|
Post by Hooky on Feb 20, 2010 4:45:44 GMT -5
Maybe it's some sort of code... ;D
I remember noticing that years ago before I even knew those were supposed to be logical names. I thought it was just something the Proboards service randomly generated.
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Feb 17, 2010 1:59:09 GMT -5
I'd actually prefer if they would make all unions, whether gay or straight, civil unions in the eyes of the law. Then people could go to their individual churches if they want a marriage ceremony performed. And I'm not Hooky, but I'm the same religion as him so I'm going to give a brief explanation of our beliefs so you can sort of see where he's coming from. In our religion, we believe in eternal progression - we lived, learned and grew as spirits before ever being born on earth, and after death will continue to learn and grow, with the eventual goal being to become like God - to become gods and goddesses in our own right. We also believe that we have both a heavenly father and a heavenly mother, and that they worked together to create us. That's where marriage comes into play. Marriage is not just something for this life, it has the potential to be eternal, and the marriage becomes a partnership as the husband and wife learn and grow together and prepare to create their own spirit children. Given that perspective, people who have homosexual partners are giving all that up. The fact that some people are genuinely attracted to people of the same sex bothers me. Not them themselves, or the attraction, but the fact that it happens at all because it doesn't mesh with my beliefs of eternal marriage and my beliefs of a fair, just God. It's something that really does bother me, but for now all I can do is trust that God knows what he's doing and in the meantime, give everyone the same love and respect no matter their race, their gender or their sexual orientation. Edit: Oops, Hooky spoke up for himself before I could get this posted. Oh well, I spent all that time writing it, I'll leave it up anyway. I remember you from my "younger" days! Thanks for backing me up! It's good to have someone who understands where I'm coming from. And I remember you too, Triangle Eyes!
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Feb 10, 2010 18:06:11 GMT -5
What standards are you using to suggest that homosexuality is immoral? I'm pretty sure they're not standards that I want to base my laws off of. Standards that come from God, according to my religious beliefs. I'm not in favor of denying His standards in any way, shape, or form. While of course this will be taken as a reason to be discriminatory towards gay people, that is not what I believe. Unfortunately, there is no real way to prove the truth of His teachings in words. The most I can say is that God says it is immoral, so it is. It may sound stupid to non-Christians, but that's because they don't know how to relate to it. Indeed, I don't know how to relate to value judgments of non-Christians or gay people, since I have not had those same experiences. We do not have all of the same experiences or ideas about life. Hence the unfortunate conflict. That idea was proposed in an episode of South Park too. Governor: Gays want the same rights as straight people, and those against gay marriage don't want them to destroy the word marriage. So I think I've come up with a solution that will benefit everyone... Instead of getting married, you become "butt buddies". Get it? Instead of being man and wife, you're "butt buddies". Instead of getting engaged, you're "butt...buddies" Lesbian: What about lesbians? Governor: Well who cares about f***king d*kes? Sounds really equal to me. It also didn't work because the entire concept of something being separate but equal is a big giant myth logical fallacy euphemism for inequality stupid god damn idea. Yes, but the term "civil union" is not inherently offensive. Nobody wants to be called "butt buddies." This is just a poor example in general. Now we are all born as either male or female (assuming there aren't any problems with genetics). Is this equal? Some might say it is, but I think most would say no. Is it natural (and, depending on your belief, created by God)? YES! Life is naturally not made the same way for all people, and all people do not get what they want. I believe that God made two genders so that they could mate with each other, not with those of the same sex. There are laws in place designed to stop prevent slightly deter discrimination against homosexuals. Sometimes those laws aren't even enforced. But yes, the word makes a difference. By denying homosexuals something they want (marriage), you are already discriminating against them. It is true that they aren't always enforced. However, what can be done to make sure they are enforced without endangering the freedom of the people? Second, while the word does make a difference, the reason for it is because some people don't believe gay marriage should be considered the same thing as heterosexual marriage. To me it shouldn't be. And it's a fair compromise to both parties to resolve the conflict in this way. Gays can have the rights they desire, while those of the other side can be respected in their beliefs. But I have one further point to make. Just because a certain party "wants" something, doesn't mean they should have it. A criminal facing the death penalty may "want" to live, but that doesn't necessarily mean he/she deserves to. Personal desires do not always coincide with what is "right" or "fair." And you're allowed to believe that. It's perfectly acceptable. What I don't think you're allowed to do is interfere in the happiness of others. The fact that gay marriage is being stopped in its tracks because of some people's religious beliefs is a huge problem in and of itself. America is not a theocracy, and I shouldn't like to see it become one. I can't speak for all religions, but the reason why mine is so adamant that gay marriage should not be recognized/promoted is because of commandments and prophesies related specifically to people who live in America (at any time). (This is of course not any kind of "proof" to anyone outside of this religion, but this is the true reason for this belief.) It is said that if the people living in America do not live righteously, they will be destroyed from off the face of the land. It is believed that allowing/promoting gay marriage (or any kind of homosexual behavior) is eventually going to lead to this. Thus we feel it a duty to God to protect the morality of America. More info on my religion's beliefs about this topic is here and here, because there's a lot more on this topic that I don't really feel I can explain as well as these sources can. These sources can also answer Pevalwen's question above. Oh, please. You're a moderator; you should know better than to "guide" a debate in favor of your own personal opinion. If you have an opinion, share why. Otherwise, please don't just declare that you're right, and all dissenters are just plain wrong, just because you're a moderator.
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Feb 9, 2010 17:35:36 GMT -5
By the way, who put the goofy characters in as my avatar text? I can't remember if I did it or if that was someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Feb 9, 2010 17:30:37 GMT -5
btw what IS your religion? ^^ Latter-Day Saint (Mormon).
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Feb 8, 2010 17:54:49 GMT -5
It's not wrong to love, whether with a man, woman or something in-between. A government that doesn't allow that love is quite medieval, especially in countries that execute for it. It's not always useful when some people in the world use religion as an excuse to go against it either- I'm sure religion was supposed to bring love, not destroy it. Just because I don't believe it is right doesn't mean I don't love or appreciate gay people. I am against the choice (the homosexual behavior) that these people have made, but that does not mean I don't like or love the person for who they are. I prefer to encourage people to make moral choices, but I also accept that people can do as they please. Also, our government doesn't punish any people for loving each other. I also support giving them rights related to responsibility for each other, etc. but I don't think it's necessary (or even proper) to refer to it as "marriage." If the gay community is really fighting for the rights that come with living together in a partnership, then would/should they care if it is referred to as marriage? Now you may say that such a word difference would make the situation between gay and non-gay people "inherently unequal," but would it really? In this case I don't think that that can be argued. The reason that "separate but equal" was a problem for blacks was because it was carried out in an unequal fashion. But it's much more difficult for this discrimination to happen as a result of a word difference. If we assume that the granting of these rights will include a provision that makes discrimination unlawful (which I think it already is, not sure on this one), then there won't be a problem with discrimination arising unless it violates the law. And while here my religious beliefs may not be taken seriously, I take them very seriously, and I would prefer not to experiment with clear-cut morals such as these. Anyone who does it is of course free to do so (current law does not prevent gay people from "being gay"), but I will not actively try to disgrace marriage by equating it with homosexual love. To me that is morally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Feb 6, 2010 17:37:00 GMT -5
I don't support gay marriage. It's fine for these people to have their rights that come with living together (and also possibly be recognized as a "civil union"), but there's really no reason to recognize it as "marriage" if it's between two people of the same gender. Referring to both by the same term could lead to confusion. Let the gay people have the necessary rights to live together and be responsible for each other, but please, don't call it "marriage." It's not.
I also don't believe that people are born gay. I believe that gay people are the way they are due to a combination of the environment they have lived in and the choices they have made. To me homosexuality is immoral and will eventually lead to a moral decay in society, so it simply makes no sense to promote it. And allowing gay marriage is promoting it, even if it may not directly affect my life at first.
Reason for Editing: Deleted a sentence I didn't want to keep.
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Jan 24, 2010 22:45:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Jan 15, 2010 22:06:27 GMT -5
Elle: 66 Mijahu: 24 Songbird: 35 tk: 36
Save: Songbird Vote off: Elle
And I don't even know who three of these people are. And for the fourth I only remember the name. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Jan 15, 2010 21:28:24 GMT -5
Best: The Amazing Race
Worst: I also don't watch the shows that might be my worst.
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Jan 15, 2010 21:22:14 GMT -5
Like me? I'm quite new. Welcome back, Hooky! With all due respect. Yeah, one of many. In fact, I never knew anyone who is posting in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Jan 13, 2010 1:55:27 GMT -5
Weird to see that Antenora, Snicketfires and others are inactive/gone. There are also several people here that I don't remember.
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Jan 12, 2010 17:39:36 GMT -5
I left in about Oct of 2007, but I'm just here to pay a visit and see what has happened since I left. Hello, everyone!
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Jan 12, 2010 2:37:06 GMT -5
Twenty-ten. Yes, the habit must be broken.
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Jan 12, 2010 2:25:18 GMT -5
The Ersatz Elevator : It marks the first appearance of Esmé, my favorite character in ASoUE, and I like the critic to conspicuous consuming and fashion, the way it mocks over-luxurious things and the levels of absurdity this critic contains. Plus I really like the setting, the whole 'feel' of TEE. The Penultimate Peril : By far the darkest book in the series IMO, TPP is really special to me because it has so much happening in it, and I love the setting and the 3 simultaneous chapters and the Not a chapter and Also not a chapter parts. TPP is amazing to read, and it has the coolest-looking cover of all 13 books in ASoUE.I LOVE the Baudelaires' concierge disguise, and the no-one-can-be-trusted theme the book presents. ^^ Those are my two favorites as well!
|
|