Firstly, I need to correct something. I made the comment that the constitution mentions life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when in fact it is mentioned in the declaration of independence. I am aware of this fact, and mistakenly mentioned it as being in the constitution. However, both of these documents are essential to the foundation of our government, and reflect the will of the founding fathers who established this nation.

Let me make this clear for you and all you other idiots out there. This country is not a Democracy, has never been a Democracy, and hopefully will never be a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic so that idiots like you cannot infringe upon the rights of others because you don't like them.

The United states is indeed a constitutional republic - but a constitutional republic is a form of liberal democracy (and in our case we can also be described as a representative democracy). I never said that we were a PURE democracy, but we are indeed a form of democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

So no - Republic is *not* the antithesis of Democracy.

Make no mistake, the government derives its power from the PEOPLE, not inherently from itself.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This is essentially the ultimate statement of democracy - that our government only even EXISTS by the will of the people. I'm pretty sure the words of the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence are a legitimate source of information on the subject.

Where you ARE correct is in the fact that a liberal democracy provides protections for minority rights. However, I see no indication anywhere that marriage was considered a "right" by our founding fathers.

There ARE rights that need to be provided to gay couples, such as hospital visitation of partners, property rights, and health insurance benefits. I believe that a civil union should provide these benefits, and other similar rights. But gay couples with civil unions should be the exception - not the foundation for society.

When the family unit (a father, mother, and children if possible) breaks down, society is headed for calamity. This ALSO applies to heterosexual couples. The mounting numbers of divorces and single parents are of great concern. These are signs of a breakdown of the ability of individuals to compromise, treat each other with respect, and accept individual responsibility.

It may or may not interest you to know that I'm also opposed to heterosexual couples having sex outside of marriage, and I believe it is just as much a sin as homosexual sex.

Anyhow, for those of you who disagree with me, I respect your right to do so. I apologize for any comments I made that were presented in a curt or rude manner, but I do not apologize for my point of view or my beliefs. I sincerely believe that if the traditional family unit continues to disintegrate, our nation, and even our world is headed for calamity.

I don't harbor any ill will towards any of you, whether or not you harbor it towards me. I don't believe that gay people are going to hell, and I don't believe that God hates them, and neither do I. I try to be kind to everyone, but like most people, I fail at that at times. And I act according to what I believe is right, which is the most I can expect from anyone else, regardless of whether their views align with mine.

While there are some serious issues that divide us, I think it's pretty obvious that we're all here because we share a mutual interest in gaming. No votes are going to take place on CAG that determine whether gays can marry. Perhaps it would be best to move on since we appear to be at an impasse.

mykevermin - We may vehemently disagree on this issue, but I respect your willingness to defend your views. While I stand by the content of my views, I apologize for the abrasive way I delivered some of those views.

It's not your views that I find offensive, it's your willingness to vote for legal enforcement of your views onto others. As you stated before, our democratic country has a very regretful history of the majority persecuting minorities. This is what you are proposing to continue with homosexuals.

If someone could point out where exactly I said anything about Mormons, that would be greatly appreciated. I just went back and listened to the Shadow Complex segment and didn't hear anything.

Originally Posted by CheapyD If someone could point out where exactly I said anything about Mormons, that would be greatly appreciated. I just went back and listened to the Shadow Complex segment and didn't hear anything.

Oh wait, this was a thread about Cheapy calling Orson Scott Card and all Morons homophobes, right?

6 pages in and I forgot. ;-)

On the other side I want to mention one thing. "Marriage" existed in various forms across various cultures long before the creations of the religions that are defending it as an institution.

In the past (and some current cultures) to constitute a marriage, men (or women) would trade the marriage for monetary gain.

Some institution worth protecting.

Hello Cheapy,

I began this thread because of what was said in the podcast about Orson Scott Card and his link to the Mormon Church (actually the name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but we don't mind being called the Mormon Church.)

I re-listened to the podcast. At 1:18 Wombat called Orson Scott Card a gigantic douchebag and a homophobe. Then you called OSC an a**hole and a homophobe. Then Wombat linked OSC with the Mormon church.

I just read the article in Gay Gamer. I can respect the tone used by the author of the article. OSC does have some extreme views of gays, but these views do not coincide with the tenets of our church. We do however agree that marriages are a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God.

Just to let you know I am using most of my lunch hour to compose this post. I am not hateful, bigoted, biased, or homophobic. And to call members of the Mormon church such, is proof that the accusers are the ones guilty of being hateful.

Simply put, I believe that all members of our society must have the same rights and equality. I do not want the definition of marriage to be changed. And I deny your accusations of homophobic because of what I believe in and stand for.

Hope this can settle the argument so I can spend the rest of my lunch hour enjoying the CAG cast and getting higher that 52 flags on Plant vs. Zombies survival mode.

Tom in Vegas

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...004d82620aRCRD

With regards to homosexuality, "hate the sinner, love the sin" is indeed a homophobic standpoint.

Unless you want to follow all the tenets of Leviticus. And you assuredly are not, since you aren't in prison.

Originally Posted by tweetjj Hello Cheapy, I began this thread because of what was said in the podcast about Orson Scott Card and his link to the Mormon Church (actually the name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but we don't mind being called the Mormon Church.) I re-listened to the podcast. At 1:18 Wombat called Orson Scott Card a gigantic douchebag and a homophobe. Then you called OSC an a**hole and a homophobe. Then Wombat linked OSC with the Mormon church. I just read the article in Gay Gamer. I can respect the tone used by the author of the article. OSC does have some extreme views of gays, but these views do not coincide with the tenets of our church. We do however agree that marriages are a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Just to let you know I am using most of my lunch hour to compose this post. I am not hateful, bigoted, biased, or homophobic. And to call members of the Mormon church such, is proof that the accusers are the ones guilty of being hateful. Simply put, I believe that all members of our society must have the same rights and equality. I do not want the definition of marriage to be changed. And I deny your accusations of homophobic because of what I believe in and stand for. Hope this can settle the argument so I can spend the rest of my lunch hour enjoying the CAG cast and getting higher that 52 flags on Plant vs. Zombies survival mode. Tom in Vegas

But your definition of Marriage is different then my definition, I am not saying that you have to change your definition, but why is mine less valid?

We all know that marriage is contract bewteen two families where one family offers a child to another family in return for monetary gain or livestock.

Yes Wombat. I totally agree that your definition of marriage is different than my definition of marriage. I do not, in any way, think your definition is less valid than mine. I totally expect that you to believe, think, and vote according to your beliefs, as will I.

What I don't understand is why people who happen to believe the same as I do are called hateful things like homophobe and bigot. In your own podcast you called OSC a gigantic douchebag and then said he is a member of the Mormon Church. It would never, ever enter into my mind the thought that I should slander, harass, or ridicule someone just because they have a differing opinion.

Listen, I love the podcast. I totally appreciate what you and Cheapy do everyweek producing this podcast. It is obviously a labor of love and it shows in the quality of your podcast. But when I heard what you both said about OSC and Mormons it surprised and shocked me. I felt I should say something. I had no intention of it turning into a 6 page forum battle. I totally respect your right to say anything you want on your show. I even think the episodes of South Park that make fun of Mormons are some of the funniest of the series. I get jokes, even if they are about my religion.

I just didn't like what was said and thought I should say something.

Tom in Vegas

Originally Posted by Wombat We all know that marriage is contract bewteen two families where one family offers a child to another family in return for monetary gain or livestock.

In Talmudic law there are three ways to get married, a contract, money, or sex; if the woman accepts any of these you're hooked lol.

Seriously though, every religion defines marriage as between a man and a woman so there's no reason to start selectively insulting Mormons. Given that a large majority of the US population shares that opinion it doesn't seem like calling them all homophobes is the best way to get them to change that opinion, or to to ensure that gay couples are treated equally.

Intelligent people can still have extreme political disagreements without the need to believe that one or the other is immoral. Jew, Muslim, Christian, Black, White, Hispanic, Gay, Straight, whatever you are going to have some opinion on which you are are 100% sure you are morally right and that only a racist homophobe anti-semite could disagree with you. And just as surely someone else has the opposite opinion. Your choice is to show some respect and maybe work out the points on which you can agree; or do the rhetorical equivalent of pulling a .45 and blowing his head off. The second might make you feel better temporarily, but the first is the only way to make progress.

Originally Posted by tweetjj Frankly I was offended that Cheapy in the most recent podcast labeled Mormons, specifically Orson Scott Card, as homophobes. I would like to know if Cheapy has such stereotypical opinions toward all religions. I would also like to know if Cheapy bases this negative opinion on an actual conversation with a real life Mormon. I think that we should all be entitled to have any opinion we want without fear of being labeled homophobic because our opinions differ. But according to Cheapy, since I am against gay marriage, but in support of partner rights I must be a homophobe as well. This hateful speech toward me and the religion I cherish really turned my stomach. I consider the CAG cast to be one of my top three favorite podcasts. In spite of my disagreement of Cheapy's opinion of Mormons I will continue to download and listen because I can respect that his opinions differ from mine. I just hope that Cheapy will agree that all groups, religions and people should be allowed to live, think, act and vote as their conscience dictates. Tom in Vegas

I am pretty sure most are really homophobes. Nost are only open to the Adam & Eve idea, not the Adam & Steve idea. I'm not gay, but I am pretty sure most religions are "homophobes".

Originally Posted by CheapyD If someone could point out where exactly I said anything about Mormons, that would be greatly appreciated. I just went back and listened to the Shadow Complex segment and didn't hear anything.

What I recall hearing cheapy say is that OSC is a Mormon and OSC is a homophobe in separate statements. He didn't come out and say that Mormons are Homophobes.

Originally Posted by tweetjj What I don't understand is why people who happen to believe the same as I do are called hateful things like homophobe and bigot. In your own podcast you called OSC a gigantic douchebag and then said he is a member of the Mormon Church. It would never, ever enter into my mind the thought that I should slander, harass, or ridicule someone just because they have a differing opinion.

So what you're saying is that you don't like the fact that someone said something hurtful or slanderous about something you believe in, or as i suspect from your posting something that plays a significant part of your life and in some ways defines the person you have become (much the same way that some people feel about their sexuality).

The comments that CheapyD and Wombat said were directed to someone that did exactly that. OSC just happens to slander a group that you are not part of.

You cannot have a belief that is in direct conflict with someones way of life, be vocal about it and not expect some sort of backlash. I respect religions and peoples rights to a belief providing they do not have a negative impact on other people. I would however, consider promoting hatred towards homosexuals, or if you want a less inflated example impeding their legal rights as couples, a negative impact.

It's all fun and games until you're the one thats getting shot with the bb gun.

To be fair to your points though, it doesn't look like you share the extremist views of Orson Scott Card and don't believe in preaching hate, and that's totally cool . It may be unfortunate then that he is such a vocal representative of your church. I do think however you are being a little naive to why people may be a little angry towards your religion and/or beliefs and frankly a little sheltered if you think you can claim "no backs'ees" .

P.s. Also, as a gay man i would like formally acknowledge on behalf of 'my people' that yes we are all out to get you, and one false turn = butt sex.

Sorry, I know this has topic has been beaten to death, but I have to get in my 2 cents.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Catholic who has gay friends, so I don't really agree with my church's view on the subject.

Yes, the bible has passages that would condemn homosexuals, however it also has passages about not eating shrimp(Leviticus 11:9-12), selling daughters into slavery(Exodus 21:7), and stoning people who sleep with a menstruating women(Leviticus 20:18). If you are going to literally follow the old testament, do you really get to chose which parts?

Christianity is belief in Jesus Christ. He said the commandments could be summarized as follows: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [Matt22:37-40] It irritates me all the hateful "Christians" who ignore the second part. Unfortunately, Catholicism itself has a long history of not loving thy brothers.(Crusades, Inquisition) (An interesting side note. My mother was a littler shocked to learn that my family was originally Jewish, and was forcibly converted by the Spanish Inquisition.)

Bottom line, in the Catholic Church marriage is one of the seven sacraments. My marriage is a religious institution, but it was also a civil one too. People need to stop confusing the two. I had a church wedding, based on church law, and was then married as far as my church was concerned. Then I turned in my wedding license, and was legally married. While there was admittedly some overlap, that is done more as a convenience by goverment. They were two separate acts.

If the Mormon church doe not want to marry gay people fine. Personally, I think they are wrong, but that is their right. My church is still struggling over this matter too. However, they have no right to keep the government from performing a civil marriage between a gay couple. If this is truly just about the religious function of marriage what is the problem? It is hard to not think it isn't homophobia.

Nice post, greatAuk, but it's sort of a waste of time to try to explain that state marriage and religious marriage are separate things. Most people cannot understand that same-sex state marriage would not mean that their churches would suddenly be forces to do wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, because people are retarded.

Originally Posted by CoffeeEdge Nice post, greatAuk, but it's sort of a waste of time to try to explain that state marriage and religious marriage are separate things. Most people cannot understand that same-sex state marriage would not mean that their churches would suddenly be forces to do wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, because people are retarded.

So true. Sorry I don't have anything to contribute but your post made me laugh.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by CoffeeEdge Nice post, greatAuk, but it's sort of a waste of time to try to explain that state marriage and religious marriage are separate things. Most people cannot understand that same-sex state marriage would not mean that their churches would suddenly be forces to do wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, because people are retarded.

I think people are opposed to gay marriages regardless of whether or not they occur in churches. Religious and civil marriages are certainly conflated, but if anything that just provides for more religious overtones in what should be a secular institution.

If it were so easy to differentiate the two, all these problems could be easily solved by just abolishing civil "marriage" entirely and just having people enter into contractual partnerships to gain "marriage" benefits. But I doubt anybody would be satisfied with that.