|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:43 pm
LearningtoBreath63 SaraRenee Anglicans was the same as Catholics pretty much. But I'm not getting into history. It's all intertwined and it started with King Henry the something Tudor and went to his same then his daughter then his other daughter. And between each reign many were slaughtered because of not following the Catholic religion. Before Queen Elizabeth (Can not remember her sisters name.) Queen something killed over 300 of her staff because they were protestant. And ws even going to kill her sister, but she died before she signed the order and Elizabeth became queen. That's as far as I'm getting in it. They aren't taking away people's right! A marriage is man and woman! Civil union is Man and Man or Woman and Woman. Same concept different name because Marriage is for the opposite sex and Civil Union is for the same sex. They don't find it offensive they are called gay and heteros are called straight. Different names for different lifestyles. So the way to legalize that life commitment to each other would be different for each lifestyle as well. They don't see it that way and the Anglican church might have started out very similiar but they had no relationship with the catholic. I know the history, I just studied it and not debating it either. Since it's not even what the debate is about.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:08 pm
SaraRenee LearningtoBreath63 SaraRenee Anglicans was the same as Catholics pretty much. But I'm not getting into history. It's all intertwined and it started with King Henry the something Tudor and went to his same then his daughter then his other daughter. And between each reign many were slaughtered because of not following the Catholic religion. Before Queen Elizabeth (Can not remember her sisters name.) Queen something killed over 300 of her staff because they were protestant. And ws even going to kill her sister, but she died before she signed the order and Elizabeth became queen. That's as far as I'm getting in it. They aren't taking away people's right! A marriage is man and woman! Civil union is Man and Man or Woman and Woman. Same concept different name because Marriage is for the opposite sex and Civil Union is for the same sex. They don't find it offensive they are called gay and heteros are called straight. Different names for different lifestyles. So the way to legalize that life commitment to each other would be different for each lifestyle as well. They don't see it that way and the Anglican church might have started out very similiar but they had no relationship with the catholic. I know the history, I just studied it and not debating it either. Since it's not even what the debate is about. Anyways, if you get into an argument with a liberal and say that you think the War in Iraq and Taxes are two things you would vote on under gay marriage, they will pound you, or they will laugh, either way that's not something you should say. Just a tip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LearningtoBreath63 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:40 pm
Honestly I can careless what a liberal would do or anyone for that matter. That's their problem not mine. So why would I care?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:03 pm
SaraRenee Honestly I can careless what a liberal would do or anyone for that matter. That's their problem not mine. So why would I care? Well if you were in a debate and were trying to convince them you were right that move would be devastating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LearningtoBreath63 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:13 am
Luc_of_Chaos0911 Allright! What is your beliefs on this topic. Gay rights I believe a Homosexual is a sinner. I believe they sin when they are Gay and it shows from the beginning of time that they are sinners. WE SHOULD ABOLISH rights for Gay people because "Sinners who refuse to repent, shouldn't be housed by the just people of America." No they should either be counseled and turn from Homosexuality or be rejected. Maybe if they are rejected, they will change their ways. I think that God will forgive them if they CHANGE but if they don't and their heart is hardened they should not be helped. Example from Bible: Sodom and Gimorah.i dunno if i agree with that. my friend is bisexual and i told him to test the "deny it" he tried, and he says although i repent for being this way, i still cant change what i like. and i agree, my other friend matt, who is gay, also says he tried what a lot of people say about repent and god will forgive you and all of a sudden you wont be gay. well.....hes still gay. so all im saying, is i dont know if actually trying to repent and say "help me not be gay" is totally going to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:14 am
and yay for liberals (meh smile )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:24 pm
LearningtoBreath63 SaraRenee Honestly I can careless what a liberal would do or anyone for that matter. That's their problem not mine. So why would I care? Well if you were in a debate and were trying to convince them you were right that move would be devastating. In all honesty I wouldn't ever put myself in a real debate. It's pointless. i'm either going to spend my time debating on a side I'd rather not be on and trying to convince whoever my side is right just to win or I'm going to wasting my time attempting to change someone elses view. On here I just like to state my beliefs and here others as well. Which is why I participate in the debate forum at all. Unless I feel really strongly about something then I get in it. But I honestly don't care what a liberal or anyone thinks of me or my political views since I have none and choose to never follow politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:56 pm
Let's get off the gay marriage issue, I've argued it too much, what about immigration, what are peoples views (and by people I mean whoever is reading this right now, what do you think.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
LearningtoBreath63 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:05 pm
LearningtoBreath63 Firstly it had nothing to do with the Catholics, the Protestants were trying to escape the Anglicans (British side of the church), and they set up a government with no religious value but only moral value that was not derrived from religioun but common sense. Many of the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson really didn't care too much for religion and they didn't make a government or society based on it, and Marriage has never been defined before religion as being between a man and a woman and taking away peoples rights because of a definition is ridiculous in my opinion. That's where you're wrong. I'm Canadian and even I know that most of American law is based on biblical law. For a long time it was illegal to be gay. That's changed. Personally I think that's a good thing as I'm pro-choice. However that's not the point. The point is that from my understanding American law was based off of biblical law. I'd also note that yes America was founded on the principle of freedom. Freedom alone. Not of religion or of anything else. Just freedom from everything as long as it didn't hurt people. At least that's my limited understanding of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:12 pm
Arianna Blackstone Luc_of_Chaos0911 Allright! What is your beliefs on this topic. Gay rights I believe a Homosexual is a sinner. I believe they sin when they are Gay and it shows from the beginning of time that they are sinners. WE SHOULD ABOLISH rights for Gay people because "Sinners who refuse to repent, shouldn't be housed by the just people of America." No they should either be counseled and turn from Homosexuality or be rejected. Maybe if they are rejected, they will change their ways. I think that God will forgive them if they CHANGE but if they don't and their heart is hardened they should not be helped. Example from Bible: Sodom and Gimorah.i dunno if i agree with that. my friend is bisexual and i told him to test the "deny it" he tried, and he says although i repent for being this way, i still cant change what i like. and i agree, my other friend matt, who is gay, also says he tried what a lot of people say about repent and god will forgive you and all of a sudden you wont be gay. well.....hes still gay. so all im saying, is i dont know if actually trying to repent and say "help me not be gay" is totally going to work. That's the point. We can't change what we like, well we can get to the point where we don't need it or want it anymore. As an example, many people can't help the fact that they like porn. However they deny themselves it because they know it's wrong. And no matter how much they know they like it, they also know it's wrong and keep themselves from it. And the whole suddenly won't be gay thing. Things like that don't happen overnight, like all sin you have to work at it. I've actually heard about someone who tried to stop and did. And actually thanked the person I was talking to for telling them it was wrong in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:30 pm
And as to the whole conservative vs liberal thing. I'm not sure where I fall.
I'm pro-choice. But I'm also pro-life. I'm also pro-union (work type). I'm for saving the environment. But I also understand that people rely on natural resources as they're livelyhood. So I'm pro-logging and what not. I'm also pro-hunting and pro-gun.
to get into the gun part. I'm actually for having everyone of legal adulthood being allowed to own any gun they want, including army guns. and I'm for concealed carry, and against registration.
To address the first one, if a corrupt goverment comes to power as one eventually does, the citizens have to be able to rise up and over throw said government. This means being able to defeat the army. So the citizens must be allowed to have the same modern small arms as the army. To quote someone or a book, not sure which one, "A government should be afraid of its citizens."
To address registration, throughout history registration has always come before the confiscation of all guns. That makes a police state (Nazi Germany was a police state) where only the government and the criminals have guns. This is bad, as this state is easily corruptable.
To address concealed carry, saying you are no longer allowed to carry concealed weapons of any kind gives the criminals the gaurentee that law abiding citizen is now completely and utterly defenseless.
To get into the pro-choice and pro-life. I'm pro-life all the way. However as was previously stated in the thread, I also believe as someone else does, that we shouldn't force our belief on others.
To the pro-union. Work unions have been a largely good thing for the modern worker. Means the corporations can't stick it to the little guy working for them.
For the pro-evironment and pro-resource based industry. Well I believe I've already stated my case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:32 pm
Well, I myself do not actually identify with a political party or stance. I base my positions on hot issues with what I think, not my friends, or a party or a group. I go with my own gut feelings, and I back them up.
Real quickly:
Gay marriage: I don't like it personally, but I'd deal with a concession of a civil union granting all the same rights and privileges of marriage minus the actual term itself.
Abortion: I don't like it, but I vote pro if it comes down to it. I don't like to force my own beliefs upon others, and even many Christians might choose to have one if presented with certain circumstances (rape, failed birth control, etc.)
War on Terror: always a fun subject. Afghanistan - yes. Iraq - yes-ish. The first time around in Afghanistan we had legitimate cause, objectives, and a good strategy. It was supported by the American people to go, and so we went with no regrets. Iraq is a bit of a different story. Although I understand the reasoning, and I don't believe that the Iraqis benefited under his rule, I'm not sure we should have gone. More than anything, I think that the President wanted to finish what his father started. If that's the case, I don't approve at all... however now that we're there, it'd be wrong to leave our work unfinished.
Taxes: I'm no Economics major, nor do I understand the tax system well enough to comment on it. I shall refrain from making remarks in this area for the time being.
Oh, and Link... there's no such place as "Gimorah". There was a Gommorah, but it's now been destroyed. However, I don't believe either of those cities you mentioned were destroyed because of homosexuality. Their sins are named in Isaiah. I'll come back to this when I find the chapter and verse, but homosexuality was not mentioned in the list of their most egregious sins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:39 pm
Jakal Saba Naor to get into the gun part. I'm actually for having everyone of legal adulthood being allowed to own any gun they want, including army guns. and I'm for concealed carry, and against registration. To address the first one, if a corrupt goverment comes to power as one eventually does, the citizens have to be able to rise up and over throw said government. This means being able to defeat the army. So the citizens must be allowed to have the same modern small arms as the army. To quote someone or a book, not sure which one, "A government should be afraid of its citizens."
Obviously, this is an extreme case, but it would come to that. Angry at your neighbor? Threaten him with your Howitzer. Don't like the way that the salesperson spoke to you? Whip out the M-16. No one would be able to live in peace. Everyone would have to be afraid all the time. This policy actually exists... in Somalia. Do you know what life is like over there now? Your chances of making it to 16 are almost 50/50. If this is the way you'd like to live... take a little trip over there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
