NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep--you guessed it. Gays are getting married again. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31655-2004May16.html) And there's nothing that asshole Fred Phelps can do about it.


CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Monday, May 17 — Against a backdrop of whoops and cheers and a party that spilled onto the streets, gay and lesbian couples here began filling out applications for marriage licenses at 12:01 a.m. on Monday, when Massachussetts became the first state in the country to allow them to marry.


Congrats to all the happy couples. I saw it firsthand when it happened here in San Francisco (http://brian-spears.com/SFWeddings.html) and to everyone in Massachussetts who is able to tie the knot now after all this time, I wish you the very best.

They're all going to burn in hell now.

But then again they were going to anyway because they are gay.




hmm...

They're all going to burn in hell now.

But then again they were going to anyway because they are gay.




hmm...

:lol:

We got the next Jay Leno!


(no we don't)

They're all going to burn in hell now.

But then again they were going to anyway because they are gay.




hmm...

:lol:

We got the next Jay Leno!


(no we don't)

We don't get Leno over here, only Letterman.

They're all going to burn in hell now.

But then again they were going to anyway because they are gay.




hmm...

:lol:

We got the next Jay Leno!


(no we don't)

We don't get Leno over here, only Letterman.
Letterman....

oh...the guy that appears at 1:00 am

They're all going to burn in hell now.

But then again they were going to anyway because they are gay.




hmm...

At least now they can burn in Hell with blessings from God's priests. :lol:

Seriously, though, congratulations and best of luck to all new happy Massachussettes couples!

Hasn't Bush got the constitutional amendment through yet.

Gosh American politics is complicated, all these states able to do as they wish.

They're all going to burn in hell now.

But then again they were going to anyway because they are gay.




hmm...


Seriously, though, congratulations and best of luck to all new happy Massachussettes couples!

Agreed.

Who was it that said that gays should be allowed to marry because they have just as much right be miserable as everyone else?

Who was it that said that gays should be allowed to marry because they have just as much right be miserable as everyone else?That was me.

Not really. But I did have a pin on my backpack a long time ago that said exactly that. Richard Jeni had a bit about it in his standup routine as well.

I don't approve of this. To me, this has just made a mockery of marriage. But this is just my opinion.

I don't approve of this. To me, this has just made a mockery of marriage. But this is just my opinion.

dont worry, you were brought up to think that, it will vanish in time. no offense

I don't approve of this. To me, this has just made a mockery of marriage. But this is just my opinion.

dont worry, you were brought up to think that, it will vanish in time. no offense

If you are brought up with the right ideals they don't vanish.

P.S. I agree with CE.

I don't approve of this. To me, this has just made a mockery of marriage. But this is just my opinion.

dont worry, you were brought up to think that, it will vanish in time. no offense

If you are brought up with the right ideals they don't vanish.

P.S. I agree with CE.

ideals do vanish, whether they are correct or not

I don't approve of this. To me, this has just made a mockery of marriage. But this is just my opinion.

dont worry, you were brought up to think that, it will vanish in time. no offense

If you are brought up with the right ideals they don't vanish.

P.S. I agree with CE.

ideals do vanish, whether they are correct or not

Principals don't if correctly imbuned.

In other words this is something I will never agree with, and I doubt CE will ever either.

A year after gay civil unions are fully introduced, you will realise that it hasn't affected your life in anyway, and those it has affected it has only made their lives better. There is a gay MP in this country that has had the same partner for 27 years. He deserves to get married to his partner way more than say... A britney spears 2 dayer..

I don't approve of this. To me, this has just made a mockery of marriage. But this is just my opinion.

dont worry, you were brought up to think that, it will vanish in time. no offense

If you are brought up with the right ideals they don't vanish.

P.S. I agree with CE.

Too bad that these aren't the right ideals. Discrimination of others is never the right ideal.

I don't approve of this. To me, this has just made a mockery of marriage. But this is just my opinion.

dont worry, you were brought up to think that, it will vanish in time. no offense

If you are brought up with the right ideals they don't vanish.

P.S. I agree with CE.

ideals do vanish, whether they are correct or not

Principals don't if correctly imbued.

In other words this is something I will never agree with, and I doubt CE will ever either.

there is always something, somewhere that will change your mind

It is quite scary to see America fall into the same immoral pit as the UK.

Marriage was a state of union set between man and woman, so I most certainly do not agree with gay 'marriage'.

Certain things a country doesn't allow because it is deemed morally wrong, such as incest, or murder, how long before that is allowed.

It is quite scary to see America fall into the same immoral pit as the UK.

Marriage was a state of union set between man and woman, so I most certainly do not agree with gay 'marriage'.

Certain things a country doesn't allow because it is deemed morally wrong, such as incest, or murder, how long before that is allowed.

its not the same thing, no matter how hard you want it to be, it can never be the same issue

It is quite scary to see America fall into the same immoral pit as the UK.

Marriage was a state of union set between man and woman, so I most certainly do not agree with gay 'marriage'.

Certain things a country doesn't allow because it is deemed morally wrong, such as incest, or murder, how long before that is allowed.

its not the same thing, no matter how hard you want it to be, it can never be the same issue

Why is it that incest is morally wrong, and gay marriage isn't?

It is quite scary to see America fall into the same immoral pit as the UK.

Marriage was a state of union set between man and woman, so I most certainly do not agree with gay 'marriage'.

Certain things a country doesn't allow because it is deemed morally wrong, such as incest, or murder, how long before that is allowed.

its not the same thing, no matter how hard you want it to be, it can never be the same issue

Why is it that incest is morally wrong, and gay marriage isn't?

incest can cause defects to appear in children. gay marriage is between two consenting adults that are not related

It is quite scary to see America fall into the same immoral pit as the UK.

Marriage was a state of union set between man and woman, so I most certainly do not agree with gay 'marriage'.

Certain things a country doesn't allow because it is deemed morally wrong, such as incest, or murder, how long before that is allowed.

its not the same thing, no matter how hard you want it to be, it can never be the same issue

Why is it that incest is morally wrong, and gay marriage isn't?

incest can cause defects to appear in children. gay marriage is between two consenting adults that are not related

Who ever said they had children? That seems to be a common arguement.

It is quite scary to see America fall into the same immoral pit as the UK.

Marriage was a state of union set between man and woman, so I most certainly do not agree with gay 'marriage'.

Certain things a country doesn't allow because it is deemed morally wrong, such as incest, or murder, how long before that is allowed.

its not the same thing, no matter how hard you want it to be, it can never be the same issue

Why is it that incest is morally wrong, and gay marriage isn't?

Incest leads to inbreeding, which puts offspring in danger of genetic disorders. (I assume you're talking about consenting adults now.) If they can't or won't have children, then I really can't see any moral problems with it per se, though I do find the thought a tad icky. I mean, how many people would really want to be with their brother or sister? Still, if it makes 'em happy...

Gay marraige, however, is entirely unrelated to incest, and I'm uncertain why you even brought it up. It harms no one in any way. Tell me: why it is wrong?

I was trying to make the point that some things are morally wrong, because they are, not for any human decided reason. For that purpose incest seemed a good example, and as yet no one has really come up with a half decent rebuttal.

I was trying to make the point that some things are morally wrong, because they are, not for any human decided reason. For that purpose incest seemed a good example, and as yet no one has really come up with a half decent rebuttal.

"Not for any human decided reason?" Oookay...now tell me where morals come from, if not from humans? All morals are fabricated and individual; your morals are not my morals, Christian morals are not Hindu morals, and so on. There is nothing that is "inherently morally wrong" unless it involves harming other people, and even then it can sometimes be justified (self-defence etc). Just saying that something is "morally wrong" is not a valid argument and doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.

It is quite scary to see America fall into the same immoral pit as the UK.

Marriage was a state of union set between man and woman, so I most certainly do not agree with gay 'marriage'.

Certain things a country doesn't allow because it is deemed morally wrong, such as incest, or murder, how long before that is allowed.

This is laughable. Tell me how you can defend an institution as involate and unchangable when any Joe and Jane from the street can do it in less than an hour at a quickie chapel in Las Vegas or Reno? I realize your're not in the US, but it's happening here so I'm using our references. Or how some institution is sacred when Brittany Spears can marry a dim bulb of a boy she's known for "awhile" and have the whole thing annulled the next morning? Finally, how in the name of God can we deny homosexuals the right to marry when, frankly, shows like "Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire" or "The Bachelor" are more clear and present attacks on the validity of marriage yet still manage to garner more ratings than news programs? Is there a dilution of values in our country? Yes, quite probably, but it isn't because Bruce and Steve want to register at Macy's. It's because we've lost sight of the principles of freedom and equality that used to be a hallmark of the "American Dream".

The fact is that values do change and just as it was once sinful and taboo in the US for black and white people to marry, it is changing. There will always be some grumpy hold outs who will sit in their rocking chairs and complain about how you don't get marriages like you used to, but eventually even they'll grow silent as they find a new minority group to pick on.

As for incest, it's been said, time and again, there are a multitude of reasons why the two are not the same thing. Murder also is different, but just to put a fine point on it (and completely convince you of the dissolution of US moral values) we do alread allow it. It's called capital punishment.

I don't approve of this. To me, this has just made a mockery of marriage. But this is just my opinion.

Why? It doesn't hurt my marriage, in fact it doesn't affect my marriage at all. My marriage isn't a mockery.. I don't see how letting gay people get married makes any ones marriage less or more.. Yep, won't change my marriage one bit. It's none of my business and it's certainly not my place to tell people what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do so long as they aren't hurting any one, it's no ones business.

I don't approve of this. To me, this has just made a mockery of marriage. But this is just my opinion.

Why? It doesn't hurt my marriage, in fact it doesn't affect my marriage at all. My marriage isn't a mockery.. I don't see how letting gay people get married makes any ones marriage less or more.. Yep, won't change my marriage one bit. It's none of my business and it's certainly not my place to tell people what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do so long as they aren't hurting any one, it's no ones business.

If one thig is allowed why not another and then another. There has to be a certain standard set, honesty used to be the moral thing to do and you wouldn't dare lie, now it accepted, common and destroys politics. Nothing destroys a country and sends in more into a orgy of immoral behaviour thanh liberalism, when no one sets a standard and says this is right this is not. There is a distinction.

They're all going to burn in hell now.

But then again they were going to anyway because they are gay.




hmm...

and what would you say i could prove being gay is genetic?

They're all going to burn in hell now.

But then again they were going to anyway because they are gay.




hmm...

and what would you say i could prove being gay is genetic?

I would be pendantic and say you can't actually prove anything in science. But feel free to try.

If one thing is allowed why not another and then another. There has to be a certain standard set, honesty used to be the moral thing to do and you wouldn't dare lie, now it accepted, common and destroys politics. Nothing destroys a country and sends in more into a orgy of immoral behaviour thanh liberalism, when no one sets a standard and says this is right this is not. There is a distinction.

You talk as if everything is set in stone. Our government ammends/changes/alters the U.S. Constitution &/or Bill of Rights on a continual basis. When those changes concur with your beliefs, is that O.K.? Or, is it only wrong when said changes do not coincide with them?

Morals change from day to day, year to year, decade to decade, & century to century. And yet, the world is still turning. Go figure. Yet, you act as if only your world is moral. Those people from say, 100 years ago, might think you are morally corrupt. Did you have sex before marriage? Did you ever live with someone before you married them? Assuming that someone was willing to marry you. Do you watch films that are rated stronger than PG? Have you ever looked at a dirty magazine?

I would think that gays marrying gays would be comforting in your world. Now that they are settling down, you won't be as threatened by homophobia.

As for myself, I am going to worry about "serious" issues. Like infringements on my freedom, violence, war, and car insurance! :)

Rmanevernight.

If one thing is allowed why not another and then another. There has to be a certain standard set, honesty used to be the moral thing to do and you wouldn't dare lie, now it accepted, common and destroys politics. Nothing destroys a country and sends in more into a orgy of immoral behaviour than liberalism, when no one sets a standard and says this is right this is not. There is a distinction.

What??? ALLOWING things destroys society? I assume you count the emancipation of women and abolition of the slave trade as symptomatic of our declining values?

If one thing is allowed why not another and then another. There has to be a certain standard set, honesty used to be the moral thing to do and you wouldn't dare lie, now it accepted, common and destroys politics. Nothing destroys a country and sends in more into a orgy of immoral behaviour thanh liberalism, when no one sets a standard and says this is right this is not. There is a distinction.

You talk as if everything is set in stone. Our government ammends/changes/alters the U.S. Constitution &/or Bill of Rights on a continual basis. When those changes concur with your beliefs, is that O.K.? Or, is it only wrong when said changes do not coincide with them?

Morals change from day to day, year to year, decade to decade, & century to century. And yet, the world is still turning. Go figure. Yet, you act as if only your world is moral. Those people from say, 100 years ago, might think you are morally corrupt. Did you have sex before marriage? Did you ever live with someone before you married them? Assuming that someone was willing to marry you. Do you watch films that are rated stronger than PG? Have you ever looked at a dirty magazine?

I would think that gays marrying gays would be comforting in your world. Now that they are settling down, you won't be as threatened by homophobia.

As for myself, I am going to worry about "serious" issues. Like infringements on my freedom, violence, war, and car insurance! :)

Rmanevernight.

Yes the laws do change, yes I do believe morals are set in stone, I'm 16, unmarried, and no.

I would say this is a very serious issue, if the whole world acted like you and only complained when a breakdown in principals effected them directly things would be in a mess.

I was trying to make the point that some things are morally wrong, because they are, not for any human decided reason. For that purpose incest seemed a good example, and as yet no one has really come up with a half decent rebuttal.

so what exactly counts as incest? second cousin marriages? first cousins? nephew/aunt or niece/uncle marriages? marrying your dead brother's wife?

while all cultures have an incest taboo, what it applies to varies rather a lot between them. and within them over time. morality is purely a human construct.

Nothing destroys a country and sends in more into a orgy of immoral behaviour thanh liberalism, when no one sets a standard and says this is right this is not. There is a distinction.

Here, ready for a quick liberal distinction of what is right and what is wrong? Hold onto your hat, I'm sure this is a revolutionary and completely new idea of morality.

If you do something that hurts another human being (physical or mental damage), it is wrong. Obviously this isn't 100% of the time, there are exceptions. Like World War II. Human beings were hurt, yes, but it avoided the injury of more human beings. Hence it was right.
If gays marry, it hurts no one at all. Hence, it is right. Quit whining about our liberal lack of morals. I think I've just defined my own morals right there. Any other libs who want to chime in, feel free.

I don't approve of this. To me, this has just made a mockery of marriage. But this is just my opinion.

dont worry, you were brought up to think that, it will vanish in time. no offense

There are plenty of atheists who are probably opposed to gay marriage.....what do you say to that?

A year after gay civil unions are fully introduced, you will realise that it hasn't affected your life in anyway, and those it has affected it has only made their lives better. There is a gay MP in this country that has had the same partner for 27 years. He deserves to get married to his partner way more than say... A britney spears 2 dayer..

But she was never married in the first place....that is why you have annulments. To say that the marriage never occured and that these people were never actually married.

Nothing destroys a country and sends in more into a orgy of immoral behaviour thanh liberalism, when no one sets a standard and says this is right this is not. There is a distinction.

Here, ready for a quick liberal distinction of what is right and what is wrong? Hold onto your hat, I'm sure this is a revolutionary and completely new idea of morality.

If you do something that hurts another human being (physical or mental damage), it is wrong. Obviously this isn't 100% of the time, there are exceptions. Like World War II. Human beings were hurt, yes, but it avoided the injury of more human beings. Hence it was right.
If gays marry, it hurts no one at all. Hence, it is right. Quit whining about our liberal lack of morals. I think I've just defined my own morals right there. Any other libs who want to chime in, feel free.

Oh I'm not whining I'm just pointing out that what is right is right, and there is a huge problem when people want their own idea of right, if everyone gets to decide their own morals what would be the point of law?

Nothing destroys a country and sends in more into a orgy of immoral behaviour thanh liberalism, when no one sets a standard and says this is right this is not. There is a distinction.

Here, ready for a quick liberal distinction of what is right and what is wrong? Hold onto your hat, I'm sure this is a revolutionary and completely new idea of morality.

If you do something that hurts another human being (physical or mental damage), it is wrong. Obviously this isn't 100% of the time, there are exceptions. Like World War II. Human beings were hurt, yes, but it avoided the injury of more human beings. Hence it was right.
If gays marry, it hurts no one at all. Hence, it is right. Quit whining about our liberal lack of morals. I think I've just defined my own morals right there. Any other libs who want to chime in, feel free.

Oh I'm not whining I'm just pointing out that what is right is right, and there is a huge problem when people want their own idea of right, if everyone gets to decide their own morals what would be the point of law?

Morals are not law. Laws apply to everyone. Morals, however, are (as I said in my previous post which you conveniently chose to ignore) individual. There are no true, right morals. The only thing that can be deemed as universally wrong is to harm others for no reason, the very thing so-called "moral conservatives" do when they discriminate against gays.

You said earlier that your morals are set in stone and will never change. Since you are only 16, I seriously doubt that. Personal morals do change, whether you want them to or not. If they don't, it means you are learning nothing in your life and that you are doomed to spiritual stagnation. Everything changes, and morals are no exception.

Cynical point of view: this is a type of appeasement- some American politicians may be conservative to the point of fundamentalist, and totally homophobic, so they aren't going to give gay people their basic civil and legal rights for free, and will continually change the rules to enable them to 'legally' withhold something that already belongs to someone... however, when money comes into consideration, it's a different ball game altogether. The 'pink dollar' is a strong and viable economy which the corporations want to tap into and exploit: Massachusetts obviously has the right idea, companies will soon move in to target homosexual couples with 'gay' TV shows (even whole channels), 'gay' fashion, etc. In the long-term, having two people living together would enable them to pay off debts and mortgages faster- giving them even more purchasing power. The spin-off effects on the local economy might make the difference between breaking even and bankruptcy for some companies, whilst a few lucky bastards will make millions. Meanwhile, if you were on welfare for months and couldn't find a job, I doubt you'd care about misguided 'morals' if a job opportunity- a chance to feed yourself and your family without having to rely on others- came at one of the new poodle parlours appearing all over town, or working in security at the Gay Bar, or as a sound technician at 'Gay MTV'.

The political parties might lose a bit of control by having to cater for the Gay lobby as well as for women, blacks, non-Christians, war veterans and all the other groups they resent having to consider in their legislation, but it's their duty to take account of how the laws and legislation they make will affect everyone in the societies they govern, not just White Anglo-Saxon Protestant men as it used to be, back in the "good old days" before the big corporations arrived to crash the party on all of our behalf.

We are all consumers, we should all be given the right to spend our money as we please. If Greg and Justin want to blow ten thousand on a big wedding with all their friends and family, they should be allowed to- if that thought displeases you, think about the wedding-cake makers, the brewers, the toaster manufacturers that rely on weddings to get that extra bit of income! Maybe you work for one of them... if giving gay people the right to declare their eternal love for one another means a pay rise for you next year, I wouldn't be one to grumble.

Nothing destroys a country and sends in more into a orgy of immoral behaviour thanh liberalism, when no one sets a standard and says this is right this is not. There is a distinction.

Here, ready for a quick liberal distinction of what is right and what is wrong? Hold onto your hat, I'm sure this is a revolutionary and completely new idea of morality.

If you do something that hurts another human being (physical or mental damage), it is wrong. Obviously this isn't 100% of the time, there are exceptions. Like World War II. Human beings were hurt, yes, but it avoided the injury of more human beings. Hence it was right.
If gays marry, it hurts no one at all. Hence, it is right. Quit whining about our liberal lack of morals. I think I've just defined my own morals right there. Any other libs who want to chime in, feel free.

Oh I'm not whining I'm just pointing out that what is right is right, and there is a huge problem when people want their own idea of right, if everyone gets to decide their own morals what would be the point of law?

Morals are not law. Laws apply to everyone. Morals, however, are (as I said in my previous post which you conveniently chose to ignore) individual. There are no true, right morals. The only thing that can be deemed as universally wrong is to harm others for no reason, the very thing so-called "moral conservatives" do when they discriminate against gays.

You said earlier that your morals are set in stone and will never change. Since you are only 16, I seriously doubt that. Personal morals do change, whether you want them to or not. If they don't, it means you are learning nothing in your life and that you are doomed to spiritual stagnation. Everything changes, and morals are no exception.

No morals do not change, people just move from them and justify it. I'm not saying you don't improve through your life, but if there is not bedrock then your life has no foundation. There are therefore set morals, yes I am a Christian, and so yes I know there are morals that exist, it is not they alter it is just people justify themselves, like many, including you, in this thread have for living outside them.

P.S. I did answer your earlier post I just didn't quote it.

No morals do not change, people just move from them and justify it. I'm not saying you don't improve through your life, but if there is not bedrock then your life has no foundation. There are therefore set morals, yes I am a Christian, and so yes I know there are morals that exist, it is not they alter it is just people justify themselves, like many, including you, in this thread have for living outside them.

P.S. I did answer your earlier post I just didn't quote it.Sorry, Enerica, but moral attitudes do change, even when they're based on religious dogma.

Take slavery as an institution, for example. Today, slavery is largely considered morally reprehensible. But in the New Testament, Paul gives instructions to slaveowners to deal humanely with their slaves--not to free them, not condemning the ownership of another human--just that they should deal humanely with them. Now Paul was supposed to have written those words while under the power of the Holy Spirit, and certainly if you go with the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God, then if Paul wrote it, God agreed with it.

So is slavery a moral institution? Certainly not. That's something that most of the world has come to acknowledge in the last 200 years or so. Why the change, then? Because as societies get more complex, humans have become more complex in their understandings of their relationships and responsibilities toward each other, and that's what informs moral codes and attitudes.

If i do remember correctly this marriage has nothing to do with the church at all. Its completely a state issue.

A question for people who think gay marriage is horrible, why do you think so? Oh and don't give some because the bible says so claptrap.

If i do remember correctly this marriage has nothing to do with the church at all. Its completely a state issue.

A question for people who think gay marriage is horrible, why do you think so? Oh and don't give some because the bible says so claptrap.

And why would that be clap trap?

Off topic: Great name, great film

Owning slaves was never a moral issue, it was never morally right to won them or not. I would not chose to own a slave because I think it is a bit lazy :lol: .

In any case it is not a moral issue or an issue of what is right or wrong, morals don't change, God does change, and right and wrong does change. There is a distinction, or we are no better than animals.

Owning slaves was never a moral issue, it was never morally right to won them or not. I would not chose to own a slave because I think it is a bit lazy :lol: .

In any case it is not a moral issue or an issue of what is right or wrong, morals don't change, God does change, and right and wrong does change. There is a distinction, or we are no better than animals.

Why is slavery not a moral issue?

Owning slaves was never a moral issue, it was never morally right to won them or not. I would not chose to own a slave because I think it is a bit lazy :lol: .

In any case it is not a moral issue or an issue of what is right or wrong, morals don't change, God does change, and right and wrong does change. There is a distinction, or we are no better than animals.So let me get this straight--you think it's morally acceptable to own another human being, but you wouldn't because you think it's lazy?

If you really believe that your God thinks it's acceptable for some humans to own other humans, then I'm glad I don't worship him--your god is a monster.

No morals do not change, people just move from them and justify it. I'm not saying you don't improve through your life, but if there is not bedrock then your life has no foundation. There are therefore set morals, yes I am a Christian, and so yes I know there are morals that exist, it is not they alter it is just people justify themselves, like many, including you, in this thread have for living outside them.

P.S. I did answer your earlier post I just didn't quote it.Sorry, Enerica, but moral attitudes do change, even when they're based on religious dogma.

Take slavery as an institution, for example. Today, slavery is largely considered morally reprehensible. But in the New Testament, Paul gives instructions to slaveowners to deal humanely with their slaves--not to free them, not condemning the ownership of another human--just that they should deal humanely with them. Now Paul was supposed to have written those words while under the power of the Holy Spirit, and certainly if you go with the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God, then if Paul wrote it, God agreed with it.

and in the old testament, god says that we can take canadians as slaves for life.

If i do remember correctly this marriage has nothing to do with the church at all. Its completely a state issue.

A question for people who think gay marriage is horrible, why do you think so? Oh and don't give some because the bible says so clap trap.

And why would that be clap trap?

Off topic: Great name, great film

I meant dont just say because the bible says so. Give reasons other than biblical ones why you believe that Gay marriage is wrong. Or if you have to use biblical reasons but use specific examples.

OT:Thanks.

morals don't change, God does change, and right and wrong does change. There is a distinction, or we are no better than animals.

If morals do not come from God (if they did, He could change them), where do they come from?

Owning slaves was never a moral issue, it was never morally right to won them or not. I would not chose to own a slave because I think it is a bit lazy :lol: .

In any case it is not a moral issue or an issue of what is right or wrong, morals don't change, God does change, and right and wrong does change. There is a distinction, or we are no better than animals.So let me get this straight--you think it's morally acceptable to own another human being, but you wouldn't because you think it's lazy?

If you really believe that your God thinks it's acceptable for some humans to own other humans, then I'm glad I don't worship him--your god is a monster.

Errr, no...

:roll: I said that it was never morally right to own one. You seemed to infer morals had changed, meaning that you meant at one time it had been morally right. Then it was a job. In any case in the old testament laws were set to protect the slaves, by the person you just called a monster. Then there was nothing to help them but the law.

Owning slaves was never a moral issue, it was never morally right to won them or not. I would not chose to own a slave because I think it is a bit lazy :lol: .

In any case it is not a moral issue or an issue of what is right or wrong, morals don't change, God does change, and right and wrong does change. There is a distinction, or we are no better than animals.So let me get this straight--you think it's morally acceptable to own another human being, but you wouldn't because you think it's lazy?

If you really believe that your God thinks it's acceptable for some humans to own other humans, then I'm glad I don't worship him--your god is a monster.

Errr, no...

:roll: I said that it was never morally right to own one. You seemed to infer morals had changed, meaning that you meant at one time it had been morally right. Then it was a job. In any case in the old testament laws were set to protect the slaves, by the person you just called a monster. Then there was nothing to help them but the law.

But how do you know that it was "never morally right" to own a slave? It seems both The Bible, God and, indeed, quite a number of people throughout history would disagree with you.

Owning slaves was never a moral issue, it was never morally right to won them or not. I would not chose to own a slave because I think it is a bit lazy :lol: .

In any case it is not a moral issue or an issue of what is right or wrong, morals don't change, God does change, and right and wrong does change. There is a distinction, or we are no better than animals.So let me get this straight--you think it's morally acceptable to own another human being, but you wouldn't because you think it's lazy?

If you really believe that your God thinks it's acceptable for some humans to own other humans, then I'm glad I don't worship him--your god is a monster.

Errr, no...

:roll: I said that it was never morally right to own one. You seemed to infer morals had changed, meaning that you meant at one time it had been morally right. Then it was a job. In any case in the old testament laws were set to protect the slaves, by the person you just called a monster. Then there was nothing to help them but the law.You can't get out of it like that--your God said it was okay for His servants to own slaves and made special laws as regards them. If your morals come from your God, and if those morals are unchangeable, then logically that means that you must believe that slavery is morally acceptable.

Unless, of course, human understanding of morality is flexible and dependent to some extent on culture and circumstance.

It never says thou shalt own a slave, as it is that you seem to be infering.

This argument to a degree is pointless, most of you will always disagree with me, and would not be happy unless I let myself become all accepting and liberal. I will finish saying, it has been interesting talking with you all, but in whatever case there is a right and wrong. Dantes Peak: Look in Leviticus 20: 12 for one.
At least the people posting here aren't pretenting to be Christians, personally I think it is worse when someone is a Christian but denies the parts they don't like. Thank goodness for The Nigerians.

And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Eh? have I missed something??

And the Nigerians?
I mean... I'm sure they're very nice people, but
what??? :?

It never says thou shalt own a slave, as it is that you seem to be infering.

This argument to a degree is pointless, most of you will always disagree with me, and would not be happy unless I let myself become all accepting and liberal. I will finish saying, it has been interesting talking with you all, but in whatever case there is a right and wrong. Dantes Peak: Look in Leviticus 20: 12 for one.
At least the people posting here aren't pretenting to be Christians, personally I think it is worse when someone is a Christian but denies the parts they don't like. Thank goodness for The Nigerians.I'm not inferring anything of the sort. I've never said that God commanded his people to own slaves. But the Bible does make provisions for slave ownership in the Old Testament and gives Christian slaveowners advice in the New Testament, and if your God is making those sorts of arrangements, then one must assume that He's okay with the action, that he finds it morally acceptable. God was pro-active in the approval of slavery, according to the Bible.

And I'm not trying to get you to change your mind on any particular issue--I'm just answering your charge that morals are unchanging and inflexible. History shows that not to be the case.

It is quite scary to see America fall into the same immoral pit as the UK.

Marriage was a state of union set between man and woman, so I most certainly do not agree with gay 'marriage'.

Certain things a country doesn't allow because it is deemed morally wrong, such as incest, or murder, how long before that is allowed.

its not the same thing, no matter how hard you want it to be, it can never be the same issue

Why is it that incest is morally wrong, and gay marriage isn't?

Who are you to say incest is morally wrong?

Enerica, if I make love to or marry someone of the same gender as me, or cohabit with someone I dearly love (regardless of their gender) but do not confirm this in the eyes of God, should I be judged or condemned by the likes of you? Depending on how you read the Bible, only God can judge and condemn. At least liberalism allows people free will to make decisions and, hopefully (if there is a God), be vindicated come the day of reckoning.

God may not have said "don't own slaves" but he also never said "own slaves and make their lives terrible". He said to treat the slaves with kindness and laid down rules for the dealing of slaves. Though I do not believe with Enerica that God changes. He doesn't change his mind which in turn wouldn't change his attitude. He knows the future and has already made up his mind before he created the world about what is going to happen as I'm sure you notice this is making the prophecies in the Bible come true, like many Muslims and Christians believe the Appocalypse is coming soon. I believe that Gay marriage is wrong not only because of religion but beause of how disgusting it really is, men are kissing mean and women, women. It's disgusting though it is probably because it doesn't look right when you were growing up. Also one other thing is who decided it was legal. Wa it the government? No. Was it the "Supreme Court? No! Itwas a bunch of judges who decided!! It should have been taken up to the Supreme Court for certain. You liberals don't have a mind if you think something is wrong only if it hurts someone else. Then its okay to steal without someone knowing?

Though I'm sick of all the "God is a monster and mean and blahblahblah" so we don't go around saying "You're God is evil." to Muslims do we? Unless the person is extreme and thinks God is telling them to kill someone or go somewhere. Most of the Old Tetament laws have changed throughout history, since Jesus came and died the laws have changed. Now it's not sinful to eat unclean meat, though the Ten Commandments haven't changed but the little laws have. You may think God doesn't exist but you'll find out when you're dead like everyone else. If he doesn't exist how did we get here? Through the "Big Bang" that says we're an accident. Why aren't we evolving then? How come nothing is evolving? How did nothing come from nothing? The Big Bang says that there was a Big explosion [most likely from gases] that made everything. Then where did the gases come from if there was no universe? A God would have to have made Earth. Unless you think there's some other way.

Though the Mars point is debatable there are some things scientists assume like the water proof they found. First it may have had Air a billion years back [to evolutionists] but where did the living things there go? How come there aren't any bones there? Second they assume that Mars would have been exactly like Earth and that Space is too. They found those watermarks but how do they know that in Space those may have just formed that way. It wouldn't be exactly like earth like most scientists think.

I've got to put my two cents in this one:

Gay marriage is just like any other legal marriage. It is not a mockery of marriage. The already-mentioned Britney Spears marriage is a mockery of marriage. Geting married for political or economic purposes ("marrying for the money") is a mockery of marriage. Marriage simply because the woman is pregnant is a mockery of marriage. Allowing two people who love each other dearly is not a mockery of marriage.

People often use the "slippery slope" view concerning the denouncement of gay marriage; their view is, "If gays are allowed to marry, what next? Cousins marrying? People marrying animals?" Certain marriages are illegalized because they are genetically wrong--like people of blood relation marrying. I personally find it stupid if somebody wants to marry his goat because THAT is a mockery of marriage. A marriage is between two consenting adult humans who wish to be together through the ups and downs of life, who intend on always being there for the other. Non-mockery mariage is a beautiful thing that should not be interfered with.

Gay marriage will not harm American or world society. If anything, it is a slap in the face to conservative viewpoints. When it is proven that gay marriages are not harmful to society (except, perhaps, to society's homophobes), perhaps people will learn to appreciate the beauty of two people in love.

In the past, racial segregation and sexism in the form of male-only suffrage have been accepted as correct in America. Why have these "correct" views been since overturned? Society has changed so that people are less likely to come across bigotry and hate in their daily lives... perhaps. Racial segregation was legal under the guise of "separate but equal", and women were considered too politically inept to participate in voting. Gay marriage in the past has been considered incorrect in America for a variety of reasons ("a marriage is a union between a man and a woman", "gay people are evolutionarily purposeless because they cannot procrate together", etc.). Regardless of the reasoning, I find it a violation of somebody's rights if he or she is banned from marrying the person he or she loves simply because of the sex of that loved person.

On that evolutionary stint, I must comment. Because religion is not within the realm of science, people use the evolution view against gay people as a whole, that gay people are incorrect because they cannot reproduce. Mules cannot reproduce, but they're darn useful to farmers. Infertile couples cannot reproduce, but they can still be active and positive members of our society.

I refuse to comment on the morals/ethics of the debate because that is a far lengthier, philosophical debate waiting to happen... eh, it's already happened. I also refuse to comment on the existance of God, the Big Bang, etc. because it is irrelevant to this discussion and also a lengthy philosophical debate.

Is gay marriage "wrong" because of the potential sexual acts in which these couples may engage is "weird"? I think I read somewhere that 50% of gay couples and 10% of straight couples regularly engage in anal sex. Lesbian couples can't even engage in sex in its literal, by-the-books definition! When we think of marriage, let's not be so perverted as to automatically think of its sexual possibilities.

By the way, I am not gay. I do not find two people of the same sex kissing to be repulsive. I find a 80- or 90-year-old man marrying a twentysomething (Anna Nichole Smith and... that old guy) repulsive, but if they both loved each other, more power to them.

Also by the way, something is wrong if it hurts someone else. This has gray space, though, like murder in self-defense or even putting an IV in somebody who is scared of needles if they need that IV. It is not okay to steal without someone knowing because, regardless if they notice the theft, taking something that does not belong to you without permission is wrong. This too is debatable because of every possible grey space situation.

I believe that Gay marriage is wrong not only because of religion but beause of how disgusting it really is, men are kissing mean and women, women. It's disgusting though it is probably because it doesn't look right when you were growing up.

So we should ban it because a bunch of crybabies doesn't like the idea of two men/women kissing? Cry me a river.
I don't like Christianity, shall we ban that too now?

Question to those opposed to gay marriges. When these marriges are a purely civil ceremony in a country that is not religious what right do you have to say they should not be allowed?
I can understand a christian saying a gay couple should not be allowed to marry in a church because they feel its against their religion (rightly or wrongly) but there should be a seperation of church and state. For example here in the UK, if your married in a registery office then there can be no mention of anything religion, even in the songs played. Therefore why shouldn't a gay couple get married in a registary office. Its no more against god than a straight couple getting married because god isn't involved in any way, shape or form. Its purely a legal ceremony!!

Hasn't Bush got the constitutional amendment through yet.

Gosh American politics is complicated, all these states able to do as they wish.

:lol: It only seems messy. A constitutional ammendment takes years and this one wouldn't fly. It's a no starter.

SHL

Ah, blissful ignorance! Let's see if we can break this down:

God may not have said "don't own slaves" but he also never said "own slaves and make their lives terrible". He said to treat the slaves with kindness and laid down rules for the dealing of slaves. Though I do not believe with Enerica that God changes. He doesn't change his mind which in turn wouldn't change his attitude. He knows the future and has already made up his mind before he created the world about what is going to happen as I'm sure you notice this is making the prophecies in the Bible come true, like many Muslims and Christians believe the Appocalypse is coming soon.

It doesn't matter how well you treat them, they're still slaves. They have no freedom and no free will. To own another person as if they were an object is despisable. Also, if God doesn't change his mind, then why are there two testaments that are very dissimilar?

I believe that Gay marriage is wrong not only because of religion but beause of how disgusting it really is, men are kissing mean and women, women. It's disgusting though it is probably because it doesn't look right when you were growing up. Also one other thing is who decided it was legal. Wa it the government? No. Was it the "Supreme Court? No! Itwas a bunch of judges who decided!! It should have been taken up to the Supreme Court for certain.

Gays being disgusting is your opinion, and not an argument. I find over-zealous religious people (Christian or otherwise) to be disgusting and offending. This is still not a reason to ban them. As for the legal issue, America has a thing called the "Constitution". It's a biiig document that acts as the main law for the country, and it has nothing to say against gay marraige. So it looks like the founding fathers decided it was legal.

You liberals don't have a mind if you think something is wrong only if it hurts someone else. Then its okay to steal without someone knowing?

Why should something be wrong if no-one is harmed? Who wants a nitpickety government that starts banning the stupidest things? Who's to decide what's right and wrong? You? I certainly hope not. As for your stealing example: whether they know about it or not, stealing harms others, perhaps to a very small degree, but it is still harm, and therefore wrong. However, if a man steals to feed his starving family, it is justifiable, though not less wrong.

Though I'm sick of all the "God is a monster and mean and blahblahblah"

We're sick of hearing "Gays are evil and disgusting and blahblahblah.


so we don't go around saying "You're God is evil." to Muslims do we? Unless the person is extreme and thinks God is telling them to kill someone or go somewhere.

Is that so? I've seen a great number of examples of people saying "all Muslims are evil". Mostly Americans.

Most of the Old Tetament laws have changed throughout history, since Jesus came and died the laws have changed. Now it's not sinful to eat unclean meat, though the Ten Commandments haven't changed but the little laws have.

I thought God didn't change his mind. And where in the ten commandments does it say that gay marraige is wrong?

You may think God doesn't exist but you'll find out when you're dead like everyone else. If he doesn't exist how did we get here? Through the "Big Bang" that says we're an accident. Why aren't we evolving then? How come nothing is evolving? How did nothing come from nothing? The Big Bang says that there was a Big explosion [most likely from gases] that made everything. Then where did the gases come from if there was no universe? A God would have to have made Earth. Unless you think there's some other way.

Why would God make an entire Universe just to create Earth? That doesn't make sense. (I, personally, believe there to be *a* divine power, just not *your* divine power. The divine may have a goal with everything, but uses the laws of nature to accomplish it.) How can you say that nothing is evolving? Because you don't see it happening? News flash: Evolution takes millions of years! The problem with people that disbelieve science is that they can't think in large proportions. If there is no evolution, what about the dinosaurs? Why are animals living in isolated ecosystems so vastly different than others?

Though the Mars point is debatable there are some things scientists assume like the water proof they found. First it may have had Air a billion years back [to evolutionists] but where did the living things there go? How come there aren't any bones there? Second they assume that Mars would have been exactly like Earth and that Space is too. They found those watermarks but how do they know that in Space those may have just formed that way. It wouldn't be exactly like earth like most scientists think.

News flash #2: Not all life forms have bones! The life on Mars that they're debating would be of the single-celled sort, not the kind to leave solid remains. But as you said the point is debatable and I won't waste more time on it.

*Phew* I shall never understand why people place such blind faith in religions. You feel that the morals you have are right and true because that's what's been told to you. There is no allowance for critical thinking. Have you ever considered what your morals would be had you been raised Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist? No doubt you would think they were the only true morals as well. Think about that.

Hehe...just had to post this too:

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040518/lester.gif

:lol:

Question to those opposed to gay marriges. When these marriges are a purely civil ceremony in a country that is not religious what right do you have to say they should not be allowed?
I can understand a christian saying a gay couple should not be allowed to marry in a church because they feel its against their religion (rightly or wrongly) but there should be a seperation of church and state. For example here in the UK, if your married in a registery office then there can be no mention of anything religion, even in the songs played. Therefore why shouldn't a gay couple get married in a registary office. Its no more against god than a straight couple getting married because god isn't involved in any way, shape or form. Its purely a legal ceremony!!

Thats a point I've been wondering. Raysia said a while ago that he didn't really care if there were gay civil unions, but he didn't want the term 'marriage' he's got a point there tbh.

Interestingly enough I heard that the government in this country is considering allowing gay civil unions. They've been more careful on their wording it seems.

So has the world ended yet? Have swarms of giant locusts devoured innocent babies? Have huge earthquakes destroyed the sinful city of Babylon?
Have the rivers and seas turned to blood? Have the stars fallen from the heavens? Have 1/3 of all the trees been burned?

Or has, as most sane people predicted, nothing much happened at all?

So has the world ended yet? Have swarms of giant locusts devoured innocent babies? Have huge earthquakes destroyed the sinful city of Babylon?
Have the rivers and seas turned to blood? Have the stars fallen from the heavens? Have 1/3 of all the trees been burned?

Or has, as most sane people predicted, nothing much happened at all?

Well, swarms of ciccadas have hit the east coast, but I think that's just a rather amusing coincidence.

One thing's for sure. If the world ended, I'm very disappointed. You just don't get the same kind of "Wrath Of God" nowadays. I remember when people got smited and they by golley stayed smited. Now, if there were hellfire and brimstone raining down from the sky, people would just use it to light their cigarettes and buy more expensive sun screen. As for plauges, bah. You don't get plauges anymore. AIDS isn't a plauge. Boils. Now BOILS are a plauge, real "Hand of God" type stuff.

And, just so I don't get slammed about, [/sarcasm]

Let's see: frogs are dying; scientists are worried (plague of frogs)
cicadas(locusts)
war continues (blood)
smog covers our cities (darkness)
So yeh, once we get our boils we'll know God is really ticked!

Remember though, the Flood was about violence and inhumanity.
The Prophet Amos said the people would be decimated in punishment for bloodshed, corruption, and economic injustice. Not sex.

One thing's for sure. If the world ended, I'm very disappointed. You just don't get the same kind of "Wrath Of God" nowadays. I remember when people got smited and they by golley stayed smited. Now, if there were hellfire and brimstone raining down from the sky, people would just use it to light their cigarettes and buy more expensive sun screen. As for plauges, bah. You don't get plauges anymore. AIDS isn't a plauge. Boils. Now BOILS are a plauge, real "Hand of God" type stuff.

And, just so I don't get slammed about, [/sarcasim]

Kinda like a "cake or death" thing then?

"You! Cake or death?!"
"Well I'll take cake."
"Very well! Give him cake!"

Anyone who thinks the world is going to end in the nex few years is retarded. I believe the Bible says that no one will know the time.

One thing's for sure. If the world ended, I'm very disappointed. You just don't get the same kind of "Wrath Of God" nowadays. I remember when people got smited and they by golley stayed smited. Now, if there were hellfire and brimstone raining down from the sky, people would just use it to light their cigarettes and buy more expensive sun screen. As for plauges, bah. You don't get plauges anymore. AIDS isn't a plauge. Boils. Now BOILS are a plauge, real "Hand of God" type stuff.

And, just so I don't get slammed about, [/sarcasim]

Kinda like a "cake or death" thing then?

"You! Cake or death?!"
"Well I'll take cake."
"Very well! Give him cake!"

Exactly. Oh, and by the way, how do you spell sarcasim because I think I'm getting it wrong.

I think it's sarcasm.

Thank you. :D

No problem. Enjoy this knowledge while you can.