GameBanshee Forums

Heck, in some countries of the world, you don't even have to marry a person of the opposite sex to be considered married

I think the sentiment was sincere, since it seems to be a theme.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn


@MM, what do you mean, the only country that counts?

The US is my home, and consequently, the only country whose policies affect me directly, and inversely the only country whose political, judicial, legislative structure I can affect in turn. In that sense, it's the only country that counts. I care little what laws and policies foreign nations, or the United Nations, decide to pass. More often than not, they're bound to reflect a Socialist and/or left-leaning ideology anyway, and the US is neither socialist nor left-leaning.

UK? socialist/left-leaning? i wish...

other than that, i will not dignify the post with a reply...

Originally posted by EMINEM
The US is my home, and consequently, the only country whose policies affect me directly, and inversely the only country whose political, judicial, legislative structure I can affect in turn. In that sense, it's the only country that counts. I care little what laws and policies foreign nations, or the United Nations, decide to pass. More often than not, they're bound to reflect a Socialist and/or left-leaning ideology anyway, and the US is neither socialist nor left-leaning.

I had a feeling you were intending something along these lines.

Originally posted by EMINEM
The US is my home, and consequently, the only country whose policies affect me directly, and inversely the only country whose political, judicial, legislative structure I can affect in turn. In that sense, it's the only country that counts. I care little what laws and policies foreign nations, or the United Nations, decide to pass. More often than not, they're bound to reflect a Socialist and/or left-leaning ideology anyway, and the US is neither socialist nor left-leaning.

Eh, are you sure you are well MM? I really don't know what to say, have you missed the fact that politics and economy are international issues today as well as national? Whether you like it or not, the US affect other countries and other countries affect the US. The US is of course the world's most powerful nation, but did you for instance notice how the recession in the Asian Tiger economies a few years ago affected the economy also in the US? Have you noticed how the goverment in your country co-operated with many countries in the alliance against terrorism after the WTC attack? Or how many different international trading and political treaty's the US is part of, even if there any many that the US has chosen to stand outside (such as Kyoto or Small Arms)?

Also, I do not agree that your national politics are the only ones you can affect. The president of the US is more than most politicians, a politician who takes decisions that are of importance for many other countries. When you vote for a president, you don't only vote for his/her national policies, you also vote for that persons international activities.

It disappoints me greatly that you care so little about the 5.75 billion who live in other countries than the US. I will not continue this discussion, since you obviously hold provinsialism and local patriotism as more important than humanistic values, something I must admit I never expected from a devouted christian.

Somehow you remind me of the McCarthy-era, MM

Originally posted by EMINEM
The US is my home, and consequently, the only country whose policies affect me directly, and inversely the only country whose political, judicial, legislative structure I can affect in turn. In that sense, it's the only country that counts. I care little what laws and policies foreign nations, or the United Nations, decide to pass. More often than not, they're bound to reflect a Socialist and/or left-leaning ideology anyway, and the US is neither socialist nor left-leaning.

How dare you make such a sweeping (and condescending) generalization about the motivations of the other 190 nations on the planet. Don’t presume to speak for the US either. I, for one, am embarrassed to share this country with someone willing to voice such ugly xenophobic comments and wallow in such holier-than-thou ignorance.

That's pretty deep, Elegans, but I'm afraid I didn't have any international political or economic concerns in my mind when I entered the voting booth back in November 2000 to vote for George W. Bush. I voted for Dubya primarily because he's a conservative Christian (like me), and proudly pro-life. He even publicly stated his intent to appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mould of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia should a vacancy occur during his presidency - that is, pro-life justices who can overturn the 1972 Roe vs. Wade decision that made abortion legal in America. Gore of course didn't miss the chance to trumpet this, but it didn't do him much good since he lost the election anyway.

People vote for different reasons, and if my reasons happen to stand in opposition to those of the anti-globalization crowd, then more power to the democratic process! I fail to understand, however, how my unilateralism by default turns me into a disciple of Joe McCarthy. In any case, I think a person can have a bigger impact humanitarily within their local neighborhoods and struggling inner cities rather than in some obscure developing country on the other side of the globe. I'm American first, and a citizen of the world second.

Originally posted by Waverly
How dare you make such a sweeping (and condescending) generalization about the motivations of the other 190 nations on the planet. Don’t presume to speak for the US either. I, for one, am embarrassed to share this country with someone willing to voice such ugly xenophobic comments and wallow in such holier-than-thou ignorance.

Theatrical and meaningless insults aside, what exactly are you disputing in my statement?

Originally posted by EMINEM
Theatrical and meaningless insults aside, what exactly are you disputing in my statement?

You know, I believe you sincerely don’t understand what I find so offensive. To me, it just further underscores your pathology. I’m all for debate, but not with the willfully ignorant. I’m done here.


Oh, and if you find my characterization of your rhetoric insulting, you'd really blush if you heard my personal, unvarnished views on the matter.

Moderator's cap on.

Originally posted by EMINEM
The US is my home, and consequently, the only country whose policies affect me directly, and inversely the only country whose political, judicial, legislative structure I can affect in turn.

But that's not the way it read, @Eminem. What you initially wrote was that the US was the only country that counts, not "the only country whose matters I can directly affect," or "the only country whose laws matter to me." It appeared xenophobic, and injured the patriotism of a lot of people who share this forum with you from other nations, who believe their nations count for something, too.

I realize you want to be provocative, but this kind of provocation we don't need; and I'd like to think you didn't mean it during its initial post the way it sounds.

I'd also like to urge everybody not to respond emotionally to a statement like this. If you have problems with it, PM @Eminem; if you feel you don't receive satisfaction, email or PM the moderators as a group.

Originally posted by EMINEM
That's pretty deep, Elegans, but I'm afraid I didn't have any international political or economic concerns in my mind when I entered the voting booth back in November 2000 to vote for George W. Bush. I voted for Dubya primarily because he's a conservative Christian (like me), and proudly pro-life. He even publicly stated his intent to appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mould of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia should a vacancy occur during his presidency - that is, pro-life justices who can overturn the 1972 Roe vs. Wade decision that made abortion legal in America. Gore of course didn't miss the chance to trumpet this, but it didn't do him much good since he lost the election anyway.

<SNIP> In any case, I think a person can have a bigger impact humanitarily within their local neighborhoods and struggling inner cities rather than in some obscure developing country on the other side of the globe. I'm American first, and a citizen of the world second.

I couldn't care less about politics. I'm Texan first, citizen of the solar system second, and citizen of America last, with numerous other things at a higher importance than America or this planet Earth. But it is still important what is happening to every human being. As a Christian, you should know that we can affect all humans everywhere simply by praying and asking God to help them through their troubles.

With my authority, take this mesage of repentance to all the nations ~ Luke 24:47a

And then he told them, "Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone, everywhere." ~ Mark 16:15a

Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.~ Matthew 28:19

You may not be able to personally go to the other nations and witness to them, but by doing things to help lead the US towards being a more Godly nation as it was originally intended, you have a profound effect upon the entire world, especially because of the power of the US.

While it is true that we can have more immediately results, whether good or bad, from what we do within our local areas, that is not what matters. We are not in this for instant gratification. Even if we see no visible results from our actions, they always have effects that extend outward from where they start as time progresses forward.

It may sound cliché, but do not underestimate that power that you, a single human being, can have to change the world, especially when God is on your side.

Originally posted by EMINEM


So what?

Please try to stay with me. So what's your problem with married couples of the same sex?

Originally posted by EMINEM


Not fully, and definitely not to the same extent as marriage.

Your definition of recognized and accepted illudes me. As do most of your "arguments", of course...

Originally posted by Astafas


Please try to stay with me. So what's your problem with married couples of the same sex?

This will entail a separate forty-five minute discussion. If you want to debate same-sex marriages vs. heterosexual marriages, start another thread that deals with it.

Originally posted by EMINEM


This will entail a separate forty-five minute discussion. If you want to debate same-sex marriages vs. heterosexual marriages, start another thread that deals with it.

Then keep your rolleyes for yourself!

Astafas... grow up.

The two of you: take this to PMs, or get in touch with the moderators. This thread's not made for this bickering.

Originally posted by SS
It is not the statement about "pro-marriage" that I say is prejudice. It is the fact that Ode said that the researchers having "Christian values" calls for skepticism that I say he was making a prejudice statement. To be skeptical solely because of the person's values is prejudice, and not a smart comment to make when those you are debating with have Christian Values as well.

Apologies if I offended anyone. What I referred to is the fact that the doctrine of the Christian church actively promotes marriage, and that marriage is in itself a religious institution. Thus it seems to me that a site actively proclaiming to be based upon Christian teachings is more likely to have a pro-marriage bias than one that is non-denominational.
By the same token, if someone were to refer to a self-proclaimed anti-marriage site, or a site that proclaimed itself to be in opposition to the Christian faith I would question the validity of its findings as well.

Once again, my sincere apologies for any offence I might have caused.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper

Apologies if I offended anyone. What I referred to is the fact that the doctrine of the Christian church actively promotes marriage, and that marriage is in itself a religious institution. Thus it seems to me that a site actively proclaiming to be based upon Christian teachings is more likely to have a pro-marriage bias than one that is non-denominational.

Apology accepted, and I think I understand what you mean, now. However, just a little nitpicking note, 'non-denominational' doesn't mean 'non-Christian.'

sad to see this thread get nasty...anyway maybe they just have to.

I think we were wandering a bit far afield anyway.
I don't think that marriage being legally recognised makes it good. Of course the law is not wlays right, and thinking that somehting is right just because it is the law is irrational.

Does anyone feel we've reached any sort of conclusion?