SklarO World Tela Pip Danny
This Blog was created by me and for me. I dont take suggestions
and I dont really care what you have to say in regards to content
or design of this Blog. As far as individual posts go, I would
love to hear your opinions in the comment section (especially
if your opinion is radically different then mine). I try to post
often, but sometimes a week will go by where I am to busy to post
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Homosexuality is a sin plane and simple. It is a disease that is quickly becoming an epidemic. Homosexuality is wrong and the state of Massachusetts has chosen to side with evil. I don’t know why same-sex marriage is even a topic. It is an abomination. Hell, John Kerry doesn’t even agree with same-sex marriage.
Gays want equal rights?? Fuck that. Gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry or even to adopt. I don’t want my children to grow up in a world that says homosexuality is OK. I don’t want images of same-sex couples on my TV or in my city. If you are gay, that is your problem. Not mine. Homosexuality is something that needs to be kept private. I’m not at all saying that the government should somehow enforce rules against homosexuality, but I am saying that we the people can’t sit back and allow the government to legitimize homosexuality.
I have plenty of gay friends and I have no problem with them. They do not have children and have no intention on getting married.
In the words of Rudy Boesch "When I was growing up, ‘homosexual’ or ‘queer’ was a swear word. You didn’t say it. I’ll go to my grave feeling that way. That’s why I’m glad I’m dying soon."
Od yishama be’arey Yehuda
Kol sason vekol simcha,
kol chatan vekol kala
kol mitzhahlot chataniym m'chuppatahm
Again there shall be heard in this place..
In the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem...
The voice of joy, and the voice of gladness,
the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride,
the jubilant voice of bridegrooms from the canopies
Keitzad merakdim lifnei hakallah
Kalla na'ah vechasuda.'
How does one dance before the bride?
[She is] a beautiful and gracious kallah
You know, they say seperate church and state and therefore the govt. can't stop faggot asses from marrying. Well, if we're not gonna discriminate then hell, we should let a 32 yr old marry a 6 yr old boy. Or maybe two guys can marry one girl or maybe I should be allowed to marry my sister. Where does the line get drawn between protecting main stream moral America and giving everyone anything they want all in the name of "equal rights"? Fuck faggots and their rights. They should be treated the same a pedafile or one who commits incest.....PERIOD.
posted by wops
: 2:54 PM
Finally a fight unrelated to judaism or zionism.
First of all - there is an obvious line to be drawn between homosexuality and incest/pedaphilia. The comparison, and even the concern that one would lead to the other, is ludicrous. The state should never allow a relationship that is psychologically damaging to a minor. But gay marriage is between 2 adults with the ability to judge for themselves. Their marriage hurts nobody. As for whether its a "sin", that is precisely the decision this state is never supposed to make. You can prescribe to any religion you care to, but you have no right to impose it upon me or anyone else. A "sin" from the government's perspective can only be an act that violates our social contract: theft, murder, evasion of taxes.
Gay adoption is probably best not to argue about. I haven't given it much thought and I'm sure its a topic you won't budge on. I will simply say though that if it were possible, all parents should have to apply for a licence before propegating. There are too many stupid fucking people that don't deserve the care of children. My hunch is that most gay couples would pass that test with flying colors.
posted by dov
: 11:56 AM
Marriage between two adults of the same sex IS in fact phsycologically damaging to children. This is not a point I would even be willing to debate. Anyone who sees this point any other way is wrong. I am not correlating same-sex marriage with incest or obuse.
One thing that I do agree with is..."There are too many stupid fucking people that don't deserve the care of children."
As for the government... Dov, I believe in that society needs standards and rules. The country is not a free-for-all. Rules are for the good of everyone. Min. drinking age and smoking age, minimum wage, washing hande before returning to work. these are all rules and standards designed to help us. Same-sex relationships are an abomination. If the goverment doesnt set the rules than the people will, and it will be chaos. While I may not practice my beliefs, I belive in the ten commandments and I belive in the Torah. I also belive that the penis was designed to fit into the vagina, not into another mans ass. If someone sees it a differnet way then they will deal with the consequences of their actions and that is OK with me.
posted by dov
: 10:28 PM
We agree that the government needs to create laws that look out for the good of the people. The question is what type of law. This country was founded on the idea that these laws are only meant to prevent person A from harming person B. They are not meant to prevent people from harming themselves (although we have stretched a little here: seatbelts are a good example). They are not meant to restrict people's personal freedoms to believe what they want or to act on those beliefs. The question then becomes whether gay marriage causes direct harm on other people.
The examples you gave to support a law banning gay marriage were:
a) min. drinking/smoking age
b) washing hands before returning to work
c) min. wage.
Protecting minors is already a different category of law (as I said in my previous posting). We limit their freedoms on the assumption that they cannot protect themselves. Washing your hands is a clear case of person A not causing harm to person B.
Minimum wage is an interesting example though. Here we have person B saying "you have no right to exploit me" and person A saying "you have the right not to take the job." Your example makes it pretty clear that the line is not obvious. Both sides have a good argument, and yet the law says we require a minimum wage. Nevertheless I still think its difficult (perhaps impossible) to make a convincing arguement that gay marriage is directly harmful to others.
As for your penis and vagina point: you've just ruled out blowjobs and masturbation. Shame. Carry that to its logical conclusion and you have to argue that the purpose of the penis is procreation, which means no more sex for pleasure. Keep your beliefs. I'd rather use my penis how I want, and let others do the same.
posted by dov
: 10:51 AM
I just read a really good article about gay marriage in the New Yorker:
this is the first time I've read the new yorker, but so far I really like it.
posted by dov
: 3:40 PM
Dov, There is nothing wrong with oral sex between a man and his wife. Nothing wrong with forplay until he tries sticking his dick where it dont belong ie. ear or ass.
As for "Washing your hands is a clear case of person A not causing harm to person B."
Really?? I thought that person A was to wash his hands so as not to spread bacteria to person b. That seems like a pretty clear case of avoiding harm. No?
I'm not high strung. Am I?
> Dov, There is nothing wrong with oral sex between a man and his
Certainly I didn't think you'd say there is a problem with those things. My point is that this view is inconsistent with your argument about the "purpose of a penis." The "purpose" is procreation. If you want to put certain restrictions on where it belongs and where it doesn't, you need a new line of logic, or you need to rule out anything that doesn't lead to procreation.
As for washing hands: I think we're saying the same thing. We require person A to wash his/her hands so that they cannot spread disease to person B. That's person B's right to a healthy eating environment (and person A is restricted from infringing on that right).
The high strung comment was because I misread the name at first and thought I was responding to Wops. Oops. Sometimes its hard to tell your views apart, though the tone is usually different enough. That's why I erased that posting.
posted by dov
: 11:16 AM
If you can't see that there is a major moral difference between husband and wife performing oral sex, and homosexuals buttfucking each other then I can't point it out to you.
BTW you may forget that this country was founded on the basis that G-d and country cannot be seperated.
In his first general order to his troops, General George Washington called on ...
"Every officer and man...to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.
On May 14, 1787, George Washington warned the delegates to the Constitutional Convention:
If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the Hand of God!
President George Washington, on April 30, 1789, delivered his famous Inaugural Address to both Houses of Congress. He had just taken the oath of office on the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City, with his hand upon a Bible opened to Deuteronomy, Chapter 28:
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aides can supply every human defect; that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes; and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge.
In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow citizens at large, less than either.
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.
And in the important revolution just accomplished, in the system of their United government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage ...
We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps finally, staked on the experiment..."
> If you can't see that there is a major moral difference between
> husband and wife performing oral sex, and homosexuals buttfucking > each other then I can't point it out to you.
That's exactly the point! If you can't find a logical argument for your views, you must question whether they aren't purely based on some baseless prejiduce. I'm asking that you clear your slate and prove your argument from fundamental principles. If you can't do that then you've lost this debate.
As for the question of seperation of church and state: I'm impressed that you were able to find that passage on the fly. I can't do the same to support my argument, although perhaps I will go back to my text books and get back to you. Let me say anyway that this country was founded with no small number of contradictions. The most obvious and often quoted, of course, being: all men are created equal, except Blacks and poor people. One of the wonderful things about this country is that we've been able to recognize that the founders were forward thinking for their time, but not at the end of progress. We correct their errors, and in most cases maintain the principles that they seemed to have had in mind. As a Jew, the value of seperating church and state should be extremely clear to you. If your argument is based on the bible, than I hope you can see why its a dangerous way to decide the law of this [or any] country.
posted by dov
: 11:48 AM
We have established that the Torah forbids homosexuality. One of the 7 laws of Noach also forbids it. check it out http://www.noahide.com/illicit.htm
Whatever the extent of my practices, I believe in the Torah and in the Noachide laws. If a person has no spiritual texts or guidelines then that person is dangerous. You can't convince them of anything.
BTW When are we going to Six Flags?
As for the article you posted... I dont agree with the authors account of the history of marriage. In Jewish history marriage goes way back. Before St. Paul and before wealthy Europe.
I'm sure the author was aware of that. The point was not to look at every culture's history of marriage, but the culture which has established and defined this country. Nevertheless, his primary purpose in discussing the history of marriage is to point out that marriage has become much more about individual love and happiness, which I think is largely true even in Judaism (barring the far right). I don't think the point is threatening to your argument, by the way: its fine if you say that marriage has become too much about personal happiness. I just think its an interesting analysis of the debate.
So your complaint is purely religious in nature then. Time for a new debate about the role of religion in government. I'll get back to it ( I need to do a LITTLE work first). By the way - these debates have become solely between the 2 of us. If you ever want me to stop monopolizing your blog, just let me know. I won't be offended.
posted by dov
: 12:30 PM
You better not stop. You are the only class participation I get other than Wops, and he mostly agrees with me so I dont get to exercise my debating skills. Not to mention you are the only liberal with enough balls to debate me. You are too fucking smart though. Challenging.
> BTW When are we going to Six Flags?
depends. when are you coming to NY? ;) I'm not going to be home in chicago for a long time. Probably not until Rosh Hashanah. If you come out here weed and beer are on me.
posted by dov
: 12:41 PM
While it's true that I am long overdue for a NY trip (and am dying to come BTW) YOU HAVENT BEEN HOME IN YEARS.
Yes, its true. The past year and a half I've only been able to get home for the first days of pesach and sukkot. When I'm home for 2 days of chag its basically impossible to see any friends. Part of the reason I've been home so little is because we've gone to california a bunch of times (that's where Ilana and the baby are). Also - I traveled in Europe after I graduated and had to start working straight after, so that killed my summer last year. I like going home to Chicago - its a shame. I hope I'll be able to more in the upcomming years, because I'll be a student again.
posted by dov
: 1:15 PM
Instead of arguing why Athiesm is perfectly compatible with a sound moral system (and is in fact more capable of deriving such a system than the religions that I'm familiar with), let me just ask you this: how will you decide which Christian beliefs ought to be law and which one's shouldn't?
posted by dov
: 1:49 PM
Jewish beliefs. Each person must decide to what extent they will keep all of the 613 Mitzvot. I personally belive that being religous weather its Jewish or Christianity or anything else (except maybe Islam) will help society. If a person believes in rules and follows them, we will have a healthier/safer world.
Yes, but you're not living in Israel. You're living in America. What happens when the government insists that you baptize your child? Or that you work on Shavuout? If you are willing to live in America you can't expect Jewish law to dictate. I can't imagine you would like to live in a true Christian state. You seem to express real patriotism towards this country. I can only conclude that you do NOT wish it to be a religious state. Yet at the same time you ask that Christian law be used as a guideline in certain circumstances. Define those circumstances.
Also - your comment about Islam differing from Christianity and Judaism displays real ignorance of their religion. It makes it pretty clear that you've never studied the Koran. Their religion (at least in theory) gives a lot of respect to both Christianity and Judaism, and doesn't differ considerably in its definition of "morality." Unfortunately, religious works are often translated in more radical ways rather than less radical ways. A perfect example would be Wops' call to kill Arabs as members of Amalek. You also seem to forget just how HORRIBLE the Christian states have historically been. Probably history's worst violaters of human rights when you consider both the crusades and colonialism. The fact that so many Islamic states today are so backward only gives evidence to my argument that ALL religious states face a serious challenge in protecting morality.
I'd rather not get back onto the topic of the Arabic people. Can we stick with religion? I primarily want to hear your response to the first paragraph.
posted by dov
: 2:33 PM
What I said about religiousness helping society is 100% true. What I said about Islam differing from other religions in that sense is also true. Ultra-orthodox Jews keep to themselves. They do not harm gentiles bec. they dont care about them. Ultra-orthodox muslims strap bomb belts packed with nails and chemicals to themselves to blow up non-muslim babies when they want to be politcal.
As for your paragraph 1.....I am not saying that this country should enfource a christian G-d or make baptism mandatory. That is ridiculous. I am saying however, that this country was founded on the belief in G-d. In a general sense not one specific G-d. Now we want to remove the pledge of allegience and all memory of G-d in America???