CLB tiếng Anh BE - Nơi hội tụ của những người Việt trẻ năng động, sáng tạo và chuyên nghiệp - "TẦNG

Xôi thịt đã mò vào đây rồi cơ à? Kinh! Phen này quyết làm cho ra đó hả? Dưng mà mấy cái tuyển người này là anh em trong CLB muốn giới thiệu cho nhau và post trong topic của CLB thôi chứ ko làm hẳn 1 topic ngoài kia như các bác khác.

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z265/boyhn81/BE%20CLUB/TOPICs/20080420_Same_***_marriges/Topic-same***marriages.gif

Tham khảo nè pà con:​

SAME-*** MARRIAGE -A THREAT TO THE CHURCH AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE- by Reverend Bill Banuchi ​

INTRODUCTION-
Most believers have little idea concerning this issue. Perhaps they have heard it mentioned on some news report, and have thought to themselves, ?oWhat is this world coming to?? In most cases that?Ts about all the attention they have given this issue. We just don?Tt realize that this is a very real threat to the Church, and to our American way of life, and moreover, it?Ts gaining momentum like a snowball down the side of a mountain. We?Tre about to feel the impact, unless we take steps now to preserve tra***ional marriage, and a social order based on God?Ts idea of marriage.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Since the early 1970s same *** couples have filed lawsuits challenging the tra***ional interpretation of marriage laws in several states. All courts that heard them have unanimously rejected such challenges. Then came Hawaii In 1990 three homo***ual couples applied for marriage licenses in Hawaii and were refused. They sued to force the state to grant them licenses. The trial court rejected their argument but a Hawaii Supreme court ruled it to be a form of *** discrimination. In response to this judicial insanity, the people of Hawaii had to pass a constitutional amendment to give the legislature the right to define marriage as the union between one male and one female. Thus the people settled the issue, as it should be. Homo***ual marriages will not be recognized in Hawaii.
As events in Hawaii unfolded members of Congress recognized the threat to tra***ional marriage so in I 996 they passed the Defense O f Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman for the purposes of federal benefits, and allowed each state to decide for itself whether it would recognize same-*** marriages from other states.
In 1998 three same-*** couples filed a lawsuit in Vermont to compel the state to recognize their relationship as legal marriages. The Vermont Supreme Court just ruled that, though they were delegating the question of legalizing same-*** marriages to the state legislature, the state was nevertheless required to provide all benefits to same-*** couples that they provide to married couples, thus elevating same-*** relationships to the same level as tra***ional marriage.
The legislature then passed a Civil Union bill, avoiding the ?omarriage? terminology, but in effect, legitimizing homo***ual relationships. Since then over 170 homo***ual couples from New York have gone to Vermont to get a Civil Union, and many of them are now demanding that New York recognize them for spousal benefits. At Yeshiva University one gay couple is suing for dormitory accommodations reserved for married couples. Once they find the right judge he can determine that the State must recognize them for benefits. In this case marriage will be defined, for the people of New York, not by the people, not by the legislature, but by one liberal judge.
That?Ts where we stand today.
Last February two bills were introduced to the State Legislature: one was a defense of Marriage Act, and the other a Same-*** Marriage bill. I don?Tt know which one will win out, but right now it doesn?Tt look good. That?Ts why we must put pressure on our legislators to push for a defense of Marriage Act immediately. Thirty-one states now have laws explicitly stating that same-*** marriages from other states will not be recognized.
New York has no such law. During each of the past two legislative seasons bills were introduced by Senator Maltese (#S5228) and Assemblyman Seminerio (#AO594), where they languish in Judiciary Committee. There needs to be a groundswell of concern from those who believe in tra***ional marriage, and it needs to be heard in Albany. Call your legislators today.
In ad***ion, in July, The Alliance for Marriage introduced a Federal Marriage Amendment in Congress. Would you have ever thought that it would come to a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman? Personally, I?Tm not sure if there?Ts any chance of it passing, but it does raise the visibility of the issue, so that we can do something on a state level, even if nothing is done on a federal level.

WHY WE CANNOT ENDORSE SAME-*** MARRIAGE
A. IT?TS A PUBLIC HEAL TH ISSUE
We are quick to issue warnings and pass taxes on behavior that proves to be detrimental to the health and safety of our people. For example, we have legislated that cigarette packs carry written warnings, and insure that they are heavily taxed, because they have proven to cause cancer and shortening the lifespan of a citizen by 1-2 years.
Yet the average lifespan of a homo***ual man is 42 years old, a full 35 years shorter than his natural life should be. Where is the public cry against those who promote this killer product that steals away the best of our citizens?
Probably everyone knows of at least one gifted, talented human being who has lost his life due to AIDS brought on by a homo***ual lifestyle. Why aren''t we suing the Gay and Lesbian Task Force for wrongful death?
We have a responsibility to protect our children from adopting a lifestyle of drugs, and violence. We must also protect them from a lifestyle that will cause their premature death by 35 years.
In ad***ion to AIDS, every type of venereal disease runs rampant among homo***uals.
This is what we must encourage hetero***ual monogamous relationships, nothing else, if our society is *****rvive.

B. IT''S A CHILD ABUSE ISSUE:
I would not want any child raised in a home where the parents go through two partners a year. I recently saw a news magazine TV program where the issue was gay adoption. It''s interesting how they select the very best scenario they can possibly come up with, in an attempt to challenge our tra***ional views by asking, "Well what''s wrong with this?? They present a gay couple that has been together for over ten years, both professionals, looking to adopt a handicapped child. What could be wrong with this? First of all, this is not reality in the gay community where the average gay man has over 100 partners during his lifetime. That''s at least two per year, or less, because if you remember, chances are he''s only going to make it to age 42. To put any child in such an unstable environment where the guardians hold their own ***ual fulfillment, as the pre-eminent value defining their lives is nothing less than state sponsored child abuse. We must not sacrifice our children on the altar of gay rights.

C. SAME *** MARRIAGE IS THE ROE V. WADE OF THE GAY MOVEMENT
This is a watershed event for Gay Activists. They know once courts legitimize homo***uality it will legislate tra***ional views out of existence, and those who continue to hold tra***ional views will be labeled as racists, bigots or homophobes, because we won''t agree that homo***uals are a legitimate minority class of citizens.
They won''t be satisfied until they coerce all of society into saying that gay is OK, and we are teaching our children the same. They won''t stop until we have established a new Sodom and Gomorrah. When that happens God will deal with us accordingly. Thomas Jefferson said, ?oI tremble when I reflect that God is just and his justice will not sleep forever.?
D. RELIG10US FREEDOMS ISSUE
Once the courts legitimize homo***uality, (because the people won''t) the people will be coerced into treating homo***uality as a normal, acceptable lifestyle. They will have to choose to obey God rather than Caesar. This threatens our freedom to follow the dictates of our faith, which calls homo***uality an abomination, and repugnant to the laws of God. If an unbalanced individual beats up a homo***ual, and later claims that he did it because his pastor preached that homo***uality was sinful, it?Ts conceivable that his pastor could be brought up on hate crimes charges. In New York, billboards that reflected the Scriptural teachings of homo***uality have already been forced to be taken down. This is a direct violation of the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment, not to mention free speech.


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT SAME *** MARRIAGE
Q. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF SAME *** MARRIAGES?
A. That?Ts like asking, ?oWhat do you think of a square circle?? It?Ts a contradiction of terms. Marriage is, by definition, the union of one male and one female, who are unrelated by blood, as has always been the case throughout our common law history.
Any attempt to redefine marriage takes a sledgehammer to the pillars of religion and morality, the pillars upon which any civilized society must stand. Marriage is a gift from God as revealed in the Bible, The Torah, the Koran, and natural law. It is the foundation of a stable society, and any deviation from that model takes that society down a path of corresponding disorder and chaos, as evidenced by history. No society has long prevailed that has accepted any models for marriage other than hetero***ual monogamous marriage.
Q. WHY WOULD YOU DENY HOMO***UAL COUPLES THE RIGHT TO THE SAME BENEFITS GIVEN TO HETERO***UAL COUPLES?
A. They do have the same right to enter into marriage with one person of the opposite ***.
Q. WHY CAN?TT TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE IN A COMMITTED, LOVING STABLE RELATIONSHIP SHARE THE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE?
A. If true love is to be the criteria, then we must allow a father to marry his daughter, if they truly love each other, or a brother to marry his sister. You get the idea.
Once you re-define marriage using a standard conjured up by the reasoning of our lower nature, than anything goes. You have mass confusion, dysfunction, disorder and the society crashes.
Q. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON PUSHING YOUR MORALITY ON OTHERS?
A. If I was to say 2 + 2 = 5. You would say, that?Ts wrong. Not because its immoral, but because it doesn?Tt work. Homo***ual marriages don?Tt work. for a stable society. Look at Rome, The Greek Empire and others who have tried it. Only a fool would think he could repeat history and expect a different result. Intelligence dictates that we need to move toward, not away from, the standard that works. Same-*** marriages are wrong because they simply won?Tt work for America.
Q. DO YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT A GAY COUPLE CAN?TT PROVIDE THE LOVE A CHILD NEEDS?
A. First of all, let?Ts agree that we can?Tt talk about specific cases. For every good loving gay relationship one can point to there is at least one or more abusive ones.
Generally, speaking, the mother and father provide different input into the emotional development of the child. The child is like a new tender shoot, the product of the grafting together of two trees, one male and one female.
In a healthy home, the Mother provides comfort and assurance, while the father provides truth and authority. The child finds balance. This difference is validated by the fact that homo***ual couples usually try to emulate the roles of husband and wife by each taking on the characteristic traits of one of those roles.
Children will not develop a healthy balance of comfort and assurance and truth and authority with same-*** parents. Raising a child in a homo***ual home is like teaching one to dance with two left feet, or trying to build a house with bricks and no mortar.
There are exceptions to every rule, but we can?Tt base public policy on the exceptions. We need to base it on what is generally true.
God knows our kids are confused enough now, with our high divorce rate, and single parent families. Add to that mix, homo***uality, and you?Tve got confusion upon confusion. Our children deserve more than that.
Q. I?TVE SEEN LITERATURE DISTRIBUTED IN PUBLIC SCHOOL THAT SAYS HOMO***UALITY IS NORMAL AND HEALTHY. YOU MEAN THAT?TS NOT TRUE?
A. Homo***uality is neither normal, nor healthy ?"It is an unhealthy addiction.
The average male homo***ual has over 100 partners in his lifetime. The average lifespan is 42 years. That?Ts a full 35 years off the natural lifespan of 77 years. We make a big stink about cigarette companies because their product takes from 1-2 years off the average lifespan, yet we give no warnings about homo***uality, and in fact, our present public policy encourages it. If we continue down this road our children will pay the price.
The compassionate thing to do is to say no to a destructive lifestyle, and offer help for those who want to live healthy normal lives. I would offer the same help to a brother who wanted to marry his sister, or a son who wanted to marry his Mother. Love is not the sole determining factor.
We recognize that this is the basis of a healthy society and anything other serves to unravel the fabric of orderly culture
Q. AREN''T WE DISCRIMATING AGAINST HOMO***UALS? DOESN?TT THAT MAKE HOMO***UALS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS? AREN?TT THEY ANOTHER MINORITY THAT NEEDS EQUAL RIGHTS?
A. First of all, as a society we discriminate all the time. We say marriage is an institution codified in civil law as the union of two adults of the opposite ***, of a certain minimum age, who are not related by blood. All laws that have con***ions are, by definition and necessity, discriminatory.
Secondly, homo***uals are not an oppressed minority. To qualify as a disadvantage minority the courts have already established a three-part test:
1. They must prove that homo***uality is inborn, innate and unchangeable
2. They would have to show that as a group they are economically disadvantaged
3. They would have to demonstrate that they are politically powerless.
Homo***uals fail at all three points There is no such thing as an ex-Puerto Rican, or an ex-African-American, because we can?Tt change that, but there are thousands upon thousands of ex-gays who have changed their behavior and lifestyle proving, that they weren?Tt born that way, and that change is possible ?"with God?Ts help.
As a group, homo***uals earn higher incomes than minorities, or even the national average. Politically, they have infiltrated all our public institutions and have brought us to a point where we have to consider a Constitutional Amendment to preserve the values that have made us a nation.
They simply are not an oppressed ethnic minority, and it is an offense to legitimate minorities to place a group characterized by deviant behavior in the same class.
If you want to properly place them in a class it would have to be with people who are addicted to destructive behaviors, such as drug addicts, or alcoholics.

Q. YOU DON?TT BELIEVE THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY?
A. Let?Ts be real. My children have brown eyes because I have brown eyes. If homo***uality were genetic they would cease to exist in two generations. Do the math.
We?Tre all born with genetic propensities toward sin, and self-gratification. It?Ts the responsibility of a family and a society to help one another overcome those self-destructive inclinations, to help us aspire to our higher nature and thus the society becomes good.
(Also see our Public Statement on same *** marriage)
(If you would like to comment or have any other questions concerning this issue we invite you to e-mail us at mailto:info@nychristiancoalition.org )

================================================================
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z265/boyhn81/BE%20CLUB/TOPICs/20080420_Same_***_marriges/reference2.gif
Còn đây là text cho pà con tha hồ Copy and Paste

Controversy​

The controversy over recognition of same-*** unions as marriages is a small, albeit very important, part of a larger controversy concerning the role of government in recognizing and regulating intimate relationships. While there are few instances of societies recognizing same-*** unions as ?omarriage?, the historical and anthropological record reveals a remarkable variety of treatment of same-*** unions ranging from sympathetic toleration to indifference to prohibition. The 2004 Statement by the American Anthropological Association relies upon this variety in reaching its conclusion that same-*** unions can "contribute to stable and humane societies"
Some disagree with the idea of government recognition of any marriages, arguing that the personal relationships of citizens are not a proper issue of governmental concern. This view is often expressed by those who see the only legal issues related to marriage involving the nature and extent of parties?T consent to the relationship. Proponents of this view argue that the parties should define almost all aspects of the relationship, in much the same way that parties to other types of contracts are generally free to define the terms of their agreement. Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements arise among those holding this view
Others, including many gay rights advocates, assert that legal recognition of marriage is based upon the government''s interest in encouraging stable, committed relationships. Stable relationships reduce the need for society (sometimes through government) to provide support for its members. Each spouse safeguards the other''s well being by, at times, acting as a nurse, banker, policeman, etc. Examples include demanding the keys to the car when one or the other has had too much to drink, or staying home to care for the other after surgery,or paying debts owed by a husband or wife.Advocates for recognition of same-*** unions argue that there is no difference in the ability of same-*** and opposite-*** couples to make commitments and care for each other, and therefore the law of marriage should apply to both.
A third approach to marriage is based on the belief that the government''s involvement in marriage arises from the consequences of ***ual acts between men and women ?" namely the creation of children. Based on research showing that, on average, children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage,proponents argue that legal marriage is society?Ts way of encouraging monogamy and commitment by those who may create children through their ***ual coupling. These advocates acknowledge that not every opposite couple is capable of creating a child through ***ual acts, but they argue that all laws are over inclusive in some aspect and to create exact congruence marriage and child-bearing capacity would require unacceptable inquiries by government at the time of issuing marriage licences.No such intrusion is necessary to conclude that no ***ual act between same-*** partners will result in childbearing, and therefore it is proper to exclude these couples from the legal definition of marriage.
Opponents of marriage within the gay community also object to the same-*** marriage movement, even though their concerns pertain to the institution of marriage, rather than to the gender of its participants. They argue that seeking marriage as a means to social benefits and recognition reinforces the exclusion of other persons, notably the single and those in families composed of three or more intimate partners, from these benefits.From this perspective same-*** marriage is a conservative movement within LGBT politics.

To: Alex...
Tôi muốn post thông tin tuyển dụng của tôi trong Topic của CLB vì trước hết tôi muốn chỉ các thành viên trong CLB nắm được các thông tin này, thay vì tất cả những ai vào Box EC đều có thể biết được thông tin tuyển dụng này.
Việc này là để đảm bảo các thành viên của BE đều được hưởng lợi và cũng để đảm bảo chỉ có những thàh viên của BE, tham gia BE, hoặc theo dõi hoạt động của BE mới có được những thông tin tuyển dụng hấp đẫn đó. Đó là quyền lợi của các thành viên BE. Và vì lẽ đó tôi không muốn tạo thành một Topic riêng lẻ. Đây cũng là một trong những chính sách thu hút thành viên của CLB.
Quy định vẫn là quy định. Tuy nhiên, Alex ạ. Những thông tin tuyẻn dụng mà tôi post lên đều nằm trong Forum của CLB BE và nó có tên CLB BE - Nơi hội tụ.... chứ không phải là nằm trong một Topic rao vặt và chỉ để phục vụ lợi ích của thành viên của BE mà thôi.
Rất mong bạn xem xét ý kiến của tôi.

Tôi vẫn giứ quan điểm không nên có quảng cáo, tuyển dụng ở bất cứ topic nào. EC và các topic là mở cho mọi thành viên. Các bạn sẽ nghĩ sao nếu người ta nghĩ rằng quảng cáo nơi khác thì không được nhưng riêng topic này thì được và vào 1 ngày đẹp trời ai đó tương mấy cái quảng cáo bán thẻ học vào đây.
Xin lỗi, nếu để các bài như thế ở đây, rất khó cho tôi khi xử lý các vi phạm khác.

Dear bác Alex "xôi thịt"
Em hoàn toàn nhiệt liệt ủng hộ việc bác giúp các CLB giữ gìn môi trường trong sạch và hoạt động đúng mục đích, tiêu chí cũng như tính chất của mình....bravo tinh thần làm việc rất có trách nhiệm của bác...
Những thông tin mà bác Luu_vinh post trên diễn quả thật không phải là các thông tin mang tính chất "Tiếng anh".....
Tuy nhiên cần phải nhìn nhận rằng, những thông tin này là một phần quan trọng để các thành viên của CLB có thể giúp đỡ nhau không chỉ trong học tập( ở đây là việc rèn luyện kỹ năng tiếng Anh) mà còn hỗ trợ rất nhiều cho cuộc sống của mỗi người (ở đây là giới thiệu việc làm cho các thành viên).
Nếu xem đây là các thông tin "bình thường", như việc hẹn hò nhau đi ăn uống, đi picnic ....thì em thấy không hề vi phạm luật lệ của diễn đàn. Bản chất của các thông tin này không hề xấu, không hề lệch lạc hay đi sai đường lối của Đảng mà nó còn rất hữu ích cho các thành viên.
Em chỉ là một thành viên của BE - và em thấy rất cám ơn các thông tin hỗ trợ nhau như thế này của bác Luu_vinh. Vì vậy,em thật sự mong muốn bác Alexanderthegreat xem xét và có hướng giải quyết linh hoạt hơn.
Thanks bác nhiều.
Rgds,
Một thành viên tích cực của BE và là người rất yêu box English cũng như ttvnol.com

Ai có ý định tương mấy cái quảng cáo bán thẻ học vào đây ư?
Trả lời:
- Thành viên BE chăng? Không, nhất định là không phải thành viên BE rồi, vì BE đã là một lớp học lớn rồi, học từ mọi người trong câu lạc bộ.
- Người ngoài BE chăng? Rất có thể. Tuy nhiên cá nhân tôi nghĩ rằng, nếu có một ai đó định quảng cáo trên BE thì họ cũng có đủ lòng tự trọng của bản thân và ít nhất là cũng có một chút ít sự tôn trọng đến góc sân riêng dành cho các thành viên của BE trên ttvnol trước khi đi đến quyết định cuối cùng.

Weaben kiểm tra hòm thư cá nhân trên TTVN xem có thông báo gì không nhé. Bài đồng chí có thể bị xóa hoặc bị chuyển tới nơi khác bởi người quản trị diễn đàn.

Tiếp thu ý kiến các bạn nên tạm thời tôi không xử lý các bài đăng tuyển dụng trên này. Các qui định khác mong các bạn tuân thủ.
Mấy bài bức xúc của bạn Weaben bị xoá vì bạn viết tiếng Việt không dấu.

A good day for you.
(Nothing is ever achieved without enthusiasm.)

To alexanderthegreat: Cám ơn MOD vì sự "anh minh, sáng suốt", chúc "người" trị vì EC với sự công bằng và thân thiện.