Phx The War Room: Open Forum

Discussion in 'SouthWest Region Discussion' started by wardenx, Jul 9, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: DieWompRatDie, Grimby
  1. jada_marnew Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2003
    star 5
    Ugh! I didn't even want to broach that one in here.

    Stay off topic! shudders

    Alright, I have no problem with people living the homosexual lifestyle but I just don't agree with making a person who is publically homosexual a bishop, etc. I won't even go into the scripture to back that one up.

    BUT, I DO like the amendment, law, ???? that they are passing making marriage a institution created for a man and a woman. Not same sex. That has been a long time arguement of mine. Marriage is basically a religious institution.
  2. PtrsonsZOO Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2001
    star 7
    Do we, as a society, have the right to restrict and or deny the freedoms of one group of people over all others because of one distinction, which makes them different from the rest?

    For instance, let's say, Russians cannot hold public office.

    We can use the fact that they were once communists and want no influence of communism in our public services. Afterall, if we allow the idea of communism into the public realm, people might decide to throw off the theories of capitalism and democracy when exposed to such an insidious idea as that of communism.
  3. jada_marnew Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2003
    star 5
    Examples can always be made to justify ideas and actions.

    My belief is that marriage was created by God to unite a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and another woman.
  4. PtrsonsZOO Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2001
    star 7
    But if you follow the tenents of christianity, you should not be taking God's responsibility away, and placing yourself in his postion, thus placing yourself before God by judging that which you are not qualified to judge.

    Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me.

    Judge not, lest you be judged.

    Judgement is the divine right of the creator, by taking judgement into your own providence you are placing yourself before God. The Bible was written by men, not God, and though they are supposed to be in God's image, they lack the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent nature and knowledge of God, and therefore are not qualified to judge anyone's behavior
  5. jada_marnew Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2003
    star 5
    The original institution of marriage was for a man and a woman.
  6. PtrsonsZOO Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2001
    star 7
    Marriage was not invented by Christians, it wasn't even invented by the Hebrews. It is an accepted pairing of people left over from the earlier species' of man. Those pairings were not always between a man and a woman. There is evidence of same sex pairings dating back to Homohabilis (if I remember my paleontology class correctly).

    The "institution" of marriage existed long before the Hebrews, the Muslims and the Christians.

    I'm not saying you don't have a right to your beliefs in marriage, however, I am also saying that who are you to force your belief on others and thereby make them laws whose sole purpose are to discriminate. We are dealing w/ the legality of union, not the "institution of Holy Marriage." Giving all citizens of a country the SAME rights and privileges as all others. No one is asking your particular faith or denomination to recognize a legal union (as the Catholic & Mormon Churches have chosen to ignore unions not made w/ their blessings) as one made w/i the tenents of a specific faith. This a legal matter, not one of religion, and as such, in a country which professes a complete separation of church and state, religion should never be an issue in the decision of law.
  7. Master_Ronin Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 16, 2002
    star 2
    Why was marriage created in the first place? To serve as a union between a man and a woman, making them connected to eachother, so that they can share in the greatest gift that God ever gave us (besides life), and thusly create life. You put 2 guys/girls together, and you really don't get any advancement....

    I understand about the not judging bit, that's why I'm simply stating my opinion, and not saying what will or won't happen to people as a result of their actions.
  8. Lord_Reaper Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2002
    star 3
    Yup, the institution of marriage didn't exist until the idea of sanctity existed. Sanctity didn't exist until religious belief systems (The catholics do recognize marriage by law, they're just not "catholic" marriages)((I only mention this because it seemed you akin catholism to mormonism))(((not that it is a bad thing, it's just that being catholic, once, I still feel a need to defend their position as my own)))((((all be it, rarely)))). Even though all the religions you mentioned are quite young in nature, it has been shown that humans are apt to pair bond but keep multiple partners.
    A woman would sleep with a man to have his strong "stock", and marry one to have a good financial standing. (Seems we haven't changed that much)
    However, the notion of love between the same sex dates FAR pre-hebrew if the consideration of the rise of the Hebrew was abraham and his sons. The Greeks said that Women were for bearing children, and men were for making love. ( I have a joke about that, ask me and I'll PM it.)
    Pair-bonding is not an unnatural event, but to put a superscript around it ( Like saying God invented Marriage) making it exist as something else is unnatural as gathering seed from racing studs.
    Everyone knows marriage was invented when a woman no longer liked her mate, and felt she was entitled to half his cow. Thus was invented lawyers, the true first profession created to s***w everyone for self gain.( Yep, not prostitution as we have learned in school)
    Law is another practice invented by man for control purposes. At first, there was no real way to catch someone. So, things like the 10 commandments were made up to bring fear and subserviance to the masses. I'm really ranting here, but my point is...
    Let them do what they want to.
    Why are we making such a big deal of them, but not even paying attention to the beggar at the IN and OUT asking me for spare change. Why not make a big deal out of them!!! At least the gay community doesn't smell funny! Besides, I'd never have learned to match clothes if it wasn't for my gay friends.
  9. PtrsonsZOO Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2001
    star 7
    The main point I was trying to make, and got stuck in a theological debate [face_blush] was that religious tenents and beliefs have no business in the laws we make. I believe it is wrong to force religious values of any and all faiths on people through the law.

    To legislate faith is to destroy everything we have all worked so hard to achieve as a nation. And it violates the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. No one is asking you to change your beliefs, they are only asking to be given equal rights under the law. The right to share in each other's benefits and downfalls, the same as every other committed couple.

    And though you may not realize it, by trying to keep them separate you are encouraging discrimination and ultimately violence. If you think I'm exaggerating, then look at our own history. Prior to the Civil War, it was once illegal for a black couple to be legally married. And until the early 1970's in some states it was still illegal for a white person and a black person to be married. And the discrimination the notions behind those laws created are still being fought against today.


    BTW-I did not mean to insult either the Mormons or the Catholics by lumping them together in their rare commonality. Just that I've known of both of them to consider marriages w/o their consent/blessing to be null in the eyes of the church itself.
  10. wardenx Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2003
    star 3
    Wow, folks. Those are some great and very valid points.

    Lord Reaper I thought there wasn't a difference between lawyers and prostitutes. LMAO


    IMHO, marriage is something that is between two people and has nothing to do with any religion or state policy. Neither has the right to step in an say Yeah or Nay about it. I believe in your rights to choose your life as you see fit, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If you decide that you want to stay with one person for the rest of your life, then do so. Call it marriage or whatever you wish. It is what it is. It's not my place to tell you that your decision is right or wrong. Only you can decide that. There is no right or wrong... only consequences. We learn from these consequences as individuals and as a society. But society has no place telling an individual what they can believe or think or to mandate what goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults.

    Same sex unions, called by many names throughout history date back since time immemorial. In 400 BCE, the Spartans, during the Peloponnesian War, actually had it as a legal decree by the king that a novice member of the hoplite training academy, where children went to learn by age seven, had to take an adult male lover. That's just an exapmle. It's an ancient Greek aphorism that, "Women are for bearing children, men are for making love."

    Ones sexual orientation should have no bearing on social position or standing. The same holds true for gender. The rule I think is fitting is, "If you can do the job, what difference does gender or sexual orientation make?" We can never judge the contents of another's heart or mind. All we can do is judge their actions in relation to others and ourselves. If you must judge, judge the performance, not the performer.
  11. EmprsHandMick Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 7, 2001
    star 4
    Ok, so here's a thought... (Yeah, I know I'd sworn off this thread, but oh well) How about devising some form of legal union, a purely civil matter, with its own terminology. This way it isn't equated with a union that is a marriage that has in its most historical roots the point of giving birth to and raising children (and no scientific arguments against me there, thats why women are so keen on being married) but it has other of the benefits of union in terms of the law. Ok, I'll stop rambling on this idea which will probably be shot full of .45 calibers in about 60 seconds.
  12. wardenx Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2003
    star 3
    Mick Good idea. I think that would do in a purely legal setting. That way there can still be the benefits, like you said, that we currently reap in our society, without the stigma of religious connotaions or restrictions. And, that way, same sex marriages would not be an issue because it's a matter of legal adaptations and not moral ones. I wouldn't have much issue with that, I think. The only thing I can see is my distaste for the government having any say in the matter. If we give them any say at all, they'll find a way to make it more and more, of that I have no doubt. "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile."
  13. wardenx Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2003
    star 3
    On a different note entirely...

    How about this recall election in CA? Anyone have any comments or opinions about it?

    Personally, I think Simon is the best choice right now. He has the experience of being the Asst. US Attorney under Rudolph Giuliani in New York and, along with his father and brothers, are well respected in the investment industry and financing, as well as him being a lawyer with a strong working knowledge of the law. He has some laudable issues as his platform (one of which I appreciate is the pro-home schooling). He says he's pro-life but he doesn't intend to make that a "centerpiece" of his agenda, which I appreciate, being both pro-life and pro-choice. He's very pro-school/education and he's said that he will reduce the big government in CA as well as fight against the incursion of illegal immigrants into the country through the permeable borders of CA. He's also said he will put a moratorium on any new gun control laws. :D That's a refreshing view point in CA. He also likes the idea of opening the state to a wider range of businesses, to encourage ecconomic growth.

    The one real problem I have with him is his stance on the environment. He would fight against the Endangered Species Act in favor of farmers. Not good in my book.

    But, all-in-all, he's a good candidate.

    I don't mind former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan in the race, either. He's pretty popular and not that far from Simon.

    Any opinions? Does anybody really care? LOL CA is our neighbor, after all. What happens over there tends to bleed over here, given time. Just look at the stance on illegal immigrants in CA (the driver's licence and insurance issue and their voting rights, for example). We're getting some of our own congressmen who are pushing for the same thing over here. I don't know about you, but that's a nose-dive in the wrong direction, IMHO.


  14. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I just hope that circus stays over there.
  15. jada_marnew Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2003
    star 5
    OK . . . here's a topic:

    Human Shields . . . should the US impose fines on citizens who choose to act as human shields in Iraq?

    I don't see why threaten these people with a fine or jail time. If you consider them traitors, then deal with them as traitors. But were they really traitors or those who just believed strongly that we shouldn't go to war and were putting their lives on the line to show their committment?

    They did not actively take up arms against the US, they expressed their opinions in a very visible way. I don't know all the facts in this one but I don't believe they actually spoke out against the US, just war. (However, if they were expressing anti US sentiment and conspiring with the enemy, then I say try them as traitors and forget a stupid fine. Tar and feather them on Capitol Hill.)
  16. Commander_Choad Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 11, 2002
    star 4
    Err... actually... The reasoning behind it is that they violated the economic/travel sanctions - and as such like any entity (corporate or otherwise) they are subject to fines. That's all. (at least that's my understanding...)
  17. jada_marnew Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2003
    star 5
    That's why they want to fine them? (rolls eyes)

    I still think they are just trying to make examples out of them. Please the US has a lot more important things to do right now than this.
  18. MexChewie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2002
    star 4
    the permeable borders of CA

    Frankly that's a bit rediculous(sp). The only reason I say that is because crossing the border in California is difficult and dangerous. People have to deal with an increase INS presence plus the vigilante groups. Due to all these reasons and more, they are risking the heat of the Arizona desert and crossing here.

    That image of people crossing the river in California or Texas is becoming infrequent. Those areas are so heavily patrolled, that people would rather cross somewhere else.

    Regardless, they are coming and are starting to find that even we, the U.S., are losing jobs to Asia.

    Besides, if there was any real desire on the part of the government to stop the tide of immigration something will be done. It is not because there is a benefit to those who seek cheap labor.
  19. PtrsonsZOO Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2001
    star 7
    Boy, I had to dig WAAAAAAAAAAY back for this one :p

    Okay, I was recently told that because I am not in the military that I cannot understand why we need to execute Saddam Hussein. All thoughts on capital punishment aside, I did not feel this was the case, instead I think this sums up what I think about the fate of the scruffy bearded one:

    I don't think military experience has anything to do with it. I've spent my life amidst the military in one way or another, and were it not for a fateful event in my life, would probably be serving over there right now. I've lost friends in this action, I have others who have served or are serving at this very moment. Istill do not believe that you can iradicate violence with more violence. You kill someone and what does that do (besides give work to the undertakers)? But to hold him up as a living example of what will happen when you go too far and push the wrong people around for too long? To make him endure a life w/o all the things that he took from his own people? To deny him the basic freedoms that he once claimed to have absolute authority over for the Iraqi people? To make him bear witness to the desecration of all that he built with the blood of many Iraqi's, Iranians, Kuwaiti's and Allied Forces'? When they are dead, they get off easy. IMO/ originally posted in the Galactic Senate (DCFF)

    What are your thoughts on what should be done Hussein?
  20. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I thought about upping this myself today.

    I think there's a difference between what's within the realm of possibility and what's not possible (either through common sense or the law).
  21. Commander_Choad Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 11, 2002
    star 4
    Honestly, given all the atrocities that he has committed over the last 20+ years, I think that he's gonna be, and should be, executed...

    Not because he's a bad person (although that is certainly the case), but rather because there are things that are an insufferable crime against humanity... i.e. using WMD (weapons of mass destruction).. which are not acceptable in war, and are less acceptable when quelling a civil insurrection.

    It's kind of like what happened at the Nuremberg trials, post WWII... i.e. the genocidal, suicidal, psychotic actions of the Nazi party regime, and those who "followed orders"

    When you look at Slobodan Milosevic and what he did, he's on trial, and soon, it will become neccesary to figure out what is to be done with leaders at a national level, who use their power to terrorize both their citizenry as well as militants in a combat situation...

    Honestly, I think that the best end, and to reduce the chance that someone is going to use terrorist tactics (just like in the movie Air Force One) to get him freed, is "A short drop and a sudden stop" - I don't know that having him hung like a common criminal is going to deter people bent on being that class of criminal, but it's really not about deterrent (I'll save the death penalty debate for another day), it's about "You did these terrible things, you will pay for it with your life, and we have control over you until you are worm food"

    Somehow I think that the rhetoric of Saddam will dry up, and he will be taken to the gallows "with foam flecking his lips, a low gutteral moan escaping them... A stain spreading acrosss his pants and the sudden acrid tang of urine permeating the air"

    That's what it's about - making him suffer the terror of knowing that his time is up, there's nothing to do about it, and unable to escape...

    If even for a moment, to make him suffer the same terror that the kurds felt, when the stinking clouds of gas came and made them spit their lungs up, and felt the acid forming in their eyes as the chemicals reacted with the water in them...

    That's what he needs to feel... because that will be JUSTICE
  22. Lord_Reaper Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2002
    star 3
    Oh my God...
    That was AWESEOME!!!
    Good show ol' boy, good show.
  23. jada_marnew Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2003
    star 5
    Not to be cynical or make jest but I think that if we could send him into space forever and let him think about what he has done, it would be justice. Him, alone with his thoughts.

    However, even though I find the death penalty hard to take, I agree with it in certain cases. I believe Saddam (or SadMad as I call him) qualifies for the certain cases.

Moderators: DieWompRatDie, Grimby
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.