UN demands Israel tear down the barrier
The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly adopted a resolution demanding that Israel comply with a world court decision and tear down the barrier it is building to seal off the West Bank.
The vote was 150 in favour, 6 opposed including the United States, and 10 abstentions.
The assembly's vote, like the opinion of the International Court of Justice, is not legally binding, but both have symbolic value as international statements of support for the barrier's destruction.
The 191-member world body voted after lengthy negotiations between the Arab League and the European Union which resulted in a revised text that was accepted by both groups.
The court, as well as the resolution, demand that the barrier be dismantled and reparations be paid to Palestinians harmed by its construction.
Israel has refused to recognise the world court ruling, saying it has no authority to deal with the issue and has ordered construction to continue.
The Israeli Supreme Court, however, has ordered the army to change the route of the barrier in a 32-kilometre stretch near Jerusalem, saying it was causing too much hardship on the local Palestinian population.
Advertisement Advertisement
Israel's UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman called the resolution "one-sided and totally counterproductive" and said construction of the barrier will continue in compliance with the requirements of international law as decided by Israel's Supreme Court.
"It is simply outrageous to respond with such vigour to a measure that saves lives and responds with such casual indifference and apathy to the ongoing campaign of Palestinian terrorism that takes lives. This is not justice but a perversion of justice," he said.
The Palestinians say the current route of the wall amounts to a land grab because parts of the barrier are being built on West Bank land that Israel conquered in the 1967 Middle East war. Israel says the fence is needed to keep out suicide bombers.
*****
The great wall of Yoni.
Good. That's a resolution long overdue.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 07, 2004, 04:09 AM
Good. That's a resolution long overdue.
how do you figure?
That stupid fence is stupid. I hope they tear it down. It's a dumbass form of security IMO.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 07, 2004, 08:56 AM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 07, 2004, 04:09 AM
Good. That's a resolution long overdue.
how do you figure?
Why don't you think about it?
There are numerous reasons why it's stupid, and most of them are obvious. To be honest, I can't be bothered to explain my point of view or to debate the point. I have no faith that you would listen, absorb, think, or be interested in what I have to say. My points of view would, as usual, be dismissed as 'useless liberalism'.
I don't mean to tar everyone with the same brush, but most right-wing/conservative/republican people I speak to are somewhat blinkered, very short-sighted and rather closed-minded, sometimes massively so. These traits make debates with them highly dull.
I don't see the logic in building this wall. They're building it to keep out suicide bombers, yet they're "causing hardship" on the local palestinians while doing it. Chances are it's just going to incite more terrorism. And a wall is not going to stop people determined to get in from getting in.
Sounds like a waste of money.
Whats the UN going to do if they don't? Shake their finger at Israel?
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 07, 2004, 10:27 AM
Why don't you think about it?
There are numerous reasons why it's stupid, and most of them are obvious. To be honest, I can't be bothered to explain my point of view or to debate the point. I have no faith that you would listen, absorb, think, or be interested in what I have to say. My points of view would, as usual, be dismissed as 'useless liberalism'.
I don't mean to tar everyone with the same brush, but most right-wing/conservative/republican people I speak to are somewhat blinkered, very short-sighted and rather closed-minded, sometimes massively so. These traits make debates with them highly dull.
And you don't think this overly used response isn't getting old?
How is a wall suppose to prevent suicide bombers from getting inside Israel? Is it honestly going to go around the entire country? Or at least the entire border of where terrorists threaten Israel? And even so, wouldn't it still be possible to get over the wall? High high is it? What's it made of? And is the going to be security patrolling across the entire thing?
Quote from: F.I.Tuberload on October 07, 2004, 04:53 PM
And you don't think this overly used response isn't getting old?
Sadly, it's often the case. I'm fortunate enough to know numerous conservatives who know what they're talking about. It's very important to stay civil and stick to the facts - anger and closed-mindedness always loses to a cool head.
The barrier indeed doesn't make much sense to me. If the Palestinians are willing to blow themselves up as it is, putting a giant wall up won't change that. They'll find ways around it.
On the other hand, Israel's ambassador made a very important point that I believe should be noted. The United Nations needs to not only condemn this wall but to strongly condemn the terrorist actions of members of the Palestinian state. It's quite clear that reform is needed within the Palestinian ranks, because nothing is getting done or has gotten done for as long as anyone can remember. The problem is that those in charge of the Palestinian state clearly don't
want a compromise to be reached. Their power comes from the anger of their citizens.
It's a mess. Hazard also notes that the UN can't really do anything. This is true, I don't think that their words, no matter what they are, will have any impact at all on Israel's actions. "Strongly-worded memos" don't get things done. (Mad-TV reference)
I am not saying the wall is a great Idea. I am saying why should the wall come down? What is the reason for it to come down. Its not helping much, but its not hurting either. It divides up few villiages, but that was about all I heard that was bad about it. I am tired of how the UN is always pissing on Israel. They put a missile through a known terrorist leader's window and the UN says ohhh you can't do that. They stop doing it to appease the un and that guy orders an attack and one more bus full of people goes up in smoke.
Quote from: Mephisto on October 07, 2004, 07:09 PM
How is a wall suppose to prevent suicide bombers from getting inside Israel? Is it honestly going to go around the entire country? Or at least the entire border of where terrorists threaten Israel? And even so, wouldn't it still be possible to get over the wall? High high is it? What's it made of? And is the going to be security patrolling across the entire thing?
(http://www.palestinercs.org/images/Separation%20Wall/Mashavillage221003WBRR2.jpg)
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 07, 2004, 09:56 PM
I am not saying the wall is a great Idea. I am saying why should the wall come down? What is the reason for it to come down. Its not helping much, but its not hurting either. It divides up few villiages, but that was about all I heard that was bad about it. I am tired of how the UN is always pissing on Israel. They put a missile through a known terrorist leader's window and the UN says ohhh you can't do that. They stop doing it to appease the un and that guy orders an attack and one more bus full of people goes up in smoke.
Are you saying the Palestinian suicide bombers are any worse than Israeli tanks and gunships demolishing villages and killing civilians? The UN is powerless to do anything.
Quote from: Eibro[yL] on October 08, 2004, 12:01 AM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 07, 2004, 09:56 PM
I am not saying the wall is a great Idea. I am saying why should the wall come down? What is the reason for it to come down. Its not helping much, but its not hurting either. It divides up few villiages, but that was about all I heard that was bad about it. I am tired of how the UN is always pissing on Israel. They put a missile through a known terrorist leader's window and the UN says ohhh you can't do that. They stop doing it to appease the un and that guy orders an attack and one more bus full of people goes up in smoke.
Are you saying the Palestinian suicide bombers are any worse than Israeli tanks and gunships demolishing villages and killing civilians? The UN is powerless to do anything.
Are you saying that the Israelis are intentionally trying to kill innocent people?
why not tear down israel at all ? :-\
Quote from: Tuberload on October 07, 2004, 04:53 PM
And you don't think this overly used response isn't getting old?
No, because (irritatingly) it's true.
The same reason that fence is a stupid idea, is the same reason building a fence to keep illegal aliens from getting into southern America is stupid - there just isn't enough man power or resources to make the construction of a barrier that would offer enough protection to make it worth building; We live in an age where inter-continental ballistic missiles can be guided over, under, and around walls; They are a primitive and obsolete form of protection that lost value when artillery became an army's power source instead of cavalry.
Not to mention, if suicide bombers are really willing to put forth effort, why should they allow themselves to fall victim to gravity, when they could just as easily rise above it with airplanes?
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 08, 2004, 10:59 AM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 07, 2004, 04:53 PM
And you don't think this overly used response isn't getting old?
No, because (irritatingly) it's true.
Hehe, I was in a mood to push your buttons and start an argument, but now I am not. :)
Oh god, what if the bombers find out about the invention of the ladder!
Quote from: Dyndrilliac on October 08, 2004, 02:28 PM
The same reason that fence is a stupid idea, is the same reason building a fence to keep illegal aliens from getting into southern America is stupid - there just isn't enough man power or resources to make the construction of a barrier that would offer enough protection to make it worth building; We live in an age where inter-continental ballistic missiles can be guided over, under, and around walls; They are a primitive and obsolete form of protection that lost value when artillery became an army's power source instead of cavalry.
Not to mention, if suicide bombers are really willing to put forth effort, why should they allow themselves to fall victim to gravity, when they could just as easily rise above it with airplanes?
The idea of a barrier is that it forces people to use the official border crossings. If we did not have any barriers or broder patrols on our border mexico would have a very small population. The bombers may be able to fly over israel and what not, but the idea of the wall is to prevent a would be terrorist from taking residence in israel I guess. I admit it would not be that affective in israel, but a strong border is still needed here in the states. I do not aggree with the fact that the un is telling israel to tear the thing down though. What makes the wall the un's business? They should stop pissing on isael and and do something worthwhile in africa to stop the ethnic cleansing.
meh why should the U.S even have a border around mexico?
As for the wall, not to be hateful to yoni or anything, but Isreal sucks.... A nation founded by terrorist hiding from terrorist.
You guys are missing the point entirely. Most of the terrorists live outside Israeli cities and walk/sneak into them when they have their suicide vests on. The idea here is that they have to pass through and Israeli security check point now and won't be able to get into cities to blow up buses and such.
Israeli airplanes have super tight security, good luck hijacking one of them. Terrorists aren't going to fly over it that easy.
BTW, Israel has a draft im rather sure they'll have troops defending the wall so a simple ladder won't exactly work to cross the wall. In the picture posted you can see the bed of sand used to track footprints incase someone does make it over the wall too.
Also forged you should just kill yourself and stop wasting clean water I could be using. Now they're hiding from the terrorists, and if they shot the fuckers in the head then it would be "OMG THEY KILLED A TERRORIST! THOSE BASTARDS!" If you don't kill yourself then I hope you have a kid and some terrorist comes along and cuts your kids head off, maybe you'll get the message then.
Sorry Zorm, but I think it is you who are missing the point entirely. You're focusing on the wall. This wall is going up at the same time negotiations and peace talks are progressing towards removing Israeli squatters from the "settled lands". The wall gives all the appearances of an Israeli nation that is saying one thing, but have no intents to do anything but grab land.
With the history the Israelis have, I don't blame them for wanting to put up walls. Ever since they officially became a country (in '49, I think it was), the rest of the middle east has waged war against Israel. At once point, Israel was doing so well they controlled most of the Sinai peninsula and were making inroads to Egypt. I say, if you don't want the Israeli army taking over your country, STOP ATTACKING THEM.
Quote from: Forged on October 09, 2004, 04:44 PM
meh why should the U.S even have a border around mexico?
As for the wall, not to be hateful to yoni or anything, but Isreal sucks.... A nation founded by terrorist hiding from terrorist.
The nation was not founded by a terrorist. Last time I checked even the idea of establishing Israel was british. The 'palestinian state' is lead by arafat who was leader of the PLO. That is your terrorist.
Quote from: Grok on October 10, 2004, 10:54 AM
Sorry Zorm, but I think it is you who are missing the point entirely. You're focusing on the wall. This wall is going up at the same time negotiations and peace talks are progressing towards removing Israeli squatters from the "settled lands". The wall gives all the appearances of an Israeli nation that is saying one thing, but have no intents to do anything but grab land.
Peace talks with who? The terrorist leaders +- one man named arafat do not even want peace. Arafat i paying us and Israel lip service.
How was isreal founded? Can you give me a breif history on the founding of isreal?
(In the 40's, not that biblical holy land bullshit...)
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 10, 2004, 03:22 PM
Quote from: Forged on October 09, 2004, 04:44 PM
meh why should the U.S even have a border around mexico?
As for the wall, not to be hateful to yoni or anything, but Isreal sucks.... A nation founded by terrorist hiding from terrorist.
The nation was not founded by a terrorist. Last time I checked even the idea of establishing Israel was british. The 'palestinian state' is lead by arafat who was leader of the PLO. That is your terrorist.
biblical holy land bullshit? Fuck you if you are going to call me beliefs bullshit
http://encarta.msn.com/related_761588322/Arab-Israeli_Conflict.html
original idea was british and it was in the 1920s.
[
Quotebiblical holy land bullshit? Fuck you if you are going to call me beliefs bullshit
Sorry I find the idea of devine mandiate through a diety 2/3rds of the world don't believe in bullshit.
Biblical beliefs aren't bullshit, but basing foriegn policy on them definitely is.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 11, 2004, 03:22 AM
Biblical beliefs aren't bullshit, but basing foriegn policy on them definitely is.
So all Arab societies are unjust?
Quote from: Hazard on October 11, 2004, 08:19 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 11, 2004, 03:22 AM
Biblical beliefs aren't bullshit, but basing foriegn policy on them definitely is.
So all Arab societies are unjust?
I think that was aimed more towards Bush, but you're right as well.
Bush does what he thinks is right. His religious beliefs shape his values, which will affect what he thinks is right. But this does not mean his foreign or domestic policies are based on his religious beliefs. Keep in mind one reason why we support Israel is because of their location. They are a friendly western democracy in an unfriendly part of the world. We support Kuwait for the same reason... we can put troops on something like 1/3 of that country if we want to at any given time from what I have heard.
Yes but Bush has said many things that could make it seem like all of his policies are based around his religion.
Quote from: Tuberload on October 11, 2004, 09:42 PM
Yes but Bush has said many things that could make it seem like all of his policies are based around his religion.
quotes please so I can see what you are referring to.
I wish someone would make a politics forum so I don't have to see the constant "BUSH ROOLEZ/BUSH SUXZ" posts all over the place, which is common now :(
THE GODS HAVE HEARD MY PLEAS!!! :D
Quote from: Forged on October 10, 2004, 03:53 PM
How was isreal founded? Can you give me a breif history on the founding of isreal?
Let's see if I can recall what I learned in history class.
Since the end of World War 1, Palestine had been in British control. The Jewish settlement proposed a plan - to form 2 nations in Palestine, a Jewish nation and an Arab nation. Around 1947, the UN accepted this plan, but the Arabs rejected it, mostly because they wanted the whole place. The UN told Britain to evacuate Palestine sometime in 1948. Britain evacuated a few months earlier, and that night (May 14, 1948) the Jews hurried and declared the nation of Israel. The next morning the Arabs started our first war (the Independence Day War), and lost. So now it's all ours. Kthnx.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 11, 2004, 10:22 PM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 11, 2004, 09:42 PM
Yes but Bush has said many things that could make it seem like all of his policies are based around his religion.
quotes please so I can see what you are referring to.
am not going to dig up quotes for you, because if you have listened to any of his speaches you'll know what I am talking about. Last night I watched a documentary on CNN about his presidency and he believes it was his calling to become the president. He believes he is fighting the war on terrorism on behalf of god and his wishes. He prays every mornign and night for god to give him the answers.
Quote from: Hazard on October 11, 2004, 08:19 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 11, 2004, 03:22 AM
Biblical beliefs aren't bullshit, but basing foriegn policy on them definitely is.
So all Arab societies are unjust?
Basing law or policy on religion is generally bad, no matter who is doing it.
Note that I never used the word 'unjust'. kthx.
Fine, so you all Arab societies are bad?
Quote from: Tuberload on October 12, 2004, 11:42 AM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 11, 2004, 10:22 PM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 11, 2004, 09:42 PM
Yes but Bush has said many things that could make it seem like all of his policies are based around his religion.
quotes please so I can see what you are referring to.
am not going to dig up quotes for you, because if you have listened to any of his speaches you'll know what I am talking about. Last night I watched a documentary on CNN about his presidency and he believes it was his calling to become the president. He believes he is fighting the war on terrorism on behalf of god and his wishes. He prays every mornign and night for god to give him the answers.
So whats wrong with praying for guidance? Just because he prays that he will make the right choices does not mean that he is working to forward his denomination or religion.
I have heard many of his speaches and I still do not get what you are talking about. Give me specifics about how he is basing his policies on his religion or the spreading of it. He makes decisions based on his values, which is what any president would do, but his religion shapes his values. So in a nut shell it sounds to me like you are saying we can't have a president who is christian or religious in general.
Quote from: Tuberload on October 11, 2004, 09:03 PM-I think that was aimed more towards Bush, but you're right as well.
-Yes but Bush has said many things that could make it seem like all of his policies are based around his religion.
-I am not going to dig up quotes for you, because if you have listened to any of his speeches you'll know what I am talking about. Last night I watched a documentary on CNN about his presidency and he believes it was his calling to become the president. He believes he is fighting the war on terrorism on behalf of god and his wishes. He prays every morning and night for god to give him the answers.
Please re-read everything that I have said so far very carefully...
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 11, 2004, 10:22 PMSo whats wrong with praying for guidance? Just because he prays that he will make the right choices does not mean that he is working to forward his denomination or religion.
When exactly did I say it was wrong or that he is working to forward his denomination?
QuoteI have heard many of his speaches and I still do not get what you are talking about. Give me specifics about how he is basing his policies on his religion or the spreading of it.
Once again what the hell are you talking about? I made a defensive comment supporting why some people may think Bush supports his policy based on his religion. Besides I told you, CNN documentation on Bush. Feel free to look it up and watch it. I am not going to defend my right to state an opinion, just because you feel the need to blow everything I have said thus far completely out of the water.
QuoteHe makes decisions based on his values, which is what any president would do, but his religion shapes his values.
Please, give me specifics... Lol.
QuoteSo in a nut shell it sounds to me like you are saying we can't have a president who is christian or religious in general.
Please put the hallucinogens down and come back to reality. I don't know where you get this out of anything I have said. In a nut shell I think you're a fanatic who likes to argue just for the sake of hearing yourself, in this case, type.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 12, 2004, 03:09 PM
So whats wrong with praying for guidance? Just because he prays that he will make the right choices does not mean that he is working to forward his denomination or religion.
I have heard many of his speaches and I still do not get what you are talking about. Give me specifics about how he is basing his policies on his religion or the spreading of it. He makes decisions based on his values, which is what any president would do, but his religion shapes his values. So in a nut shell it sounds to me like you are saying we can't have a president who is christian or religious in general.
Yes, that sounds really wrong. Having a president who is religious and asks his god what to do means he's doing his god's bidding. Considering that this particular president's god forbids all other gods, it's clearly not compatible with freedom of religion.
Oh no, the UN is angry. Israel is going to have one angry letter in their mail box tomorrow. :(
Quote from: Hazard on October 12, 2004, 03:02 PM
Fine, so you all Arab societies are bad?
Sigh. No. I said basing politics on religion is bad.
Stop being obtuse on purpose.
Quote from: Tuberload on October 12, 2004, 04:02 PM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 11, 2004, 09:03 PM-I think that was aimed more towards Bush, but you're right as well.
-Yes but Bush has said many things that could make it seem like all of his policies are based around his religion.
-I am not going to dig up quotes for you, because if you have listened to any of his speeches you'll know what I am talking about. Last night I watched a documentary on CNN about his presidency and he believes it was his calling to become the president. He believes he is fighting the war on terrorism on behalf of god and his wishes. He prays every morning and night for god to give him the answers.
Please put the hallucinogens down and come back to reality. I don't know where you get this out of anything I have said. In a nut shell I think you're a fanatic who likes to argue just for the sake of hearing yourself, in this case, type.
well thats exactly what it sounds like to me when you are saying bush prays to God every day... as if its a bad thing. The reason he feels God supports the war is because he feels like God has put it on his heart to go through with it. He prays for answers, the war in Iraq was a solution to a problem. He feels that it was God's will that this happen. That it was the correct decision for the well being of our country. Thats what I think of it atleast. But if we talk more on this subject this thread will be turning into a religious debate.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 12, 2004, 05:11 PM
Quote from: Hazard on October 12, 2004, 03:02 PM
Fine, so you all Arab societies are bad?
Sigh. No. I said basing politics on religion is bad.
Stop being obtuse on purpose.
Well there are several theocracies in that part of the world. But I aggree that not all arab states are theocracies. Kuwait for example.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 12, 2004, 05:11 PM
Quote from: Hazard on October 12, 2004, 03:02 PM
Fine, so you all Arab societies are bad?
Sigh. No. I said basing politics on religion is bad.
Stop being obtuse on purpose.
Look at the societies of nations like Iran, Syria, etc. Those are based on religion. So are they bad? Or do you take the approach of the ACLU, and you believe that basing politics on Christian moral values is bad?
Yes basing politics on Christian moral values in a country that is suppossed to be based on a freedom of religion//choice is bad.
Quote from: muert0 on October 13, 2004, 01:03 AM
Yes basing politics on Christian moral values in a country that is suppossed to be based on a freedom of religion//choice is bad.
So the Constitution is bad? Don't tell me that you can't find religious implications in their. Same with the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. You can never seperate moral values from religion in this kind of situation, otherwise you end up with communism.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
What religious implications do you find in this? This is the first one that popped up though but I figured since it was .gov it was the same as the original one.
Nevermind it's pointless having a discussion about anything political around here. This whole country is going to shit. Half of the larger countries in the world hate America//Bush. And we have people starving without homes in our country and our government is worried about going and killing innocent people instead of taking care of it's own.
With no Israeli nation, wouldn't Arab folks sorta go in, take over what used to be Israel & sorta kinda kill everyone that used to live there? Hence genocide sorta kinda being committed? :-\ Then we'd have another government killing people that they represent. (This is somewhat like Iraq no?)
This is my guess.
Quote from: Hazard on October 13, 2004, 07:17 AM
Quote from: muert0 on October 13, 2004, 01:03 AM
Yes basing politics on Christian moral values in a country that is suppossed to be based on a freedom of religion//choice is bad.
You can never seperate moral values from religion in this kind of situation, otherwise you end up with communism.
Nonsense. I agree wholeheartedly with almost all of the bill of rights, and I'm not at all religious. It doesn't take religion to know that killing people and restricting their freedom is bad...
Arta my point is that many values and principles are a biproduct of religious beliefs.
Quotebasing politics on Christian moral values is bad?
Religous morals are bad. It is an abomination to base a law off of religon...
Quote from: Forged on October 13, 2004, 04:32 PM
Quotebasing politics on Christian moral values is bad?
Religous morals are bad. It is an abomination to base a law off of religon...
Even if the law is good? Its bad because of the basis?
Values are shaped by religion. When you make a decision it is based on your values. So no matter what religion will enter into everything. But to say because someone has a religious belief and that shapes their values and that shapes their decision is violating the separation of church and state would be totally retarded. There is no separation of church and state, in fact the separation clause applies to a state sponsoring a religion or hindering a religion. Its not like bush is saying everyone has to be in his denomination, and its not like bush is dumping on everyone who practices Islam.
My values are not shaped by religion whatsoever. I am a baptized catholic by birth, but I do not practice it as of now. My values are shaped by life’s lessons I have been "fortunate" enough to experience.
Quote from: Tuberload on October 13, 2004, 04:55 PM
My values are not shaped by religion whatsoever. I am a baptized catholic by birth, but I do not practice it as of now. My values are shaped by life's lessons I have been "fortunate" enough to experience.
If you do not practice a religion then it can't very well shape your values now can it?
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 05:11 PM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 13, 2004, 04:55 PM
My values are not shaped by religion whatsoever. I am a baptized catholic by birth, but I do not practice it as of now. My values are shaped by life’s lessons I have been "fortunate" enough to experience.
If you do not practice a religion then it can't very well shape your values now can it?
Then perhaps you should rephrase your position, so that it doesn't sound like you're saying all values are shaped by religion.
"Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace." ~The Boondock Saints
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 12, 2004, 05:11 PM
Quote from: Hazard on October 12, 2004, 03:02 PM
Fine, so you all Arab societies are bad?
Sigh. No. I said basing politics on religion is bad.
Stop being obtuse on purpose.
Alright guys, let's look at the facts here.
1. Arta is a screaming liberal.
2. It is stylish for liberals to hate Bush and debase him about anything, even totally unrelated stuff
3. It is stylish for liberals to hate Jews and Israel
4. It is stylish for liberals to support police-state Arab countries
5. It is stylish to hate anything that references Christianity or Judaism
6. It is stylish to love Islam
Thus, it's bad when Bush, Israel, or any Christian-dominated country makes a decision slightly influenced by religion, but it's okay to fly jet airliners into buildings in the name of Allah.
QuoteEven if the law is good? Its bad because of the basis?
There is a diffrence between religous morals, and common morals.
ie. Killing is bad, it harms others and there for it is bad. How ever Homosexual marriage hurts no one, but because of a skewed dogma it is forbidden.
Quote from: Forged on October 13, 2004, 07:30 PM
QuoteEven if the law is good? Its bad because of the basis?
There is a diffrence between religous morals, and common morals.
ie. Killing is bad, it harms others and there for it is bad. How ever Homosexual marriage hurts no one, but because of a skewed dogma it is forbidden.
Well, a person "enjoying" marijuana in the privacy of his own home, but it is still illegal. The argument against homosexual marriage is partially because it threatens the integrity of a stable home environment for the rearing of children.
QuoteWell, a person "enjoying" marijuana in the privacy of his own home, but it is still illegal. The argument against homosexual marriage is partially because it threatens the integrity of a stable home environment for the rearing of children
The pot thing is corperate bullshit, another terrible plauge of american law.
How do you know it threatens the family enviorment? Has anyone ever tested this theory? And even if they had that is beside the point, last time I checked two guys couldn't make babys, but they should however be able to benefiet from the laws given to normal married people...
How about the evidence from the American Psycholigical Institute concerning the development of children who grow up in homosexual homes, or does that not count?
Quote from: Hazard on October 13, 2004, 09:45 PM
How about the evidence from the American Psycholigical Institute concerning the development of children who grow up in homosexual homes, or does that not count?
links? It is void though, because marriage and the raising of children are two diffrent things...
Quote from: Tuberload on October 13, 2004, 05:22 PM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 05:11 PM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 13, 2004, 04:55 PM
My values are not shaped by religion whatsoever. I am a baptized catholic by birth, but I do not practice it as of now. My values are shaped by life's lessons I have been "fortunate" enough to experience.
If you do not practice a religion then it can't very well shape your values now can it?
Then perhaps you should rephrase your position, so that it doesn't sound like you're saying all values are shaped by religion.
No I am saying that bushes values are shaped by his religion. You are saying you are a catholic but not practicing. Bush practices his religion so it shapes his values, you do not practice your so it can't shape yours. I have said bush's values are shaped by religion. Not all values. Pay attention. I was continuously referring to the commander in chief.
Quote from: Forged on October 13, 2004, 09:51 PM
Quote from: Hazard on October 13, 2004, 09:45 PM
How about the evidence from the American Psycholigical Institute concerning the development of children who grow up in homosexual homes, or does that not count?
links? It is void though, because marriage and the raising of children are two diffrent things...
The whole idea behind not allowing gay marriage is because it hurts the family unit. Families are torn up enough as it is with divorces. We do not need the definition of marriage getting more screwed up. Marriage used to be forever... that's all changed. Once marriage was between a man and a woman... now that will change too?
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 10:33 PM
Quote from: Forged on October 13, 2004, 09:51 PM
Quote from: Hazard on October 13, 2004, 09:45 PM
How about the evidence from the American Psycholigical Institute concerning the development of children who grow up in homosexual homes, or does that not count?
links? It is void though, because marriage and the raising of children are two diffrent things...
The whole idea behind not allowing gay marriage is because it hurts the family unit. Families are torn up enough as it is with divorces. We do not need the definition of marriage getting more screwed up. Marriage used to be forever... that's all changed. Once marriage was between a man and a woman... now that will change too?
It hurts the family unit? How is anothers divorce any of your buisness? How does it hurt your marriage? Further more, how does someone getting married mean we will have more divorce? Marriage is not a christian concept, no where close, don't treat it as one.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 10:26 PM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 13, 2004, 05:22 PM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 05:11 PM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 13, 2004, 04:55 PM
My values are not shaped by religion whatsoever. I am a baptized catholic by birth, but I do not practice it as of now. My values are shaped by life’s lessons I have been "fortunate" enough to experience.
If you do not practice a religion then it can't very well shape your values now can it?
Then perhaps you should rephrase your position, so that it doesn't sound like you're saying all values are shaped by religion.
No I am saying that bushes values are shaped by his religion. You are saying you are a catholic but not practicing. Bush practices his religion so it shapes his values, you do not practice your so it can't shape yours. I have said bush's values are shaped by religion. Not all values. Pay attention. I was continuously referring to the commander in chief.
You tell me to pay attention yet you're completely unable to respond to any point that is ever made to you? What a joke...
Quote from: Forged on October 13, 2004, 09:51 PM
It is void though, because marriage and the raising of children are two diffrent things...
Congratulations on the dumbest post of this thread.
Out of all of my friends whose parents have gotten a divorce, they've admitted that it affected them profoundly. Divorce aside, kids raised in houses with marriage problems
often (not always) have more problems emotionally than those raised in a house with a good marriage.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 10:33 PM
The whole idea behind not allowing gay marriage is because it hurts the family unit. Families are torn up enough as it is with divorces. We do not need the definition of marriage getting more screwed up. Marriage used to be forever... that's all changed. Once marriage was between a man and a woman... now that will change too?
For divorces, yes, it does mean that family units can disappear instead of festering forever. So in some way I suppose it could be taken to reduce family units. You can't say the same about gay marriage though. Gay marriage allows homosexuals to form a family unit, offering greater possibilities for family units to be created. Clearly an improvement?
The whole issue is made messier by the unfortunate use of the same term by both church and state. A "marriage" as sponsored by a church is one thing, and there's quite a bit of uproar about homosexual marriage as a result (mostly driven by religions which have codified homosexuality as undesirable). A "marriage" as recognized by the state is another mostly (entirely?) distinct object, which entitles the people therein to certain benefits not available to couples who are merely dating (or living together or <non-govt.-recognized-relation here>). As I understand it, this latter is what the proponents of gay marriage are actually interested in achieving, but the lack of clear division between a religious marriage and a government-recognized marriage have drawn down the ire of the devoutly religious.
Quote from: j0k3r on October 14, 2004, 05:44 AM
Out of all of my friends whose parents have gotten a divorce, they've admitted that it affected them profoundly.
My parents got divorced in february. It affected me for about a week, after that I ceased to give a shit. Although had it happened at a younger age it probably would have had much more of an affect on me.
It's okay for Hitmen to have his signature, but it's not okay for me to suggest that we send a few tactical nukes over to Mecca.
My parents divorced when i was 6 months old. It probably had an affect on me with the llack of both parental figures. But I think the thread has gone off topic a little. I don't believe they should have the option to adopt but they should be able to have the label of married through the state so that they can get the same benefits as a married couple.
Actually this thread has gone way off topic and I'm not even going to try to catch up on it.
Quote from: j0k3r on October 14, 2004, 05:44 AM
Quote from: Forged on October 13, 2004, 09:51 PM
It is void though, because marriage and the raising of children are two diffrent things...
Congratulations on the dumbest post of this thread.
Out of all of my friends whose parents have gotten a divorce, they've admitted that it affected them profoundly. Divorce aside, kids raised in houses with marriage problems often (not always) have more problems emotionally than those raised in a house with a good marriage.
My parents are divorced, it really doesn't bother me, but that wasn't what I was talking about anyway. He said that Homosexuals can't raise children properlly, so I said marriage and raising children are two diffrent things. You don't have to raise a child just because you are married to someone. kthx
Its one such example. I have another major argument against homosexual "unions." What will this open the door to? Might we then have to legalize polygamy? If it should be the choice of the individuals who to marry and have "relations with" shouldn't it go that it should be the choice of the people to marry multiple partners?
Quote from: Tuberload on October 13, 2004, 11:30 PM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 10:26 PM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 13, 2004, 05:22 PM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 05:11 PM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 13, 2004, 04:55 PM
My values are not shaped by religion whatsoever. I am a baptized catholic by birth, but I do not practice it as of now. My values are shaped by life's lessons I have been "fortunate" enough to experience.
If you do not practice a religion then it can't very well shape your values now can it?
Then perhaps you should rephrase your position, so that it doesn't sound like you're saying all values are shaped by religion.
No I am saying that bushes values are shaped by his religion. You are saying you are a catholic but not practicing. Bush practices his religion so it shapes his values, you do not practice your so it can't shape yours. I have said bush's values are shaped by religion. Not all values. Pay attention. I was continuously referring to the commander in chief.
You tell me to pay attention yet you're completely unable to respond to any point that is ever made to you? What a joke...
I have been responding and you have not been getting the message. Don't call me a joke when you are putting words in my mouth or misunderstanding what I am saying.
I have been saying throughout this thread that Bush makes decisions based on values, his values were shaped by his religion. This does not mean he is making a deicison to further his religion. But somehow you interpreted that to mean all values are shaped by religion???
Quote from: Forged on October 13, 2004, 10:37 PM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 10:33 PM
Quote from: Forged on October 13, 2004, 09:51 PM
Quote from: Hazard on October 13, 2004, 09:45 PM
How about the evidence from the American Psycholigical Institute concerning the development of children who grow up in homosexual homes, or does that not count?
links? It is void though, because marriage and the raising of children are two diffrent things...
The whole idea behind not allowing gay marriage is because it hurts the family unit. Families are torn up enough as it is with divorces. We do not need the definition of marriage getting more screwed up. Marriage used to be forever... that's all changed. Once marriage was between a man and a woman... now that will change too?
It hurts the family unit? How is anothers divorce any of your buisness? How does it hurt your marriage? Further more, how does someone getting married mean we will have more divorce? Marriage is not a christian concept, no where close, don't treat it as one.
I never did tread it as a christian concept... marriage was around long before the christians. When a family gets a divorce it tears the family apart. When did I say another family getting a divorce is affecting my life? It is not affecting me personally, but it is screwing up that family.
Quotemight we then have to legalize polygamy?
ok?
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 14, 2004, 10:19 PM
Quote from: Forged on October 13, 2004, 10:37 PM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 10:33 PM
Quote from: Forged on October 13, 2004, 09:51 PM
Quote from: Hazard on October 13, 2004, 09:45 PM
How about the evidence from the American Psycholigical Institute concerning the development of children who grow up in homosexual homes, or does that not count?
links? It is void though, because marriage and the raising of children are two diffrent things...
The whole idea behind not allowing gay marriage is because it hurts the family unit. Families are torn up enough as it is with divorces. We do not need the definition of marriage getting more screwed up. Marriage used to be forever... that's all changed. Once marriage was between a man and a woman... now that will change too?
It hurts the family unit? How is anothers divorce any of your buisness? How does it hurt your marriage? Further more, how does someone getting married mean we will have more divorce? Marriage is not a christian concept, no where close, don't treat it as one.
I never did tread it as a christian concept... marriage was around long before the christians. When a family gets a divorce it tears the family apart. When did I say another family getting a divorce is affecting my life? It is not affecting me personally, but it is screwing up that family.
So?
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 14, 2004, 10:19 PM
When a family gets a divorce it tears the family apart. When did I say another family getting a divorce is affecting my life? It is not affecting me personally, but it is screwing up that family.
My parents are divorced, so I want you to read this carefully before you respond:
Shut up. Divorce disrupts the lives of families, yes, but so does having parents who hate eachother. Divorce is often preferable to remaining married. THAT'S WHY PEOPLE GET THEM. Moreover, how are the decisions of other families ANY of your business? Which brings me to...
How is other people's sexual preference any of your business? People who are gay fall in love just like people who are straight, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be accorded the same privileges by society. Civil Unions will NOT destroy the family unit, they will NOT break up families, they will NOT, in fact, adversely affect
anyone, so why do you care?
This issue is a matter of simple prejudice. I've never, ever, ever heard a single good argument against gay marriage.
If you disagree, provide bullet-points in favour. I don't really want to read yet another right-wing diatribe on homosexuality, clothed by politics.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 15, 2004, 03:38 AMCivil Unions will NOT destroy the family unit, they will NOT break up families, they will NOT, in fact, adversely affect anyone, so why do you care?
This issue is a matter of simple prejudice. I've never, ever, ever heard a single good argument against gay marriage.
If you disagree, provide bullet-points in favour. I don't really want to read yet another right-wing diatribe on homosexuality, clothed by politics.
Actually, it will affect some people. In particular, the clerks responsible for issuing marriage licenses will have more work to do. ;)
And the government will get more money.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 15, 2004, 03:38 AM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 14, 2004, 10:19 PM
When a family gets a divorce it tears the family apart. When did I say another family getting a divorce is affecting my life? It is not affecting me personally, but it is screwing up that family.
This issue is a matter of simple prejudice. I've never, ever, ever heard a single good argument against gay marriage.
Then here it is. If gay marriage is legalized as a federal law, the south will go nuts. Like it or not, there's a valid point.
I see nothing wrong with civil unions; I think it's a good compromise.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 15, 2004, 03:38 AM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 14, 2004, 10:19 PM
When a family gets a divorce it tears the family apart. When did I say another family getting a divorce is affecting my life? It is not affecting me personally, but it is screwing up that family.
My parents are divorced, so I want you to read this carefully before you respond:
Shut up. Divorce disrupts the lives of families, yes, but so does having parents who hate eachother. Divorce is often preferable to remaining married. THAT'S WHY PEOPLE GET THEM. Moreover, how are the decisions of other families ANY of your business? Which brings me to...
they should work things out or not get married in the first place. How come divorces are on the rise? They used to be less common because people would work things out. My parents get in plenty of fights, but they always compromise and make up. Today it seems to me like some minor thing will drive a married couple to divorce, things that can be fixed.
QuoteCivil Unions will NOT destroy the family unit, they will NOT break up families, they will NOT, in fact, adversely affect anyone, so why do you care?
I do not neccessarily disaggree with civil unions. Its just that marriage is between a man and a woman. Husband and wife, not husband and husband.... I have no problem with people of the same sex having a sort of common law wife husband deal going on where they can get the other ones stuff if they break up, or be on the same health care plans, so on and so fourth.
QuoteThen here it is. If gay marriage is legalized as a federal law, the south will go nuts
Why should anyone care what a bunch of ignorant cousin fuckers think? If they want to try and leave again let them. See how long it takes for them to come crawling back....
Quotedo not neccessarily disaggree with civil unions
I think our goverment should get out of marriage all together. They should issue civil unions to everyone, and marriage can be that persons religous preference.
QuoteIts just that marriage is between a man and a woman.
On a complete side note, that sounds like something people were saying in the 70's but with more of a racial conintation
Quote from: Forged on October 15, 2004, 04:37 PM
QuoteThen here it is. If gay marriage is legalized as a federal law, the south will go nuts
Why should anyone care what a bunch of ignorant cousin fuckers think? If they want to try and leave again let them. See how long it takes for them to come crawling back....
The candidates sure care.
QuoteMe: I think that was aimed more towards Bush, but you're right as well.
You: Bush does what he thinks is right. His religious beliefs shape his values, which will affect what he thinks is right. But this does not mean his foreign or domestic policies are based on his religious beliefs. Keep in mind one reason why we support Israel is because of their location. They are a friendly western democracy in an unfriendly part of the world. We support Kuwait for the same reason... we can put troops on something like 1/3 of that country if we want to at any given time from what I have heard.
Me: Yes but Bush has said many things that could make it seem like all of his policies are based around his religion.
You: quotes please so I can see what you are referring to.
Me: I am not going to dig up quotes for you, because if you have listened to any of his speaches you'll know what I am talking about. Last night I watched a documentary on CNN about his presidency and he believes it was his calling to become the president. He believes he is fighting the war on terrorism on behalf of god and his wishes. He prays every mornign and night for god to give him the answers.
You: So whats wrong with praying for guidance? Just because he prays that he will make the right choices does not mean that he is working to forward his denomination or religion.
Me: When exactly did I say it was wrong or that he is working to forward his denomination?
QuoteYou: I have heard many of his speaches and I still do not get what you are talking about. Give me specifics about how he is basing his policies on his religion or the spreading of it.
Me: Once again what the hell are you talking about? I made a defensive comment supporting why some people may think Bush supports his policy based on his religion. Besides I told you, CNN documentation on Bush. Feel free to look it up and watch it. I am not going to defend my right to state an opinion, just because you feel the need to blow everything I have said thus far completely out of the water.
Now onto your response to all of my questions:
Quotewell thats exactly what it sounds like to me when you are saying bush prays to God every day... as if its a bad thing. The reason he feels God supports the war is because he feels like God has put it on his heart to go through with it. He prays for answers, the war in Iraq was a solution to a problem. He feels that it was God's will that this happen. That it was the correct decision for the well being of our country. Thats what I think of it atleast. But if we talk more on this subject this thread will be turning into a religious debate.
You did not respond to one of my questions. All you did was spit out what you had been repeatedly spewing the whole time. Then you try and change the discussion to keep from getting into a religious debate. Yet if you would have read anything I had said, it should have been obvious that I was not trying to start a religious debate, I was trying to figure out just what the hell it was you were ranting about and defend my right to say whatever I want.
Now on to discussion number 2:
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 04:51 PM
Values are shaped by religion. When you make a decision it is based on your values. So no matter what religion will enter into everything. But to say because someone has a religious belief and that shapes their values and that shapes their decision is violating the separation of church and state would be totally retarded. There is no separation of church and state, in fact the separation clause applies to a state sponsoring a religion or hindering a religion. Its not like bush is saying everyone has to be in his denomination, and its not like bush is dumping on everyone who practices Islam.
I have highlighted all the important parts of your post to make it easier to understand my point.
Quote from: Tuberload on October 13, 2004, 04:55 PM
My values are not shaped by religion whatsoever. I am a baptized catholic by birth, but I do not practice it as of now. My values are shaped by life’s lessons I have been "fortunate" enough to experience.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 05:11 PM
If you do not practice a religion then it can't very well shape your values now can it?
Interesting, didn’t you just get done saying that religion shapes your values, and that it enters into everything?
Quote from: Tuberload on October 13, 2004, 05:22 PM
Then perhaps you should rephrase your position, so that it doesn't sound like you're saying all values are shaped by religion.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 13, 2004, 10:26 PM
No I am saying that bushes values are shaped by his religion. You are saying you are a catholic but not practicing. Bush practices his religion so it shapes his values, you do not practice your so it can't shape yours. I have said bush's values are shaped by religion. Not all values. Pay attention. I was continuously referring to the commander in chief.
Earlier you said that religion shapes your values and that it enters into everything? Maybe you should pay attention to what you're saying.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 14, 2004, 10:17 PM
I have been responding and you have not been getting the message. Don't call me a joke when you are putting words in my mouth or misunderstanding what I am saying.
I have been saying throughout this thread that Bush makes decisions based on values, his values were shaped by his religion. This does not mean he is making a deicison to further his religion. But somehow you interpreted that to mean all values are shaped by religion???
Now I have come to the conclusion, that I generated a perfectly understandable response after going back through all of that. I have also come to the conclusion that it was in fact you who is putting words into my mouth and misunderstanding everything I have said. This is based solely on the fact that you got into this conversation with me in the first place, when I think it was bluntly obvious that I was not arguing that a president should not be allowed to shape his values based upon his religion.
I stick by my opinion about this conversation, and your ability to follow.
Quote from: Forged on October 15, 2004, 04:37 PM
QuoteThen here it is. If gay marriage is legalized as a federal law, the south will go nuts
Why should anyone care what a bunch of ignorant cousin fuckers think? If they want to try and leave again let them. See how long it takes for them to come crawling back....
THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of an asshole, hypocritical liberal.
"Oh you bigot, why don't you be open minded and allow gay marriage"
"I disagree"
"I HATE YOU BECAUSE YOURE FROM THE SOUTH SO YOU OBVIOUSLY FUCK YOUR COUSIN."
I see the irony, but Arta, of course, won't.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 15, 2004, 04:14 PM
Today it seems to me like some minor thing will drive a married couple to divorce, things that can be fixed.
How is that any of your business?Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on October 15, 2004, 06:58 PM
THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of an asshole, hypocritical liberal.
...
I see the irony, but Arta, of course, won't.
That may make Forged a hypocrite. It bears no such inference on
me.
Quote"Oh you bigot, why don't you be open minded and allow gay marriage"
"I disagree"
"I HATE YOU BECAUSE YOURE FROM THE SOUTH SO YOU OBVIOUSLY FUCK YOUR COUSIN."
I am from alabama, and live in texas. Don't make assumptions...
If I recall correctlly I never called anyone a bigot. I just said someones personal afairs where their own, and should not concern you. How is someone marrying someone of the same sex effecting you?
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 15, 2004, 07:56 PM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 15, 2004, 04:14 PM
Today it seems to me like some minor thing will drive a married couple to divorce, things that can be fixed.
How is that any of your business?
Okay, I see that absolutly nothing is my business, nothing that is happeneing in this country is any of my damned business. My brother's friend was killed the other day because a swingset collapsed on him. I am not allowed to comment on how tragic that is because it did not happen to me or someone related to me.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 15, 2004, 11:19 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 15, 2004, 07:56 PM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 15, 2004, 04:14 PM
Today it seems to me like some minor thing will drive a married couple to divorce, things that can be fixed.
How is that any of your business?
Okay, I see that absolutly nothing is my business, nothing that is happeneing in this country is any of my damned business. My brother's friend was killed the other day because a swingset collapsed on him. I am not allowed to comment on how tragic that is because it did not happen to me or someone related to me.
People's personal relationships are none of your fucking buisness.
Quote from: Tuberload on October 15, 2004, 06:49 PM
Now I have come to the conclusion, that I generated a perfectly understandable response after going back through all of that. I have also come to the conclusion that it was in fact you who is putting words into my mouth and misunderstanding everything I have said. This is based solely on the fact that you got into this conversation with me in the first place, when I think it was bluntly obvious that I was not arguing that a president should not be allowed to shape his values based upon his religion.
Yes you dug up every post and let me go back to the beginning. You make it sound like Bush praying is a bad thing, its the way it came off. You said in there that you do not think it is a bad thing, but the enitial post read that way to me.
Also the fact that you said to me that all values are shaped by religion in there when I never said they were. I said values are shaped by religion, I was referring to the values of the president and the values of those who pracitce a religion. Values enter all decisions, and Bush's values are shaped by religion. That is the spot that I am referring to where you put words into my mouth and completely missed what I was trying to say.
Quote from: Forged on October 15, 2004, 11:22 PM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 15, 2004, 11:19 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 15, 2004, 07:56 PM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 15, 2004, 04:14 PM
Today it seems to me like some minor thing will drive a married couple to divorce, things that can be fixed.
How is that any of your business?
Okay, I see that absolutly nothing is my business, nothing that is happeneing in this country is any of my damned business. My brother's friend was killed the other day because a swingset collapsed on him. I am not allowed to comment on how tragic that is because it did not happen to me or someone related to me.
People's personal relationships are none of your fucking buisness.
When did I comment on any one person's relationship with another person? The fact is that divorce rates are higher then they have ever been. They never used to be that way, so what is the problem? Why are the rates so much higher then they used to be? It seems to me like people are now using marriage like an extended form of dating. They get married, finally decide they do not like the person after a few months (cough: celebrities) and then have an annulment or a divorce.
I am not saying if a wife walks in and finds a husband in bed with another person that she should not leave him, something like that is a perfectly fine reason to get a divorce. I am saying that people should marry only when they have the intent of spending the rest of their life with the other person and should try to work out their problems because people are divorcing over stupid crap. Many of my friends have parents who are divorced and you would not believe some of the retarded reasons they get divorced over.
That's unbelievably arrogant. As if you're qualified to judge other people's relationship decisions.... get a grip!
Quote from: quasi-modo on October 15, 2004, 11:32 PM
When did I comment on any one person's relationship with another person? The fact is that divorce rates are higher then they have ever been. They never used to be that way, so what is the problem? Why are the rates so much higher then they used to be? It seems to me like people are now using marriage like an extended form of dating. They get married, finally decide they do not like the person after a few months (cough: celebrities) and then have an annulment or a divorce.
I am not saying if a wife walks in and finds a husband in bed with another person that she should not leave him, something like that is a perfectly fine reason to get a divorce. I am saying that people should marry only when they have the intent of spending the rest of their life with the other person and should try to work out their problems because people are divorcing over stupid crap. Many of my friends have parents who are divorced and you would not believe some of the retarded reasons they get divorced over.
OK, my interpretation of what you're saying: It's too easy to get married. People get married without having fully thought through the consequences, as an extended form of dating. We need to make it harder for people to get married.
I don't see you saying there's any problem with divorces, just that marriage has been devaluated by being too easy to enter. Perhaps people should be required a 1 year waiting period before marrying? Something to stop all those lightheaded infatuated couples from jumping into something that isn't really right for them?
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 16, 2004, 05:50 AM
That's unbelievably arrogant. As if you're qualified to judge other people's relationship decisions.... get a grip!
Jesus Christ Arta, what the hell is wrong with you!? It's okay for you to judge other people's decisions, but not for him to?
Quote
OK, my interpretation of what you're saying: It's too easy to get married. People get married without having fully thought through the consequences, as an extended form of dating. We need to make it harder for people to get married.
It's probably more a changing of social trends than actually making a law, but this statement is true:
Quote
I don't see you saying there's any problem with divorces, just that marriage has been devaluated by being too easy to enter.
Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on October 16, 2004, 06:24 AM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 16, 2004, 05:50 AM
That's unbelievably arrogant. As if you're qualified to judge other people's relationship decisions.... get a grip!
Jesus Christ Arta, what the hell is wrong with you!? It's okay for you to judge other people's decisions, but not for him to?
May I point out more hypocriticism?
Quote from: Adron on October 16, 2004, 05:58 AM
Quote from: quasi-modo on October 15, 2004, 11:32 PM
When did I comment on any one person's relationship with another person? The fact is that divorce rates are higher then they have ever been. They never used to be that way, so what is the problem? Why are the rates so much higher then they used to be? It seems to me like people are now using marriage like an extended form of dating. They get married, finally decide they do not like the person after a few months (cough: celebrities) and then have an annulment or a divorce.
I am not saying if a wife walks in and finds a husband in bed with another person that she should not leave him, something like that is a perfectly fine reason to get a divorce. I am saying that people should marry only when they have the intent of spending the rest of their life with the other person and should try to work out their problems because people are divorcing over stupid crap. Many of my friends have parents who are divorced and you would not believe some of the retarded reasons they get divorced over.
OK, my interpretation of what you're saying: It's too easy to get married. People get married without having fully thought through the consequences, as an extended form of dating. We need to make it harder for people to get married.
I don't see you saying there's any problem with divorces, just that marriage has been devaluated by being too easy to enter. Perhaps people should be required a 1 year waiting period before marrying? Something to stop all those lightheaded infatuated couples from jumping into something that isn't really right for them?
Maybe not something that extreme. But maybe if we made it harder to get a divorce so that people will work out some of their problems or something. I mean make sure people getting a divorce have a good reason before they go throuhg with it... or else they get hassled for a long time trying to get one.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 16, 2004, 05:50 AM
That's unbelievably arrogant. As if you're qualified to judge other people's relationship decisions.... get a grip!
Wait wait wait, you are acting like I am judging individual marriages and saying the people should not be married. I am just pointing out a trend. I think that marriage should be like it used to be. I think the vows should be taken seriously. Evidently they are not.
Quote from: quasi-modo on October 16, 2004, 09:36 AM
I think that marriage should be like it used to be. I think the vows should be taken seriously. Evidently they are not.
Well, one way could be having marriages negotiated by the parents.
Another one to bring back huge dowries, a solid financial investment in the marriage. This would fit really well in with the general capitalism too - what better way to revalue marriage than to assign monetary value?
QuoteI think that marriage should be like it used to be. I think the vows should be taken seriously. Evidently they are not.
Marriage 4000 years ago? Marriage 200 years ago? or marriage previous to the the 50's?
Quote from: quasi-modo on October 15, 2004, 11:27 PM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 15, 2004, 06:49 PM
Now I have come to the conclusion, that I generated a perfectly understandable response after going back through all of that. I have also come to the conclusion that it was in fact you who is putting words into my mouth and misunderstanding everything I have said. This is based solely on the fact that you got into this conversation with me in the first place, when I think it was bluntly obvious that I was not arguing that a president should not be allowed to shape his values based upon his religion.
Yes you dug up every post and let me go back to the beginning. You make it sound like Bush praying is a bad thing, its the way it came off. You said in there that you do not think it is a bad thing, but the enitial post read that way to me.
Also the fact that you said to me that all values are shaped by religion in there when I never said they were. I said values are shaped by religion, I was referring to the values of the president and the values of those who pracitce a religion. Values enter all decisions, and Bush's values are shaped by religion. That is the spot that I am referring to where you put words into my mouth and completely missed what I was trying to say.
Ahh and you're still unable to answer my questions or respond to anything I have said. You are good at rephrasing what you say frequently though.
Quote from: Adron on October 16, 2004, 01:08 PM
Quote from: quasi-modo on October 16, 2004, 09:36 AM
I think that marriage should be like it used to be. I think the vows should be taken seriously. Evidently they are not.
Well, one way could be having marriages negotiated by the parents.
Another one to bring back huge dowries, a solid financial investment in the marriage. This would fit really well in with the general capitalism too - what better way to revalue marriage than to assign monetary value?
I couldn't really tell if you were being serious about the second part or being sarcastic ;)
Quote from: Forged on October 16, 2004, 02:41 PM
QuoteI think that marriage should be like it used to be. I think the vows should be taken seriously. Evidently they are not.
Marriage 4000 years ago? Marriage 200 years ago? or marriage previous to the the 50's?
The way it originally was when our country was founded.
Quote from: Tuberload on October 16, 2004, 08:33 PM
Quote from: quasi-modo on October 15, 2004, 11:27 PM
Quote from: Tuberload on October 15, 2004, 06:49 PM
Now I have come to the conclusion, that I generated a perfectly understandable response after going back through all of that. I have also come to the conclusion that it was in fact you who is putting words into my mouth and misunderstanding everything I have said. This is based solely on the fact that you got into this conversation with me in the first place, when I think it was bluntly obvious that I was not arguing that a president should not be allowed to shape his values based upon his religion.
Yes you dug up every post and let me go back to the beginning. You make it sound like Bush praying is a bad thing, its the way it came off. You said in there that you do not think it is a bad thing, but the enitial post read that way to me.
Also the fact that you said to me that all values are shaped by religion in there when I never said they were. I said values are shaped by religion, I was referring to the values of the president and the values of those who pracitce a religion. Values enter all decisions, and Bush's values are shaped by religion. That is the spot that I am referring to where you put words into my mouth and completely missed what I was trying to say.
Ahh and you're still unable to answer my questions or respond to anything I have said. You are good at rephrasing what you say frequently though.
Bahhh whatever.
Quote from: quasi-modo on October 17, 2004, 07:09 PM
Quote from: Forged on October 16, 2004, 02:41 PM
QuoteI think that marriage should be like it used to be. I think the vows should be taken seriously. Evidently they are not.
Marriage 4000 years ago? Marriage 200 years ago? or marriage previous to the the 50's?
The way it originally was when our country was founded.
White men only married white women(with lots of keeping it in the family too), and black people married whoever their owner thought would breed the best children?
Quote from: Forged on October 19, 2004, 01:41 AM
Quote from: quasi-modo on October 17, 2004, 07:09 PM
Quote from: Forged on October 16, 2004, 02:41 PM
QuoteI think that marriage should be like it used to be. I think the vows should be taken seriously. Evidently they are not.
Marriage 4000 years ago? Marriage 200 years ago? or marriage previous to the the 50's?
The way it originally was when our country was founded.
White men only married white women(with lots of keeping it in the family too), and black people married whoever their owner thought would breed the best children?
You know, that is not what I was talking about at all. I was talking about with respect to the vows.