Trooth

That isn't an opinion, its either hatred or incitement. It certainly isn't good reasoned debate.

Leader

I would go that far. I think just keeping traditional marriage laws on the books would be fine. What you do in your own home is no ones business and government should stay out of it.

__________________

Leader

Hey we are talking about a guy who said that the terrorist should have attacked Texas so more Republicans would die. If some one killed this guy, I would be happy.

Confed999

It's not worded for incitement. I'm of the opinion that it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I certainly wouldn't shed a tear for the big lying lump of poo, but I wouldn't wish his death either.
We're debating it a bit though, right?

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Confed999

Exactly! Marriage has a religious connotation and shouldn't be forced to associate with something they don't approve of. I support civil unions, but for all of us.

Trooth

I remember that quote he was saying that AQ killed a lot of innocent people indisciminately and that if they wanted to they could have been more discriminate in targetting those supporters of the US foreign policy that AQ so hates. I don't think he was actually advocating killing Republicans, i read it as highlighting that it was an attack for show, without any real menaing. Its a touchy subject to go on about, admittedly.

It would be like saying "well if they had send all four planes to the pentagon they would have done more damage to the US military".

Trooth

You could argue the fact that his life is now in question was brought about by that comment. Regardless of your views on him, he is, in essence a political dissident. OK he might be a lying **** and to make a few bucks, but equally he might not be or he might just be as bad as many elected politicians. That is not the point. If we are going to tolerate people posting "political dissident must die" then we aren't progressing much further than those areas that this whole debate is fundamentally about.

Trooth

Marriage in all forms was created by man. Therefore its up to man what forms marriage takes. Its up to the church to afford a marriage ceremony that fullfils their view on their God's will.

The church will, like any large nidustry adjust over time. After all the marriage ceremony has accomodated women's rights. I suspect the pink pound will encourage the church to change God's views.

themuffinman

I only posted that because Of the original thread Michael Moore is a Liar. I was pointing out how other country's treat there own people. Michael Moore and the people that support him hate the United States Look at The movie “Fahrenheit 9/11”
http://www.michaelmoore.com/index.php How can any one Make a documentary thats not even true. The only reason he won that prize in Cannes is because he bashed peresident Bush and the United States. Of course he was going to win that prize he was in france. Any clown can be put into an editing room and make someone look bad. And he is hoping for a July release (4th of July weekend?) both in the U.S. and around the world. How patriotic!!!!

__________________
Pain is just weakness leaving the body. USMC
Semper Fi

Trooth

Have you seen the film? I haven't so i couldn't comment on whether it is true or not. The best i could do is comment on other people's comments. I may as well wait to watch the film.

I agree that anyone can make anyone look bad if they try hard enough. But i disagree that doing so, even to the president of the US is actually unpatriotic, after all he isn't attacking America. He is attacking the president. Unless you are saying that Bush himself is the personifcation of all that is good, and only good, about the US. In which case you may as well scrap the elections as well!

Don't get me wrong, i am not sayng that Moore is correct, and not lying. But there is a certain amount of "The last temptation of christ" about this film. Next there will be a load of conservatives saying that its a downright travesty, Moore should be sued for libel, but that no, they haven't seen the fiilm and nor do they plan to.

Confed999

His life is in question if he crosses the street in front of my car too. Anything bad that happens to him I will chalk up to Karma. You asked before what unAmerican was, Moore is unAmerican, he's a man "who claims to love America, but clearly hates Americans".
The second 1/2 of that is correct, the first part is not. His movies and books make anyone who sees them dumber. Contrived bits of BS to support an opinion are not documentaries. From the reviews by Americans, his newest movie is the same old poo. Moore IS a lier and a hypocrite, and he even braggs about it. In my little black and white world, Moore is so far in the dark he will never find his way out.
I don't see where anyone wrote that. If Moore "needs" to be assassinated for M_A to be happy, then that's his opinion.
As an ordained Minister holding the title of Reverend (believe it or not), I do not even slightly agree. What you speak of is the legality of marriage, a contract, and that can be covered with civil unions.

"As marriage has its human origin in the first principles and most interior forms of man's nature, it consists essentially in the union of two minds or souls. The human spirit is the subject and theatre of its operation. It is, therefore, spiritual in its nature. It is not in itself a civil or legal contract; it is not effected by ecclesiastical sanction. It is as impossible for the state or the church to marry a man and a woman, in the essential meaning of the word, as it would be to join light and heat, or make two material substances combine which had no affinity for each other. The state may throw restraints around marriage; it may prescribe legal forms and conditions for its natural and visible consummation; it may protect and conserve it by the sanctions of its authority, as it is its right and duty to do; but it can neither unite nor separate human souls. The church may give its sanction, and consecrate its consummation by solemn ceremonies; it may instruct the people in its nature and use, and the proper steps that lead to it; but here its mission and power end. It cannot touch the interior and invisible bonds that bind soul to soul, either to confirm or dissolve them. God alone can join human souls together, and of the twain make one."
No church is God, only God will change God's views.

ChrisF202

Where do you preach Confed?

Trooth

Not that long ago, marriage was about a woman being handed form her father to her new husband (given away). Shoes were present to represent how she should be kept in line. She was to love honour, and obey.

The marriage ceremony has now changed. Either it has re-interpreted God's view of how women should be treated within marriage, or it has corrected an incorrect interpretation or it has simply abandoned God's view. Either way marriage ceremonies are different now to how it was then, possibly because more people were going for civil as opposed to religious ceremonies. Church roof gotta be paid for after all.

As you say, any marriage ceremony is a construct of man. Two people wanting to spend the rest of their life together don't even have to bother with such a thing, really. Which is why i don't see a problem with gay marriages, two people want to express publicly their comittment to each other. Good on them and i hope they will be very happy together.

The church may decide the percentages are too small, that "sanctioning" gay marriages may not gain it as many bums on seats as they may lose, but as the older more staid generations die, the newer ones won't see an issue with it, just like women priests.

My point is however any change is made by man. But if God is to be dragged into the arguement, it appears he is on both sides and is changing his viewpoint over the years.

BTW, it doesn't surprise me at all that you are ordained, Reverand Confed. In fact i commend you for it and admire your dedication and learning.

Won't stop me arguing with you though Rev, though it does appear you have powerful friends

Confed999

Just at weddings. I have my own faith, and I do not preach it except to the poor fool that accidentily asks. Since I am "head" of said faith my title is Reverend. That part is all about the legality of performing weddings. I think I need to go and pay my fees to register my name on the list to sign the licenses again, if I need to do another.

The main reasons I did it though was, to affirm that my faith is as individual as I am, and to remind me of my obligation to help where I can and to call for help where I can't.
I swear, I bet most of our disagreements are misunderstandings. I don't have a problem with gay marriage, BUT, out of respect for the religous connotation I can't support it. I do support civil unions, which provide everything except the word marriage. That way everyone gets what they want. BTW, if either becomes legal, and I'm allowed to sign the license, I will sign every single one presented by a couple I believe love each other.
I'm sure God lets you make up your own mind.
I may just be a looney too.
Good! I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it.

themuffinman

Filmmaker Moore Says He Has Footage Of Berg Interview

POSTED: 3:46 pm EDT May 27, 2004
NEW YORK -- Filmmaker Michael Moore, whose incendiary new documentary lambastes President Bush's handling of the war, said Thursday that he has footage unused in the film of Nicholas Berg, the American civilian later beheaded in Iraq.

The footage, of an interview with Berg, "is approximately 20 minutes long. We are not releasing it to the media," Moore said in a statement. "It is not in the film. We are dealing privately with the family."

Neither Moore nor his representatives would describe the nature or contents of the interview with Berg, who held staunch pro-war views.

No one answered the phone Thursday at the home of Berg's parents in West Chester, Pa.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," which recently won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, accuses the Bush camp of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before Sept. 11, 2001, and fanning fears of more attacks to secure American support for the Iraq war.

Moore's assault on U.S. policy got him into trouble with Disney, which refused to let subsidiary Miramax release "Fahrenheit 9/11." He is still trying to work out a deal for U.S. distribution.

http://www.local6.com/news/3354021/detail.html