NationStates Jolt Archive

The "Homosexual Rights" thread made me think of this. Statistically, only about 40% of the US in general would openly support gay marriage. In the "Homosexual Rights" thread, about 62% supported gay rights. I am wondering whether this number is the same as the general American populace or whether the people of the UN tend to be more liberally minded on the issue. Thus, this poll.

i personaly whole heartedly support any and all living arraingements mutualy aggreeable to all parties involved and not really any bussiness of anyone else both ic and ooc and clearly expressed this in our choice on a recent issue in that reguard

and if it's true that only 40% of americans openly support gay merrage then the other 60% must be some mixture of ignorance and idiots (in the context of this question).

though i personaly would rather be living in a small cabin or cave in a remote wilderness with my only connection to human society being this internet

=^^=
.../\...

Actually, I believe the 60% was a combination of the idiots and ignorant people you name, as well as people who are genuinely concerned for some reason or another and people who are afraid to be openly supporting homosexuality.

I whole heartedly appose Gay marrige. Thta goes for lesbians too. Although I have no priblem with lesbians otherwise. I beleive that all the people who support gay marrige are brainwashed baffoons, incapable of their own thought, or afreid to say the don't support gay marrige.
My two cents.

Leviticus 20:13, enough said.

leviticus 20:13, Enough said.

Leviticus is the Old Testament. Many Old Testament teachings were thrown out in the New Testament. I'm afraid you'll have to say more.

And Prussia, while your opinions are appreciated, it would be nice to know why you believe them to be brainwashed fools.

Even if I ignore the fact that you have no right imposing your religiously based morality upon someone else (as even the US constitution states; "Congress shall make no Law", etc. - you've probably heard it once) then still your argument makes no sense. Read Acts 14 and 15 and tell me again what you think of the Law of Moses and how it should be obeyed.

I made this point in my proposal thread.

You can support gay rights but not favor changing the definition of marriage. Not because you limit the extent to which gay's should have rights, but In fact, because you have a very "set in stone" way of how you see mariage.

You also don't have to oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, although there is nothing wrong with religion. Tolerance works for all, not just for convenience.

Some argue that the state has a vested interest in traditional families because they raise children better than un traditional families. Strong families and strong traditional communities tend to rely on themselves more and on government less. So there's a secular argument for preserving traditional institutions and not altering them for alternate lifestyles.

I have been thorougly surprised (on the other thread) by the intolerance, violence and closed mindedness of people towards a traditional definition of marriage. If this kind of intolerance, violence and closed mindedness were shown towards another idea or movement (i.e. the gay movement) it would be unacceptable.

D.A. (Anberica)

Leviticus 20:13, enough said.

Leviticus is the Old Testament. Many Old Testament teachings were thrown out in the New Testament. I'm afraid you'll have to say more.
I Corinthians 6:9, and If 8sins is not busy, could I talk to you at the StrongBadia concordium chatroom

You also don't have to oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, although there is nothing wrong with religion. Tolerance works for all, not just for convenience.
I completely agree; I have no problem with any religion whatsoever - until it starts infringing upon the rights of people who are NOT in that religion. To each his own. Opposing gay marriage on religious grounds is fine to the extent that you should then not marry yourself if you're gay, or even that you shouldn't be with a church that allows gay marriage. But "marriage" is a legal definition in addition to a "Godly given institution", and entitles the two people in it to some very specific things. Now if you would choose to give gay people EXACTLY those same rights and call it something else then I suppose I have no problem with that. However, that is not the usual proposal. The common proposal is what is best described as "sharing of goods"; i.e. making it legal that the two gay people are joint owners of everything.

That does not remedy the fact that a gay person can still today be forced out of the room where his/her partner is dying, if the dying person's mother or other close relative so requests. Gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue; this is 2003, we aren't that retarded anymore.

My translation of I Corinthians 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality. What does yours say?

By the way, thanks for posting the chapter and verse so that we can look it up ourselves. It certainly adds credibility to your argument, which is more than I can say for some people I have ahd the displeasure of arguing with.

Corinthians 6:9 is translated from "ganymede" which translates as "catamite" which is a young boy having sexual relationship with a man. Look up the myth of Ganymede and Ancient Greek sexual behavior if you're interested in the definition. It was a specific custom in Ancient Greece that Corinthians 6:9 protests against, and that is paedophilia, which usually occurred with boys. So Corinthians 6:9 is a no go. Got any more?

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals
,
NASB or "Dr. John Mark Reynolds bible" as my Torrey academy obsessed brother calls it.

Interesting... where yours says "homosexuals," mine says "abusers of themselves," which I took to mean self-mutilators.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals
,
NASB or "Dr. John Mark Reynolds bible" as my Torrey academy obsessed brother calls it.

Yes, very nice, I see you have the New King James Version. Did you also read the footnote at "homosexuals" that reads "that is; 'catamites'"? Look up catamite please.

ASB
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

BEB
1 Corinthians 6:9
Have you not knowledge that evil-doers will have no part in the kingdom of God? Have no false ideas about this: no one who goes after the desires of the flesh, or gives worship to images, or is untrue when married, or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men,

DVB
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,

KJVB
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

WEB
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,

YLB
1 Corinthians 6:9
have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

More at http://unbound.biola.edu/

I beleive that 'gay and lesbian' marriage should be legal. I think this because as long as one being loves and is devoted to another being than they should be able to wed. Even if this goes against religious intentions it must be incorporated into a country, or the principal of democracy is thrown right out the window. No one said that anyone had to agree with it, but for those who wish to be in wedlock it is their business alone.
I would also like South Prussia to clarrify the insults it made against pro-gay marriage participants of this board. This is because the insults were totally unprevoked at the ending of their paragraph and how a person could be mindless for sticking up for what they believe in.
And for those of you out there who support 'gay and lesbian' marriage, but not openly in public I would like to take a moment and say "Shame on all of you for not endulging in your true feelings, for then you are not being true to yourself."

cat·a·mite n.
A boy who has a sexual relationship with a man


Man this makes me sick.:stomach projects that nights Chinese food:.

I see no real reason why religion has anything to do with this.
Quite frankly, if two people love each other then gender should not be the qualifier.

*A quick addition*

If I recall correctly this thread had nothing to do with pedophilia. It was about same sex marriages.

Cad

boy (boi) n.
A child male human.

man n. pl. men
An adult male human.

NKJV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=6&startv=1&endv=20&version=nkjv&Go.x=21&Go.y=15
Check footnote.

As for your quotes;
ASB, BEB, DVB, KJVB - indefinite (and actually just plain WRONG) translation
WEB - They forgot the footnote which says they actually mean "catamites" with "homosexuals"; either that or it is also an incomplete translation.
YLB - Wrong tranlation

Maybe you'll find it interesting to know that during the times of the Romans and the "late" Ancient Greeks, the problem was not so much whether you loved a man or a woman, but whether you were the active or the passive person in that role. If you were on the "receiving end" of male love, so to speak, that was very looked down upon. If you were the active one; no problem.

But "catamite" is a whole different word than "homosexual", with a very distinct meaning and speaking out against a very distinct phenomenon with the Greeks. It really really really is a bad example of why you should be against homosexuality. Please post another reference if you have one.

with regards to the boy with man comments; exactly!
Something very different than two adult men getting it on. It would've mentioned men in general if that was the intention, but it actually uses a word specifically indicating "a boy with a man". Paedophilia. It's against paedophilia.

FAG?, GO TO AMERICA!

No homos around here, the only thing flamming in my country is known fags houses, (if were talking about our country policies). Look at Japan, they hate fags, blacks too I hear, and their doing damn good, so I'm with Japan.

FAG?, GO TO AMERICA!

No homos around here, the only thing flamming in my country is known fags houses, (if were talking about our country policies). Look at Japan, they hate fags, blacks too I hear, and their doing damn good, so I'm with Japan.
Is it true that its illegal to be gay in japan? My classmates have been talking about it everyday. Man I want to live in japan.

Okay, I have a few things I'd like to point out here:

1. Leviticus 20:13 is only prohibiting bisexuality if anything. Read it. Thou shalt not lie with men as thou dost women, for it is an abomination. (paraphrased by whatever source you're taking it from). Sounds liek if you pick one or the other you're okay, because you won't sleep with the alternative the same way, ne? Besides, can you focus on any argument that goes outside the bible, which as well as being centuries old seems to be reinterpreted once faced with cold hard scientific fact? Such as Galileo's religious persecution for his scientific findings, which he wasn't pardoned for until 1992!!! Let's look at Fred Phelps. He's celebrating the murder of Matthew Shepard because he was gay. A total christian evangelist. Too bad he's overlooking the 5th commandment, thou shalt not kill. I'd like someone to find any biblical passage condemning homosexual acts and tell me about it, and then explain to me exactly why it's condemning it, what viable consequences are being addressed.

2. There's actually physiological evidence to support sexual orientation as a physiological disposition, not a "choice". Once this data has become significant (and I mean like alpha 0.05 not like the english useage of the word significant) it will call for a major overhaul on society and our government to address this imminent fact, which will certainly unfold as our knowledge of neurology increases.

3. When dealing with statistics, and wonder if 60% is actually a reflection, you probabaly should look at the kind of sample you're taking this from, it can be strongly biased based on the type of population that this site would generally appeal to.

So okay what I'd really like to ask, can you provide any proof OUTSIDE of the bible that supports the condemnation of homosexuals?

As for marriage itself, those who oppose marriage due to it's religious roots are totally blurring the line that separates church and state, although with Bush he's more or less going to break the line with his Marriage Protection Acts and Amendment and so on and so forth. There is theological marriage which is an issue of spirituality, and then there is political/sociological marriage which is an issue of morality. Churches don't have to accept my marriage should I choose to wed another man, not would I press them in any way to. However, I believe the government should recognize and provide for such a union. Otherwise why don't we go back to the cottonfields and only allow white male landowners to vote? I don't see what's wrong with two law-abiding male citizens of the united states (mostly based on the fact that I'm most familiar with their legal system, but really I think it could apply to any other democratic/republic here too) that fit every criteria neccessary for marriage being allowed to do so, regardless of gender. I mean, let's take two people, they have IDENTICAL records, really let's say the only thing differentiating between them is gender. Why is it that I would be allowed to wed the owmen, and not the man, based ONLY on gender?

Pick this to pieces as you wish.

first of all throw out all this bible stuff because it deals with a religious view. And people should not be opperesed because some religion's view. I am sure if you look hard a enough you could find a religion that says being hetosexual is wrong does that mean hetosexual should not be able to marry no. Because religion and state should have nothing to do with each other. Because some Mulsims say their bilbe thing says sucide bombing is allright does that mean it should be legal?

For the thousandth time, Leviticus is about tribal purity so unless people see themselve's as belonging to an ancient tribe of Jews, drop it. There's everything in there ranging from how to worship god with flour and oil, animal sacrifice, how to handle lepers, etc. After chapter 2 or 3 it reads as it is, one part ritualized contemporaneous cultural health policy, two parts raving lunacy. I just read the whole book and let's just say if I met any Christian that followed the book of Leviticus to the letter as they claim to regarding homosexuality, then I might see modern Christianity in general as not totally about scapegoating those mostly invisible few who are easy to hate. I'm really not sure how some can look themelve's in the mirror. What a crock. :x

When it comes to I Corinthians, II Corinthians, etc., I personally stop paying attention. The letters were written by humans, to humans, with the human potential to mistake and distort God's supposed will. What you're reading is ONE MAN'S interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, not Himself saying 'Thou shalt not play slap-and-tickle with someone whose plumbing doth match thy own'.

It seems to me that you all have this backwards. Religous citizens are not imposing religious morality on anyone. Homosexuals are attempting to impose their lifestyles on religious people and our foundations of government.

And Just to get the fact set straight. I'm a history and political science major. The constitution states:

US Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This simply means that the United States Congress cannot pass a law establishing a state religion. It DOES NOT say that government shall not be influenced by the christian faith and morals on with this nation was founded, and is shared by the majority of the nations population. It also DOES NOT say that there is a seperation of church and state. This is a myth propagated by liberal views. Do not twist this to serve your own liberal views on this board.

Even if I ignore the fact that you have no right imposing your religiously based morality upon someone else (as even the US constitution states; "Congress shall make no Law", etc. - you've probably heard it once) then still your argument makes no sense. Read Acts 14 and 15 and tell me again what you think of the Law of Moses and how it should be obeyed.

Here Here

I made this point in my proposal thread.

You can support gay rights but not favor changing the definition of marriage. Not because you limit the extent to which gay's should have rights, but In fact, because you have a very "set in stone" way of how you see mariage.

You also don't have to oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, although there is nothing wrong with religion. Tolerance works for all, not just for convenience.

Some argue that the state has a vested interest in traditional families because they raise children better than un traditional families. Strong families and strong traditional communities tend to rely on themselves more and on government less. So there's a secular argument for preserving traditional institutions and not altering them for alternate lifestyles.

I have been thorougly surprised (on the other thread) by the intolerance, violence and closed mindedness of people towards a traditional definition of marriage. If this kind of intolerance, violence and closed mindedness were shown towards another idea or movement (i.e. the gay movement) it would be unacceptable.

D.A. (Anberica)

Anberica, I shall presently be submitting a new resolution to the UN. If I get a chance, I shall propose leaving the institution of marriage a matter of individual national choice, whilst allowing gay couples to share the shared legal rights that are traditionally the exclusive domain of marriage.

- Jordam

It seems to me that you all have this backwards. Religous citizens are not imposing religious morality on anyone. Homosexuals are attempting to impose their lifestyles on religious people and our foundations of government.
Religious morality addresses itself to those of that religion, it does not dictate government legislature (and in no cases should it) and governments do not legislate what religious beliefs are. By allowing homosexuals a legal civil marriage this imposes nothing onto religious communities or forces them to accept anything that they morally object to, it simply extends to homosexuals the same equality under the law as heterosexuals. I like the legislature they have for gay marriage in Canada because it specifically writes in a section about religious freedom, a religious leader/group has the right to refuse to marry a couple, if that religion does not accept homosexual marriage then they do not have to accept it in the eyes of their god(s). There are two kinds of marriage, religious marriage and civil (legal) marriage, civil marriage should be open to everyone since humans are to be considered equal under the law, religious marriage has nothing to do with that and is not affected nor affects it (in my ideal they would be entirely separate, for a legal marriage one would need to be married by a justice of the peace, this would be open to every couple and would give the legal benefits/responsibilities of marriage. a religious marriage is binding only to the god(s) of that religion (have no legal significance) and who can/cannot be married would be decided by that religion. a couple could have both marriages or only one, but a legal marriage is the only one that is binding to the laws of the country).

This simply means that the United States Congress cannot pass a law establishing a state religion. It DOES NOT say that government shall not be influenced by the christian faith and morals on with this nation was founded, and is shared by the majority of the nations population. It also DOES NOT say that there is a seperation of church and state. This is a myth propagated by liberal views. Do not twist this to serve your own liberal views on this board.
Deciding something on the basis of a religious majority is discriminatory to the rest of the population that does not follow that religion or agree with that specific belief. It is establishing a tenet of a religion to the state, which is basically establishing it as a state religion (at least in that instance). Yes that country was founded by christians, but the government is there to address the needs of all the citizens (who are not all christians), by allowing religious beliefs to dictate their actions in even one area they are not taking the interests of the entire population into account and institutionalizing discrimination. Religious groups are free to hold their beliefs and practice them within their religions, when they influence those beliefs into government laws simply because they are the largest group it is called 'tyranny of the majority'.

It seems to me that you all have this backwards. Religous citizens are not imposing religious morality on anyone. Homosexuals are attempting to impose their lifestyles on religious people and our foundations of government.

And Just to get the fact set straight. I'm a history and political science major. The constitution states:

US Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This simply means that the United States Congress cannot pass a law establishing a state religion. It DOES NOT say that government shall not be influenced by the christian faith and morals on with this nation was founded, and is shared by the majority of the nations population. It also DOES NOT say that there is a seperation of church and state. This is a myth propagated by liberal views. Do not twist this to serve your own liberal views on this board.

Marriage is an institution that grants individuals certain shared rights. If these rights are being denied to a certain subsection of the population on the basis of sexual orientation (because the rights assume that only male-female couples are entitled to these rights, for no logical reason) then the laws governing marriage are discriminatory.

I don't actually think that marriage should cease to be discriminatory, since it is partially an expression of the collective moral position. However, if it is to remain unchanged then the rights it allows access to should be permitted in separation. Otherwise, it's a very definite example of a group forcing its moral restrictions on another in order to block their access to what should be universal rights.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I'm neither for nor against it. My religion strictly states that homosexuals are to be avoided and is a clear act against God. However, I on the other hand, although being tormented between this, find nothing wrong.

Love my acting skills as I cringe in disgust.

Love my acting skills as I secretly love them.

Love me. Hehehehehe.

*poof*

And Just to get the fact set straight. I'm a history and political science major. The constitution states:

US Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This simply means that the United States Congress cannot pass a law establishing a state religion. It DOES NOT say that government shall not be influenced by the christian faith and morals on with this nation was founded, and is shared by the majority of the nations population. It also DOES NOT say that there is a seperation of church and state. This is a myth propagated by liberal views. Do not twist this to serve your own liberal views on this board.
I bow before your wisdom. However, you should also take into account the 14th Amendment, which opens as follows;

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Gay people are denied the right to be in their dying partner's bedroom if a relative of the dying person does not want the partner there. How is that for "equal protection of the laws"? That isn't fair by any measure.

With regards to the comments about religion; I'm not religious myself, but I think everybody has the right to his or her opinion, regardless of what it's based on. I will argue that opinion though, and if someone has a Biblical basis for it then the best way to argue is from the Bible. Arguments like "I don't believe the Bible so give me another argument", while legit, are not likely to convince a religious person.

It's weird though; I hardly ever debate my own national politics, but for some reason I find myself dragged into US politics everytime.

We of The Black New World believe that the only way basing all our laws on religion would work is if everyone was part of the same religion. Because that is not the case, we feel that laws should only be created by man for the good of mankind.

Although members of certain religions may disagree with gay marriage we are not forcing them to get married to someone of the same sex. We don’t force people to live with people they whose lifestyle they do not agree with.

The Black New World legally recognizes gay marriage.

Desdemona,
UN representative for The Black New World.

It seems to me that you all have this backwards. Religous citizens are not imposing religious morality on anyone. Homosexuals are attempting to impose their lifestyles on religious people and our foundations of government.

And Just to get the fact set straight. I'm a history and political science major. The constitution states:

US Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This simply means that the United States Congress cannot pass a law establishing a state religion. It DOES NOT say that government shall not be influenced by the christian faith and morals on with this nation was founded, and is shared by the majority of the nations population. It also DOES NOT say that there is a seperation of church and state. This is a myth propagated by liberal views. Do not twist this to serve your own liberal views on this board.

Ah, but here we hit a snag. The US Supreme Court has, over the years, taken this part of the amendment to mean that the government shall maintain neutrality in all things dealing with religion. Every case I can think of, ranging up from Reynolds v. U.S. (1874) to Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990) have upheld this neutrality.


And now that I've said that, I'm going to shake things up a bit. Some people who oppose gay marriage claim that if gay marriage becomes legal, polygamist groups will demand to have polygamy legalized. What say you to that?

Hmm, I would say that Catholic Europe would allow same-sex couples to get together etc, but not to be married.

also about you people who say it shall be illegal because the bible says it is wrong. Does that mean pork shall be illegal it says it is wrong yet people don't go around saying pork should be illegal why? also also says you should not work on the Sabbath which is Saterday does that mean that no should be able to work on Saterday by the Law. It also says you should be animal sacifices how many of you have done your animal sacifice in time sone. I haven't does that mean I should be forced to find a little animal and sacifice it to God. WELL???

Galdon3

And now that I've said that, I'm going to shake things up a bit. Some people who oppose gay marriage claim that if gay marriage becomes legal, polygamist groups will demand to have polygamy legalized. What say you to that?

People seem to forget that we live in a democractic republic in the United States. This is a case of simple majority rules. Most do not approve of it, therefore it shall not become law. A simple look at history can tell you that when the majority of the country feel a certain way, regardless of what the constitution may say, is how it is going to be. I can point to case after case in American history. Law works on precendent, and there is plenty of precedent that shows that fact. One case in pint, the US Supreme Court rules that Native Indians had a right to their lands. The President, who is responcible for enforcing laws, stated that the "Chief Justice had made his dedcision. Not let me see him enforce it." Simple matter and case closed. The danger here is the Vermont law recognizing gay marriage. Due to the Reciprocity Clause of the constitution requiring each state to honor another states laws, each state is now bowned by law to recongize gay marriage performed in Vermont. The answer to this problem is a constitutional amendment on the subject of gay marriage. Once this amendment is ratified, the question of gay marriage will be answered. I am already working with my congressmen to introduce this legislative bill outlawing it in the United States. Due to the Supremacy Clause in the US constitution it will over ride Vermont law and all state laws. Gay marriage then shall be illegal in the United States. The only way to reverse this would be another amendment to legalize it. Both of these moves are difficult to accomplish due to the fact that it requires 2/3's of all states to ratify it, and because this bill, like many other bills, may die in the House Rules Committiee. The House rules committiee sets rules on how a bill may be debated. Without rules set to it, a bill may not be introduced to the floor. Thus a bill can be held in the rules committiee untill the end of Congress and the bill will die. It will have to be re-introduced in the next congressional session.

Despite all of this, polygamy is against the law. It is a slippery slope and I can assure that congress will not allow the gay marriage issue to progress to this point.


Leftist Dutchies

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Gay people are denied the right to be in their dying partner's bedroom if a relative of the dying person does not want the partner there. How is that for "equal protection of the laws"? That isn't fair by any measure.

You have no case here. The party in the relationship that is banned from the room of the dieing person has no legal leg to stand on. The family takes precedent of this individual. The wishes of the family will be honored in this case, since they are the care takers of the dieing family member, courts have no business being involved in this situation. Gay people have have no 'right' to be there in the first place. It is simply a civil matter, but any judge will throw it out.

You have no case here. The party in the relationship that is banned from the room of the dieing person has no legal leg to stand on. The family takes precedent of this individual. The wishes of the family will be honored in this case, since they are the care takers of the dieing family member, courts have no business being involved in this situation. Gay people have have no 'right' to be there in the first place. It is simply a civil matter, but any judge will throw it out.

I believe that was his point. The representative of Leftist Dutchies was questioning why a gay lover should not be granted the same rights as a spouse.

Exactly.

Look, the point is not whether or not you like gay people or whether or not you would ever love someone of the same sex yourself. The point is whether or not you recognize that a gay person's love for someone of the same sex can be equal to the love of a man for his wife (or vice versa).

I don't like the US conservative ideologue; that does not mean I think conservatives should have less rights and/or legal benefits than other people. Whether you approve of homosexuality should be completely besides the point. The US stands for freedom and equality; that goes for everybody, not just people you like. If you disallow gay people the marital commitment, you're favoring heterosexual couples over homosexual couples, and that's wrong.

It's not a matter of either supporting or opposing gay marriages. We leave that decision up to the individuals involved.

Government exists to protect people in their persons and property from private violence or fraud, and (we would argue) to achieve certain "social goods" such as a liveable environment and an amelioration of the worst effects of poverty. It is not, and can never be, a moral arbiter. In a free society, individuals are free to make their own moral determinations, provided only that they respect the rights of everyone else.

Leviticus 20:13, enough said.

so. you dont eat shellfish and its ok with you to sell your faimily memebers ( daughters) into slavery eh? fucktard.

here are soem more gems from leviticus. remember its a whole bible, not a bible full of holes

Moses puts blood on Aaron's right ear, thumb, and big toe. 8:23-24
God kills Aaron's sons for offering "strange fire before the Lord." 10:1-2
Hares are unclean since they chew the cud. 11:6
Bats are just unclean birds. 11:13, 19
Four-legged birds are an abomination to God. 11:20
Insects have four legs. 11:21, 23
Baby girls are twice as dirty as baby boys. 12:1-8
God's cure for leprosy. 14:2-32
What to do if "he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean." 15:8
What to do "if any man's seed of copulation go out from him." 15:16-18
Menstruating women are unclean to God. 15:19-30
God's law for wet dreams. 15:16-17, 32
Uncovering the nakedness of your mother, father, aunts, uncles, etc. 18:8-18
Don't look at any naked menstruating women. 18:19
Homosexuality is an abomination to God. 18:22
Don't have sex with animals. 18:23
Don't mix seeds when sowing a field or wear a garment with mixed fibers. 19:19
If you have sex with a slave woman, you must then scourge her. 19:20
Don't round the corners of your head or mar the corners of your beard. 19:27
Children who curse their parents, adulterers, and homosexuals must be killed. 20:9-12
Woman with "familiar spirits" must be stoned to death. 20:27
The unchaste daughters of priests must be burnt to death. 21:9
Handicapped people must not approach the altar. 21:16-23
Cursers and blasphemers must be stoned to death. 24:16, 24
God's instructions for buying slaves. 25:45-46
"Ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it." 26:16
God will "send wild beasts among you, which shall rob your of your children." 26:22
"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." 26:29
God places a dollar value on human life; with women worth less than men. 27:3-7


sure am glad we have leviticus to guide us in these troubled times.

We Of Chumba, say it it the right of every person, be they male/ female, black or white to live their lives how they see fit, as long, as it doesn't cause them, physical or mental harm.

Envoy to His Holiness Emperor William VII

Monty Smith

Well...

My proposal has been submitted. While it allows nations to refuse gay marriage (and an awful lot besides) it also makes sure that gay people get the property/next of kin rights etc. that marriage provides for (i.e. the secular rights).

It's on the second page of the 'PROPOSAL: International Marriage Rights Act' thread, and hopefully will cut down on how many 'gay marriage/traditional marriage' threads get started by allowing people to choose while remaining in accordance with the UN's laws.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Here's a different take from St. Paul:

1Cor 7:9 "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

Okay, these threads are getting annoying.

Since, historically and traditionally, marriage has been a religious institution, regardless of what that religion is, then why should the government have any say in the institution of marriage at all?
:: Taxes you say. And medical benefits for government employees
Well, then there should be something else. A civil union maybe, recognized by the government that is a class including marriage and all other unions between two (or three or more) people, which will satisfy for taxation, benefits, etc. This way we have equal treatment under the law and protect the 'sanctity of marriage'.

But either way, it is none of the UN's business either way. This is an issue for each individual nation, as each nation's values and principles are very different.

Yes.
In Lemurlands, it matters not what you do behind closed doors. So long as you are a productive member of society, it really makes no difference at all.

-Patrick, Emperor of Lemurlands

There's not enough love in the world.

I believe that anything that might add a little more love to the world, even if that's not between only a man and a woman, is a good thing.

I support Love. If that happens to be between a man and another man, a woman and a woman, or a group of people, then that's just as good as the love between a man and a woman.

The Most Serene Republic of Zuchinni

There's not enough love in the world.

I believe that anything that might add a little more love to the world, even if that's not between only a man and a woman, is a good thing.

I support Love. If that happens to be between a man and another man, a woman and a woman, or a group of people, then that's just as good as the love between a man and a woman.

The Most Serene Republic of Zuchinni

This simply means that the United States Congress cannot pass a law establishing a state religion. It DOES NOT say that government shall not be influenced by the christian faith and morals on with this nation was founded, and is shared by the majority of the nations population. It also DOES NOT say that there is a seperation of church and state. This is a myth propagated by liberal views. Do not twist this to serve your own liberal views on this board.

What about the excessive entanglement prong of the lemon test? Maybe not quite an advocacy of secularism, but is sure seems to lean that way...

A note: I'm not a political science major, and am only going on what I learned from my AP government class. Consequently, I stand ready to be corrected; I merely thought someone should bring this up.

Oh yeah! Something else I wanted to say:

I've been trying to piece together the argument against homosexual rights/gay marriage (pick one). Everyone on the opposing side seems to use the bible as a substantial part of their argument. What about me? I'm an agnostic, and thus don't view the bible as a valid base of one's moral system. Therefore, even if they seemed to be correctly translated, I would discount any biblical arguments against homosexual rights.

I would be immensely interested to hear even one argument against homosexual rights that is not at least loosely based on religion. I've heard excellent points from the opposite side, with a basis in psychology, biology, Darwinism, morality, and even religion. It should seem only logical that those against this issue should reciprocate. With all religious matters aside, give me one good reason gay people shouldn't have equal rights.

Until then, I'll support gay marriage. :lol:

Oh yeah! Something else I wanted to say:

I've been trying to piece together the argument against homosexual rights/gay marriage (pick one). Everyone on the opposing side seems to use the bible as a substantial part of their argument. What about me? I'm an agnostic, and thus don't view the bible as a valid base of one's moral system. Therefore, even if they seemed to be correctly translated, I would discount any biblical arguments against homosexual rights.

I would be immensely interested to hear even one argument against homosexual rights that is not at least loosely based on religion. I've heard excellent points from the opposite side, with a basis in psychology, biology, Darwinism, morality, and even religion. It should seem only logical that those against this issue should reciprocate. With all religious matters aside, give me one good reason gay people shouldn't have equal rights.

Until then, I'll support gay marriage. :lol:

Can I be honest?

There are no logical reasons to be anti-homosexual.

There could, however, be a few arguments against homosexual marriage. Firstly, homosexual relationships are relatively unstable compared to straight relationships, tending to last for a shorter time, and homosexuals in a relationship are more likely to cheat on their partners (or, at least, are more honest about it) than heterosexuals.

However, this ignores a few fundamental facts. For example:

- homosexuals are, to a significant extent, marginalised and persecuted. This means that many of them seek refuge in the 'scene,' which is (so far as I can tell) the term for the gay clubs and pubs that encourage promiscuity and no-strings-attached sexual relationships. This is precisely what I see on campus in the straight population who attend equivalent clubs and events, but because the scene is one of the easiest ways to get in touch with other gay people/escape harsh external criticism, I imagine it's much easier to get entangled in such a culture if you're gay. If people weren't so negative towards gay people, the differences would probably be far less pronounced, and there would be less reason to escape from social pressure through the 'scene'.

- there are, despite all the evidence, many long term, gay, monogamous relationships being perpetuated. Regardless of who cheats on whom how many times, they last, and there is therefore good reason to give them the rights that any straight couple would have if they were in such a relationship (and let's face it, they're becoming less common all the time).

- in some cases, gay couples actually look after children together, and they do so quite well; in fact, I will venture that, since gay parents have to go through adoption or legal custody battles, and must therefore have both the desire and the capability to look after children (whereas with straight couples, having children is all too easy and often a matter of luck, good or bad, with no selection or controls whatsoever), gay parents are probably better parents. Notice that I'm not talking about gay people in general, only gay parents. Additionally, before they can adopt, they have to go through training to further improve their ability to look after children properly. Since gay parents are probably better suited to parenting, there is plenty of motivation to give them the advantages that straight parents (who can have kids, sometimes, through mere accident) are given, if they choose to marry.

I know some of that is controversial, but I'm not a liar, and I have great difficulty disguising the truth (as I see it), no matter how unpalatable some might find it.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

And, if I may add to that - the mere fact that gay couples cannot get married places an additional strain on gay relationships that straight couples do not have - for example, next of kin rights can't be given, they aren't considered together for tax/property/legal purposes... It is, therefore, illogical to compare long-term gay relationships with long-term straight relationships within marriage, even if we ignore the homophobia that gay couples often have to put up with.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

But I was rereading the thread and, well...
It seems to me that you all have this backwards. Religous citizens are not imposing religious morality on anyone. Homosexuals are attempting to impose their lifestyles on religious people and our foundations of government.
*breathes in* BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
This should be right up in the Hall of Fame next to "The Jews pull all the strings" and "OMG TEH ALEINS HAVE tAKEN OVR TEH WORLD1!!!!!11"

Seriously, who on earth is forcing people to be gay?! "Homosexuals are attempting to impose their lifestyles on religious people".... LOL...

Yet again, the totally trippy and completely tuned in nation of Berkylvania casts it's support for gay marriage. Several arguments have been raised against granting individuals the right to choose, for themselves, under the protection of law that only exists to provide such protections, how to live their lives. Not one of these arguments provides any rational reason why same sex couples should be denied protections, rights and privelledges guaranteed by a SECULAR government. All of them use some sort of religious guideline.

While the SECULAR government of Berkylvania heartily approves of it's populace embracing a life-affirming, religious belief, we will not base our laws on any one religion's specific views as this, in effect, creates a religious caste system and denies those protections to members of other religions.

We have heard the arguement that homosexual relationship are less stable than cooresponding heterosexual ones. We would ask you to provide numbers to back this up. From our own experiences, we see that most heterosexual relationships have about the same staying capacity. Given the fact that nearly half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, we question the application of this argument. Furthermore, it occurs to us that if such instability in fact exists (a greater instability than the naturally volitile and fleeting nature of all human relationships), this may be in some respect the fault of society's persecution and denial of basic the human rights and dignities of homosexuals. We in Berkylvania have embraced alternative marriage and have seen no evidence of any social decline because of it.

We do, however, reserve the rights of our individual religious organizations to ordain homosexual marriage according to their own scriptures and belief systems. In their eyes, a same gendered couple may not be 'married', but in the eyes of the state, they are, and are entitled to the same earthy protections as every other man or woman.

What happens after death isn't our problem.

Even under Judeo-Christian religious strictures, people must be given the right to choose for themselves, otherwise the concept of "salvation" is nullified. Perhaps their choice is wrong in the eyes of God (or at least some particular god). We have adopted a "Render Unto Ceasar" approach to deal with this point. Whereas God may be displeased with them when they die (although we remain unconvinced that God cares one way or the other about the whole issue), until they die, They Are Ours and we will protect them and their rights as steadfastly and as stalwartly as we would protect the rights of any heterosexual couple for to do any less would be unthinkable, unconscionable and, if you'll forgive the allusion, un-American.

All people, be they heterosexual or homosexual, have the right to choose to make the mistake or blessing of marriage. All people then have the right to judge those relationships based on whatever moral meter stick they use. However, they do NOT have the right to limit the informed and consenting choices of others, lest they should find their own rights limited one day. If equal protection of choice is not universal, then it is not a right, but a privilledge and priviledges can be revoked on a whim. Do we really want to sent such a precedent?

What's so great about inheriting the Kingdom of God anyway?

I am reticent to dignify these arguements with a reply but I feel that there is an important point being missed in 'heat of battle'. The best example of this can be seen in the debates between evolutionists and creationists --- both are so eager to be 'right' that they (both) are blinded to the potentials of the truth.

So I ask some simple questions. (and yes I am qualified to do so)

Is it right for a government to discriminate based on gender when they deny that right to the public sector?

Is marriage an invention of God or of Man? God said 'be fruitful and multiply' man defined exactly how that should be done.

Isn't it disrespectful of an 'all powerful God' to personify Him with human charictaristics?

Is it right for one man to impose his belief structure on another?
If so - is it OK to use violence to do so? (Jesus thought so)

You may gather that I am opposed to marriage as a recognized institution entirely --- and you would be correct.

I believe that one very important verse was intentionally left out of Genisis... It should go something like...


... and man said "Let us create God in our own Image, so that we may call upon his name to Dominate our Brethren".

The point is that we all walk our own paths.
You believe what you like --- please, allow me that same freedom.

Let us share what we believe with each other but force none to comply with our system. To impose belief on another is a crime against the soul (your own soul).

a) the UN seems to consist mostly of liberals.
b) we're not all Americans, and the public consensus is very different in other parts of the world.

I believe that gay people should have the same rights as everybody else. that includes the privaliges that come with legal marraige. Prussia, i just like to warn you that you sound like a slime ball. you are not againest lesbians but you are against them getting married. May I ask why?

I believe that gay people deserve the same rights as everybody else. This includes the bonuses of legal marraige. Prussia, i'd like to warn you that you sound like a slimball. so you are for lesbians but againest them getting married? May i ask why?

It seems to me that you all have this backwards. Religous citizens are not imposing religious morality on anyone. Homosexuals are attempting to impose their lifestyles on religious people and our foundations of government.

And Just to get the fact set straight. I'm a history and political science major. The constitution states:

US Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This simply means that the United States Congress cannot pass a law establishing a state religion. It DOES NOT say that government shall not be influenced by the christian faith and morals on with this nation was founded, and is shared by the majority of the nations population. It also DOES NOT say that there is a seperation of church and state. This is a myth propagated by liberal views. Do not twist this to serve your own liberal views on this board.


Dear god.

Hello, sir. Consumption of alcohol, even in the smallest amounts, is strictly forbidden in my religion. Another thing that is forbidden is premarital sex.

Unlike gay marriage, consumption of alcohol being legal can cause violence and automobile accidents killing innocents, and premarital sex contributes to the spread of sexually-transmited diseases as well as teen pregnancy and America's excessively high birth rate.

Now, I don't think that our government should ban alcohol or premarital sex. Do you? You don't have to accept gay marriages, just like you don't have to accept it when a really ugly fat guy marries a really beautiful, smart, funny girl.

The fact is, however, that it's none of your business. Atheists are allowed to get married by a justice of the peace... why, then, should gay people not be allowed to marry? Hell, there's even a very plausible interpretation of the bible that says that David and Jonathan were married. You can read about it at www.religioustolerance.org
It's just illogical to be against gay marriage. Absolutely, utterly illogical.

On top of all this, it's illogical to make something like "civil unions" for gay people that give you the legal benefits of marriage without the religious undertone...
Again, what of married atheists? And what of religions and sects of christianity that condone gay marriage? The fact is, imposing one's beliefs on another like that is far more immoral than pretty much anything banned in Leviticus.

The minute a sect of Christianity branched off from the original denomination is the minute that Christians forfeited the "right" to force other people to believe the same things they do. And there is no "original denomination" anymore, so don't give me any excuses based on that.
Face it... you have no way of deciding what is good or moral based on anything other than what hurts other people and the environment. You can interpret the bible your own way... hell, people have been doing THAT for MILLENNIA... but you have no right to place your own life decisions as a basis for anyone else.

After over 2000 years, anyone who thinks they have the right to enforce how other people interpret the bible is a lunatic. My interpretation says that there's nothing wrong with gay marriage.

Go ahead, prove it to me otherwise. Logically, religiously, however you want. Your call. I'm waiting.

As Galmorra, my Nation supports gay marriage as long as they pay the annual Political Marriage Fee. If they do not, the non-procreation coupling is voided.

As real life me, I have no trouble with gay marriage. I have a girlfriend and everything else is not worth worrying about.

I agree with the previous comments that there exists no secular purpose in restricting the civil rights of marriage to only heterosexuals. I empathize with those whose religious views would argue for such restrictions, but I cannot condone them.

In the Republic of Stringa, marriage is defined contracturally, where the legal term reflects only a specific set of rights and responsibilities. The law specifies that the contract terms are purely secular and any religious organization may refuse to consider any legally married couple "married" in their particular religious tradition.

Clarence Angelia, UN delegate for the Republic of Stringa
Appointed by Her Figureheadedness Queen Fromagette XVI

If you want to be married to someone who also wants to, I don't have a problem with it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

ASB
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

BEB
1 Corinthians 6:9
Have you not knowledge that evil-doers will have no part in the kingdom of God? Have no false ideas about this: no one who goes after the desires of the flesh, or gives worship to images, or is untrue when married, or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men,

DVB
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,

KJVB
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

WEB
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,

YLB
1 Corinthians 6:9
have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

More at http://unbound.biola.edu/


Who cares?


2 Kings 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

And more.

Rigid Religiosity and Mental Health
(Stifoss-Hansen, 1994)
Religious bodies possess rules and regulations that people can often interpret in ways ranging from an easy flexibility to a rigid absolutism. The latter has been defined in one major study as a "law-orientation." a In the present study, a scale of rigid-flexible religiosity was developed and administered to 56 volunteer hospitalized neurotic patients and a control group of 70 nonpatients. The first group scored significantly higher than the controls on the scale, demonstrating that a rigid religiosity is a correlate of, at least, severely neurotic thinking and behavior. The author is inclined to suggest a positive relationship between mental disturbance and an extrinsic religious orientation.


a Strommen, Brekke, Underwager, and Johnson (1972).


Seek help.

I whole heartedly appose Gay marrige. Thta goes for lesbians too. Although I have no priblem with lesbians otherwise. I beleive that all the people who support gay marrige are brainwashed baffoons, incapable of their own thought, or afreid to say the don't support gay marrige.
My two cents.

How are they brainwashed buffoons?
I, personally, support homosexual marriages, because no person has any right to decide what any other person is allowed to think or feel, and therefore no person has the right to deny any other person a marriage to their chosen companion/mate.

leviticus 20:13, Enough said.

Leviticus is the Old Testament. Many Old Testament teachings were thrown out in the New Testament. I'm afraid you'll have to say more.

And Prussia, while your opinions are appreciated, it would be nice to know why you believe them to be brainwashed fools.
Sidenote on that, many old teachings were rewritten when the New Testament was added onto the Old, so that many of the thoughts contained in the Christian Old Testament may be missing from those of the Judaic Old Testament.

The fact is, however, that it's none of your business. Atheists are allowed to get married by a justice of the peace... why, then, should gay people not be allowed to marry? Hell, there's even a very plausible interpretation of the bible that says that David and Jonathan were married. You can read about it at www.religioustolerance.org
It's just illogical to be against gay marriage. Absolutely, utterly illogical.

On top of all this, it's illogical to make something like "civil unions" for gay people that give you the legal benefits of marriage without the religious undertone...
Again, what of married atheists? And what of religions and sects of christianity that condone gay marriage? The fact is, imposing one's beliefs on another like that is far more immoral than pretty much anything banned in Leviticus.

The minute a sect of Christianity branched off from the original denomination is the minute that Christians forfeited the "right" to force other people to believe the same things they do. And there is no "original denomination" anymore, so don't give me any excuses based on that.
Face it... you have no way of deciding what is good or moral based on anything other than what hurts other people and the environment. You can interpret the bible your own way... hell, people have been doing THAT for MILLENNIA... but you have no right to place your own life decisions as a basis for anyone else.

After over 2000 years, anyone who thinks they have the right to enforce how other people interpret the bible is a lunatic. My interpretation says that there's nothing wrong with gay marriage.

Go ahead, prove it to me otherwise. Logically, religiously, however you want. Your call. I'm waiting.
No group has ever had the right to force other groups to believe the same thing. Especially not Christianity, since it itself was a cult split off from Judaism originally.
Otherwise, I agree.

I thought Leviticus was no longer followed by Christians. It outlaws pork and most seafood.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Gays and Lesbians are not prosecuted here in Raeldig, as a matter of fact, it's not considered "evil" or "wrong". However, gays and lesbians make up only 1% of the population. The other 99% do not openly harass them. Personally, I feel that if they do not try to force their views and beliefs on to others it's fine. Regardless of their views, they are humans. It'd be no different than harassing all of your religious people for your religious beliefs.

Yarblek
President of Raeldig

I wholeheartedly support gay marriage, when i was young (as in, a small child) i didn't even realise gay couples couldn't get married, and man was I horrified to find out the law stopped people who are in love from getting married! My first disgust at conservative governments at the age of 4, lol. But seriously, don't throw the bible at me as why people should be against gay marriage, cos here's the thing: I don't believe in fairy tales. Maybe the bible says gay people shouldn't get married, sleeping beauty says really hot girls shouldn't work with spinning needles, I couldn't care less. See, what many people need to realise: FORTUNATELY, the entire world is not christian. In fact, it's not even the largest religion in the world. So stop using a very long badly written story as "proof" of anything.

I thought Leviticus was no longer followed by Christians. It outlaws pork and most seafood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer:
Okay so those of you who have read any of my admittedly sparse previous posts know the drill: I don't read the forums often, usually not in their entirety and I am unlikely to check back here to see if you respond anytime in the near future, so don't feel bad if you flame me and get no response--I certainly won't be worried about you.

Soap Box Time:
To respond to your statement above, Leviticus is no longer followed by many Christians. People who quote it (and most of the Bible as rarely is it followed in its entirety) do so because they have found one verse that seem to justify their own personal ignorance and fear. It's much like the verse that says that wives should obey their husbands--most people who love to quote it either miss or intentionally ignore the next verse that says that husbands should treat their wives as equals in all things. It evens out.

Two of my favorite verses are the ones where Jesus defines the greatest two commandments: Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all thy heart, soul, and mind; and thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself. It's funny that nowhere in that does He make reference to hating and condemning homosexuals. Odd, I guess He just forgot to include it--maybe he was having an off day, or maybe he had caught a glimpse of the ways in which His teaching would one day be perverted to justify hatred, death, and evil. Remember also, it was said that you should not judge others lest you be judged yourself and that you shouldn't remove the splinter from your neighbor's eye before you remove the log for your own. Both verses are very valid arguements for why Christians should deal with their own lives and stay out of other peoples--including homosexuals (as I personally prefer to be called, gay makes me sound too happy. Yes, I am gay and proud of it. I am also a Christian and even more proud of it and I personally have no trouble whatsoever reconciling the two).

We proponents of gay marriage are not asking for all Christian churches to bless and sanctify such marriage. We aren't asking that gay couples be allowed to even attend churches. All we want is for equal rights in the realm of the secular--which face it people, our government (and by this I do mean the U.S.A.) and country is in the realm of the secular. The minute it starts using ANY religion (or atheistic belief) to justify anything, it ceases to be secular and it ceases to be one of the freeest and grandest nations on earth (in my opinion only, and no I am not dissing on anyone else--as the old hymn goes "but other hearts in other lands are beating with dreams as true, as fair and pure as mine" and I know and love that).

I've digressed. Back to my main point, it is not forcing homosexuality on anyone of any religion for a government to recognize civil marriages. Heck, even the Methodist church (hurrah for us!) in the Book of Discipline says that it is in favor of contractual unions for gays.

The one other point I wanted to make in this incredibly long post, is that earlier I read the arguement that gays were not as good at having famillies and raising children as straight and this simply isn't true. Its so untrue that the AMA and the A. Pediatric Association both voted within the last two years to support gay adoption.

I'm sure that there is some other point that I meant to make--it usually takes a lot to get me to post--but I cannot remember it at the moment. Maybe I'll break my general behaviour and make another post here in the near future. In the mean time I'll leave you with the best advice ever given me:

"Just love others and the rest will fall into place."
I'm sure someone else said it first, but I give credit to my mother for relaying it to me.

PS--I have of course remembered the other point I wanted to make while proofreading my post. I noticed in an earlier post that someone arguing against gay marriage argued that the will of the majority had the right to impose discrimination against the minority and that nothing could change that. Well I point you to the Civil Rights movement when a group of determined people changed the course of history in the USA. Not allowing gays equal rights to marriage, property, inheritance, insurance, taxation, etc. is equivocable to the instiutionalized racism that once existed here. While individual belief cannot be dictated by the government (aka, if someone wants to be a racist, it has to be tolerated) behaviors that violate the rights of anyone--minority or otherwise, cannot and SHOULD NOT be tolerated. I would believe that anyone who truly believes in freedom, representational democracy (which is what we really are), and equality would agree.

PPS--One other thing I noticed as I was again proofreading my post, is that I do seem to be going against me own beliefs about not judging others as I say that they are wrong, fearful, ignorant, etc. in not accepting homosexual marriages. Maybe in a way I am, though I have no problem with you not liking me or the way I am based on your personal beliefs (no matter how flawed they are IMO), what I do have a problem with is your trying to force them on me. Having a government that recognizes gay unions in no way takes away your right to hate me--hell it might even give you more ammo. However, having one that denies me such a basic human right as being beside the bed of someone I have dedicated my life to, denies my rights.

The quoting of Christian Scripture to me is likely as futile as my quoting from the The Song of the Raven Goddess would be to you. Very few Ravari follow the Christian faith. You should be pleased to hear that those who do, do so unmolested and in peace. Should we force these people to adhere to the Ravari religious precepts on marriage? Is it the business of the UN to legislate the religious life of its member nations? If so, Ravar must seriously rethink its petition to join.

Annai Coravar di Ravar, High Queen of Ravar

http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2000/om20000814.gif

Is it right for a government to discriminate based on gender when they deny that right to the public sector?

Is marriage an invention of God or of Man? God said 'be fruitful and multiply' man defined exactly how that should be done.

Isn't it disrespectful of an 'all powerful God' to personify Him with human charictaristics?

Is it right for one man to impose his belief structure on another?
If so - is it OK to use violence to do so? (Jesus thought so)

You may gather that I am opposed to marriage as a recognized institution entirely --- and you would be correct.

I believe that one very important verse was intentionally left out of Genisis... It should go something like...


... and man said "Let us create God in our own Image, so that we may call upon his name to Dominate our Brethren".

The point is that we all walk our own paths.
You believe what you like --- please, allow me that same freedom.

Let us share what we believe with each other but force none to comply with our system. To impose belief on another is a crime against the soul (your own soul).
I'm sorry, I don't get that. There are a lot of rhetorical questions in there that ultimately seem to say "don't impose your beliefs on others" and then you jump to the "conclusion" "I'm against gay marriage". That's not really logically consistent. Would you care to elaborate?

You should not force your belief system on others if those others do nothing to harm you, that's what I believe, and you seem to agree with me. But I have yet to see anyone explain to me what harm gay marriage would cause to society. If you have no logical basis and think gay marriage is "simply wrong", fine, then don't get married to someone of the same sex. Just don't impose that belief upon someone who has done nothing to harm you and who seeks a legal and a spiritual union with someone s/he loves.

If you are arguing from religious grounds; who are you to cast judgement upon your peers? Only God can dispense true Judgement, right? Original Sin, remember? He who casts the first stone...

There we go again with the same old song of gay marriage there is a lot of gay people in this game. This is a simple solution religion by the minds of some people will never accept gay marriage so let them with there believes, I will be happy if the government grants CIVIL marriages status to gay people. This movement will never change the church but the government is another story.

R\ President of the Teracknor Federation

Gay people in ROdasnia are alloweda government sanctioned marriage liscense, as are all other people. We in Rodasnia are cracking down on harmful religions and shooting their leaders.

There we go again with the same old song of gay marriage there is a lot of gay people in this game. This is a simple solution religion by the minds of some people will never accept gay marriage so let them with there believes, I will be happy if the government grants CIVIL marriages status to gay people. This movement will never change the church but the government is another story.

R\ President of the Teracknor Federation

Can't belive I'm back so soon. . . .I must have too much free time since it is the holidays.

From above: I think you mean that there ARE a lot of gay people in this game. Typo's happen. . . grammo's are just annoying. Further, Civil Marriage is all that gay people are asking for. No one wants to force a church to perform a union that it does not believe in--nor could the government do so if it wanted. That's what Freedom of Religion means. However, I think people too often get caught up in the idea that marriage intones religion--while it can, it doesn't always. There are plenty of people everyday who are married by a Justice of the Peace in a non-religious way and that is what we gay people are asking for--the right to be in a marriage that is recognized by the federal, state, county, and local governments.

It's interesting to note that the majority of posts thus far have been centred around whether homosexuality is right or not. Guys, you have hijacked the discussion. The intended question was, I surmise, to question the effects on any given society of a homosexual couple living in a civil partnership termed marriage. The topic poster did not ask whether you would agree with gay marriage in a church. If he/she had, then you would have been given a mandate to quote any version of the bible you could dig up from your cellar. Focus on the question and stop giving us good looking men a hard time!

leviticus 20:13, Enough said.

Leviticus is the Old Testament. Many Old Testament teachings were thrown out in the New Testament. I'm afraid you'll have to say more.

Thrown out maybe so but this one was kept on.

im not religious but isnt it against the christian religion and also other religion to marry the same sex? same sex marriages is wrong and anyone within my country that is gay will be givin 1000 hours mandatory community service.... then exterminated on national television across the country and the region the country lies in.

I too whole heartedly appose it, I think it trully is wrong to marry the same sex, and especially to the poor kid if you adopt one, how will he/she fell is my worry? I dont like the idea that people of the same sex can desicrate (if i may say that) the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

Sorry if this offends but i strongly appose it.
My two cents

gays should be sent to the moon!!! o wait.. next time your outside looking at the stars and your son says "dad is that a 4 legged 2 headed creature on the moon?" asks son. Father replies "no son that is two gay guys having sexual intercourse" lol

I support gay marriges :twisted: or if you prefer "unions" on the basis that it has been my experience that gay people who are in lasting relationships are'nt nearly as slutty :evil: as the ones who are not. After all, if you really think about it... Which gay person of your gender are you going to feel more comfortable around, the one who is in a lasting life partnership or the one who is currently feeling lonely and might hit on you? :?: I do however, feel that it is somewhat hypocritical that some gay people actually want to call it marriage and go to a church whose policy states that what they are doing is wrong.

leviticus 20:13, Enough said.

Leviticus is the Old Testament. Many Old Testament teachings were thrown out in the New Testament. I'm afraid you'll have to say more.

Thrown out maybe so but this one was kept on.

Ahh but what about leviticus 19:19? It would ban you from wearing most clothes (most fabric is of "mingled thread")

im not religious but isnt it against the christian religion and also other religion to marry the same sex? same sex marriages is wrong and anyone within my country that is gay will be givin 1000 hours mandatory community service.... then exterminated on national television across the country and the region the country lies in.

I don't believe buddha said anything against it... even if he did, he also said that you accept the parts of buddhism you agree with and leave the ones you don't.


So against other religions? Which ones?

I too whole heartedly appose it, I think it trully is wrong to marry the same sex, and especially to the poor kid if you adopt one, how will he/she fell is my worry? I dont like the idea that people of the same sex can desicrate (if i may say that) the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

Sorry if this offends but i strongly appose it.
My two cents

There have been numerous studies into the effects of having two parents of the same sex on children and the results are overwhelming: as long as the parents are loving, it won't effect the child's development (physical or emotional) at all. In fact, two parents of the same gender who live together is much healthier for a child then the shared custody type situation that is common at the moment after female/male marriages go awry. PS- its not 'appose' its 'oppose', it's not 'trully' its 'truly' and its not 'desicrate' its 'desecrate'. I wouldn't normally get picky but you are desecrating the sancity of the english language.

personally i don't really see why anyone should give a damn about who marries who, its not like YOU'RE marrying them. :roll:

One: If your country is democratic then you should have a free policy in respect of religion. If you state that marriage of two persons is wrong because of religious beliefs and you are in a democratic country, then is like saying you'll should think you'll go to hell when you die even if you don't believe there is one.

Two: Restricting by law an activity that is anyway done and does not affect others than the persons willingly involved (in case that such an action would affect others being conducted in public I reffer to them as being done in private only, like drinking or consuming drugs), does not lead to a down in the number of persons involved in such activities, those activities being smoking, drinking, divorcing or having affectional and/or sexual relationships with people of the same sex for examples.

Any such laws would not be accepted by anyone in my country and therefore my country will resign its UN position in case this resolution will come to a votation state and be approved (maybe not even approved).

Politicaly it makes sense. As a christian I say it's wrong. Are we talking in a political or religious venue here?

people who identify as LGBTQ(Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans,Queer/Questioning) should receive all the rights accorded to everyone else, which includes the right to marriage. I don't need a 2000 yr old book written by un-educated men to tell me what is right or wrong. We're all human beings and should be treated equally and fairly, if there is a God and he/she/it would so willingly condemn he/she/it's own creations, then I would have no part of any such religion or belief structure.

Besides, saying it's wrong implies it's a sickness or disease, it is simply the way people were born, nor is it something to be 'cured'. How would any of you like it if all of a sudden you were punished or condemned/hated for being born in a certain manner. Sounds like opression to me, I recall a group that opressed based on the merits of how you were born, I think they were called Nazi's....

If two people love eachother, they should be allowed to get married.

Politicaly it makes sense. As a christian I say it's wrong. Are we talking in a political or religious venue here?

OOC: It's a resolution proposal for the UN, you should take the position your country would have, if you are democratic is political, if you are teocratic is religious and political, if you are in a dictatorial country is whatever you like :D

I support gay marriage. Its an issue of equal rights for me.

people saying gay SEX is should be illegal really annoys me. I mean really, theres only one way to know for sure that someone is having sex (looking in yourself), and if you think its wrong then why in the HELL would you want watch it?

Then on the basis of politics I have to support the notion of gay marriages. Though I still believe that it would step on less religious toes if you call it a union, even though it would grant the same rights as marrige would to a straight couple. :twisted:

I support gay marriages 100% of the way. Gay's are no different then heterosexuals except they love someone of the same gender. It's no big deal. Or is it? With peopel who are discriminatice against them are making a big deal out of something that shoudn't.


Now some religions raise there children to not support gays. There are some christian ones witch i won't mention becuase a majority of people are that religion.

And in the dictenioary, if you look up mariage in most it will say something similar to "A man and a woman joined in holy matromony".


So alot of things are pushing homophobia in our culture wich makes me ill.

There is nothing wrong with gays and they desserve the same treatment as straights.

With people who are discriminating against them are making a big deal out of something that shouldn't.

Something we Dutch call 'turning a fly into an elephant.'

This goes out to all those who are arguing that the bible goes against it, take a look at this:

If homosexuality is an abomination, please let me know your thoughts on the following issues raised by the Bible. I mean really, I'd like to know.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with any woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Any light you can shed on these questions would really be appreciated, be it sounds to me like you're just picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you like. But maybe I'm wrong.

I credit this to:

Sultan Ömer
Keeper of the Gate of Felicity

Marriage is definately a religious practice. Many religions beleive in the sanctity of marriage. The problem we have here is that religions should be allowed to marry people at their will. Religions should choose wether or not they allow gay marriages. The sate should not condone nor look down upon marriage between any individuals. The state should have NOTHING to do with marriage. It is a religious practice! I am not saying I am either for or against gay marriages. I am against all "state blessed" marriages. Let the religions take care of religion and the government take care of government.

The problem is with the next-of-kin rights. Do you feel those shouldn't be granted to anyone? Or do you feel the government should give them to anyone who is married, including gays?

The issue for me isn't whether being gay is ok or not (just for the record; it is) but that gays cannot receive next-of-kin rights and straight couples can. Either you deny them to all (which I'd still oppose, for obvious reasons) or you give them to all.

All things gay in my nation r illigel and if they been going for a while there punishment will be more sevear than if its jusrt started

I am against gay marriage because i don't think it's right. I am not very religous and I know the bible says that gay marriage is wrong but I am against it because i think that it is disgusting and should not be allowed. Homosexuality should not be flaunted by legally marrying them. So gay marriage should not be allowed in any region or nation.

But why? It in no way affects you, does it? Also that's like saying we should prohibit eating because you find it disgusting.

Whether or not you approve of homosexuality is completely besides the issue. Homosexual couples exist, and they will continue to exist. The only question is whether you have the decency to let them commit to each other in the same way anyone else can.
Here's a very interesting discussion, showing both sides of the issue;
Uncommon Knowledge - Gay Marriage (http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/800/816.html#transcript)

Deciding something on the basis of a religious majority is discriminatory to the rest of the population that does not follow that religion or agree with that specific belief. It is establishing a tenet of a religion to the state, which is basically establishing it as a state religion (at least in that instance). Yes that country was founded by christians, but the government is there to address the needs of all the citizens (who are not all christians), by allowing religious beliefs to dictate their actions in even one area they are not taking the interests of the entire population into account and institutionalizing discrimination. Religious groups are free to hold their beliefs and practice them within their religions, when they influence those beliefs into government laws simply because they are the largest group it is called 'tyranny of the majority'.
However, you seem to overlook what you imply by the above argument. By your reasoning, nations do not have the right to condemn murder, theft, etc (significant in Judeo-Christian ideology) because they discriminate against minor religions that (may not) condemn these acts. Do you still hold with your idea that imposing religious morals does not take into interest the entire population.
Another leader (I apologize, I don't remember which one), argued that religious ideas pose a danger because some religions (in his idea Islam) promote suicide bombing and other acts of terror. Although I do not claim to know the Koran that well, I doubt that it directly promotes suicide and homicide in that form. Setting that aside, that argument still works against itself: If the religion of Islam does promote such actions, and it does not have a majority in a nation, then condemning murder (prohibited by the ten commandments) deters violence, not encourages it.

Marriage is definately a religious practice. Many religions beleive in the sanctity of marriage. The problem we have here is that religions should be allowed to marry people at their will. Religions should choose wether or not they allow gay marriages. The sate should not condone nor look down upon marriage between any individuals. The state should have NOTHING to do with marriage. It is a religious practice! I am not saying I am either for or against gay marriages. I am against all "state blessed" marriages. Let the religions take care of religion and the government take care of government.
Good point though I disagree. According to your argument then, do you oppose a nation with a state religion?

This goes out to all those who are arguing that the bible goes against it, take a look at this:

If homosexuality is an abomination, please let me know your thoughts on the following issues raised by the Bible. I mean really, I'd like to know.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with any woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Any light you can shed on these questions would really be appreciated, be it sounds to me like you're just picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you like. But maybe I'm wrong.

I credit this to:

Sultan Ömer
Keeper of the Gate of Felicity

Old Testiment Laws were through out with Christ Sacrifice on the Cross and the introduction of the NEW Testiment.

Going a bit off topic here, but with all the Old Testament quotings saying how people should die if they did this or that it's worth mentioning that the courts of the Sanhedrin worked fundamentally different than the courts of today. The standards for conviction were much, much higher and so were the standards for proof. If, for instance, you see your friend walking into a house, you hear a lot of screaming, and then he comes out covered in blood with the knife in his hand and rather shaken, that is not proof he killed them. Likely, he would be convicted, but the death sentence would definitely NOT be exacted, because the evidence is considered circumstantial. There is, after all, a tiny possibility that he went into the house, found his family dead, screamed, and pulled the knife from his dying father's chest. The Sanhedrin were not quick to exact the death sentence. They thought any society that did so more than once in 70 years was barbaric.

Just throwing that out here because with all the out-of-context Leviticus quoting it looks as if the Jews were horrible savages.

And then another thing - The Jews only held their own people to the Law. The Torah only details the relation of the Jews with their God, JHWH. This has been so from the very beginning, ever since Abraham. As the Christian OT says;
*
* Gen 17:2** And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
*
* Gen 17:7** And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

And the next, VERY IMPORTANT PART:*
* Gen 17:14** And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

It is the "chosen people", the Jews, that are held to the Law. The Jews did not hold other people to the Sabbath, nor did they kill them for cutting their hair. When you quote the Bible, specifically the OT, against homosexuality, even if you are so inconsistent as to hold to that part of the Law and not to others, then still you're not allowed to pass judgement upon others. You want to hold to Leviticus, fine, but by the same source you have no base to prevent non-Christians or non-Jews from deviating from it.

In fact, as per the Bible, God is the ultimate and only judge. Gay people will go to Hell if God wants it so, right? They do not need you to make their life on Earth horrible as well. If you truly believe gay people are sick and you must do something, then by all means, appeal to their faith and try to "convert" them, but do not pass judgement and do not hurt their feelings by preventing them from bonding with someone they love.

What I've found is that most people who argue against homosexuality from the Bible, are really acting on a gut feeling that it is disgusting, and are merely using the Bible because it is a respected excuse for all kinds of horrible behavior. If they were truly so religious, they would hold to ALL of the Bible's Laws, not just the ones they agree with, eh?

Goes to show that people who study the bible with zealous fervour tend to be the least Christian ;)...

snip

Old Testiment Laws were through out with Christ Sacrifice on the Cross and the introduction of the NEW Testiment.

Then why does Leviticus (OLD Testament) apply? It is the reference most often used by Christians to make being gay a sin. Oh, and just to tell you, many of those references were from Leviticus.

In fact, as per the Bible, God is the ultimate and only judge. Gay people will go to Hell if God wants it so, right? They do not need you to make their life on Earth horrible as well. If you truly believe gay people are sick and you must do something, then by all means, appeal to their faith and try to "convert" them, but do not pass judgement and do not hurt their feelings by preventing them from bonding with someone they love.


Oh, i see, so i guess that humans have no right to judge murderers either because that's just the way they choose to live, or rapist, pedophiles, thieves, etc. for that matter (Crap, rethelanium wrote basically the same thing above but it doesnt change anything, this is on a slightly different matter). Some line has to be set. People cannot be allowed to do everything they want. This is why we were given a brain and a conscience. So we could know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes we must also use our brains to uniform ourselves to a proper code of conduct. Laws must be set.

I am more angered at people that make homosexuality seem normal more than actual homosexuals. You only encourage them. You give them illusions that being gay is alright. Do you realize that what you say actually seems like it's praising them? Being gay will never be outlawed. Simply because it would be impossible to enforce, but at least you can stop encouraging them.

Oh, i see, so i guess that humans have no right to judge murderers either because that's just the way they choose to live, or rapist, pedophiles, thieves, etc. for that matter (Crap, rethelanium wrote basically the same thing above but it doesnt change anything, this is on a slightly different matter). Some line has to be set. People cannot be allowed to do everything they want. This is why we were given a brain and a conscience. So we could know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes we must also use our brains to uniform ourselves to a proper code of conduct. Laws must be set.

Precisely what puts homoexualty on the same level as rape, murder and pedophilia? You will have to do much better than stating your personal aversion to it or your personal relgious beliefs. :idea: As far as not letting people 'do' what they are or want is rather hypocritical while you attempt to draw lines of so called proper behavior because that is what you want to 'do'. Last time I checked homosexuals have a brain (that's what makes them gay, not choice) and a conscience which in many cases functions with superiority compared to egocentric moralistic people who can rarely state their case without displaying profound illogic and or referring to what they view on a personal level as moral behavior (check the definition of morality.)

I am more angered at people that make homosexuality seem normal more than actual homosexuals. You only encourage them. You give them illusions that being gay is alright. Do you realize that what you say actually seems like it's praising them? Being gay will never be outlawed. Simply because it would be impossible to enforce, but at least you can stop encouraging them.

Can you provide some real evidence that homosexuality is not normal or not alright? Is extrinsic religiosity and or homophobia 'alright' or is it simply neurotic behavior? :idea:

Oh, i see, so i guess that humans have no right to judge murderers either because that's just the way they choose to live, or rapist, pedophiles, thieves, etc. for that matter (Crap, rethelanium wrote basically the same thing above but it doesnt change anything, this is on a slightly different matter). Some line has to be set. People cannot be allowed to do everything they want. This is why we were given a brain and a conscience. So we could know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes we must also use our brains to uniform ourselves to a proper code of conduct. Laws must be set.

I am more angered at people that make homosexuality seem normal more than actual homosexuals. You only encourage them. You give them illusions that being gay is alright. Do you realize that what you say actually seems like it's praising them? Being gay will never be outlawed. Simply because it would be impossible to enforce, but at least you can stop encouraging them.

For God's sake, please, PLEASE explain to me who gay people are hurting by being gay?!? I've shown you that the Bible does not allow you to judge people outside of your faith (especially not the Leviticus chapter that keeps getting quoted) so why oh why do you want to judge gays? I'm only trying to make you examine your factual basis. I get strong vibes from you that you feel, not think, homosexuality is wrong. If that's true, please look again honestly at why that is so.

Saying that we should not convict murderers because we don't convict gays is just silly. The laws against murder are based on the very simple principle that murder seriously hurts another individual. The US Supreme Court time and time again has shown that they value personal freedom immensely, virtually anything that detracts from that (like murdering people, or banning homosexuality) has been judged unlawful since the Court has been in place.

So, very simple, beyond quoting the Bible (since you do not seem to want to get into a Biblical discussion), why is gayness wrong? Is it a gut feeling in yourself? Then please consider; what if I have a gut feeling the US conservative ideology is wrong? Would that make it ok to ban conservatives? Or to prevent them from marrying? Sounds like the old USSR, doesn't it?

So, very simple, beyond quoting the Bible (since you do not seem to want to get into a Biblical discussion), why is gayness wrong? Is it a gut feeling in yourself? Then please consider; what if I have a gut feeling the US conservative ideology is wrong? Would that make it ok to ban conservatives? Or to prevent them from marrying? Sounds like the old USSR, doesn't it?

I guess you are right. There is nothing i can do to stop them. Just like there is nothing you can do to stop me. That's a really hopeless thought.

This Govt's policy is marrige is between man and women, period. anthing outside that bond is not marrige.


culture is not a thing to unravel becasue it makes a minor minority "feel" better.

if you wish to live that life style fine,but dont ask my govt to codify it with my vote.

this govt will NEVER vote for such bills when they come up.


Janos I Emperor of Brightonburg, Captain General of Brightonburg Clan.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGHGHGH!!!!!
WHO ARE GAY PEOPLE HURTING BY BEING GAY!?!?? WHY SHOULD THEY BE PUNISHED BY YOU!?!??

Just because YOU do not want to get it on with someone of the same sex (be it man or woman, but I strongly suspect "man") why should that norm apply to everybody else?! What is so inherently wrong about homosexuality? It's not like you're constantly under threat of rape from gay people, and even then, the "rape" part should be the issue, not the "gay" part. Gays are not forcing you to be like them, they're just asking you to accept that people are different.

If you're against gay marriage, there are two questions;
1. Would you also be against a "civil union" (in effect, the same legal benefits but under a different name so as to avoid any religious tension)?
2. Why?

This Govt's policy is marrige is between man and women, period. anthing outside that bond is not marrige.


culture is not a thing to unravel becasue it makes a minor minority "feel" better.

if you wish to live that life style fine,but dont ask my govt to codify it with my vote.

this govt will NEVER vote for such bills when they come up.


Janos I Emperor of Brightonburg, Captain General of Brightonburg Clan.

The completely benevolent and rather swanky nation of Berkylvania strongly feels that if your "culture" is based on arbitrary descrimination, ruthless repression of individual freedoms and a pathological fear of change, perhaps your "culture" is crap and should unravel.

I am against gay marriage because i don't think it's right. I am not very religous and I know the bible says that gay marriage is wrong but I am against it because i think that it is disgusting and should not be allowed. Homosexuality should not be flaunted by legally marrying them. So gay marriage should not be allowed in any region or nation.

Why? Why do you consider gay marriage wrong? By all rights, its not your affair---If you aren't gay, they don't get married to a person that is the same gender as you.
I'm still wondering why homosexuality should not be flaunted. Or why its any more disgusting than heterosexual marriage. At least homosexuals appear to be less likely to start having sex in the middle of a public place.
I really don't know. I just think its none of our business if homosexuals want to get married or not. If they do, great for them. If they don't, its their choice, and not ours.