(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		04-23-23 10:13 PM
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User Post
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-07-06 08:30 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by Salmon
What then, about Christian homosexuals? Should they not be allowed to perform their civil union in the house of worship they belong to? All because some Christians have taken it upon themselves to judge others and decide who is worthy and who is not worthy of belonging to their religion?
That would be at the discretion of the religious body that is hosting the ceremony, I suppose.

Also note that, though most sects of Christianity cite Scripture in opposition of homosexuality, few of those sects will actively prohibit a homosexual from joining; it's more an issue of a homosexual probably not wanting to join a group whose Holy Book can be interpreted to condemn his lifestyle, not an issue of we terrible, self-righteous Christians actively judging and rejecting people (for the most part - not every Christian is exactly "enlightened").
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-07-06 09:10 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by Salmon
My point is, if you make it into a divide between civil unions for homosexuals and atheists outside of church and marriage for heterosexuals inside church, which is how I interpreted your previous post, how can homesexuals get a church marriage? They've already been given their option - civil union.
Fair enough...my proposed solution doesn't stand. I suppose I'd be better off leaving matters such as these to people who both have vested interest and who are informed enough to argue knowledgably.

Originally posted by Salmon
And you don't have to lecture me on how different Christians have different political and moral viewpoints. I was raised in a Christian Socialist tradition. Heck, my father is a Lutheran minister who votes for the Socialist Left Party. I'm fully aware that being a Christian doesn't automatically turn you into an evil conservative.
No lecture intended .

Originally posted by Salmon
I'm also fully aware of the situation with homosexuals joining Christian congregations (some have compared it with blacks wanting to join the KKK, a rather silly comparison, but I guess it gets its point across), and how nearly all Christian congregations allow homosexuals in their ranks. We're discussing marriage here, however, and the problem with homosexuals not being allowed to marry within church, mainly because it does not fit with the viewpoints of those withing that specific church (so I probably should have written something else than "belonging to their religion" in my previous post, for that I am sorry).
The fact stands that, for better or for worse, many of the religious (and specifically Christians, of course) feel threatened by what appears to be something of an "invader." That is, marriage is a sacrament in many denominations and, in those for which is it not a true sacrament, it is at least viewed with great respect. The prevalence of divorce and infidelity in America and abroad is already a significant blight on the institution, and perhaps the perception is that allowing homosexuals to enter into marriage is something of the "last straw" and it should be prevented because it's the last bastion of matrimony that has not been infiltrated.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-07-06 10:24 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by Young Guru
No matter how similar these two contracts might be legally they still have seperate names which leads to the whole seperate but not equall that we saw back in the days of segregation of blacks and whites. By allowing same-sex couples to have a marriage license this would get rid of the discrimination inherent in the current system of civil unions. The ceremony involved for a same-sex marriage would be no different than that for two heterosexual atheists being married.
Just to play Devil's advocate, why is it necessary that a homosexual union be called a "marriage?" You talk about the idea of "separate but equal" being disproven during segregation, but was that not an entirely different idea? The fact of the matter is, black schools were hardly equal to white schools; on the other hand, a civil union would be exactly equivalent to a marriage, except for in name.

Originally posted by Young Guru
I would love to see the Catholic church allowing same-sex marraiges because I am a member of that church and believe that it would be the right thing to do, but that is for me and my fellow Catholics to decide in regards for the Catholic church and not the government.
How many gay Catholics do you know? And I mean real Catholics, not the homosexual equivalent to those people who just go to church on Christmas and Easter, if at all. It's not like they'll be beating down the doors of the church to get their turn to be married, because there aren't exactly a great many of them.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-07-06 10:32 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
Originally posted by Silvershield
...on the other hand, a civil union would be exactly equivalent to a marriage, except for in name.


Which makes it...
Which makes it different in the most superficial, irrelevant way.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-07-06 10:41 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
[insert a long rant about slippery slope that is full of paranoia]
Not sure I see where you're going with this.

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
You also seemed to miss my: Guys, Silvershield especially, you need to study up on marriage before you try and talk about it. Marriage was strictly civil until the 5th century (AD). If anything, the religious part of the marriage should have it's name changed, not the legal part.
You posted it while I was responding to something else. In any case, why does the origin matter? No matter how it started, the way it exists today is in a religious sense, generally, rather than a secular sense.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-07-06 10:54 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
So when you change it, it's fine, but if we want to change it, it isn't fine? That's really what I'm getting from you.

Marriage has always existed in a secular sense, always, this isn't a change to a religion, this is a change of the state. Get over yourself?
First of all, chill out. I've made it clear that I'm playing Devil's advocate and that, to be honest, I couldn't care either way for this. So I'm not having any trouble "getting over myself."

"We" changed it centuries ago, and gay marriage wasn't exactly an issue back then; "you" want to change it in the present, when it is a hot political issue. There's a difference.

If it were simply a change of state policy, I don't see how anyone could argue against it, but clearly the specific state policy is one that carries all sorts of religious repurcussions. So it's not that simple.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-07-06 11:10 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
If you just want to play "Devil's Advocate" and you dont' care about the issue, you should have no problem just stopping or saying your position was wrong.
...isn't the point of the Devil's advocate to explore all avenues of discussion? Not just to lay down and die in order to feed your ego and make you feel like you've "won?"

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
Same-sex marriage isn't even a new thing. There is pleanty of history about homosexual unions. Asia, early Europe, hell even the Native Americans did it. Why did we take a step back for? The spread of Christianity. A religion. Something that shouldn't matter to our country. A nice little wikipedia article that took me all of three seconds to bring up has some nice answers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
It doesn't cite a single source.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-07-06 11:27 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
The point of devil's advocate? Most people who've done it to me just use questions and don't try to prove a point.
Well then, they're not exactly doing it with the degree of effort that a legitimate advocacy would call for.


Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
It's funny what happens when you click on links.
Regardless of whether it existed in the past, why should a precedent decide whether a similar law exists in the modern world? Any number of things that were "ok" ten or a hundred or a thousand years ago are disputed in 2006. Something existing in ancient times simply means that it existed alongside practices such as ritual sacrifice (in some cultures), pedophilia (in some cultures), extreme racism (in some cultures), gender inequality (in most cultures), etc - you're making it sound like the ancients really knew what they were doing, and that they "had it all right" with homosexual relationships even though their cultures and values were clearly flawed. That is to say, none of those aforementioned tenets are at all defensible, and they demonstrate that those cultures which practiced them were imperfect; however you argue as if the precedent of homosexuality in years past somehow "proves" that it's alright.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-08-06 02:27 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by Young Guru
The reason why it matters, and I think many people don't understand this because they've never been in the situation, is that by giving homosexual marriages a seperate label there is a message being sent by the state that there is something fundamentaly wrong with homosexuality. It says that as a government we'll give you similar rights but there's no way we're gonna let you have the same contract that the heterosexuals get. That's the point. Going back to segregation, if you instead look at buses instead of schools, there's nothing different about riding in the front or the back of the bus, the seats are exactly the same, but by forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus there was a message being sent that they were different in a negative way that made them unworthy of the seats that white people were allowed to sit in. That's my point there.
Does it really make a remark about the relative value of a homosexual "civil union" as compared to a heterosexual "marriage?" I feel like the analogy of a differently-named union to sitting in the back of the bus is a bit of a stretch.

Originally posted by Young Guru
I don't think it will happen and I don't think there's really much of a push to have it happen. I was just using that as a way to clarify that I am not against same-sex marriage in a religious context but to show that I think it needs to be handled by each religion on its own terms. That's merely what I was getting at there.
Fair enough.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-08-06 04:44 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by Young Guru
As a person who is a strong supporter of this issue and knowing a lot of people who are homosexual and hearing their opinions on the issue I do believe that the distinction between a civil union and marriage assigns a relative lesser worth to civil unions.
You have to understand, though, that homosexuals are obviously biased in that they could easily perceive an inequality where one does not exist.

Originally posted by Young Guru
Imagine if we switched this to some other characterisation, such as, if you are a babtist you cannot get married, you have to have a civil union. I don't think many people would find any way to support the government disallowing baptists from getting married. It's very similar, except in the example case you could switch from babtist to an allowed religion if you wanted to get married that bad. If you are homosexual you cannot just switch to heterosexualism to get married to the person that you love.
Just as a sidenote, a Baptist really couldn't just "switch" to a new religion to be able to marry - maybe legally, yeah, but you're making it sound as if people follow whatever religion they follow just so that they are entitled to whatever "perks" are associated with it, and that they would switch on a whim and without qualm.

And anyway, to stop a specific sect from marrying would be to take away a right that already exists, whereas homosexuals have never had the right to marry in this country. It would need to be specifically granted to them. So the analogy is somewhat flawed.

Originally posted by Young Guru
And I don't think that the bus relation is too much of a stretch, homosexuals face severe discrimination and they have to deal with hate crimes of extremely violent natures similar to what blacks dealt with in the past.
Virtually every ethnic, racial, or religious group deals with discrimination and hate crimes. You just need to find a region where that specific group is a minority. Certainly homosexuals deal with it on a larger scale, because they are the minority nearly everywhere, but it's not as if it's a problem strictly reserved for them.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-08-06 05:41 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
This is almost exactly what the other side uses. They say man and woman marriage is the precedent and we shouldn't change tradition. Obviously it isn't a strict tradition though as there is a historic precedent. If you use this argument, you can't say marriage is traditionally a man and a woman.
Male-female marriage is the tradition, is the precedent, in this country. And since we're talking about the laws of this country, that's all that is relevant, no?

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
Now a good question is, since Native Americans believed in a tradition that is essientially marriage, couldn't they bring out the race card and say that the government is refusing to allow them to follow their culture?
Reservations, where the majority of natives live, are governed by different laws than the country at large.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-08-06 07:39 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by windwaker
[Assorted super-intelligent remarks.]
New rule: if you want me to respond to what you've written, you will present yourself as if you're an adult and not a five-year-old child.

With that said, I'll respect the moderator's wishes and sit this thread out for a bit until I feel like I can speak civilly without being insulted.

(edited by Silvershield on 10-08-06 06:40 PM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-08-06 09:02 PM, in The political you... Who are you? Link
Originally posted by windwaker
1) There is no such thing as a tag.
Do you really have so much of an axe to grind that you're searching the source of my posts to criticize what HTML I've used? Since it interests you so much, you might be disappointed to know that I'm not exactly well-versed with HTML and it was a tag I thought I picked up along the way that is used to indicate that whatever tags occur in between are "disregarded" - and, in that way, the square brackets I used would be disregarded and not understood as containing code of their own.

But, since my lack of skill with coding indicates a similar incompetence in debate, your point is certainly relevant.

Originally posted by windwaker
2) ||bass is not the moderator of this forum. If I recall correctly... oh yes, he's the server admin. This thread has evolved into a discussion (one that shows how intelligent some of the people posting in it are), and the OP has no right to dictate rules of a thread.
Whether he moderates this forum or not, he is, as you pointed out, an administrator. Which makes him some sort of authority figure, no? I've been banned in this forum before - for ridiculous reasons, but that's another story altogether - and if the only way to remain in a debate is to kneel down and kiss an administrator's feet, I guess that's what I'll do.

Originally posted by windwaker
Run away from this thread if you'd like. Anyone with a real point wouldn't be dissuaded by what they claim to be sarcastic nothingness. But please, if there is any defense for "I've only ever misspelled one word!" in the same post as another misspelling, please PM it to me.
Have you missed the entire message I've been pounding in nearly every post I've made in this thread? I have no point to make. I'm playing Devil's advocate. I'm providing you and the other people in this thread a foil to play against. My very first post made that quite clear - explicitly clear, even.

And I never claimed your remarks are "sarcastic nothingness," I claimed they are immature.

Originally posted by windwaker
Originally posted by ||bass

Here's the line:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the line, we are now in the no bullshit zone.


Thanks O'Reilly. :rolleyes: I'll create another thread, but drawing a line in text is really, really lame.
Hey, I saw that post before you edited it. You missed the second colon in the :rolleyes:! Your entire post is invalidated by that typo!
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-10-06 01:18 AM, in North Korea's got Nukes.....and I care, why? Link
Dunno about the world at large, but my own concern is more that it's counter-productive to the goal of eventual entire disarmament of all the world's nuclear weapons. Not that it'll ever happen, or at least not in the forseeable future, but North Korea just became one more nation that'll be less than willing to put down its bomb when several other nations in the world maintain that capacity.

So, yeah, I don't think they're so much of an imminent threat, just that they're somehow symbolic of the futility of any sort of disarmament treaties.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-10-06 02:44 AM, in North Korea's got Nukes.....and I care, why? Link
Originally posted by beneficii
Well, according to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2006_North_Korean_nuclear_test

Condemnation has been nearly universal among the international reactions. Even China, North Korea's ally, condemned it.
Except, in a twist that I somehow find absolutely hilarious, Iran proclaims "North Korea's nuclear test was a reaction to America's threats and humiliation." That is, Iran appears to be the single nation that approves of the test. Admittedly, that quote is taken from an unidentified source speaking on the "state radio," but I still find it funny. A more official Iranian source agreed with the widespread criticism.

(edited by ||bass on 10-10-06 07:40 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-16-06 07:24 PM, in Non-existance or eternal suffering? Link
I don't see how one can argue for eternal suffering over absolute loss of self. I mean, over this summer I was in absolutely excrutiating pain from a sunburn I had and, let me tell you, I was in such a state of mind that I would have willingly sacrificed my eternal consciousness just because it would have been some sort of relief. And I'm sure there is far worse pain out there than what I experienced.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-16-06 07:27 PM, in Suicide Vs. Martyrdom Link
The line between suicide and martyrdom could be blurred, I suppose. Imagine a hypothetical case in which a person kills himself because he is suffering from some terrible affliction. His death would bring attention to, and possibly motivate research regarding, that particular illness; the person would have committed suicide, but would become a martyr for the cause of increasing the publicity of that terrible disease.

The main idea is that a martyr's death will have greater repurcussions that just "this fella died because he believed in something." A martyr will motivate other people to act in response to his death, and in doing so will strengthen that cause which he advocated or represented.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-17-06 08:24 PM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
I would like to comment at length, but for the moment...

Originally posted by Jomb
Is it really that one cant be disproved, or is it that one group refuses to accept the facts?
Yeah, explain this.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-17-06 10:33 PM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Jomb
What's there to explain? It's a matter of faith, right? So facts are irrelevant, or so I've been told.
Your phrasing pretty much explicitly states that people who are religious "ignore" the facts that would disprove their religion. Certainly fath exists without hard, factual evidence, but it's not as if there is such hard, factual evidence in the world today that disproves any of the great religions.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 10-18-06 01:15 AM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Water Bio
I have yet to met ONE christian that wouldn't ignore the fact that fossil of major state of human's evolution exist(If God created us, then WTF are those doing here?), that life is possible to create chimicaly(proving that God wasn't needed at all to create us), that no archeological proof of the great flood exist...
Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Religous theory are ignoring fact and by following it, religious people are ignoring them
If you have yet to meet such a Christian, then you haven't met many Christians. Few that I know will deny evolution or any of its associated sciences, because none of that offers any sort of disproof of God. Only a fundamentalist who takes Scripture literally (despite its numerous contraditions and assorted other "flaws") will explicitly deny any science of that sort, because in his worldview it might disprove God; any religious person who understands how science and faith can coexist will not be swayed in the slightest by it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.289 seconds; used 469.65 kB (max 609.60 kB)