerant.

What is the "progressive" to do if he hasn't rendered the institution of marriage void of discrimination and intolerance?

You're not viewing this issue in the eyes of a gay radical bent on social validation or a "progressive" seeking social superiority.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,21:18   

I may be going to #### in a bucket, but at least I'm enjoying the ride. :D

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,21:35   

Quote
You didn't notice who the new FBI's most wanted happened to be, did you?


Its official...Thordaddy is insane...
I have no idea what he was trying to say....

Quote
You can't answer the above scenarios unless you stay within the confines of the liberal context.

"Confines of the liberal context"?
Liberal-broad-minded.....
confined-restricted....
That doesnt even make sense....
But i did just answer the question...
I explained why your "scenarios" were flawed(they either dismissed the romantic nature of a marriage...or they were incestual)

Quote
Gay "marriage" must have either the effect of stamping out discrimination and intolerance completely or the institution of marriage IS STILL discriminatory and intolerant.

What is the "progressive" to do if he hasn't rendered the institution of marriage void of discrimination and intolerance?


Why must gay marriage "stamp out discrimination"?
I guess the progressive can go f*ck himself...because it honestly doesnt matter.

Quote
You're not viewing this issue in the eyes of a gay radical bent on social validation or a "progressive" seeking social superiority.

Absolutely not...
But I am viewing this as a rationalist....
Which is the same way i view everything.....
I can see obvious arguments in support of gay marriage that do not rely on "progressive" agendas or "gay radicals bent on social validation".
I can also see obvious difficulties in the implication of new marriage requirements.

Does it bother you that I refuse to argue with you from any position but the rational, sane, and logical?
Does it bother you that I have agreed with you...but for completely different reasons?
Does it bother you that I refuse to engage in an ideological debate?
Trust me...the logic exists...I just hope you can see it...

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,21:52   

PuckSR,

The new face on the FBI's "Most Wanted" is some avowed polygamist.  Go figure?

How can one be "Liberal-broad-minded" if one is wedded to equality, non-discrimination and tolerance?  That sounds more like Liberal-no-minded.

You can obviously conceive of restrictive criteria for marriage, but this means nothing when the fundamental criteria (opposing sexes) of marriage becomes irrelevant.

You think bureaucratic redtape is a sufficient reason to deny someone their "equal rights?"

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,22:42   

In the UK we have had gay "marriage" legalised for about 6 months now. I am unable to notice any major change to society because of this. It's total impact on my life is a big fat zero without the ring.


EDIT> Strangely enough, straight people are still getting married. Weird! Surely T-Diddly could not be wrong in his prediction?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,22:56   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ May 23 2006,22:42)
In the UK we have had gay "marriage" legalised for about 6 months now. I am unable to notice any major change to society because of this. It's total impact on my life is a big fat zero without the ring.


EDIT> Strangely enough, straight people are still getting married. Weird! Surely T-Diddly could not be wrong in his prediction?

But not as often, Stephen. The lack of a fiscal advantage may have something to do with it. Ditto on having children.

  
Nebogipfel



Posts: 47
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,23:06   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 24 2006,02:52)
How can one be "Liberal-broad-minded" if one is wedded to equality, non-discrimination and tolerance?  That sounds more like Liberal-no-minded.

Sounds like you're under attack from the educated, intelligent section of the culture  ;)

  
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,03:30   

Quote (PuckSR @ May 24 2006,02:30)
I oppose gay marriage and polygamy on the grounds of practical implication....which is just about the only non-biased position that one can take in opposition to gay marriage.

Would you mind explaining this "practical implication" position?  I'm genuinely curious.

   
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,03:39   

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 24 2006,04:56)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ May 23 2006,22:42)
EDIT> Strangely enough, straight people are still getting married. Weird! Surely T-Diddly could not be wrong in his prediction?

But not as often, Stephen. The lack of a fiscal advantage may have something to do with it. Ditto on having children.

If financial benefits are the reason people are getting married and having children, I suspect that something's wrong with their idea of "marriage."

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:00   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 24 2006,02:52)
PuckSR,

The new face on the FBI's "Most Wanted" is some avowed polygamist.  Go figure?

How can one be "Liberal-broad-minded" if one is wedded to equality, non-discrimination and tolerance?  That sounds more like Liberal-no-minded.

You can obviously conceive of restrictive criteria for marriage, but this means nothing when the fundamental criteria (opposing sexes) of marriage becomes irrelevant.

You think bureaucratic redtape is a sufficient reason to deny someone their "equal rights?"

So now T-Diddy assumes 'liberals' want to legalize polygamy. Cool. What a mind.

That Polygamist on the FBI list must be a liberal, eh, Thordaddy?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:12   

Quote
If financial benefits are the reason people are getting married and having children, I suspect that something's wrong with their idea of "marriage."


In the UK at least, couples who set up home together can choose to marry or not. Were there a strong financial incentive either way, then this would affect the percentage of those cohabiting as against marrying. Now fertility can be controlled means couples can decide on how many children to have. Raising a child is a huge economic burden, and that choice will be affected by matters such as what level of financial support is available.

I am certainly not implying people should be paid to marry or have children, but it is a fact of life that countries such as Italy who have a very low birthrate are offering cash incentives for women to have more children.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:51   

sorry...realized this was confusing...
Quote
"Confines of the liberal context"?
Liberal-broad-minded.....
confined-restricted....
That doesnt even make sense....
But i did just answer the question...
I explained why your "scenarios" were flawed(they either dismissed the romantic nature of a marriage...or they were incestual)


Should read
Liberal=broad minded
Confined=restricted...

Quote
Would you mind explaining this "practical implication" position?  I'm genuinely curious.

Your dealing with a union that is alien to the current rules and regulations regarding marriage.
No gay couple will ever produce offspring...(at least not together)
No sexual inequality exists(the original reason for 50% laws and alimony)
Common-law...do you keep the common-law marriage laws as is...or do you modify them?
etc.
Basically...both polygamy and homosexual marriage have intrinsic complications when compared to current marriage laws.  Right now a homosexual or polygamist group can achieve almost all of the same rights and protection as "legal" marriage without actually getting married....

Plus...I find the "gay rights" movement mildly offensive....since they are requesting rights that don't exactly qualify as "basic human rights".  I am not going to allow my personal feelings about "gay rights advocates" get in the way...
They do annoy me though...

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:06   

Sorry for just jumping in here, but everyone seems to be talking about how the government should be involved in people's personal lives and dictate what they can do and who they can do it with.

But hasn't it occured to anyone that maybe the government shouldn't even have any influence whatsoever on marriage? I'm sure this has been brought up at some point in this massive thread.

I mean, gay people are married all over the place here. Their marriages just aren't recognized by the government. I say the government should not recognize any marriage, for taxes or any other reason.

Why does anyone want the government telling them what to do when it comes to marriage?

(Please, I'm not advocating marriages to cucumbers, although, who's it going to hurt? If Rick Santorum wants to marry a dog though, and the dog didn't consent, well, that's just wrong, eh?)

Quote
It should be obvious to anyone that gay "marriage" will consist of tax burden shift from those gay couples getting married to those that are not married.

I don't know whose opinion this is, but this is the kind of stupidity that is central to these arguments.

Any argument like this against gay marriage is also an argument against straight marriage. "The more people get married, the more of a tax burden then rest of those unmarried clods will have to bear." Give me a break. If the govt didn't make a special tax class out of married people, then there wouldn't be this "problem."

Sorry, probably won't return to reply.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:43   

Quote (PuckSR @ May 24 2006,18:51)
Your dealing with a union that is alien to the current rules and regulations regarding marriage.

You know, divorce was something "alien" when it first existed.  So was universal suffrage.
 
Quote
No gay couple will ever produce offspring...(at least not together)

And a heterosexual couple that marries in their 70s will never produce offspring together.  Same for a couple that has an infertile partner.
 
Quote
No sexual inequality exists(the original reason for 50% laws and alimony)

That's actually not true, though it's very PC right now.  There are very real brain differences between the sexes.
 
Quote
Common-law...do you keep the common-law marriage laws as is...or do you modify them?

Oh no!  People might have to rethink a flawed system!
 
Quote
Basically...both polygamy and homosexual marriage have intrinsic complications when compared to current marriage laws.

Those "intrinsic complications" only exist in countries where polygamy and gay marriage is outlawed and/or a social minefield.
 
Quote
Right now a homosexual or polygamist group can achieve almost all of the same rights and protection as "legal" marriage without actually getting married....

You actually don't know, do you?  People who are legally married get the following:
Social security, medicare, disability, and military benefits of the spouses.
The right to make medical decisions for the spouse, should he or she become incapacitated.
The right to visit the spouse in the hospital during non-visiting hours.
The right of joint adoption.
The right to arrange a burial for the spouse.

In total, there are over 1000 federal rights that homosexual couples are prevented from obtaining.  Now do you really think that homosexual couples have "almost all" of the rights of heterosexual ones?
Quote
Plus...I find the "gay rights" movement mildly offensive....since they are requesting rights that don't exactly qualify as "basic human rights".

Goshdarnit, gay people shouldn't have the right to walk down the street unassaulted!

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:45   

Quote (beervolcano @ May 24 2006,18:06)
Sorry, probably won't return to reply.

Don't worry—you won't be missing anything. Thordaddy cycles back around to the same old fatuous assertions on about a 15-day cycle.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:54   

Quote
Quote
Quote
No sexual inequality exists(the original reason for 50% laws and alimony)


That's actually not true, though it's very PC right now.  There are very real brain differences between the sexes.

What was meant here was no sexual inequality exists in a homosexual relationship.

   
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,14:25   

Quote (stevestory @ May 24 2006,19:54)
 
Quote
Quote
 
Quote
No sexual inequality exists(the original reason for 50% laws and alimony)


That's actually not true, though it's very PC right now.  There are very real brain differences between the sexes.

What was meant here was no sexual inequality exists in a homosexual relationship.

I really don't see how that's in any way relevant to gay marriage.  Maybe he'll actually translate it into logic.

   
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,14:42   

Quote
No gay couple will ever produce offspring...(at least not together)

And a heterosexual couple that marries in their 70s will never produce offspring together.  Same for a couple that has an infertile partner.


Im not arguing that....
but the law generally applies to the majority of situations..and legal interpretations are made for app abnormal scenarios....

If your going to create gay marriage...certain legal precedents will need to be established concerning children...
And since every gay marriage will have more complicated child custody issues...it would be advisable to address these issues when establishing the new form of marriage

Quote
Basically...both polygamy and homosexual marriage have intrinsic complications when compared to current marriage laws.

Those "intrinsic complications" only exist in countries where polygamy and gay marriage is outlawed and/or a social minefield.


Actually...those complications would exist anywhere...
Im simply claiming that polygamy and homosexual marriage are more complex than heterosexual marriage....

Incestual marriage is outlawed....but it doesnt contain any "intrinsic complications".....at least from a legal perspective..

BTW...I will agree with Thordaddy on one point...
Gay marriage technically isnt outlawed(current state legislature excluded).  It has never existed...and really has never been considered until recently....
(Im ignoring current "laws" since they only exist as knee-jerk reactions to perceived 'future' laws)

Quote
You actually don't know, do you?  People who are legally married get the following:
Social security, medicare, disability, and military benefits of the spouses.
The right to make medical decisions for the spouse, should he or she become incapacitated.
The right to visit the spouse in the hospital during non-visiting hours.
The right of joint adoption.
The right to arrange a burial for the spouse.

Hmm...should we really care about "financial benefits"?
Is that really what the "gay rights" movement is about?

Ok...
So...have you ever heard of "power of attorney"...that would cover many of the other benefits....
Joint adoption....change adoption laws
I once heard about a gay couple where the boyfriend was not allowed to visit in the hospital...despite prior legal arrangments....
What would a gay married couple do?
Would he have brought the marriage license?

Basically...
Gay married couples want 2 things
1.  Financial breaks given to married couples
2.  Acceptance for their lifestyle

Every other "right" can be granted via alternative legal proceedings....
Im not trying to be inflammatory...but could you either point me towards a "right" that doesnt involve finances or acceptance....that they cannot obtain right now
(an example of acceptance would be "visitation in the hospital" or "co-adoption" rights)

Quote
Goshdarnit, gay people shouldn't have the right to walk down the street unassaulted!

Absolutely not...but I dont have that right either...
I have the right to press charges against someone who does assault me...but there is no guarantee that I will not be assaulted...


The explanation of "sexual equality" is self-explanatory

  
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:56   

Quote (PuckSR @ May 24 2006,20:42)

   
Quote
You actually don't know, do you?  People who are legally married get the following:
Social security, medicare, disability, and military benefits of the spouses.
The right to make medical decisions for the spouse, should he or she become incapacitated.
The right to visit the spouse in the hospital during non-visiting hours.
The right of joint adoption.
The right to arrange a burial for the spouse.

Hmm...should we really care about "financial benefits"?
Is that really what the "gay rights" movement is about?

Did you really see the bit about medical care?  How is that in any way related to financial benefits?  And, by the way, giving financial breaks to one type of couple and not to another is f***ing hypocritical.  I'm all for removing them from marriage, period.
 
Quote
Ok...
So...have you ever heard of "power of attorney"...that would cover many of the other benefits....

Wrong.  Many gay couples have made various arrangements, only to find them considered invalid by various organizations.
 
Quote
Joint adoption....change adoption laws

Except that many states are making laws outlawing it right now.  The only way that gay couples will be getting joint adoption in those states is if the laws are struck down by the courts or reversed by the citizens (and in order to do that, you have to convince them that homosexuals are not child molesters).
 
Quote
I once heard about a gay couple where the boyfriend was not allowed to visit in the hospital...despite prior legal arrangments....

Exactly my point above.  Those arrangements aren't seen as legal by many groups.
 
Quote
What would a gay married couple do?

Have that right.
 
Quote
Would he have brought the marriage license?

Are you a moron?  He would be listed as a spouse and be allowed to visit.  Do heterosexual couples have to jump through hoops?
 
Quote
Basically...
Gay married couples want 2 things
1.  Financial breaks given to married couples
2.  Acceptance for their lifestyle

No shit to #2.  Being gay is any other minority, only without protection from hate crimes.
 
Quote
Every other "right" can be granted via alternative legal proceedings....

Not if citizens keep on passing laws and ammending state constitutions.
 
Quote
Im not trying to be inflammatory...but could you either point me towards a "right" that doesnt involve finances or acceptance....that they cannot obtain right now
(an example of acceptance would be "visitation in the hospital" or "co-adoption" rights)

You know, if people actually accepted gay people and didn't discriminate (something that's perfectly legal in many states), there wouldn't be the whole gay rights movement.  Would there have been a black rights movment if they weren't treated like second-class citizens.
In other words, you're not making any sense.  
 
Quote
 
Quote
Goshdarnit, gay people shouldn't have the right to walk down the street unassaulted!

Absolutely not...but I dont have that right either...
I have the right to press charges against someone who does assault me...but there is no guarantee that I will not be assaulted...

If you were attacked because of your ethnicity, sex, age, or disability, you would be protected under the law.  Many states do not have sexual orientation hate crime laws.
Quote
The explanation of "sexual equality" is self-explanatory

No really, I don't know how you're using the phrase, as it's used in so many ways.  Sexual equality as in equal human rights?  Equal rights to a job?  Equality as in the same abilities across the sexes?  How does any of it have to do with marriage?

   
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,08:21   

Quote
Did you really see the bit about medical care?  How is that in any way related to financial benefits?

Hmmm...because gay couples can still go visit a doctor!!!!
They just dont get the same medical insurance benefits....which is financial....

 
Quote
Wrong.  Many gay couples have made various arrangements, only to find them considered invalid by various organizations.

 
Quote
Those arrangements aren't seen as legal by many groups.

The courts decide if it is legal or not....and power of attorney(for example) is always legal...no matter if your gay or not.

 
Quote
The only way that gay couples will be getting joint adoption in those states is if the laws are struck down by the courts or reversed by the citizens

Right...but those same laws could be leveraged against homosexual married couples....did you even think of that?

 
Quote
Are you a moron?  He would be listed as a spouse and be allowed to visit.  Do heterosexual couples have to jump through hoops?

Really...because he was listed as a "Special visitor"...but they wouldnt allow him to visit.

 
Quote
You know, if people actually accepted gay people and didn't discriminate (something that's perfectly legal in many states), there wouldn't be the whole gay rights movement.  Would there have been a black rights movment if they weren't treated like second-class citizens.

Ok...now im calling you out.....
Blacks were treated as subHuman.  They were not afforded some of the most basic human rights.  After their legal rights to be "human" were passed...they still had to fight oppressive practices that tried to continue to label them as sub-human.
Black rights was never about acceptance....
Martin Luther King did not protest because people did not "accept" blacks as equals.  Martin Luther King protested because blacks were not being afforded the same basic human rights.
Gay people have never been denied basic human rights...
Yes, people have been mean to homosexuals...but tough

 
Quote
If you were attacked because of your ethnicity, sex, age, or disability, you would be protected under the law.  Many states do not have sexual orientation hate crime laws.

Right...if I was attacked for any reason I would be protected under the law.  If a homosexual is attacked for any reason they are protected under the law.  The law is known as assault.

Hate crime law?

Maybe we should let angry people go free...they were just too angry that day...
but if they committed a "hate-crime"...well then we should kill them
Shut up about hate crime laws.
They shouldnt exist...for any discrimination

Quote
No really, I don't know how you're using the phrase, as it's used in so many ways.  Sexual equality as in equal human rights?  Equal rights to a job?  Equality as in the same abilities across the sexes?  How does any of it have to do with marriage?

In any way...
Many marriage laws were created with the intent of "helping" women.  I am not discussing the validity of these laws.
Im arguing that the motive for these laws are meaningless in a same-sex marriage.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:44   

People, people,

Aren't we forgetting the main thing here? T-diddy is an idiot. Really. C'mon. Yes gay marriage can be debated by rational people and the debate can be heated but this isn't about that. It's about something far more sublime: a guy who can honestly talk about a liberal agenda as if it were a massive, unified thing and somehow turn that into an argument against evolution. This guy is really far out there and puts himself here as sport for the creative side of the posters here. Save real debate for real people. Wow, maybe that will be my little tagline that some people put at the bottom of their posts in a different color:

Save real debate for real people. :)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:57   

Quote (BWE @ May 25 2006,15:44)
People, people,

Aren't we forgetting the main thing here? T-diddy is an idiot. Really. C'mon. Yes gay marriage can be debated by rational people and the debate can be heated but this isn't about that. It's about something far more sublime: a guy who can honestly talk about a liberal agenda as if it were a massive, unified thing and somehow turn that into an argument against evolution. This guy is really far out there and puts himself here as sport for the creative side of the posters here. Save real debate for real people. Wow, maybe that will be my little tagline that some people put at the bottom of their posts in a different color:

Save real debate for real people. :)

Thanks for the sanity check.  I'm going to try to ignore this thread now.  I don't understand how PuckSR can be willingly blind to the fact that a minority is suffering because the majority is too hung up on their own problems, is scared of people who aren't "normal," and wants a scapegoat for current social problems.  Maybe he has a mirror neuron dysfunction. ;)

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,10:22   

Quote
A Memorable Fancy.
An Angel came to me and said: 'O pitiable foolish young man! O horrible! O dreadful state! consider the hot burning dungeon thou art preparing for thyself to all eternity, to which thou art going in such career.'
I said: 'perhaps you will be willing to shew me my eternal lot & we will contemplate together upon it and see whether your lot or mine is most desirable.'
So he took me thro' a stable & thro' a church & down into the church vault at the end of which was a mill: thro' the mill we went, and came to a cave: down the winding cavern we groped our tedious way till a void boundless as a nether sky appear'd beneath us & we held by the roots of trees and hung over this immensity; but I said, 'if you please we will commit ourselves to this void, and see whether providence is here also, if you will not, I will?' but he answer'd: 'do not presume, O young-man, but as we here remain, behold thy lot which will soon appear when the darkness passes away.'
So I remain'd with him, sitting in the twisted root of an oak; he was suspended in a fungus, which hung with the head downward into the deep.
By degrees we beheld the infinite Abyss, fiery as the smoke of a burning city; beneath us at an immense distance, was the sun, black but shining; round it were fiery tracks on which revolv'd vast spiders, crawling after their prey; which flew, or rather swum, in the infinite deep, in the most terrific shapes of animals sprung from corruption; & the air was full of them, & seem'd composed of them: these are Devils, and are called Powers of the air. I now asked my companion which was my eternal lot? he said, 'between the black & white spiders.'
But now, from between the black & white spiders, a cloud and fire burst and rolled thro' the deep black'ning all beneath, so that the nether deep grew black as a sea, & rolled with a terrible noise; beneath us was nothing now to be seen but a black tempest, till looking east between the clouds & the waves, we saw a cataract of blood mixed with fire, and not many stones' throw from us appear'd and sunk again the scaly fold of a monstrous serpent; at last, to the east, distant about three degrees appear'd a fiery crest above the waves; slowly it reared like a ridge of golden rocks, till we discover'd two globes of crimson fire, from which the sea fled away in clouds of smoke; and now we saw, it was the head of Leviathan; his forehead was divided into streaks of green & purple like those on a tyger's forehead: soon we saw his mouth & red gills hang just above the raging foam tinging the black deep with beams of blood, advancing toward us with all the fury of a spiritual existence.
My friend the Angel climb'd up from his station into the mill; I remain'd alone, & then this appearance was no more, but I found myself sitting on a pleasant bank beside a river by moonlight, hearing a harper who sung to the harp; & his theme was: 'The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, & breeds reptiles of the mind.'
But I arose, and sought for the mill, & there I found my Angel, who surprised, asked me how I escaped?
I answer'd: ' All that we saw was owing to your metaphysics; for when you ran away, I found myself on a bank by moonlight hearing a harper, But now we have seen my eternal lot, shall I shew you yours?' he laugh'd at my proposal; but I by force suddenly caught him in my arms, & flew westerly thro' the night, till we were elevated above the earth's shadow; then I flung myself with him directly into the body of the sun; here I clothed myself in white, & taking in my hand Swedenborg's, volumes sunk from the glorious clime, and passed all the planets till we came to saturn: here I staid to rest & then leap'd into the void, between saturn & the fixed stars.
'Here,' said I, 'is your lot, in this space, if space it may be call'd.' Soon we saw the stable and the church, & I took him to the altar and open'd the Bible, and lo! it was a deep pit, into which I descended driving the Angel before me, soon we saw seven houses of brick; one we enter'd; in it were a number of monkeys, baboons, & all of that species, chain'd by the middle, grinning and snatching at one another, but witheld by the shortness of their chains: however, I saw that they sometimes grew numerous, and then the weak were caught by the strong, and with a grinning aspect, first coupled with, & then devour'd, by plucking off first one limb and then another till the body was left a helpless trunk; this after grinning & kissing it with seeming fondness they devour'd too; and here & there I saw one savourily picking the flesh off of his own tail; as the stench terribly annoy'd us both, we went into the mill, & I in my hand brought the skeleton of a body, which in the mill was Aristotle's Analytics.
So the Angel said: 'thy phantasy has imposed upon me, & thou oughtest to be ashamed.'
I answer'd: 'we impose on one another, & it is but lost time to converse with you whose works are only Analytics.'

-william blake


--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,11:36   

Amazingly, that last post is relevant to this discussion. :)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,12:24   

Quote
I don't understand how PuckSR can be willingly blind to the fact that a minority is suffering because the majority is too hung up on their own problems, is scared of people who aren't "normal," and wants a scapegoat for current social problems

Hmmm....probably because no one is suffering....
I will readily agree that certain elements of modern society have become strongly anti-homosexual.  Their motives are normally questionable...
At the same time, a minority of the population has taken to grand standing and hyperbole to make a point.
Gay rights is a pathetic attempt to compare the current anti-homosexual sentiment to previous civil rights issues
Gay marriage is a modern invention of the "gay rights" advocates....(please show me a society that did not distinguish between homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage)
Should we stamp out discrimination against homosexuals?
Absolutely....
Is there a legitimate way to stamp out discrimination without violating civil liberties?  
Absolutely not...

I will, however, resign myself from this conversation.
I agree that we have completely lost track of the original topic..making fun of Thordaddy.

I just had to make the point that opposition exists to gay marriage that is not founded on bigotry.  BTW....how does Ladlergo know that Im not a homosexual?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,12:52   

PuckSR opines,

Quote
I just had to make the point that opposition exists to gay marriage that is not founded on bigotry.


Two points:

First, liberals and gay radicals ABSOLUTELY DENY this statement.  This makes them extremists by any definition.

Second, the most obvious opposition to gay "marriage" is due to the effect of rendering marriage of any larger societal meaning.  This is the MAIN MOTIVATION behind the push for gay "marriage."

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,13:13   

Quote
Second, the most obvious opposition to gay "marriage" is due to the effect of rendering marriage of any larger societal meaning.  This is the MAIN MOTIVATION behind the push for gay "marriage."


See....some people oppose marriage because of bigotry....or insanity.....

I do not.....
I also understand what the word "liberal" means...a definition that Thor might want to look up...
Oh wait....is Thordaddy redefining words again?
Thordaddy....are we supposed to use YOUR definition of liberal or Websters?

Oh...and Thordaddy...you dont get to complain that people consider all who oppose gay marriage bigots...you are a bigot

Earlier you spoke out on interracial marriage

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,13:29   

PuckSR,

I realize you're interested in staying popular within this forum, but since you oppose gay "marriage" and those that advocate for gay "marriage" absolutely deny any legitimate opposition to gay "marriage," this would DEFINE you as a bigot (This is of course a "liberal" definition).

You can't escape with this "practical implication" ploy.

You said the motivations behind gay "marriage" were financial and personal validation.  Are you positive these are the MAIN MOTIVATIONS of the radical homosexuals especially given the opinion that NO LEGITIMATE OPPOSITION to gay "marriage" exists according to said radicals?

  
  1264 replies since April 04 2006,15:41 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (43) < ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]