MrBrown

DuracellEnergizer said:

RicOlie_2 said:

^That's weird, I've never heard that one...

That's not all. I also was taught to believe that "Halloween" was a mockery of the "hallowed by thy name" part of the Lord's Prayer. How that etymology works is anybody's guess.

My parents follow a rather stupid, irrational pseudo-Christianity.

 I think the word "Halloween" comes from the long form "all hallows eve", which is more a celebration day then halloween.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

Maybe somekind propaganda in it, but also a nice list of historical things regarding christmas.

Christmas? The Christian made up celebrations, with traditions, stolen taken from pagan winter-celebrations, to get them towards christianity? Let's celebrate that. :)

My Heaven is your hell.

...but the Heaven/Hell discussions are quite Off-Topic in this gay thread.

Bingowings said:

Isn't Hell supposed to be cold in places too? Presumably if you moved around enough you could find a very comfy place in hell but presumably being Hell only people who hate comfort would be able to find it.

I'm more worried about the living conditions in places that actually exist rather than made up realms where you have to be dead to enter and the asbestos knickers I'm currently wearing.

Uhm... according to the bible, Heaven is hotter than hell.

Anyway, without a physical body, I think "feeling" temparatures will be quite difficult.

RicOlie_2 said:

So were you! :P

Maybe we should shake hands on this... I just have to go to wash mine... :þ

Bingowings said:

My buttocks tense up in fury when I hear about our government's plans to "celebrate' the BEGINNING of World War 1.

I don't mind the money spent so much (who could legitimately complain if they were planning to commemorate the END of World War 1?) more the message it sends when we are cutting money elsewhere.

World War 1 is possibly the biggest crime in human civilisation.

...

 I would say that WW2 was a even bigger crime.

Both Wars never should be forgotten, but.. celebrating the start... uhm.. no.

I would like to see the news if Germany would announce a calebration of one of the WW Starts...

RicOlie_2 said:

I'm helping him out over in the homosexuality thread. :)

 You giving him a helping hand there?

RicOlie_2 said:

...

Also it is.. still one big differenc between the message and the interpretation. And here we have the danger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?_r=0

 Pope Francis epitomizes what I think a Catholic should be like in the present day. He focuses on what is truly important and not all the rules which should only be secondary.

 I didn't want to use the article as an "bad exsample" but indeed as an good exsample. I really hope that Pope Francis may lead the catholic church towards a brighter future, after reading this article.

I don't expect that he will "allow" homosexual marriage in the catholic church, but I hope that he may have the power to encourage the catholic people to discuss.

Maybe even what I just wished: a difference between legal and theistical marriage. That catholic may even support the legistical (but not the spiritual) marriage, even if they don't beliefe in a spiritual way in it. At least it is not to the catholic person to judge the spiritual life of an person, but the judgement of god.

RicOlie_2 said:

...

Also the sentence "if everyone lived by christian values..." to negate my argumentation is indeed invalid, because the facts are that never eryone will live by those "values" and that is a good thing, because these values are, watched from the outside, illogical and dangerous.

Illogical and dangerous...watched from the outside, atheism is illogical and dangerous. What is your point? How is it illogical and dangerous? In principle it is a loving, tolerant religion. Ooh, love and tolerance! Danger, danger! Cannot coexist with logic!

...

Maybe the religion itself would be tolerant and loving, but not with the people forming the catholic chruch.

I have more that one hobby wich is picet by people form church as dangerous topics. The last thing much of the catholic church people tend to have is tolerance.

Where is the tolerance they are praying towards role play gamers and metal listeners?

The ramblings on horror movies and computer games, based just on some self definined statistics is very tolerant... not.

Where is the tolerance against love... between homosexual couples?

It is only tolerance towards the picked things.

Also it is.. still one big differenc between the message and the interpretation. And here we have the danger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?_r=0

RicOlie_2 said:

MrBrown said:

A page which write such sh*t http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_smokescreen_putting_young_mens_health_at_risk cannot be taken serious...

 First of all, that was written by a different author, secondly, what are your reasons against what that articles says (BTW, I don't have a position here as I don't know enough facts, but I would like to hear your reasons for condemning the article as [a four letter word]).

 I just started with the "How much worse do the risks of gay sex have to be before it rates the same public health warnings as smoking?" it is not only the "gay" sex that has the dangers. It is plain the unprotectet sex (without condom) between two persons, no matter if gay or heterosexual sex...

This part nullifies the complete legitimation of the whole text.

Even if it might be a different author, it is the same homepage, and they won't write anything against what they beliefe.

Okay. Let's say, there will never be anything like a homosexual marriage in the catholic church. I have no problem with that.

Maybe we really should start to differ between the christian definition of a (spiritual) bondage between a couple, and the plain legal (in front of state and law) form of a family.

In germany there are much advatages of a marriage (in front of the law) for the couple. Not only taxes, but in question of inheritance.

In Germany two forms of marriage are known: In front of the law and in front of the church.

A page which write such sh*t http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_smokescreen_putting_young_mens_health_at_risk cannot be taken serious...

RicOlie_2 said:

...

Maybe homosexual pairs can't "create" their own children. But there are enough children in the USA (and other countries in the world) who have no family at all. With forbiddance of the homosexual marriage, and the denying of the rights heterosexual peopel have, you TAKE possibilities away.

Children who grow up with only one gender of parent typically don't grow up properly and have problems as they grow older. If everyone lived by Christian values there wouldn't be any problem with unwanted, orphaned, or poor children and that would be a non-issue, so please don't use that argument.

...

 As you said "if". Also the most problems homosexual parents and their adopted children are not from the fact that the parents are of the same gender, but the fact that outstanding people working, and acting against it.

Also the sentence "if everyone lived by christian values..." to negate my argumentation is indeed invalid, because the facts are that never eryone will live by those "values" and that is a good thing, because these values are, watched from the outside, illogical and dangerous.

You gave yourself enough reasons why tha catholic church cannot be right, and only your beliefe in it give it the power to control you.

You define the morale sights of the catholic church as permanent. But History shows that it is indeed fluid. You said that past time things done and preached by the institutional catholic chruch were wrong and not in agreement with the principles of the catholic church. But just because these principles changed since that time. So, what today is told as "what was wrong in the past" was in what the catholic church sgreed back then. Thus it is possible that in few hundret years the catholic church also has a complete other point of teaching regarding homosexual marriage. It would just need one pope changing catholic marriage teachings a bit.

Homosexuality is never condemned explicitly in the new testament, only in the old testament. The point here is that different translation does different interpretations. With all its translating and interpretation errors, I can't accept the bible as a valid source for any law.

I still think that forbiddance of gay marriage is against US constitutional law of equality of all people in front of the law.

Whats about the so called "Country of Freedom" if you use your "freedom" to limit the freedom of others? It is against what Amerca once stands for.

If you want it harsh: The rules of the catholic church are strictly against the constitutional rights in the USA.

That's, why it would be better to strictly seperate between church and law.

If you left out your catholic church beliefe against homosexual marriage, what is left against it? No valid argumentation.

Maybe homosexual pairs can't "create" their own children. But there are enough children in the USA (and other countries in the world) who have no family at all. With forbiddance of the homosexual marriage, and the denying of the rights heterosexual peopel have, you TAKE possibilities away.

Skip the discussion of "free choice of belief" because it shall not be a discussion of what people beliefe, but of facts.

And, yes, I even would say this to polygame marriage. If, say, two men are happy sharing one wife... it really can work.

I would definine marriage (in front of the law) as an engangement possible between consenting, living adults.

As stated before:

Neither buildings nor cussions are living, while neither animals nor children are consenting... or adults.

Me just wanna give you a reason to ramble and increase your post count. :)

I thought we are called "Krauts", because of our famos liking of "Sauerkraut". :)

On some Pointe both discussions are quite similar. I even would suggest, that we leave the topic of Homosexual marriage, because sights are quite hardened, and won't shifting anytime soon.

What about, if wie try to leave the religious sights and belief discussions. The "anti Gay League" might have some questions, which they maybe could get answered from the bravelyoutedly persons. Also the "Not anti Gay League" might have questions.

Today I noticed, that Germany can Not be spelled without "Germ" ...

Doesn't the Christmas celebrating topic better fit in the general religious topic? (Except the celebration contain some Kind of homosexual act...)

Leonardo said:

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I never have, do not, and never will watch porn, so I am safe from any such hypocrisy.

EDIT: As in I am not hypocritical in that way.

 You miss a lot off really good dialogs.

There is a german Porn, a women... lightly dressed... brings some repairman down in a basement, where a defect fuse box is. He is wearing a mask.  Under the electrical box there is a heap of straw. The dialoge (I translated it for your convenience :) ):

she: "And here is the defect electrical box."

he: "Why is a heap of straw lying around?"

she: "Why do you wear a mask?"

he: "well.. uhm.. blow me."

 

That is hilarious.

I know I'm in a minority but I don't really get the point of a plot in porn. All I watch is x minute clips, I'm not going to watch and pretend to follow a 90 minute "story"... But there you go, different strokes.

 I never watched the whole scene, because I don't know witch porn it is, but the (german) dialog part of the scene can be found on youtube. In German it is "Warum liegt hier Stroh rum?"

I remember, when I was younger (about 14-16) there were some erotic movies in german Television late night. (Not too explicit, they were more softcore.) Some of them were Bavarian Productions from the 70/80s, and they also had hilarious dialogs. They were more a kind of humourous story interrupted by some scenes of more ore less erotic.. "making" out.

But, I think you are not the mionority watching porn just for the ... porn. It's kind different kind of watching, It is very different you watch something for story, or for.. short handed fun...

RicOlie_2 said:

I never have, do not, and never will watch porn, so I am safe from any such hypocrisy.

EDIT: As in I am not hypocritical in that way.

 You miss a lot off really good dialogs.

There is a german Porn, a women... lightly dressed... brings some repairman down in a basement, where a defect fuse box is. He is wearing a mask.  Under the electrical box there is a heap of straw. The dialoge (I translated it for your convenience :) ):

she: "And here is the defect electrical box."

he: "Why is a heap of straw lying around?"

she: "Why do you wear a mask?"

he: "well.. uhm.. blow me."

Isn't it funny, how some/much heterosexual guys spitting hate onto gay couples, because of their "sexual abormination" love drool watching lesbian porn flicks?

ferris209 said:

...

I do not agree with gay marriage, I do not support it, and I would move against it. However, should the people of my state vote for it, or my legislature approve it. I am left with no other option but to continue to fight it and urge against it, as those are my religious beliefs. I do not hate those who disagree with me, I merely disagree. Honestly, I do not care what they do in that other state, that is their Constitutional right to do and decide has they please.

Additionally, I certainly do think there is a slippery slope. This idea is mocked and downplayed, but it is reality. If "gay marriage" is permitted, why restrict polygamy, why restrict marriage between a man and animal, why restrict marriage between the living and the dead, why restrict marrying an inanimate object, so on and so forth. These are debates that are currently happening, and will continue should there be no single simple definition that is understood and agreed upon. Such as marriage is a legal, lawful, and spiritual union of one man and one woman.

...

 So the easiest way to cut down any non-heterosexual-marriage discussions would be, if all additional rights, like visits in a hospital, or (I don't know if its as in USA as in Germany) the amount of taxes (in Germany marriaged couples have better tax rates then unmarriaged persons) and so on, also get deleted. So instead of giving different gender couples the rights of same gender couples, do it vice versa. This would kill all marriage discussions.

TV's Frink said:

164

 Odds to define the rule...