NationStates Jolt Archive

Answer a series of questions, please.

Do you believe in pressing your religious beliefs on others?

This thread will end in tears.

And probably swearing.

I'm trying something...

My religon happens to be against gays. Although I am personally for gay marriages.

You probably have good intentions, but if you only knew how many people have tried and been burnt by the flames of the "gay people are icky" crowd here...

It's sad, really.

Do you believe that allowing gays to marry will change the way your daily life happens?

Does it matter if somewhere else in the world, two people who love each other get married but are gay?

If you thnk so, how does it personally affect you?

Why it is offensive, if they haven't hurt anyone?

Yes, no offense, Shessara. You probably do have the best of intentions. The trouble is there is no "budge" here. People who support it will support it and people who don't won't and nearly every tactic has been tried to try and sway both sides and they've all ended up in bitter recrimination and an even deeper digging in on both sides.

Who knows, though? Perhaps I'm jaded. My religion doesn't speak against same-sex marriage or homosexuality, though, so I guess I should have just minded my own business and not hijacked your thread. Once again, I'm part of the problem.

Sorry.

Im all for it. Theres nothing wrong with that. t would be prejudace to say otherwise.

But I do think it should not be refered to as "marrige" seeing as the definition of that is a male and female.

but the idea of two same sex partners being together is fine by me.

Part of the problem with this sort of discussion is that there are too many people who are unmovably opposed to same-sex relationships, whether for religious or for other reasons. They couch their lack of comfort in religious edicts or other nonsensical logical fallacies, but however they do it, the result is the same--a deep and unchanging hatred for homosexuals. Because it's a reaction based on emotion and not logic, no amount of appeal to reason will do any good. They have to be willing to listen for the logic to have even the remotest chance of working, and these people are completely unwilling to listen.

I won't pretend to be able to argue all the points on this particular issue. So, I simply point to a valuable website which answers the question:

What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01

It answers that question in a logical and progressive order.

Answer a series of questions, please.

Do you believe in pressing your religious beliefs on others?
My God is a god of free choice.

My God is a god of free choice.

For once, Whittier, we agree.

Discrimination against homosexuals is an issue I find moraly repugnant and I feel that religious arguments against homosexual marriage are especially.

Scanning through the arguments on that site, Kafelnikov, the logic seems to be this: same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married because marriage is only between a man and a woman. Why is it only between a man and a woman? Because it is. That's the argument boiled down to its most basic form.

What it doesn't address is the question as to why the definition of marriage--malleable as it has been throughout history--shouldn't continue to evolve. He has no good answer for that, probably because there is no good answer for that, other than obstinacy.

Do you believe that allowing gays to marry will change the way your daily life happens?

Does it matter if somewhere else in the world, two people who love each other get married but are gay?

If you thnk so, how does it personally affect you?

Why it is offensive, if they haven't hurt anyone?

Yes. Radical Islamicists hate little more than homosexuality. The most powerful and accessible window they have into our daily lives is the shit we spew into the airwaves every day. They watch one half hour of our programming, and I'm sure they think we're all murdering homosexual fornicators. If their jihad against America and the rest of western culture kills someone close to me, I'd say that would make a significant change to the way my daily life happens, because I'd be in the Middle East trying to kick the ever living shit out of some terrorist scumbags.

I know ther's quit a bit of extrapolation here, but I think you get the general idea.

I really do feel as me being a Christian(Non-Denominational) That gay marriages is wrong. The morality of it is ridiculous. And especially the parts with kids. A child is probably not going to understand why it has 2 fathers and mothers and can be devestated for life. I feel it is their business but the thing is we shouldnt allow them the freedoms of marriage that will just ruin the morality of the United States and how we once were a Christian nation. Its sad to see the world turning into such a mess.

Answer a series of questions, please.

Do you believe in pressing your religious beliefs on others?
I am opposed to gay MARRIAGE.

And no, I don't impose my religious beliefs (if any) on anyone.

I am against gay MARRIAGE because of the term "marriage." In my opinion, marriage is a religious term. No major religion endorses marriage between people of the same sex. I will not get into the psychology I believe is involved in this.

I DO endorse gay unions or civil unions or any other term but marriage. Gays should be endorsed as a "couple" by the government and should benefit from the government as "married couples do" they should also share in all the responsibilities and financial obligations that heterosexual married couples also do.

I am opposed to the hijacking of the religious term marriage is all. I find this to be a blatant attack on religion.

I am opposed to the hijacking of the religious term marriage is all. I find this to be a blatant attack on religion.

I firmly believe in the separation of church and state and in my opinion, marriage as we know it is a religious procedure with legal benefits tied into it. Personally, I'm all for tossing the term "marriage" straight out the window for all those who are not religious.

Since people are likely to hate that more than the current debates, I'll have to say that I strongly support gay marriage rights. People have a right to get married to whomever they chose, and it should not be restricted to a certain gender.

How would all you straight people like it if you had to marry someone of the same sex? Put the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels.

I am opposed to gay MARRIAGE.

And no, I don't impose my religious beliefs (if any) on anyone.

I am against gay MARRIAGE because of the term "marriage." In my opinion, marriage is a religious term. No major religion endorses marriage between people of the same sex. I will not get into the psychology I believe is involved in this.

I DO endorse gay unions or civil unions or any other term but marriage. Gays should be endorsed as a "couple" by the government and should benefit from the government as "married couples do" they should also share in all the responsibilities and financial obligations that heterosexual married couples also do.

I am opposed to the hijacking of the religious term marriage is all. I find this to be a blatant attack on religion.Would you change your opinion if a major christian church were to start supporting same-sex marriage? And if not, why not?

how are homosexuals Discriminated against? dont they have the same rights as every one else? that is the right to marry any one of the oppisite sex they chose. it apears some people need to go sit in a quite room and think realy hard on the differnce between discrimination and special rights. after reading the post it is very obvious that many dont know the differnce. now civial unions that give the same rights when it comes to every thing excep childern now that is deffernt all together.

"Do not practice homosexuality; It is a detestable sin."
Leviticus 18:22, NLT

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulturers, male prostitutes... None of these will have a share in the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NLT

"In the same way the men also abandoned natura relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Romans 1:27 NIV

Anyone who calls themselves a Christian, but does not believe these words, is not truly a Christian and will not have a share in the Kingdom of God.

how are homosexuals Discriminated against? dont they have the same rights as every one else? that is the right to marry any one of the oppisite sex they chose. it apears some people need to go sit in a quite room and think realy hard on the differnce between discrimination and special rights. after reading the post it is very obvious that many dont know the differnce. now civial unions that give the same rights when it comes to every thing excep childern now that is deffernt all together.Moron, table for one.

For once, Whittier, we agree.

Discrimination against homosexuals is an issue I find moraly repugnant and I feel that religious arguments against homosexual marriage are especially.
I oppose it on religious grounds, but I won't oppose it politically.
Its between them and god and no one else. That's why we have sep of church and state.
God won't send me to hell just cause of something some one else does.

Well, if gays can be married then what stops me from eventually marrying my pony or dog? Heck it's my business, and if I want to marry my pets then the law should allow me to do it as long as I'm happy! Well if not my pets then maybe a 10 year old refugee girl from China! How about having multiple wives, why is that against the law? Many of those people are really into sharing one husband and are quite happy!

"Do not practice homosexuality; It is a detestable sin."
Leviticus 18:22, NLT

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulturers, male prostitutes... None of these will have a share in the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NLT

"In the same way the men also abandoned natura relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Romans 1:27 NIV

Anyone who calls themselves a Christian, but does not believe these words, is not truly a Christian and will not have a share in the Kingdom of God.
Good thing I'm not a christian except in the sense that I respect the teachings of Jesus. Guess that doesn't apply to me.

Now since it doesn't apply to me, and I am an american citizen, does that mean I can marry a person of the same sex if I wish, since to deny me could be considered religious discrimination?

"Do not practice homosexuality; It is a detestable sin."
Leviticus 18:22, NLT

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulturers, male prostitutes... None of these will have a share in the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NLT

"In the same way the men also abandoned natura relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Romans 1:27 NIV

Anyone who calls themselves a Christian, but does not believe these words, is not truly a Christian and will not have a share in the Kingdom of God.

And what about all the other passages from the Bible that are obsolete now? Slaves are still admissable according to the Bible, women during menstruation are evil and unclean, men aren't allowed to wear sideburns (I can't give the exact quotes because I don't have a Bible handy at the moment). These are obsolete and don't apply to current society.

Or if you do believe all these, you're nuttier than I thought.

*sigh*

I knew it would end in tears.

I hate being right.

Would you change your opinion if a major christian church were to start supporting same-sex marriage? And if not, why not?
if another christian church were to do that, I would immediately write another article calling them false christians cause that is what they are.
You can support gay marriage if you want, you can even be gay if you want, but you can't do either and still be a christian.
Just like people who support abortion are not christians. It don't matter how much they claim to be christian, if you support gay marriage and or abortion, you are not a christian.

Well, if gays can be married then what stops me from eventually marrying my pony or dog? Heck it's my business, and if I want to marry my pets then the law should allow me to do it as long as I'm happy! Well if not my pets then maybe a 10 year old refugee girl from China! How about having multiple wives, why is that against the law? Many of those people are really into sharing one husband and are quite happy!
You need to go join the moron tabel with Kd4.

Animals cannot give the requisite consent to be married. Neither can children. Allowing same-sex couples to marry wouldn't change that in the slightest.

Polygamy and polyamory is another matter, and in the long run may well be legalized using the same logic as same-sex couples are using, and as long as all members of the group marriage are willing and consenting, then why the hell not.

*sigh*

I knew it would end in tears.

I hate being right.
Ah--join in, Berk. You'll be up to Muppet Owner in no time. :D

if another christian church were to do that, I would immediately write another article calling them false christians cause that is what they are.
You can support gay marriage if you want, you can even be gay if you want, but you can't do either and still be a christian.
Just like people who support abortion are not christians. It don't matter how much they claim to be christian, if you support gay marriage and or abortion, you are not a christian.
...because to be Christian you have to believe every single word of "The Bible" even though there is no "the" Bible any more...there are tons of translations and the original is 2 centuries old anyway...

...because to be Christian you have to believe every single word of "The Bible" even though there is no "the" Bible any more...there are tons of translations and the original is 2 centuries old anyway...
the original is the only true translation.

What original translation?
______________________________
So, basically all liberals are not true Christians? I better go tell my Mum she's stopped being a member of the Presbyterian Church. [/light_sarcasm]

if another christian church were to do that, I would immediately write another article calling them false christians cause that is what they are.
You can support gay marriage if you want, you can even be gay if you want, but you can't do either and still be a christian.
Just like people who support abortion are not christians. It don't matter how much they claim to be christian, if you support gay marriage and or abortion, you are not a christian.And who are you to speak for the entire christian world like that? Must be nice to be able to judge the rightness or wrongness of over a billion believers worldwide.

Oh wait--didn't Jesus say "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "remove the rafter from your own eye before removing the straw from your brother's"? Maybe you'd better rethink that strategy.

I am a religious christian, but I am for gay marriage. I was bored tonight, so I decided to read Leviticus in the bible. It has to be the funniest thing I have ever read. IT says that if you wet the bed, you are unclean. You are also unclean if you touch the man that wet the bed, the bed itself, and anything he sits on. If this man happens to touch a clay pot you must break the pot. Then, you must wait seven days and wash everyday. On the eighth day you must sacrifice two birds. That is a lot of trouble. I think I am in trouble becuase I wet the bed when I was little. Oh well. This is the same book thast says you can't be gay. Wow is what I say. The wet the bed part is Leviticus 15:4-15

Sorry for being a moron Incertonia! I guess you haven't heard of the word satire. A little humor goes a long way. Does not such a serious topic deserve just a smidgen of levity? Seriously though some ponies and 10 year old chicks are really, really mature. My pony does come to me when I whistle though. As a great man once said "It's the jazz baby!"

Ah--join in, Berk. You'll be up to Muppet Owner in no time. :D

Yeah, but at what price?

I'm starting to think it might be too high.

I am a religious christian, but I am for gay marriage. I was bored tonight, so I decided to read Leviticus in the bible. It has to be the funniest thing I have ever read. IT says that if you wet the bed, you are unclean. You are also unclean if you touch the man that wet the bed, the bed itself, and anything he sits on. If this man happens to touch a clay pot you must break the pot. Then, you must wait seven days and wash everyday. On the eighth day you must sacrifice two birds. That is a lot of trouble. I think I am in trouble becuase I wet the bed when I was little. Oh well. This is the same book thast says you can't be gay. Wow is what I say.

Excellent point, Melcelene.

I am a religious christian, but I am for gay marriage.

Are there non-religious Christians, out of curiousity...?

Well i have friends that are christian so that they go to heaven. I don't really understand.

Would you change your opinion if a major christian church were to start supporting same-sex marriage? And if not, why not?
No I wouldn't, because it would probably not be by my religion.

Naro, if I read what you said right, I might half agree with your statements. I agree that religion has no place in politics, however, I BELIEVE THAT MORALITY DOES! And where does Morality come from? I believe from a belief in a higher power...a consequence for one's actions; a fear of a god or gods if you will. Now, I don't want to get into a moral arguement. I need to catch some sleep.

Anyway...with careful thought and careful consideration and legislation (I'm not sure what) I could be convinced to make all current heterosexual marriages "unions" for the eyes of the government. Marriage would then be a term granted by each person's individual religion. The rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES would be the same for all unions regardless of sex.

However I've been thinking...and thought about it before, and you have made it clear. This arguement IS NOT ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS/BENEFITS/ETC. It IS ALL ABOUT the "seperation of church and state." I bet if someone was to dig deep enough they would find that these attempts to hijack the word "marriage" have not been started by gays (they only wanted equal rights), but by ACLU type groups that want to banish Christians, HISTORY, and TRADITION from the United States...it is an extension of their crusade to banish all references to God or A god in the government. Crucifixes etc.

And who are you to speak for the entire christian world like that? Must be nice to be able to judge the rightness or wrongness of over a billion believers worldwide.

Oh wait--didn't Jesus say "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "remove the rafter from your own eye before removing the straw from your brother's"? Maybe you'd better rethink that strategy.
Only 20% of people in this world who claim to be christian are actually christian.
Saying you are one, does not make you one.

'Faith without works is dead."

To be a christian, you have to live like a christian.

if another christian church were to do that, I would immediately write another article calling them false christians cause that is what they are.
You can support gay marriage if you want, you can even be gay if you want, but you can't do either and still be a christian.
Just like people who support abortion are not christians. It don't matter how much they claim to be christian, if you support gay marriage and or abortion, you are not a christian.

Whittier, I begin to suspect that you wouldn't know a "true Christian" if Christ himself hugged you. In fact, you'd probably accuse him of being a faggot and write him a letter throwing him out of his own church.

All I ever hear in your posts is, "What I'm going to do, what I would do, blah, blah, blah, me, me, me." Great. That's what you would do. What about Christ? To use the cliche, What would he do? He wouldn't go around casting people out of the church willy-nilly for no good reason. Christ didn't walk with the righteous, he didn't journey with the priests and the leaders and those who knew "the law." He journeyed with the lowly, the forgotten, the outcasts, the ones society with all it's religion and laws spit on and he said to them, "For you too, there is hope, there is healing, there is acceptance. For you too there is love."

Why don't you try walking a mile in his shoes before you presume to tell people who does and doesn't have access to this love. It's a helluva lot harder to live like Christ than it is to live like Paul. You've got Paul down pat, why don't you try Christ for awhile?

Only 20% of people in this world who claim to be christian are actually christian.
Saying you are one, does not make you one.

'Faith without works is dead."

To be a christian, you have to live like a christian.

Being hateful is not living like a Christian. It's living like a man.

What original translation?
______________________________
So, basically all liberals are not true Christians? I better go tell my Mum she's stopped being a member of the Presbyterian Church. [/light_sarcasm]
I used to teach the Bible. I know what's in there and what's not in there. I also know when people are twisting it. Though most people who twist it don't realize they are twisting it.
But you can be assured that when a pastor or televangilist does it, its deliberate. In fact, televangelists like the ones on TBN are notorious for that kind of thing.
Like that binny hinn fellow and his false church. "Send me a donation of place amount of money here, and I will send this handkerchief with the sweat from my brow. ANd when you send that donation and your recieve this handkerchief, this handkerchief, with the sweat from my brow, will heal you of everything that ails you. All you gotta do is wipe on your body. ....."
It don't take much for me to declare Mr. Hinn a false prophet. And I have repeatedly.

Only 20% of people in this world who claim to be christian are actually christian.
Saying you are one, does not make you one.

'Faith without works is dead."

To be a christian, you have to live like a christian.
And I was a bible teacher and an evangelist.

I am a christian. I follow Jesus's words. He never said anything about being gay. Man can be mislead and doesn't truely speak for Jesus in my opinion. I personally think the whole anti-gay thing was added to seperate Christianity from Greek and Roman Culture where Gayness was common and in my cases encouraged.

Are there non-religious Christians, out of curiousity...?
yes, a lot of them.

And I was a bible teacher and an evangelist.

Amazing how you completely missed the point, then.

I say this to so few people, but here I think it's justified.

Whittier, you NEED Jesus.

I hope someday you really understand what that means.

Goodnight.

You need to go join the moron tabel with Kd4.

Animals cannot give the requisite consent to be married. Neither can children. Allowing same-sex couples to marry wouldn't change that in the slightest.

Polygamy and polyamory is another matter, and in the long run may well be legalized using the same logic as same-sex couples are using, and as long as all members of the group marriage are willing and consenting, then why the hell not.
it apears that you are the moron ether that or to young to have any sense yet

I just don't like it when a small special interest group tries to rewrite national laws to best suit them. The thing these morons don't realize is that people on both sides of the politcal spectrum are just using them to get votes, and they don't give a rat's ass about the gays themselves. I find it incredibly fitting, as seriously as they take themselves.

Well i have friends that are christian so that they go to heaven. I don't really understand.
won't work. It is not enough to be christian in name.

I say, take politics out of marrige. Everything's now a fucking Civil Union. Wanna get "married?" Go to your damn religious organization.

But guess what? Some of those religious organizations allow gay people to marry. Freaky-deaky, eh? Those crazy and wacky Episcopalians.

You know what I think should be placed in the constitution? Because all this talk is really giving me a massive headache. Here's my idea of a good amendment:

"People shall not be so fucking STUPID when it comes to others, and will get their heads out of their ass"



Arguments I've heard:

"Marrige is between a man and a woman" Says who? Tradition? God? See below for BOTH of those.
"It's not traditional!" Neither is interracial marrige, you racist arse.
"It's against my religion!" Nobody gives a damn. Seperation of CHurch and State. Not good enough for you christians? Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. QED, bitch.
"It's not moral!" Says who...again? God? See ABOVE. You? Tough shit, your moral decisions shouldn't negatively affect others.



So? Anyone got anymore? I'm in a pissy mood and I'm ready to take ALL of you on. Bring it. Wanna attack me more personally? I've got all my messenger services listed right here. I'm waiting.

Only 20% of people in this world who claim to be christian are actually christian.
Saying you are one, does not make you one.

'Faith without works is dead."

To be a christian, you have to live like a christian.Again--who are you to judge? That violates one of the most basic tenets of Christ's teachings. And by the way, I was raised as a conservative christian and only left and became agnostic when I was about 26, 9 years ago. I still read the bible often, and use it in my poetry.

No I wouldn't, because it would probably not be by my religion.

Naro, if I read what you said right, I might half agree with your statements. I agree that religion has no place in politics, however, I BELIEVE THAT MORALITY DOES! And where does Morality come from? I believe from a belief in a higher power...a consequence for one's actions; a fear of a god or gods if you will. Now, I don't want to get into a moral arguement. I need to catch some sleep.

Anyway...with careful thought and careful consideration and legislation (I'm not sure what) I could be convinced to make all current heterosexual marriages "unions" for the eyes of the government. Marriage would then be a term granted by each person's individual religion. The rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES would be the same for all unions regardless of sex.

However I've been thinking...and thought about it before, and you have made it clear. This arguement IS NOT ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS/BENEFITS/ETC. It IS ALL ABOUT the "seperation of church and state." I bet if someone was to dig deep enough they would find that these attempts to hijack the word "marriage" have not been started by gays (they only wanted equal rights), but by ACLU type groups that want to banish Christians, HISTORY, and TRADITION from the United States...it is an extension of their crusade to banish all references to God or A god in the government. Crucifixes etc.

Bingo.

The thing is that I'd be one of the ones to stand aside and let them get rid of marriage.

Whittier, I begin to suspect that you wouldn't know a "true Christian" if Christ himself hugged you. In fact, you'd probably accuse him of being a faggot and write him a letter throwing him out of his own church.

All I ever hear in your posts is, "What I'm going to do, what I would do, blah, blah, blah, me, me, me." Great. That's what you would do. What about Christ? To use the cliche, What would he do? He wouldn't go around casting people out of the church willy-nilly for no good reason. Christ didn't walk with the righteous, he didn't journey with the priests and the leaders and those who knew "the law." He journeyed with the lowly, the forgotten, the outcasts, the ones society with all it's religion and laws spit on and he said to them, "For you too, there is hope, there is healing, there is acceptance. For you too there is love."

Why don't you try walking a mile in his shoes before you presume to tell people who does and doesn't have access to this love. It's a helluva lot harder to live like Christ than it is to live like Paul. You've got Paul down pat, why don't you try Christ for awhile?

Christ did kick people out of his church when he was here.

Christ did kick people out of his church when he was here.

Only people like you, Whittier, only people like you.

Again--who are you to judge? That violates one of the most basic tenets of Christ's teachings. And by the way, I was raised as a conservative christian and only left and became agnostic when I was about 26, 9 years ago. I still read the bible often, and use it in my poetry.
We are also instructed to stand vigilante or false religion will enter the church. As it is written, "Stand guard against the night"
It is also written, that if someone acts in a way that is not christian, we are too approach him and try to help him change his ways. If he refuses, then we are told to cast him from the church.

Bingo.

The thing is that I'd be one of the ones to stand aside and let them get rid of marriage.
Hence why I can only agree with half your statements;-)

Only people like you, Whittier, only people like you.
Well, I would expect that from someone, like yourself, who doesn't know true christianity.

Again--who are you to judge? That violates one of the most basic tenets of Christ's teachings. And by the way, I was raised as a conservative christian and only left and became agnostic when I was about 26, 9 years ago. I still read the bible often, and use it in my poetry.


lol so you are young. at one time i to was liberal but as i got older and learned more my opion changed. learning should be life long. but unfortunately some people do not

You're all wrong. Those of you who support it. Those of you who oppose it. Those of you who hide behind religion to protect yourself from taking a stand, those of you who attack religion instead of realizing the futility of it.

What one person does with another does not matter to you.

End of discussion. To try and impose legal, moralistic, religious, or ethical restrictions on the activities of a human being is a waste of time as is arguing about it. People will always do what they want and let them. Until they interfere in your life and with your affairs it is none of your concern either way. Leave it alone because it doesn't matter to anyone on this forum who isn't homosexual. It's neither your responsibility to support it so that you don't feel like a facist, nor is it your responsibility to attack it so that Jesus will love you more.

Just leave people alone and stop trying to save the world one inconsequential pursuit at a time.

"Do not practice homosexuality; It is a detestable sin."
Leviticus 18:22, NLT

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulturers, male prostitutes... None of these will have a share in the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NLT

"In the same way the men also abandoned natura relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Romans 1:27 NIV



1. Male prostitute.- If I am correct, being gay isn't being a prostitute.

2. I read the romans part. Above it it says they worshipped things instead of him, so he "gave them over to shameful lusts"

This sounds to me that humans are naturally gay without gods intervention (I don't really believe this) . The bible can be interpreted in many ways.

I say, take politics out of marrige. Everything's now a fucking Civil Union. Wanna get "married?" Go to your damn religious organization.

But guess what? Some of those religious organizations allow gay people to marry. Freaky-deaky, eh? Those crazy and wacky Episcopalians.

You know what I think should be placed in the constitution? Because all this talk is really giving me a massive headache. Here's my idea of a good amendment:

"People shall not be so fucking STUPID when it comes to others, and will get their heads out of their ass"



Arguments I've heard:

"Marrige is between a man and a woman" Says who? Tradition? God? See below for BOTH of those.
"It's not traditional!" Neither is interracial marrige, you racist arse.
"It's against my religion!" Nobody gives a damn. Seperation of CHurch and State. Not good enough for you christians? Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. QED, bitch.
"It's not moral!" Says who...again? God? See ABOVE. You? Tough shit, your moral decisions shouldn't negatively affect others.



So? Anyone got anymore? I'm in a pissy mood and I'm ready to take ALL of you on. Bring it. Wanna attack me more personally? I've got all my messenger services listed right here. I'm waiting.
You know, you repeated some of the things I said, and I obviously agree. Don't think I think you're on my side. I know you know you're not so I'm not gonna start an argument there.

What I'm gonna write regarding this is YOU'RE RIGHT about "People shall not be so fucking STUPID when it comes to others, and will get their heads out of their ass." The world is FULL OF STUPID and/or IGNORANT people! This is particularly true for the United States. You see, the US has evolved to such a degree that people here almost don't have to work to not die in the street (save a mortal illness). Thereby, someone working at Wal-Mart making near minimum wage has free time on their hands. They are almost granted security from living life completely on the street. So what do they choose to waste that "free" time on? Creating issues such as gay marriage, religion in government, trees, smog, etc. NEWS FLASH...US Citizens have it too good! And I AM ONE. Travel around, see the world. Maybe then you'll appreciate what HISTORY, TRADITION, COMMON SENSE, and a little bit of LUCK has gotten us. "DON'T FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN."

there is a saying. if you are not a liberal at 20 you have no heart. if you are not a conservative by 40 you have no brain. you still have 5 years so there is still hope for you

there is a saying. if you are not a liberal at 20 you have no heart. if you are not a conservative by 40 you have no brain. you still have 5 years so there is still hope for you
Apparently I have had no heart. Fortunately, I have OR will have a brain waiting for me in a few years (okay, maybe more than a few).

However, please KD, there's nothing wrong with being a liberal in my opinion. Look it up in the dictionary. PLEASE, call them SOCIALISTS...that's what they are. It's a good quote though overall;-)

lol so you are young. at one time i to was liberal but as i got older and learned more my opion changed. learning should be life long. but unfortunately some people do not
very true.

First of all, I should note that I have no particular qualm with gay marriage. And I have seen my fair share of arguments against it. With those two things said, the article posted earlier (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01) is perhaps the best argument made against gay marriage I have ever seen, bar none.

I don't agree with everything in it, nor am I sure I agree with the article's point as a whole. Even so, you really should consider reading it from top to bottom. I doubt it would change most people's minds, but it does raise some interesting points, and is very thought provoking if nothing else.

You know, you repeated some of the things I said, and I obviously agree. Don't think I think you're on my side. I know you know you're not so I'm not gonna start an argument there.

What I'm gonna write regarding this is YOU'RE RIGHT about "People shall not be so fucking STUPID when it comes to others, and will get their heads out of their ass." The world is FULL OF STUPID and/or IGNORANT people! This is particularly true for the United States. You see, the US has evolved to such a degree that people here almost don't have to work to not die in the street (save a mortal illness). Thereby, someone working at Wal-Mart making near minimum wage has free time on their hands. They are almost granted security from living life completely on the street. So what do they choose to waste that "free" time on? Creating issues such as gay marriage, religion in government, trees, smog, etc. NEWS FLASH...US Citizens have it too good! And I AM ONE. Travel around, see the world. Maybe then you'll appreciate what HISTORY, TRADITION, COMMON SENSE, and a little bit of LUCK has gotten us. "DON'T FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN."


Pfh, you miss my point completely. People here do have it good-but I believe that people can always advance further. There's always a better.

Don't fix what isn't broken? Throw away your refrigerator-salt works perfectly well.

I'm sorry, but the phrase "don't fix what isn't broken" directly impedes progress.

Do you believe in pressing your religious beliefs on others?

No, because I'm atheist ! :D

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Romans 1:27 NIV

Yeah, your god made bigots. It must have woken up really cranky that day.

Anyone who calls themselves a Christian, but does not believe these words, is not truly a Christian and will not have a share in the Kingdom of God.

Heaven is public listed now ?

And here I was interested in just the Google share float.

"Do not practice homosexuality; It is a detestable sin."
Leviticus 18:22, NLT

Do not insert screw A into slot B, as this may lead to in-stability in the furniture of device, said the Ikea book ... Wow, look, an ironic analogy pertaining to the quality of material ...

I oppose it on religious grounds, but I won't oppose it politically.

Hmmm, :), this reminds me slightly of a friends MSN image, stating : " Make War, Not Sodomy ! " ... I suspect it relates to poitics though ... ;)

... then again,

" Hey, remember the last big desert war ? " " Oh, the Crusades ? "

And what about all the other passages from the Bible that are obsolete now? Slaves are still admissable according to the Bible, women during menstruation are evil and unclean, men aren't allowed to wear sideburns (I can't give the exact quotes because I don't have a Bible handy at the moment). These are obsolete and don't apply to current society.

This is a good point, but I think I can explain the biblical reasons :

Slaves = A boon to the leather industry. Oh, " slave-slaves ", right.

Regarding Females = They can bleed and don't die ? I bet THAT scared male crusaders ...

Side-burns = Oh. Hmmm, I am going to your hell as of now. Oh well.

You can support gay marriage if you want, you can even be gay if you want, but you can't do either and still be a christian.
Just like people who support abortion are not christians. It don't matter how much they claim to be christian, if you support gay marriage and or abortion, you are not a christian.

Because as we all know, the best judge of christianity is not the one god the christians all claim to have faith in, but rather, other christians who say so. And I'm sure it makes perfect sense. To them.

the original is the only true translation.
+
What original translation?

And for people who speak ancient languages this is a great thing. Or better yet, those who managed to at last get their hands on the entire ten stone set ...

Never could find them, no matter how many packets of cereal I bought :mad:

Oh wait--didn't Jesus say "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "remove the rafter from your own eye before removing the straw from your brother's"? Maybe you'd better rethink that strategy.

Probably they did. But rafter from eye removal should only be attempted by a trained and qualified physician. And they forgot to add, " If symptoms persist, see your book of holy word "

;)

Does not such a serious topic deserve just a smidgen of levity?

That depends. Is it as bad as "Leviticus" ? :rolleyes:

Well i have friends that are christian so that they go to heaven. I don't really understand.

Pfffrt, I do. They are afraid of walking, and wan't to hitch a ride. The things people do to avoid exercise, honestly ... :)

Whittier, I begin to suspect that you wouldn't know a "true Christian" if Christ himself hugged you

Berkylvania, will you marry me ? Although, if your a guy, I don't think we could invite Whittier to the ceremony. I doubt it would be just rice that would get thrown at us.

I used to teach the Bible. I know what's in there and what's not in there.

Did you find my letter to the editor ?

And I was a bible teacher and an evangelist.

" And the only one, who could ever reach me, was the son of a preacher-man ... "

Sorry, got distracted by sanity for a moment.

I just don't like it when a small special interest group tries to rewrite national laws to best suit them.

Then dear, you'll hate to hear what the right wing christian extremists in the U.S. are trying to pull right now ...

We are also instructed to stand vigilante

See, some people might be mistaken and think you mean "vigilant" ... but all know better then that.

or false religion will enter the church. As it is written, "Stand guard against the night"

Because dark-ness is scary. And things go bump in it. Probably even those heathens. Lock up your virgins.

Only 20% of people in this world who claim to be christian are actually christian.
Saying you are one, does not make you one.

" Do YOU have your authentic Whittier Christianity Certification Seal of Godly Approval ? "

Well, I would expect that from someone, like yourself, who doesn't know true christianity.

" Gets YOUR W.C.C.S.G.A TODAY, Or burn in hell, sinners ! " :D

*** END RANDOM MOCKERY ***

Ahem, well, that was fun, but I'm running on low tonight, and have picked through the easy stuff. But before I finish up, I'd like to leave you all with a quote or two or more, I've pulled out from my own plethora of stuff,



"The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad."

- Friedrich Nietzsche.

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."

- George Bernard Shaw.

"God made so many different kinds of people. Why would he allow only one way to serve him?"

- Martin Buber.

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

- Anne Lamott.

"If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise."

- Johann von Goethe.

"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another."

- Jonathan Swift.

"War. Rape. Murder. Poverty. Equal rights for gays. Guess which one the Southern Baptist Convention is protesting?"

- The Value of Families.

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."

- Lynn Lavner.

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"

- Ernest Gaines.



"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?"

- Mark Twain.



“We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.”

- Albert Einstein.

Thanks for your time. :D

lmao :D

Romans 1:
16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Apparently I have had no heart. Fortunately, I have OR will have a brain waiting for me in a few years (okay, maybe more than a few).

However, please KD, there's nothing wrong with being a liberal in my opinion. Look it up in the dictionary. PLEASE, call them SOCIALISTS...that's what they are. It's a good quote though overall;-)

you are correct. but as with all things human there is nothing set in stone. we all advance at difernt rates. some faster and some slower.
a moderate liberal of 30 years ago would be called a conservitive now. if you could magicaly transport him from then to now.

Eh, I'm all for it. It's not dirty, there's nothing wrong with love, and that's intrinsically what a marriage is. A confirmation of love. Disregarding age, race, colour, creed, or gender.

Or at least, that's what I've got marriage down in my little book of definitions for the modern age. I'd gladly print you all a copy, I'll use the pulped paper from all of those right wing christian posters with "GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!" scrawled upon them.

Oh, and Whittier? If I ever find it in my heart to truly love someone, I'll get married whether or not I'm considered Christian or not.
I'll still wear my cross, I'll still go to Mass, and I will go in with my partner. Rings and all.

"Do not practice homosexuality; It is a detestable sin."
Leviticus 18:22, NLT


Wow, ancient tribal purity laws, now here's something else from Leviticus...

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. KJV

Why doesn't this one get so much airplay? Oh yeah coz it's about hetero's...
*duh* :D

Wow, ancient tribal purity laws, now here's something else from Leviticus...

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. KJV

Why doesn't this one get so much airplay? Oh yeah coz it's about hetero's...
*duh* :D
but it should. we ought to be punishing people for adultry.

Death penalty for adultary eh? Man, those religious folks... all about the love...

I've already had this debate on two other forums. The message that came out of both is below:

Homosexuals: Move the hell out of the states/countries that don't support gay marriage *and call it marriage* (otherwise it's still discrimination). Those states/countries don't deserve the economical support you're giving them. Move to somewhere more enlightened, where people have realised that their petty little moral system isn't the be all and end all of the world, and have pried their heads out of their arses.

FUN FACT: "marriage" is *NOT* defined as 'between a man and women' in most (American) states. It's only just now starting to change due to all the fucking people going "Ewwww.... gays! My poor, petty sensibilities."


Oh, and marriage isn't just about love. It's about being able to visit your partner in hospital if they get hit by a truck. It's about recieveing the same finanical support that hetrosexual couples get, even when their marriages are just shams. It about being treated as a human being. No one has the right to take that away, no matter how much huffing and puffing and random quotes they throw up.

Death penalty for adultary eh? Man, those religious folks... all about the love...

I've already had this debate on two other forums. The message that came out of both is below:

Homosexuals: Move the hell out of the states/countries that don't support gay marriage *and call it marriage* (otherwise it's still discrimination). Those states/countries don't deserve the economical support you're giving them. Move to somewhere more enlightened, where people have realised that their petty little moral system isn't the be all and end all of the world, and have pried their heads out of their arses.

FUN FACT: "marriage" is *NOT* defined as 'between a man and women' in most (American) states. It's only just now starting to change due to all the fucking people going "Ewwww.... gays! My poor, petty sensibilities."


Oh, and marriage isn't just about love. It's about being able to visit your partner in hospital if they get hit by a truck. It's about recieveing the same finanical support that hetrosexual couples get, even when their marriages are just shams. It about being treated as a human being. No one has the right to take that away, no matter how much huffing and puffing and random quotes they throw up.

the death penalty doesn't fit the crime.

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. KJV

Oh, my mistake, there I was thinking you were one of those "BIBLE! LOOK! I CAN QUOTE OLD TEXTS! I AM RIGHT!" people... so I just assumed that you put some store in bible quotes.

Or is that an 'inferior' translation then? Or are we just allowed to pick and choose which we like best now?

Make up your mind. Oh, and you could always address my points about the subject at hand, instead of taking the easy way out.

the death penalty doesn't fit the crime.

Coz Leviticus was a psychopath? :D

Oohooh! I have to second that

Man, anyone who's actually *read* the bible, and who can with a straight face that it's not completely wacky, obviously needs to go read that thing again.

A lot of it is insanity incarnate.

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.


yeppers...

...groups that want to banish Christians, HISTORY, and TRADITION from the United States...it is an extension of their crusade to banish all references to God or A god in the government.

A tradition that started in 1954?

For example, the American Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 and it read as follows: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Did you notice anything different? That's right; it read: "one nation, indivisible" instead of "one nation, under God." Congress changed it in 1954, as part of the "improvements" wrought by McCarthyism. But that's not all. The famous inscription: "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins is also a recent development. It was first proposed by Rev. Watkinson in 1861, and it was slowly adopted on various coins until it was made mandatory on all coins as an act of Congress in ... 1955.

Also, re: seperation of church and state:

"State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists, 1808.

What about - "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." (Leviticus 26:22)

And I always thought it was those evil (<irony>) pagans who did the whole 'connection with nature thing'......

A tradition that started in 1954?



Also, re: seperation of church and state:

- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists, 1808.
Careful, those aren't official gov. documents. So they're not valid.
Or at least that is what the christian extremists tried to claim. So I found the Treaty of Tripoli which is an official government document. And it says that America is not based on christianity.

Oh, my mistake, there I was thinking you were one of those "BIBLE! LOOK! I CAN QUOTE OLD TEXTS! I AM RIGHT!" people... so I just assumed that you put some store in bible quotes.

Or is that an 'inferior' translation then? Or are we just allowed to pick and choose which we like best now?

Make up your mind. Oh, and you could always address my points about the subject at hand, instead of taking the easy way out.
In the gospels, most of the ceremonial laws, like this one were done away with.
That is the death penalty part. The adultry part still violates God's law which is still in effect cause Jesus those ten would never be abolished.
But the stuff about women in menstruation, not eating unclean food, was abolished. If your woman was committing adultry, the new command is to forgive.

I still can't understand how a book based largely on myths, stories, legends, assumptions, and pre-existing texts from earlier civilazation, and/or other religions can hold so much power and be used to "justify" so much atrocities, discrimination and other "evil" stuff.



Oh the wonders of mass-thinking.

I still can't understand how a book based largely on myths, stories, legends, assumptions, and pre-existing texts from earlier civilazation, and/or other religions can hold so much power and be used to "justify" so much atrocities, discrimination and other "evil" stuff.



Oh the wonders of mass-thinking.
Nay, the wonders of twisting an author's words to support genocide. :cool:

In the gospels, most of the ceremonial laws, like this one were done away with.
That is the death penalty part. The adultry part still violates God's law which is still in effect cause Jesus those ten would never be abolished.
But the stuff about women in menstruation, not eating unclean food, was abolished. If your woman was committing adultry, the new command is to forgive.

right, so why exactly do people who use your above justification for why they can now eat shellfish still use the prohibition against homosexuality that is found in the same chapter? why did Jesus do away with all the laws they find inconvenient, but just happen to keep the one they like about how they get to hate gay people?

Nay, the wonders of twisting an author's words to support genocide. :cool:


That too...lol

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.


yeppers...
they have bears in the middle east?



and now that i look at it, i think in grade school we said the pledge with "indivisible" because it sounds familiar

Why should homosexuals feel the need to be married? In terms of most human relationships marriage is an unrealistic, inflexible and dogmatic concept which is ultimately a religious institution and has no place in law. No one should be made to feel they need to be part of a religious institution to gain the same social and legal standing as members. Separate church and state or these social symptoms will not improve.

Why should homosexuals feel the need to be married? In terms of most human relationships marriage is an unrealistic, inflexible and dogmatic concept which is ultimately a religious institution and has no place in law. No one should be made to feel they need to be part of a religious institution to gain the same social and legal standing as members. Separate church and state or these social symptoms will not improve.

INDEED. i personally am insulted by the fact that my (hetero) partner and i would have to be married to get the same rights as other unions; i think the institution of marriage has a hideous and shameful history, and would far rather not taint my relationship by associating with such a horrible practice. however, i do want the rights that other couples enjoy when they enter a life together, so at least i have the option of a secular, non-traditional service to help distance me from the horrid concept of matrimony that has been handed down through religious tradition...i would appreciate if gay couples could be given the same choice, so long as we are going to continue to allow the state its role in marriage.

Why should homosexuals feel the need to be married?

Simply to see how many preachers can keep a straight face when he says 'do you take this man as your lawfully wedded wife?' :D

Why should homosexuals feel the need to be married? In terms of most human relationships marriage is an unrealistic, inflexible and dogmatic concept which is ultimately a religious institution and has no place in law. No one should be made to feel they need to be part of a religious institution to gain the same social and legal standing as members. Separate church and state or these social symptoms will not improve.
but the fact remains it has its place in law, married couples are given rights and tax breaks that are not provided to non marriedc couples, if the ygave said rights to civil unions everyone would probably shut up and the homosexuals wouldnt havea foot to stand on in the matter, but no everyone has to whine about marriage being religious so homosexuals cant do it and civil unions cant have all this stuff because its for married people

Okay, I'm new to this game and board but I have to point some things out.

1. There is no constitutional right to be married.

2. The same people who are saying that Christians are pushing their religous agenda on others because gays can't get married fail to realize that allowing gays to marry is pushing that belief on the Christians.

3. Gay people are not being denied any rights by them not being able to marry. They can still live where they want, have any job they want, go where they want to, say what they want to, go to whatever church they want to. Their partners can still have all the rights a spouse would have with a simple power of attorney that costs ten dollars to do, and they can even have a ceremony if they'd like. Nothing is denied to them.

4. First it's gay marriage, then next week some joker wants to marry a car.

5. Seperation of church and state. Congress will pass no laws giving favor to, or against a religion. (not the correct phrase, but I'm not in the mood to look up the exact line). Hense, having "In God we trust" on coins is not illegal. Why? Because it isn't a law. Having, "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance is not illegal, why? Because it is not a law. Having a monument to the ten commandments in front of a courthouse is not illegal, why? Because it is not a law. Get it?

Okay, because you have some preconceptions about me from this post I'd like to state that I am not religous at all, and I do believe in "Civil Unions"

right, so why exactly do people who use your above justification for why they can now eat shellfish still use the prohibition against homosexuality that is found in the same chapter? why did Jesus do away with all the laws they find inconvenient, but just happen to keep the one they like about how they get to hate gay people?
Well, to play Devil's Advocate for a bit (heh, kind of ironic considering who I'm defending), that's because some of the Old Laws are reiterated in the NT, and Christians are supposed to hold to those. There are six references to gay sex in the Bible, 3 in the OT and 3 in the NT. Of the OT, there are two in Leviticus, and one in Genesis (the Sodom and Gomorra bit). If, as a Christian, you choose to ignore the Mosaic Law, you still have to deal with the NT references. If memory serves me right, those are 1 Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:26-27 (which, for the record, is the ONLY reference about lesbianism in the entire Bible), and Timothy somewhere (I forget where exactly - 21?).

I've always found it kind of ironic that fundamental Christians so vehemently oppose a harmless thing and a basic equality principle such as gay marriage, yet they do not know exactly WHY - they are not familiar enough with their own religion to argue the point consistently.

Now that the NT references are put up, it's time to take them down. Corinthians is a bad translation. The original text speaks of "catamites", which were young boy prostitutes in Greece (and Rome, for a bit). Quite a difference from gay men and women today, who are in loving committed relationships. Timothy shares a similar problem, though I'd have to look it up - I'll refrain from that until an actual gay marriage opposer manages to make a real case for once.

Paul (1 Romans 1:26-27) has numerous problems. For one thing, many scholars believe he was himself either impotent or a repressed homosexual, leading to his clear misogyny and fear of gays. For another, he writes in letters as response to questions, making it quite hard to figure out what it is exactly that he means. He seems to be referring back to Leviticus 20:13, but he brings in lesbianism, which is unprecedented in the entire Bible. Quite frankly, he seems to be making stuff up. A thorough reading of his letters compared to the rest of the Bible clearly show his fanatic perversion of the faith.

Furthermore, the Leviticus passages he refers to cannot be directly applied to modern day homosexuality - the overlarge part of the Mosaic Law was designed to distinguish the people of G*D from the surrounding heretics. The pagans shaved their heads, therefore Jews were not allowed to shave even their sideburns. The pagans had ritual gay male sex as part of their idol worshipping religious practices - therefore Jews were not allowed to!
It has nothing to do with two gay people in a loving, committed relationship such as we find in today's society.

But quite apart from that - is not everybody a sinner, according to Christian doctrine? As long as gay people are not hurting anybody else, should Christians not let G*D make the Ultimate Judgment? And for the while, give them an equal chance to be happy? John 8:7. Have you no sense of decency, Sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

INDEED. i personally am insulted by the fact that my (hetero) partner and i would have to be married to get the same rights as other unions; i think the institution of marriage has a hideous and shameful history, and would far rather not taint my relationship by associating with such a horrible practice. however, i do want the rights that other couples enjoy when they enter a life together, so at least i have the option of a secular, non-traditional service to help distance me from the horrid concept of matrimony that has been handed down through religious tradition...i would appreciate if gay couples could be given the same choice, so long as we are going to continue to allow the state its role in marriage.

Very well said. I was gonna say the same thing(not the exact same thing, but you get the idea).

The bottomline is that you can't stop change, the thing about the term "marriage" is just too pointless in my opinion. Like what's been said before, the meanings have changed over time, and what really ticks me off is that most gay opponents usually have a deep prejudice against homosexuals. Bah.

You can twist every word or whatever philosophical, legal whatever crap, and I couldnt care less, I just want to have the same rights that was already guaranteed to me in the first place but for whatever reason, wasnt allowed to because some people are too nosey and can't mind thier own goddamn business.

4. First it's gay marriage, then next week some joker wants to marry a car.

it cracks me up that people still use this argument, given that it is the same argument given by people who opposed interracial marriage. well, okay, not exactly the same...they substituted "horse" for car, most of the time.

slippery-slope tripe has been used to oppose giving women the vote, freeing the slaves, letting black people use white bathrooms, and allowing alcohol to be consumed. when will people learn that this sort of "argument" is a pile of crap?!

Okay, I'm new to this game and board but I have to point some things out.

1. There is no constitutional right to be married.

2. The same people who are saying that Christians are pushing their religous agenda on others because gays can't get married fail to realize that allowing gays to marry is pushing that belief on the Christians.

3. Gay people are not being denied any rights by them not being able to marry. They can still live where they want, have any job they want, go where they want to, say what they want to, go to whatever church they want to. Their partners can still have all the rights a spouse would have with a simple power of attorney that costs ten dollars to do, and they can even have a ceremony if they'd like. Nothing is denied to them.

4. First it's gay marriage, then next week some joker wants to marry a car.

5. Seperation of church and state. Congress will pass no laws giving favor to, or against a religion. (not the correct phrase, but I'm not in the mood to look up the exact line). Hense, having "In God we trust" on coins is not illegal. Why? Because it isn't a law. Having, "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance is not illegal, why? Because it is not a law. Having a monument to the ten commandments in front of a courthouse is not illegal, why? Because it is not a law. Get it?

Okay, because you have some preconceptions about me from this post I'd like to state that I am not religous at all, and I do believe in "Civil Unions"

1) there is no constitutional right to privacy either, you plan on taking it away?

2) a) marriage is not solely a christian idea, hate to burst your bubble
b) the churches do NOT have to recognise or marry the couple, the STATE does


3) wrong, non married couples do not have medical decision rights if their partner is hospitalized, their partner is not covered in job health care plans, they do not get the same tax breaks, etc etc

4) woo woo here comes the clue train. homosexuals are PEOPLE, they can consent, they can love, they can think, a car is an inanimate object. dejá vu of "blacks cant marry whites"


5) no one really cares what the woriding is because you gave the literal gist. and oh yes it is, in 1950s, a law was passed requiring every coin to have "in god we trust on it" there were already some with it on there, but the law was passed to require it. same with adding "under god" to the pledge, passed by law in the 1950s.

oh yeah and if you wernt so dense you would know full well why the monument was removed and why that religious zealot roy moore was removed from office, but thats another story and you should do your own damned research

It cracks me up when people try to compare being gay with being black.

It also cracks me up to know that it was never against the law for people of different colors/ethnicities to marry. They just had to be of opposite sex because that's what marriage is.

right, so why exactly do people who use your above justification for why they can now eat shellfish still use the prohibition against homosexuality that is found in the same chapter? why did Jesus do away with all the laws they find inconvenient, but just happen to keep the one they like about how they get to hate gay people?
perversion of the scriptures.
Homosexuality is wrong, according to Bible, but the same bible says not to hate people for it. People always cite the part where it says it is wrong but never the part about not hating nor the part about forgiveness, unless its about themselves.
For vegetarians: The bible actually says that humans were originally created to eat only fruits and vegetables. Book of Genesis.
I always thought it interesting: the similarity between that passage of genesis and the theory of evolution which also states that early humans only ate fruits and vegetables.

Why should homosexuals feel the need to be married? In terms of most human relationships marriage is an unrealistic, inflexible and dogmatic concept which is ultimately a religious institution and has no place in law. No one should be made to feel they need to be part of a religious institution to gain the same social and legal standing as members. Separate church and state or these social symptoms will not improve.
govt. shouldn't be involved at all.

It cracks me up when people try to compare being gay with being black.

It also cracks me up to know that it was never against the law for people of different colors/ethnicities to marry. They just had to be of opposite sex because that's what marriage is.
not until recently thats what that was when gay people decided they want to marry instead of have sex changes. of course your not against interracial marriage NOW, we've gotten past that, mostly, but if you were alive back then you would be the people on the soap box yelling "NEGROS ARE DIRTY, WE CANT LET THEM NEAR OUR WOMEN"

It cracks me up when people try to compare being gay with being black.



Whats the difference? Hmmm?

Both are humans. Both are minorities. Both are being discriminated (or was?) because of the BS that is prejudice. Heck, it's been said that marrying(not that im using this term loosely) somebody outside your race is a death sentence to society. But what do you know, we are still here. I'ts not like, more gay men would have sex more if gay marriage is legalized. Or better yet, everyone would turn gay and poof, there goes modern civilization.

=P

It's shocking to see such apology as to marriage between homosexuals. That's no other thing but the reflex of a morality decay of our western society inflicted only by the jews worsening also by inter-racial interaction, witch was ALWAYS wanted by these profiteers as a part of their domination tactics.

And so I say to you people: Erwache! Open your eyes and see your enemy, protect your heritage and your culture, keep all that is right and good on it's legitimate place! Let us not allow this one more dirtiness against ourselves to be consummated.

If you allow it to happen how will you answer to God and to the future of our future generations? Do you think this is seems as a normal think by the global community? Of course not, it's pathetic and also this is completely anti-Christian. As I said before, there are invisible agents and interests going on behind… It’s now up to you. Erwache or be extinct.

Okay, I'm new to this game and board but I have to point some things out.

1. There is no constitutional right to be married.

2. The same people who are saying that Christians are pushing their religous agenda on others because gays can't get married fail to realize that allowing gays to marry is pushing that belief on the Christians.

3. Gay people are not being denied any rights by them not being able to marry. They can still live where they want, have any job they want, go where they want to, say what they want to, go to whatever church they want to. Their partners can still have all the rights a spouse would have with a simple power of attorney that costs ten dollars to do, and they can even have a ceremony if they'd like. Nothing is denied to them.

4. First it's gay marriage, then next week some joker wants to marry a car.

5. Seperation of church and state. Congress will pass no laws giving favor to, or against a religion. (not the correct phrase, but I'm not in the mood to look up the exact line). Hense, having "In God we trust" on coins is not illegal. Why? Because it isn't a law. Having, "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance is not illegal, why? Because it is not a law. Having a monument to the ten commandments in front of a courthouse is not illegal, why? Because it is not a law. Get it?

Okay, because you have some preconceptions about me from this post I'd like to state that I am not religous at all, and I do believe in "Civil Unions"


1. There are things in the constitution about everyone being treated equally, as human beings. That extends to exclude anything considered 'discriminatory' (see below), and is blind to race, life style choice, and any number of other things.

2. Christians are not affected if gay marriages are allowed - the church does not have to recognise them. Gay ARE affected by Christians trying to make gay marriage *illegal*.

3. If one member of a homosexual couple gets hit by a truck, their partner is not allowed to visit them in the emergency, because only 'family' have that right. They are also excluded from various financial rights (tax benefits, etc). They are also loosing the *right* to be treated as an equal human in the eyes of the law - able to marry the person they love.

4. This argument uses the 'slippery slope fallacy'. A car cannot consent to marriage, nor can a child, or an animal. The only thing that could possible become legal down the line if gay marriages are allowed would be polygamy... and that would still have to be voted on, and go through all the usual forms of appeal... and there's nothing wrong with it anyway (as long as everyone consents).

5. The government allowing gay marriages has nothing to *do* with seperation of church and state... it simply cannot force churches to *recognise* the marriages... and I doubt any gay couples give a flying fuck what their local church thinks - they just want the freedom to get married.


On another note, civil unions are NOT a fair 'comprimise'. I'll go and get quotes from the last debate I had on this subject, and post further down...

Okay, I'm new to this game and board but I have to point some things out.

1. There is no constitutional right to be married.

2. The same people who are saying that Christians are pushing their religous agenda on others because gays can't get married fail to realize that allowing gays to marry is pushing that belief on the Christians.

3. Gay people are not being denied any rights by them not being able to marry. They can still live where they want, have any job they want, go where they want to, say what they want to, go to whatever church they want to. Their partners can still have all the rights a spouse would have with a simple power of attorney that costs ten dollars to do, and they can even have a ceremony if they'd like. Nothing is denied to them.

4. First it's gay marriage, then next week some joker wants to marry a car.

5. Seperation of church and state. Congress will pass no laws giving favor to, or against a religion. (not the correct phrase, but I'm not in the mood to look up the exact line). Hense, having "In God we trust" on coins is not illegal. Why? Because it isn't a law. Having, "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance is not illegal, why? Because it is not a law. Having a monument to the ten commandments in front of a courthouse is not illegal, why? Because it is not a law. Get it?

Okay, because you have some preconceptions about me from this post I'd like to state that I am not religous at all, and I do believe in "Civil Unions"
1. no there isn't but there is right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. And the right to pursue happiness, which could include the right to marry.

2. Is so full of boloney I won't comment. I've posted my views here, I still don't feel that the gay marriage thing is being forced on me. If you do then your psycho.

3. Marriage/ civil union same thing.

4. I'm all for polygamy. Its my right. If women want to be married to me at the same time, they have a natural god given right to.

5. That's why the infamous ten commandment's judge was disbarred.

also, the constitution mandates equal treatment under the law.
Another natural, god given right

*dies laughing at the tradtionalist catholic-neo nazi tripe*

1) there is no constitutional right to privacy either, you plan on taking it away?

2) a) marriage is not solely a christian idea, hate to burst your bubble
b) the churches do NOT have to recognise or marry the couple, the STATE does


3) wrong, non married couples do not have medical decision rights if their partner is hospitalized, their partner is not covered in job health care plans, they do not get the same tax breaks, etc etc

4) woo woo here comes the clue train. homosexuals are PEOPLE, they can consent, they can love, they can think, a car is an inanimate object. dejá vu of "blacks cant marry whites"


5) no one really cares what the woriding is because you gave the literal gist. and oh yes it is, in 1950s, a law was passed requiring every coin to have "in god we trust on it" there were already some with it on there, but the law was passed to require it. same with adding "under god" to the pledge, passed by law in the 1950s.

oh yeah and if you wernt so dense you would know full well why the monument was removed and why that religious zealot roy moore was removed from office, but thats another story and you should do your own damned research


1. Privacy is a protection issue and everyone has the right to equal protection.

2. No, it's Islamic, Jewish, Buddist, ect...and none allow gays. And hate to burst YOUR bubble but the state got marriage and it's definition from religion.

3. If you would actually read my post, you'd see I put with a power of attorney their partner can have all the same rights a spouse can.

4. Men who love cars are people too, or no because they don't fit what you find acceptable?

5. So if no one cares about the wording of the constitution, then maybe congress can take your free speach or right to assemble....who cares about the wording right? So what religion are they supporting or denying by having that written on the coin and in our pledge?

And if you weren't so narrow minded you would see that Judge Moore was right. A monument is not a law, and that our law is in fact based on Jewish/Christian values. What happened there was a liberal court passing a law from the bench, which is also against the constitution.

Oh, and he was disbarred because he refused to carry out a court order, not because of his view. So bringing that up in the debate is pointless.

It's shocking to see such apology as to marriage between homosexuals. That's no other thing but the reflex of a morality decay of our western society inflicted only by the jews worsening also by inter-racial interaction, witch was ALWAYS wanted by these profiteers as a part of their domination tactics.

And so I say to you people: Erwache! Open your eyes and see your enemy, protect your heritage and your culture, keep all that is right and good on it's legitimate place! Let us not allow this one more dirtiness against ourselves to be consummated.

If you allow it to happen how will you answer to God and to the future of our future generations? Do you think this is seems as a normal think by the global community? Of course not, it's pathetic and also this is completely anti-Christian. As I said before, there are invisible agents and interests going on behind… It’s now up to you. Erwache or be extinct.


Another blabbering, brainwashed, conservative christian who doesnt know what he is talking about other than stuff read to him, prolly in some church or something.

Be extinct? Give me a break. Heck, female chimps have lesbian sex. Dolphins, too, engage in homosexual behaviours.

Lastly, morality is all relative. Everything is. Nuff said.

For the govt. getting its definition of marriage from the bible, no where does the bible define marriage as being between just one man and one woman.
Otherwise, as mentioned earlier, all the polygamists would have been struck dead by God with lightning or stoned.

Also note that Christian "marriage" is based largely on earlier pagan practices incorporated into the religion as well.

Also note that Christian "marriage" is based largely on earlier pagan practices incorporated into the religion as well.


Correct, but that isn't the point. Point is the state got its definition from religion.

1. Privacy is a protection issue and everyone has the right to equal protection.

2. No, it's Islamic, Jewish, Buddist, ect...and none allow gays. And hate to burst YOUR bubble but the state got marriage and it's definition from religion.

3. If you would actually read my post, you'd see I put with a power of attorney their partner can have all the same rights a spouse can.

4. Men who love cars are people too, or no because they don't fit what you find acceptable?

5. So if no one cares about the wording of the constitution, then maybe congress can take your free speach or right to assemble....who cares about the wording right? So what religion are they supporting or denying by having that written on the coin and in our pledge?

And if you weren't so narrow minded you would see that Judge Moore was right. A monument is not a law, and that our law is in fact based on Jewish/Christian values. What happened there was a liberal court passing a law from the bench, which is also against the constitution.

1) irrelevant to the point at hand, there is NO protection of privacy in the cosntitution, just like no right to marry

2) which is irrelevant yet agai, it doesnt matter WHERE they got the definition, they cannot treat marriage with special attention, if they are to recognise it as religious, treating it with special intentions violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, all you have to do is give civil unions the EXACT rights as a married couple and people will sthu

3) and NO they cant, they are not guaranteed those rights, an attorney cannot help get them rights they do not have a right to, and lets just resolve it by letting them get married at state level

4) you didnt read my number 4 did you? cars cannot consent and are inanimate objects to boot, if you love a car buy it and keep it shiny and pimped out

5) they are alreayd working on it, its called the patriot act and patriot act too, they havnt abolished them yet but they are limiting them and getting non government watch dog groups to control it.

and what religion are they supporting... hmm let me see.. CHRISTIANITY, the rule favors christianity, it recognizes the christian god as the true god of this MULTIRELIGIOUS nation. and dont reven try to give me the crap about it could be any god or the like, it was forced in by the kngihts of colombus and other right wing nuts


JUDGE MOORE IS NOT RIGHT, HE IS A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT, and sicne you are so IGNORANT of what happened i shall start a thread so you can read it , all of you, and stop pretending you know what transpired when you so quite obviously DONT

There *are* religions that allow gay marriage... but for the life of me I can't remember which ones... so feel free to scoff while I wait for a reply to the email I sent my friend. She's gay, and has done a HELL of a lot more research into gay marriage and the issues around it than anyone here, it seems.

That includes me, btw... I'm not saying people here are stupid... I'm saying she knows what she's talking about

Correct, but that isn't the point. Point is the state got its definition from religion.

But in order to actually look and see if this....definition is true, you have to look at the cridibility of the religion itself. Most Christians are arguing that "marriage" is between a man and a woman because thats how thier "God" intended them it to be. Well, It kinda undermines that argument if you told them that this so called "institution" was based on a religion they so passionately despise(namely, paganism).

Or if you look back at history at *all*. The ancient Greeks, for example, were partaking in gay relationships *long* before the cult (yes, it was originally a cult, go study Roman history, morons) of Christianity appeared. Sparta, also, was very big on gay relationships. The pathway to adulthood was to have gay sex with an adult man.

It's amazing how when you disagree with someones point of view and use CAPS calling him crazy names that he's the zealot and not you.

1. Privacy IS part of equal protection, but you are correct, marriage is not.

2. It does matter where they got the definition because that's the definition that the law has agreed to using. Like murder is when someone purposely kills another person, one day out of the blue they can't just change the definition of murder to include things like jaywalking.

3. A power of attorney doesn't even need a lawyer right up. Go read what a power of attorney is and get back to me, because it's obvious that you don't know what it is.

4. I understand what your saying about the car, but I'm talking about the guy. You're willing to change the definition of marraige for one group of people but not another, that seems like hypocracy to me.

5. The Patriot act still follows the constitution, if you'd actually read it instead of just listening to what the liberals tell you, you'd know that.

A car cannot give *consent* you fool. No consent = no marriage. Otherwise I could just go into the street, knock someone out and gag them, and them drag them into a church and marry them. Hey, instant tax rebate! Fun!

At least *read* what the opposite side is saying.

Another blabbering, brainwashed, conservative christian who doesnt know what he is talking about other than stuff read to him, prolly in some church or something.

Be extinct? Give me a break. Heck, female chimps have lesbian sex. Dolphins, too, engage in homosexual behaviours.

Lastly, morality is all relative. Everything is. Nuff said.

In some church? You have no idea who I am, do you? That would be funny... :)
But... I'd like to say, not against you, but against what you've said that yes, there are homosexual behavior among animals, but ONLY when they are in captivity, never in nature. You can search about that. Ya could even read one of my books, I'm sure there is some traduced in a store close at you. ;)

Like I said Spiffy, I'm not religous and frankly I don't care what Christians say. I'm just giving you my point of view along with what I know of how things came about.

Did Sparta and Rome allow gay marriages? Does anyone know? I don't, but I really don't think so. Accepting homosexuality and agreeing with gay marriage are seperate issues.

Here's my opinion on the whole subject.

If they want to get married, let em get married.

Why is this such a big deal in a life and time when you can go to places like Vegas and get married to some hooker you just picked off the street an hour ago, and get divorced from her in the same day, then do the same thing the next day.

I'm not saying every single religion should change their ways to because of it. If they don't want to let people get married in their church, and everything, they don't have to. But if they want to be the judge of that LET THEM, not us.

I always thought of religion, as a way of life to follow, and principles to follow. You can still follow that, and let other people live the life they want to lead, and follow their principles. In the end, let GOD be the judge of their actions. Not us.

When losing, resort to name calling.

Well, Shaed, I understand what he said about the car but what about the guy? Changing the definition for one group and not another is hypocracy.

I don't know if anybody has pointed this out yet, since I can't be bothered to read the whole thing but what does The Bible have to say about female-female relationships? Nothing, that's what. The Bible in itself is fundementally self-contrradicting yet hard-line Christians are happy to claim they follow it to the word.

I have no problem with other people's religious beliefs or lack thereof like myself, so I think that it's the right idea to have a concept of 'civil partnership' or somesuch, completely seperate from the religious institution of marriage. When you get married in the church, you should automatically acquire this 'civil partnership' too, but other couples which can't get married in a conventional sense (it should be up to the individual institutions who they will marry and who they won't) should also be able to obtain a 'civil partnership' so that they are entitled to the same legal rights as married couples.

It's amazing how when you disagree with someones point of view and use CAPS calling him crazy names that he's the zealot and not you.

1. Privacy IS part of equal protection, but you are correct, marriage is not.

2. It does matter where they got the definition because that's the definition that the law has agreed to using. Like murder is when someone purposely kills another person, one day out of the blue they can't just change the definition of murder to include things like jaywalking.

3. A power of attorney doesn't even need a lawyer right up. Go read what a power of attorney is and get back to me, because it's obvious that you don't know what it is.

4. I understand what your saying about the car, but I'm talking about the guy. You're willing to change the definition of marraige for one group of people but not another, that seems like hypocracy to me.

5. The Patriot act still follows the constitution, if you'd actually read it instead of just listening to what the liberals tell you, you'd know that.

1) i did not say thats where marriage was protected, but the right to privacy was not specifically stated in the cosntitution and was "created" by on of the so called liberal activist judges you hate so much

2) murder and jaywalkngi are two different things entirely, if your going to use analogies at least use intelligent ones, like they cant suddenly change murder to not include certain people or ways of murder

3) irrelevant to the point

3) i never even mentioned any other group of people, if you are insenuating i said i dont support poly- marriage, you are putting words in my motuh i never even hinted at, and i support poly- marriages, jsut dont give them extra tax breaks and i have no problem, if they want to try and marry more than one person, good luck is all i got to say

5) oh please, have you read it. all they have to do is say your a terrorist and they have the right to tap your phone, check your library records, the patriot act two can actually revoke your citizenship for using your right to assemble i na way the government disagrees with. oh yes, free speech zones, right wing watch dog groups, making sure people cant use their free speech and freedom of the press.

Like I said Spiffy, I'm not religous and frankly I don't care what Christians say. I'm just giving you my point of view along with what I know of how things came about.

Did Sparta and Rome allow gay marriages? Does anyone know? I don't, but I really don't think so. Accepting homosexuality and agreeing with gay marriage are seperate issues.
thats new, a radical right wing twit who isnt a christian

as a gay male i take offence to saying that same sex marriages will bring the world into turmoil as some of these religious nuts have said
infact it is because of religion that wars start
for example nothern irland
the middle east
i could go on but i have made my point :fluffle:

Thule Reich, you're wrong. Dolphins not only partake in gay sex in the wild, the also take part in inter-species sex (ie, no chance of offsping, so we aren't the only mammals that have sex for recreation), and have been known to try and mate with humans after a period of sharing an environment with them (in the wild). You are the one who should be checking your facts.

Sigh. The guy who wants to marry a car cannot get a legal marriage because that marriage would need consent. From the car. Impossible. Hence, no, humans cannot marry cars. Do you get it yet.

And calling someone a fool simply indicates you think their points of argument are foolish. Name calling would be "You pompous twit, get your head out of your arse and fucking *READ WHAT I SAID*!". You will note I didn't say that.

Until prompted.

Spiffy, I look at each issue with logic and make my decision as to where I stand on it. I'm more of a moderate than a conservative. And just because someone is a conservative doesn't mean they're a twit, it means they have a different view than you do, it doesn't make them any better or worse.

Chess, I used Murder to make the point that you can't just change a definition just because a minority of people want to. I could have used Meat or poop or any other word. But I guess it flew over your head.

Calling someone a fool is calling someone a fool, spin it all you want it's name calling.

And your definition of marriage is that you need two concenting people to enter into a contract, not the car loving communities' definition. And speaking of not getting things, don't you get that I'm saying that if you change the definition of marraige for one group you'll have to change it for everyone....including those car lovers.

Present definition of marraige= Concenting man and woman

Your definition of marriage= Concenting adults

Car guy's definition of marriage= A man and his hot cherry red camaro

If you change it for one group, you have to change it for all groups. That's the point I'm making.

When losing, resort to name calling.

Well, Shaed, I understand what he said about the car but what about the guy? Changing the definition for one group and not another is hypocracy.


Neusia, in my opinion a marriage is a union between two consenting adult people... a very basic and provisional definition, I know, and I'm sure it could be improved. A car cannot consent. Both parties must be able to...
Did you even read Shaed's post? I think that sums my opinion up pretty well.

Chess, I used Murder to make the point that you can't just change a definition just because a minority of people want to. I could have used Meat or poop or any other word. But I guess it flew over your head.

would we be right to change the definition of murder if the majority of people thought it should mean "eating an apple"? we re-defined marriage to include interracial unions, even though the majority opposed that change...are you saying we should rectify that mistake by revoking the right to marry those with different skin tone?

Spiffy, I look at each issue with logic and make my decision as to where I stand on it. I'm more of a moderate than a conservative. And just because someone is a conservative doesn't mean they're a twit, it means they have a different view than you do, it doesn't make them any better or worse.

Chess, I used Murder to make the point that you can't just change a definition just because a minority of people want to. I could have used Meat or poop or any other word. But I guess it flew over your head.

1) so you support slavery?

2) when things discriminate against the minority , we must rectify the problem, the use was NOT meant to be controlled by a majority, read the federalist papers. yes there was of courdse to be a majority, but it was not suppsoed to throw its weight around to do whatever it wants.

and the fact remians, THE CHURCHES DONT HAVE TO RECOGNISE JACK SQUAT, the STATES DO. i highly doubt there was any definition of what marriage was specifically until just recently (except maybe eliminating poly- people, you are the ones redefining things

If you change it for one group, you have to change it for all groups. That's the point I'm making.

why? your point is silly. that's like saying "if we allow adults to drive cars then we will have to allow kids to drive! you can't have one without the other!" we very easily can set limits to laws, we do it all the time. we can say that consenting adults may marry, and only consenting adults. where's the problem in that? after all, with your logic we can't allow ANYBODY to marry, because if we allow two straight people to wed then we will have to allow anybody and anything to marry.

Calling someone a fool is calling someone a fool, spin it all you want it's name calling.

And your definition of marriage is that you need two concenting people to enter into a contract, not the car loving communities' definition. And speaking of not getting things, don't you get that I'm saying that if you change the definition of marraige for one group you'll have to change it for everyone....including those car lovers.

Present definition of marraige= Concenting man and woman

Your definition of marriage= Concenting adults

Car guy's definition of marriage= A man and his hot cherry red camaro

If you change it for one group, you have to change it for all groups. That's the point I'm making.


YOU DONT GET THE POINT, SOME ONE CANNOT MARRY AN INAMINATE OBJECT AS IT IS INANIMATE, AND THEY CANNOT MARRY THINGS THAT CANNOT CONSENT - ANIMALS.

AND WHATS MORE, is if people love a car or a animal, they can just keep it with them, why should they marry soemthnig they already OWN?

edit: and the problem is your not even attempting a logical point

I believe in a God of Love. I believe my God loves us all and wants nothing more than for us to love one another as we love ourselves. I believe in a God who does not care who you love, as long you love Him to and you treat all his children with love and consideration. I believe in a God who is the perfect the father, an understanding and loving father, full pride for his children, who looks beyond our mistakes and cherishes every moment with us. This may sound sappy, but this my God. And my only God.

edit: and the problem is your not even attempting a logical point

I think the actual problem is he's not reading anything anyone says.

Except the insults, of course.

Now he'll probably complain that you used caps to get his attention.

Well, we could go on for days because it seems your minds are made up.

And for those of you using interracial marriage as examples, it doesn't fit. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, those racists you're talking about tried to change the definition as well, to white man and a white woman/black man and a black woman. Luckily they failed.

Marriage IS NOT defined as between a man and a woman in most states! Only by churches! Who have nothing to do with gay marriage! The government can allow gay marriages, and churches can ignore them! GO READ INFORMATION BEFORE SAYING THINGS. UGH.

Well, we could go on for days because it seems your minds are made up.

And for those of you using interracial marriage as examples, it doesn't fit. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, those racists you're talking about tried to change the definition as well, to white man and a white woman/black man and a black woman. Luckily they failed.
wrong, at the time the "definition" or marriage was between a white mand and white woman and black and black. you are looking at a past tense problem in the present tense. IT DOESNT WORK. you CAN observe from the past, you can learn from the past, but you CANNOT criticise the past without understanding it

Your problem is that you're not reading what I am saying.

I've said a few times already that you don't agree with people marrying cars because they are inanimate objects and can't enter a contract...I GOT IT! (some caps of my own)

What I'm saying is, if you change the definition of marriage for one group, then you have to change it for everyone. EI: You have to then let the people who think that you can marry inanimate objects or animals (things that can't enter into contracts) to do so. Because you changed it for one group, you have to change it for all groups.

Man, I really hope you get my point this time. Disagree if you want but please read what I am saying and not the first sentence.

All you people do is talk about the constitution, what rights are givin and what arn't. Fuck the constitution who the hell even cares what it says. George Bush has placed so many unconstitutional laws its not even funny. SUch as detainment without trial. Nobody cares about that. And no the constitution NO LONGER supports rights for everyone. That has been slashed and dealt away with.

Also as much as you don't like seeing gay people getting married i don't really like to see a negro with a white. To me and my sister and all my friends (and alot of people at school) it seems unnatural. We don't go around though and throw signs up saying "STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM WHITES YA NIGGERS". They are people too and i am sure as hell not marrying one and it doesn't affect ME so i don't really care what they do. Same thing with gay people (tho i support them) if its not affecting you, and its not inhumane just ignore it. You arn't marrying a gay person. You never will (i'm speaking to people like whittier) so why even care what they do?

If a church or another religiuse institution don't want to marry gays then they shouldn't have to though. I do think its wrong to force a church to marry gays. I do think however the state should allow gays to be married as long as they're not forcing a religion to do it.

Also just think about this. Blacks are born being black because certain chemichals in their bodies made more melonen in their skins so they could withstand the African sun. They shouldn't be discriminated against marriage just because they're diffrent.

Same goes with gays. In gays something happens before birth so they have a higher level of female hormones than normal men but not enough to make them into a women. That way they look like men but think alot more feminine and as a result usually are gay. They can't controll whether or not they're gay. To be with a women to them would be lesbian and not right for them. We shouldn't bar marriage for them for something they can't controll. Just like we don't discriminate against blacks for something they can't controll.

Marriage is the oldest and most sacred institution mankind can partake in.

The question of whether gay marriages are morally wrong or right can only be answered by defining what morals are, and from where we derive a moral code.

In order for there to be a moral law, there must be a moral law-giver who defines the absolute and unchanging standards of morality. If that is so, then that moral law-giver is God.

The alternative to belief in God is the denial of a moral law-giver, so that morals are merely one person's opinion against another - which is what humanism boils down to. The trouble with it is that ultimately we cannot agree on anything, therefore we have no absolutes, and no morals.

If, on the other hand, God defines morality, then we must seek to obey his laws or face the consequences.

Your problem is that you're not reading what I am saying.

I've said a few times already that you don't agree with people marrying cars because they are inanimate objects and can't enter a contract...I GOT IT! (some caps of my own)

What I'm saying is, if you change the definition of marriage for one group, then you have to change it for everyone. EI: You have to then let the people who think that you can marry inanimate objects or animals (things that can't enter into contracts) to do so. Because you changed it for one group, you have to change it for all groups.

Man, I really hope you get my point this time. Disagree if you want but please read what I am saying and not the first sentence.

your point is invalid, it is one of the ignorant radical right who jsutw ant to throw fallacies at gullible people so they will keep agreeign with them. guess what? im not that damn gullible

I'd just like to say that yes, it has been scientifically that gays have a chemical disbalance (dis rather than in, because it's natural) which causes their attraction to the opposite sex.

'Unnatural' my arse.

Marriage is the oldest and most sacred institution mankind can partake in.

The question of whether gay marriages are morally wrong or right can only be answered by defining what morals are, and from where we derive a moral code.

In order for there to be a moral law, there must be a moral law-giver who defines the absolute and unchanging standards of morality. If that is so, then that moral law-giver is God.

The alternative to belief in God is the denial of a moral law-giver, so that morals are merely one person's opinion against another - which is what humanism boils down to. The trouble with it is that ultimately we cannot agree on anything, therefore we have no absolutes, and no morals.

If, on the other hand, God defines morality, then we must seek to obey his laws or face the consequences.

so you are insisting only the christian god gives morals, but what about all the other religions, far more moral than christianity i might add, that dont believe in your god?

Neusia, your point has *already* been addressed - and I quote

why? your point is silly. that's like saying "if we allow adults to drive cars then we will have to allow kids to drive! you can't have one without the other!" we very easily can set limits to laws, we do it all the time. we can say that consenting adults may marry, and only consenting adults. where's the problem in that? after all, with your logic we can't allow ANYBODY to marry, because if we allow two straight people to wed then we will have to allow anybody and anything to marry.

See? You aren't reading anything anyone's saying

I believe in a God of Love. I believe my God loves us all and wants nothing more than for us to love one another as we love ourselves. I believe in a God who does not care who you love, as long you love Him to and you treat all his children with love and consideration. I believe in a God who is the perfect the father, an understanding and loving father, full pride for his children, who looks beyond our mistakes and cherishes every moment with us. This may sound sappy, but this my God. And my only God

so you are insisting only the christian god gives morals, but what about all the other religions, far more moral than christianity i might add, that dont believe in your god?


Are you referring to the religions that condone burning widows, or the ones that believe eating your neighbour is quite alright?

It is impossible to believe that every religion is equally valid since no two are alike.

If you can give me a criteria by which we can define what 'religion' is then a pluralistic argument can advance. But since there is no such criteria (for instance, not all religions believe in God, eg. Buddhism) then there is no such thing as religious equality. And contradictory religions cannot all be true.

There is truth, and there is a God of truth - which God that is for each of us to decide, but they are not all the same.

Are you referring to the religions that condone burning widows, or the ones that believe eating your neighbour is quite alright?

It is impossible to believe that every religion is equally valid since no two are alike. If you can give me a criteria by which we can define all religions then a pluralistic argument can advance. But since there is no such criteria then (not all religions believe in God, for instance, eg. Buddhism) then there is no such thing as religious equality. There is truth, and there is a God of truth - which God that is for each of us to decide, but they are not all the same.
you realise that your religion condones stoning adulterers and killing anyone not a christian

and ive never heard ot those religions, care to name em, i want to see it

i believe the romans had a god of truth

You know about the "you cant marry things that can't consent"

Isn't it allowed in parts of France to marry a dead person? That is if the dead person is burried in france..

I'm all for Gay marriges! Many marriges don't have anyting to do with Christianity! Registry offices!

Why can't two people who want to be married be married if they are both sex? Saying they can't is similar to saying that A married couple cannot get divorced... it's infringing on people's rights!

If many marriges have nothing to do with Christianity why would gay marriges affect Christians/The church when many marriges have nothing to do with Christianity anymore!?

Time's have changed! It's time to change too!

One thing you are all forgeting is you are asking a person to explain their religous beliefs. That said, if you wish to dispute them you must do so inside the confines of their religous beliefs. Just as should you dispute a scientific theory you must do so with science and not religion. Your veiws, no matter how valid. are really relivant. Which is why I felt the need to express my own religous beliefs on the topic (see above), which should prove intresting as I am personaly Catholic.

I believe in a God of Love. I believe my God loves us all and wants nothing more than for us to love one another as we love ourselves. I believe in a God who does not care who you love, as long you love Him to and you treat all his children with love and consideration. I believe in a God who is the perfect the father, an understanding and loving father, full pride for his children, who looks beyond our mistakes and cherishes every moment with us. This may sound sappy, but this my God. And my only God

From where do you derive such an image of God? You quote Jesus here, but you forget that although Jesus preached the message of love he also spoke of sin, punishment for sin, and hell more than any other person in the Bible.

This is why the most loving act in history was when God allowed Jesus to die for our sins - but is was also a brutal punishment that does not resemble the kind of "anything goes" god you are speaking about. This is not the God of the Bible. If it was he would not have punished Jesus so violently for the sins of the world.

I'm not opposed to gay marriages due to my religion - my religion is all for them and I have officiated many gay marriages - I am opposed to gay marriage because of your religion.

Personally, I don't know what all the hubbub is about ... what with all the shenanigans and goings on ...

In the United States, marriage is not now nor will it ever be a religious issue.

Need proof? Okie here goes ...

A couple - let's say a man and a woman of legal, consenting age - decides to get married. They are both deeply Christian and wish to get married in a Christian church. They go to a Christian minister and what's the first words out of his mouth? "Make sure you get the State issued marriage license."

That's right, kids. Without that license, you're not married in the eyes of the State and you cannot derive benefit from that marriage ... regardless of your religious beliefs. So ... if the State decides gay marriage is okie dokie - and it has thanks to full faith and credit - then there is nothing anyone can do about it.

If your religion is against gay marriage, well, bully for you, but all that means is that your preacher won't perform gay marriages. Fortunately, though, for every preacher who won't there are three who will.

From where do you derive such an image of God? You quote Jesus here, but you forget that although Jesus preached the message of love he also spoke of sin, punishment for sin, and hell more than any other person in the Bible.

This is why the most loving act in history was when God allowed Jesus to die for our sins - but is was also a brutal punishment that does not resemble the kind of "anything goes" god you are speaking about. This is not the God of the Bible. If it was he would not have punished Jesus so violently for the sins of the world.
I derive my image of God from my personal experience, from where do you derive homosexuality to be a sin? Also my God(Father) did not punish his son for my sins, my God(Jesus) died for my sins and rose again to reign in Heaven.

"In the bible itself it says that homosexuality is an abomination against God"

Other things the Bible calls an abomination:
Shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)
Ants (Leviticus 11:20)
women wearing pants (Deuteronomy 22:5)
Getting remarried after divorce (Deuteronomy 24:4)


Unless you can follow the entire Law, do not rely on it for
salvation. (Romans 4:16)


just something I thought I'd highjack from another thread :D

I find the people who argue against gay marriage on a religious basis are conspicuously ignoring my refutation of the actual Biblical verses.

I'll put it more challenging -
Find me ONE Bible verse saying homosexuals should not have loving, committed relationships.

I can promise you I will show you why it does not apply, by the Bible's own standards.

Also, people arguing that homosexuality is "unnatural" amuse me. Wearing clothes is "unnatural" too. It's a bullshit argument. And no, homosexuality does not JUST occur in captivity in the animal world. Bonobo's practice it in the wild, for one, and there are more. But really, the argument is a complete red herring. Loads of stuff is "unnatural" - that does not make it morally wrong. Is driving a car morally wrong? How is it any more natural than homosexual sex? Your legs were designed to walk, not to press down on the gas, weren't they?

Lastly, there are 1,049 rights and priviliges regulated through law that have to do with marriage. It's not all tax brakes. Some of them are;

*Assumption of spouse's pension
* Bereavement leave
* Immigration
* Insurance breaks
* Medical decisions on behalf of partner
* Sick leave to care for partner
* Social Security Survivor Benefits
* Veteran's discounts
* Visitation of partner in hospital or prison
* Assumption of spouse's pension
* Automatic inheritance
* Automatic housing lease transfer
* Bereavement leave
* Burial determination
* Child custody
* Crime victim's recovery benefits
* Divorce protections
* Domestic violence protection
* Exemption from property tax on partner's death
* Immunity from testifying against spouse
* Insurance breaks
* Joint adoption and foster care
* Joint bankruptcy
* Joint parenting (insurance coverage, school records)
* Medical decisions on behalf of partner
* Certain property rights
* Sick leave to care for partner
* Visitation of partner's children
* Visitation of partner in hospital or prison
* Wrongful death (loss of consort) benefits

Denying them all this, because some book says a man should not stick it up another's ass? What's it to you? So I ask once more: Have you no sense of decency, Sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Neusia, your point has *already* been addressed - and I quote
...
See? You aren't reading anything anyone's saying

Geez, it sure is nice to know that SOMEBODY read what i wrote. i love the fact that this jerk just keeps expecting people to accepts his "points" because he refuses to read the refutations.

slippery-slope arguments lead us to the conclusion that nobody should be allowed to do anything, and are completely useless, so there goes that idea. as for his comments on how inter-racial marriage isn't at all the same, perhaps he needs to re-read his Bible; God tells us inter-racial marriage is bad more times than he says ANYTHING about gay sex, and God even says that children born to parents of different races should not be allowed in a church. not to mention that the tradition of marriage being restricted to white people existed as long as the US did; mixed-race marriages were not recognized by the law until some "activist judge" decided that it was unconstitutional to deny that right.

i would love for these morons to actually learn to read one day...it would make these discussions go so much more efficiently.

We wouldn't have 'these discussions' if all the morons would learn before they speak - instead we could be discussing the philosophy behind religion, etc.

I thought it *was* really rude of him to ignore you point... it was so succint. That's why I figured I'd repeat it :p. Maybe if we make a whole page of *just* that quote, he may be forced to read it (if we do, can we throw in my point about "cars cannot give consent, and so you cannot marry them"? he's still ignoring that one... so much forced ignorance... tsktsk)

I won't pretend to be able to argue all the points on this particular issue. So, I simply point to a valuable website which answers the question:

What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01

It answers that question in a logical and progressive order.

Didn't read futher then to this:

"The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive."

When just saying this without pointing out on what basis they think that I just lost intrest in reading this. To me, it then looked like pure propaganda rather then anything else.

We wouldn't have 'these discussions' if all the morons would learn before they speak - instead we could be discussing the philosophy behind religion, etc.

I thought it *was* really rude of him to ignore you point... it was so succint. That's why I figured I'd repeat it :p. Maybe if we make a whole page of *just* that quote, he may be forced to read it (if we do, can we throw in my point about "cars cannot give consent, and so you cannot marry them"? he's still ignoring that one... so much forced ignorance... tsktsk)

but if we allow people to post their opinions on these forums then we will have to allow them to write their opinions across the sides of public buildings! and if we allow people to discuss homosexuality and homosexual marriage online then we will have to allow them to pass such things into law! and if we let people decide how to use their fingers when typing then we will have to allow them to use their fingers to make bombs!!!!!

Didn't read futher then to this:

"The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive."

When just saying this without pointing out on what basis they think that I just lost intrest in reading this. To me, it then looked like pure propaganda rather then anything else.

yup. since that single statement is currently refuted by all reputable scientific and psychological data, i don't think you need to read any further to know that site is a pile of hooey.

"Do not practice homosexuality; It is a detestable sin."
Leviticus 18:22, NLT

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulturers, male prostitutes... None of these will have a share in the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NLT

"In the same way the men also abandoned natura relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Romans 1:27 NIV

Anyone who calls themselves a Christian, but does not believe these words, is not truly a Christian and will not have a share in the Kingdom of God.

To me, a christian is a person who believes in the father, the son and the holy ghost. Not blindly believe everything the bible said.

after reading the title of this thread i am beginning to rethink my position:

why would religious people be opposed to gay marriage? i think it's because we think legalising gay marriage will encourage more people to become gay. firstly, i think that's not really possible, but then it would be fair enough to say it would be sending encouraging signals to other fringe groups in society, that they can do whatever they want as long as they claim human rights. it's not that the number of gay marriages rising that scares me, it's the perception that one day people will be asking for man-animal marriage that freaks me out.

i dunno. just random, unprocessed thoughts.

after reading the title of this thread i am beginning to rethink my position:

why would religious people be opposed to gay marriage? i think it's because we think legalising gay marriage will encourage more people to become gay. firstly, i think that's not really possible, but then it would be fair enough to say it would be sending encouraging signals to other fringe groups in society, that they can do whatever they want as long as they claim human rights. it's not that the number of gay marriages rising that scares me, it's the perception that one day people will be asking for man-animal marriage that freaks me out.

i dunno. just random, unprocessed thoughts.
i hope you will read my points on the "slippery-slope argument," and you will be able to understand why your fears on that front are groundless. just because we allow gay people to marry doesn't mean we are in any way setting precident for human-animal marriage, any more than we were setting such a precident when we allowed blacks and whites to intermarry.

Haha... I love the Corinthians quote... it's actually a correct translation, and hence says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality;
"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulturers, male prostitutes... None of these will have a share in the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NLT
Nowhere in there does it say "homosexuals"... It even indicates the original verse in Leviticus to idol worshipping again, considering that it says "idol worshippers, adulterers, male prostitutes" in one sentence.

Debased two of your own arguments by a single quote you provided yourself. If you're going to argue against gay marriage, at least try to not disprove your own base while typing... lol

i hope you will read my points on the "slippery-slope argument," and you will be able to understand why your fears on that front are groundless. just because we allow gay people to marry doesn't mean we are in any way setting precident for human-animal marriage, any more than we were setting such a precident when we allowed blacks and whites to intermarry.
hm..understood, but we MIGHT have set a precedent for allow interracial marriages. one type of marriages once frowned upon was opened up. the next would follow, and so will the next.

then again, being of one race wasn't choice - no sin involved.
of course, we aren't sure yet whether homosexuality is a genetic "thing", and therefore i'm disinclined to make a definite comment.

hm..understood, but we MIGHT have set a precedent for allow interracial marriages. one type of marriages once frowned upon was opened up. the next would follow, and so will the next.

then again, being of one race wasn't choice - no sin involved.
of course, we aren't sure yet whether homosexuality is a genetic "thing", and therefore i'm disinclined to make a definite comment.

i don't see why the genetic nature of homosexuality has anything to do with it. pedophilia is, in many cases, an inherited organic brain disease...does that mean we have to legally recognize it, because it has occured naturally in the brain?

whether or not homosexuality is genetic has nothing to do with whether or not we should allow it. we allow many things that are not genetically or biologically valid, and we disallow many things that are natural and gentically sound.

after reading the title of this thread i am beginning to rethink my position:

why would religious people be opposed to gay marriage? i think it's because we think legalising gay marriage will encourage more people to become gay. firstly, i think that's not really possible, but then it would be fair enough to say it would be sending encouraging signals to other fringe groups in society, that they can do whatever they want as long as they claim human rights. it's not that the number of gay marriages rising that scares me, it's the perception that one day people will be asking for man-animal marriage that freaks me out.

i dunno. just random, unprocessed thoughts.
there wouldnt be any more presence of more gay people for awhile until the hatred cools down, then more people will APPEAR to become gay as they come out of the closet. and you cant ask for man animal marriage, thats an inane slippery slope. animals cant consent, you cant marry kids, well youcan but mthey must be a certain age and with their parents consent. animals cannot understand or communicate that they want t marry you, they dont understand what it is. but why would u want to maryr an animal? you already own it

Haha... I love the Corinthians quote... it's actually a correct translation, and hence says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality;

Nowhere in there does it say "homosexuals"... It even indicates the original verse in Leviticus to idol worshipping again, considering that it says "idol worshippers, adulterers, male prostitutes" in one sentence.

Debased two of your own arguments by a single quote you provided yourself. If you're going to argue against gay marriage, at least try to not disprove your own base while typing... lol
if you try to use something other than kjv, people want to whine about it saying its not correct, i usually jsut use an odler translation and make them angry

For once, Whittier, we agree.

Discrimination against homosexuals is an issue I find moraly repugnant and I feel that religious arguments against homosexual marriage are especially.

I also agree with Doomduckistan. One of the attractions to me of playing NationStates is the ability to create a set of laws that conform to your OWN ideals. For me, it allows me to create an article in a national constitution that expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It allows me to create a structure where marriage carries no civil weight whatsoever; where couples of same- or opposide-gender must get civil unions to have the legal benefits incumbent upon marriage in most other countries.

i don't see why the genetic nature of homosexuality has anything to do with it. pedophilia is, in many cases, an inherited organic brain disease...does that mean we have to legally recognize it, because it has occured naturally in the brain?

whether or not homosexuality is genetic has nothing to do with whether or not we should allow it. we allow many things that are not genetically or biologically valid, and we disallow many things that are natural and gentically sound.
i didn't know that about pedophilia...

HAIIIIIIIII...sad world...glad i'm not the one making the decisions...

i dunno, i have to consult the Bible...

there wouldnt be any more presence of more gay people for awhile until the hatred cools down, then more people will APPEAR to become gay as they come out of the closet. and you cant ask for man animal marriage, thats an inane slippery slope. animals cant consent, you cant marry kids, well youcan but mthey must be a certain age and with their parents consent. animals cannot understand or communicate that they want t marry you, they dont understand what it is. but why would u want to maryr an animal? you already own it

i dunno, just a random example, but the threat of domino effect still exists, that one initally socially-unaccepted thing becoming excepted will lead to other similar cases.

i dunno, just a random example, but the threat of domino effect still exists, that one initally socially-unaccepted thing becoming excepted will lead to other similar cases.
domino effect and a slippery slope argument are not the same thing, you are on a slippery slope, not domino effect

That's like saying that no longer discriminating against black people has made other people black.

That's like saying that no longer discriminating against black people has made other people black.
its made more people half black hah

domino effect and a slippery slope argument are not the same thing, you are on a slippery slope, not domino effect

to my interpretation:
"domino effect": when one thing falls, all the other things fall.

"slippery slope": the entire argument will collapse into a trap

let's assume "slippery slope" is a subset of a "domino effect", just that "domino effects" can depict both good and bad results and traps, and "slippery slope" just becomes a trap.

legalising one thing after another initially not accepted by society, to my interpretation, is not a slippery slope, but a real threat.

its made more people half black hah

In a way... yes... well, I'm guseeing you're more or less joking, but hey. :P
Seriously, no-one turned black. Ok? :P

Been to this movie on several forums. Simply, it is NONE OF THE .GOV business what consenting adults do, as long as they don't shove it into everybody elses face, PERIOD.

I am not for it, but under the original constitution we all have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS. These rights extend till they violate my same rights.

As too religion, that is something to be shared, NO FORCING ALLOWED!

Also note the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. I believe between that and the BoR. we don't need anymore laws directed at the issue.

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You guys gots to chill. You know christians, you might want to think about worshipping a god who destroyed Soddom and gomorra purely because they were gay? (its there, you don't believe me, read it!) .... (and he also turned lotts wife into a pillar of salt just for looking at the destruction! touchy or what?)

But this is off topic, the point is, whatever your religion (and I do respect them all, even christianity though it might seem that I don't) you have to respect the rights of others. Same sex marriages aren't stopping the right wingers from marrying who they choose, if you find it morally offensive then too bad, you live in the land of the free, if you can tolerate the NRA then I'm sure you can live with two consenting adults being married.

Gay people have rights too, and so let them marry! It doesn't effect me or anyone else negativelly at all!

to my interpretation:
"domino effect": when one thing falls, all the other things fall.

"slippery slope": the entire argument will collapse into a trap

let's assume "slippery slope" is a subset of a "domino effect", just that "domino effects" can depict both good and bad results and traps, and "slippery slope" just becomes a trap.

legalising one thing after another initially not accepted by society, to my interpretation, is not a slippery slope, but a real threat.
there is NO threat of humans marrying animals, that is a slippery slope. and if they do it will be a novelty with no rights involved, if the ywant to waste money o na ceremony pretending the yare married to their animal let them

You guys gots to chill. You know christians, you might want to think about worshipping a god who destroyed Soddom and gomorra purely because they were gay? (its there, you don't believe me, read it!) .... (and he also turned lotts wife into a pillar of salt just for looking at the destruction! touchy or what?)



Errr...

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ez 16:49-50 NIV)

I don't think it was done "purely because they were gay" unless my eyes decieve me. Sounds more like neo-conservatism. :D Also, not just gay (exclusively homosexual) people engage in acts of homosexuality.

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-)
n.
Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Only the first definition refers to gays but I suppose as long as some individuals refer to homosexuality, be it definition one or two, as a LIFESTYLE CHOICE, which borders on neurological metaphysics, we will just have to endure their haughtiness.

Marriage is an out-dated way of creating a family. There is no reason why you need to be married, other than keeping the church busy, or for that sake, City-hall.

If you have a relationship, have one, the rest is just trying to prove something that will either work or not work. Gay or straight ? Who cares, as long as I'm not force-fed someone else's choices.

I think kissing in public should be illegal if people don't wanna see gay people kissing.

And what ever happened to sodomi? Can I kiss a horse without someone getting offended or no ?

see heres the thing, New fuglies I'm not a neo liberal, I'm about as left wing as they go (or were you saying god was right wing? which I can well believe seeing how he gave Job sores just for a bit of a laugh)

and I think your failing to read between the lines, that stuff about Angels visiting soddom and the men surrounding the house saying "come out so that we may know you"? Homosexuality. Later on it recounts how the act of soddomy disgusts god. Unless you have some magic bible I haven't read?

Where do you suppose the term soddomise comes from?

and yes, if you must split hairs, bisexuals engage in homosexual acts, though this sounds to me like the pedantic bray of someone without a lot to argue over

As for homosexuality being a lifestyle choice, I must admit I'm a little lost here and slightly ignorant (bear with me, this isin't sarcasm) I don't recall saying homosexuality was a lifestyle choice, or was this directed at someone else?

see heres the thing, New fuglies I'm not a neo liberal, I'm about as left wing as they go (or were you saying god was right wing? which I can well believe seeing how he gave Job sores just for a bit of a laugh)

and I think your failing to read between the lines, that stuff about Angels visiting soddom and the men surrounding the house saying "come out so that we may know you"? Homosexuality. Later on it recounts how the act of soddomy disgusts god. Unless you have some magic bible I haven't read?

Where do you suppose the term soddomise comes from?

and yes, if you must split hairs, bisexuals engage in homosexual acts, though this sounds to me like the pedantic bray of someone without a lot to argue over

As for homosexuality being a lifestyle choice, I must admit I'm a little lost here and slightly ignorant (bear with me, this isin't sarcasm) I don't recall saying homosexuality was a lifestyle choice, or was this directed at someone else?

Firstly, I don't think the 'big guy' would involve himself in the divisive politics which seem to crop regarding issues like this.

I don't think you realize how widely the definition of sodomy varies (unnatural sex incl. bestiality and seems to be the genesis of the slippery slope). To an exclusively homosexual individual, heterosexual activity is not natural, to a bisexual both acts are. To a heterosexual, the numerically dominant group, only hetersoexuality is natural. Seems to be some ego-centricity here... *shrugs*

Further, the passages referring to the destruction of Sodom coz bunch of queers allegedly raped supernatrual, superhuman angels seems highly absurd.

As for my reference about 'LIFESTYLE CHOICE' it wasn't directed at anyone but to those with little insight and credibility other than desperately bolstering their opinion with the usage of capital letters or general loudness instead of logic.

*wonders why if he types 'homosexuality' in his search engine does it return page after page of religious sites brimming with illogic and hatred*

I really do feel as me being a Christian(Non-Denominational) That gay marriages is wrong. The morality of it is ridiculous. And especially the parts with kids. A child is probably not going to understand why it has 2 fathers and mothers and can be devestated for life. I feel it is their business but the thing is we shouldnt allow them the freedoms of marriage that will just ruin the morality of the United States and how we once were a Christian nation. Its sad to see the world turning into such a mess.

Sorry, for jumping into the discussion so late, but i'm new here.
The above quote brings up some very commonly held opinions.
Firstly, what is morality? Have your morals been tested and tried in your daily activities, or are they simply what you have been told to believe? In the Bible, the parable of the master who gives his servents talents teaches that we need to be willing to take risks and be experimental to expand our beliefs. Sitting with what we are given earns us nothing.
As for what will children think -- well, there is researched evidence that having multiple parents is much better than one, simply because there is more likely someone around for the child to interact with. This is independant of gender. Therefore, if homosexuality is better accepted, there will be less split homes from people who get married to someone of the opposite sex, only to realize later that they are gay and then get divorced. Also, if it is more accepted, children will not be devistated at all. It will be normal. It is people who hold the belief that kids will feel weird that then make it happen.
As for America being a Christian nation, well, i just find that funny. Firstly, Americans tend to think that war is a good solution. This belief is especially common with those who tend to be ignorantly religious. Secondly, although not many admit it, many Americans are prejudiced against others of different races, social standings, sexes, and even sexual preferences. Thirdly, we are so digustingly capitalistic and materialistic that we can't even stop ourselves.
If we look to Jesus as an example, we see that he was for peace, not war. He always looked for the peaceful solution to any problem, useing wisdom instead of force to solve issues. Also, he was accepting of everyone equally, not matter if they were a prince or a begger, man or woman, or any other difference. He accepted anyone who was willing to accept his spiritual teachings. He never set rules of what you can and can't do, but preached to educate the people so that they could make their own decisions of right and wrong. And because of this spiritual focus, Jesus was not interested in collecting material or wealth. He preached simplicity, sharing what you have with the community through tithing and giving alms to the poor. He always put much more emphasis on people than on goods.
If America would like to consider itself a Christian nation, it has a lot bigger issues that stand out directly in the bible that it needs to get over, before worrying about the petty thought that if you translate this one single verse a certain way, it says gays are bad. Look at the big picture! Maybe if more emphasis was put on learning and understanding as Jesus taught, then we wouldn't waste so much time arguing over these frivolous issues and realize that putting restrictions or unfair rules to life only makes it worse for everyone. Saying that some people can be provided right from marraige and others can't is just wrong. Forget the morals or sanctity of marraige. It is just purely unfair to say that two people in one situation can get certain benefits and others can't. What about two asexual friends who live together? They could marry to share benefits if they are of the same sex but not if they are different? How can the government mandate that some people can share benefits and others can't? How can the government mandate anythign relating to love? It is far too abstart to understand well enough to make judgements on. ANd how can they rule on a ceremonial religious vow? I believe the separation of idea of separation of church and state should leave them with no right to even discuss marraige. The problem is that marraige was grandfathered into our culture without even a second thought. To be truely fair, the goverment should allow the term marraige to be kept within the churches, and have couples be able to apply for civil union rights separately. Then, as far as the goverment would go, any two people could go into a civil union together, and then marraiges would be left as church matters only.
Now that the governments concern about marriages and the associated rights is taken away, we would have to take this to the next step and discuss whether or not the churches should allow same sex marriages. Since i am a Christian, and since America likes to claim association with Christianity, i will be discussing only marriage in compaired to the Christian faith. i do not know any other religions well enough to discuss their beliefs, but maybe there are some connections.
As i stated before about the parable of the master who gave his servent the talents, the Christian faith straight up from the Bible teaches that we must explore and develope our faith and beliefs. We do not get closer to God by simply following the set of rules set out by the church. That is oppression, not enlightenment. Jesus spoke to educate the people, not to isolate or accuse them. Therefore, whether or not we believe that homosexuality is an abomination of God's plan for men and women to love and reproduce we must respect homosexuals and their rights. Instead of putting down what they think is right, we should iscuss it with them and explore our own beliefs, since afterall, we have no control over anyone but ourselves. If they are living as they see fit, that is between them and God, or between them and the life force of the earth if they prefer not to look at if from a "God" stand point. Because we ourselves must explore our own lives to try and learn the way to true enlightenment, we cannot judge what others choose to do with their lives. We must realize that it is part of their learning process.
I'm not saying that we should avoid conversation, infact to the contrary, we need to converse and discuss our beliefs. This helps us move allong and continue learning, and also reduces the chance that we are sitting stagnant and not learning or expanding our horizons as is so common these days.
Exploring and expanding is an easier goal to acheive on an individual level. Since conformity has become the normally accepted way of life for so many people, it is difficult to explain this to get thim to explore on thier own. People go to churhc congrgations to learn how to become lik eachother, instead of to discuss what they hve learned on their own. If churches were more like discussion groups, just think of how much it could increase the knowledge and wisdom of each person. THey would not only learn from the discussions, but would thn als o want to go out in their lives to find new things to discuss next time. It would give them thoughts to take hom and ponder, and then they would have the chance to voice their conclusions the next time they met.
We need religious reform. We are to weighed down by traditions and set mandates that we are restricted from forming our own thoughts and ideas. A lot of this comes from the time when the church ran the state, so the chruches set rules saying they they were God's laws in order to control the people. We should be above this by now. We should allow the governemtn to make sure that we have what we need to live, and then we should have the church (or other non-religious educational or life enhancing organizations if you choose to be non-denominational) to help us to improve how we live. Then, we would be able to advance with the times and understand the opinions of homosexuals, and be able to make fairer truer thought-out judgements, rather than reciting the same things that we have been told and ignorantly followed as law. Then our freedom would be under our own control.

Danevirke, i couldn't agree more. I wish i had the gift of brevity so i would not have to write so much in order to discuss the points that you so clearly state there.

From what I can tell, Jesus was a Communist ...

I wonder if he would have outlawed himself.

1. Privacy is a protection issue and everyone has the right to equal protection.

2. No, it's Islamic, Jewish, Buddist, ect...and none allow gays. And hate to burst YOUR bubble but the state got marriage and it's definition from religion.

3. If you would actually read my post, you'd see I put with a power of attorney their partner can have all the same rights a spouse can.

4. Men who love cars are people too, or no because they don't fit what you find acceptable?

5. So if no one cares about the wording of the constitution, then maybe congress can take your free speach or right to assemble....who cares about the wording right? So what religion are they supporting or denying by having that written on the coin and in our pledge?

And if you weren't so narrow minded you would see that Judge Moore was right. A monument is not a law, and that our law is in fact based on Jewish/Christian values. What happened there was a liberal court passing a law from the bench, which is also against the constitution.

Oh, and he was disbarred because he refused to carry out a court order, not because of his view. So bringing that up in the debate is pointless.


WOW some one with some commen sense on this board

WOW some one with some commen sense on this board
maybe you should read the whole debate between us and put your eyes back in your head

Or if you look back at history at *all*. The ancient Greeks, for example, were partaking in gay relationships *long* before the cult (yes, it was originally a cult, go study Roman history, morons) of Christianity appeared. Sparta, also, was very big on gay relationships. The pathway to adulthood was to have gay sex with an adult man.


yes but even they did not allow gay marage

yes but even they did not allow gay marage
but they didnt persecute homosexuals as being unhuman

yes but even they did not allow gay marage

Nobody's perfect :p



Look, I'm going to extend my challenge once more: Give me a reason that has not yet been refuted.

REASONS THAT DON'T WORK:

ANYTHING that mentions God: Nobody cares about your religion. NOBODY. So don't push it on others. The US never HAS, and never WILL be a religious nation.
Morals: This line of reasoning says that being homosexual is immoral. Which shows YOU to be a hateful piece of dogshit.
Tradition: Tradition isn't the end all and say all. In some countries, mutilation of the female sex organs is tradition. Is that all cool?
Slippery Slope (aka, "blah and blah will marry!): There's a word called "consent." Learn it. Love it. Use it. Then shut up.
Churches will be forced: No, dumbass, they won't be. It's called a "courthouse"
Other religions don't want it: Other religions were marrying gay people. Episcopaleons and Presbeterians, I believe.


So go on, prove me wrong.

Okay, here is the problem with this thread.

You christian freaks are using the bible as your guideline. Well, here's a clue for you. The bible was written by humans and humans are not perfect. We mess things up on a daily basis. God did not come down, and write Dianetics for us, what God did is send his son down to show us that we do in fact go to heaven after we die, he also has given guidance to many people in many ways. For Arabs he uses Allah, for Buddists he uses Buddah.

You may say that the bible is directly from God. And when saying such, you are wrong. The bible is a book of letters and stories put together by the Catholic Church 1800 years ago. You hate to admit it, but that's the case.

When you quote the bible, all your doing is showing people that you can't think for yourself, that you need some guy who was alive 2000 years ago to tell you what to think.

That said....why I don't agree with gay marriage is not because I don't think gays should have the same rights as everyone else, but that the definition of marriage is that of a man and a woman. Gays should be allowed marriage like rights, such as tax breaks, and all the things mentioned in a post above.

But you have to call it something else, because marraige is man and woman, not man and man or man and beast or man and object.

The definition of pen is something that writes with ink. That's the definition, you can't change it, that's what pen means in English. That's it! Someone can not come along and then decide, "I want pen to mean a computer that writes" because that would be wrong.

What happens when we change the definition of marraige is that it allows any one else to change the definition as well. For instance, the whole man loving car thing.

BTW, I did miss that post saying that what I am saying is like because we can drive then kids will be able to drive. A valid point...but here is the difference.

Kids can't vote, nor are they the age of concent or majority. A 32 year old man, that likes cars is. And if you change the definition of word for one group, you have to change the definition for any group that comes forth.

And one last thing, I'll never call anyone stupid, or a fool, or a twit because they have an opinion different from mine. And while I'm playing this game and writting on this message board, I expect the same courtesy from everyone else. What you tell me when you call me a name is that your position doesn't hold and that the only way to win the debate is name calling like a typical 12 year old.

Definitions change. They rely on tradition. And the "tradition" response has already been disproven.

Marrige used to be defined as "A union between a man and a woman of the same racial heretige." Thankfully, that changed. Hopefully, it'll change again in the future.

Honestly, I am not gay myself, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with being gay. Take religion out of the factor and accept this: 1) there's nothing you can do religiously about it, because Jesus and God are far above you, 2) It's none of your business whether or not a person marries a gay man or woman, and 3) If you were a real Christian, you would love others for who they are, not for what they have done. You would also be loving and respectful of others beliefs, and accept the fact that if they wish to be gay, then that is between them and God, NOT YOU! If, on the day of thier judgement, they stand before God and he strikes them down for being gay, then so be it. Nothing you can do about it, so just back off, and continue to live your life the way you wish.

On a final note, I am a born-again Christian, and my beliefs tell me that because God loves everyone, regardless of what they have done or who they are, then I must love others as well. Also, how can one deny two people to love each other? If they love each other dearly, what else matters? As so long as you have love in a relationship, nothing can go wrong. That doesn't mean that it won't always be easy, but in the end, everything will be okay.

Nobody's perfect



Look, I'm going to extend my challenge once more: Give me a reason that has not yet been refuted.

REASONS THAT DON'T WORK:

ANYTHING that mentions God: Nobody cares about your religion. NOBODY. So don't push it on others. The US never HAS, and never WILL be a religious nation.
Morals: This line of reasoning says that being homosexual is immoral. Which shows YOU to be a hateful piece of dogshit.
Tradition: Tradition isn't the end all and say all. In some countries, mutilation of the female sex organs is tradition. Is that all cool?
Slippery Slope (aka, "blah and blah will marry!): There's a word called "consent." Learn it. Love it. Use it. Then shut up.
Churches will be forced: No, dumbass, they won't be. It's called a "courthouse"
Other religions don't want it: Other religions were marrying gay people. Episcopaleons and Presbeterians, I believe.


So go on, prove me wrong.


Goed, I hope the opposing people listen to you - good justification all round.

Chances are you'll just be ignored though, judging by the earlier parts of this thread :rolleyes:

My religion is against same sex marriage and gay rights and I am darn proud of it too. However, it works the other way around. Why are you pressing marriage between gay partners when it goes against the beliefs of millions of people?

Okay, here's the opinion of someone who is *actually* gay - you know, one of the people *actually* affected by gay marriages being disallowed.

I know it's long. If you haven't got the attention span to read it, I seriously, *seriously* suggest you stop posting on this thread, because you're the ones repeating the same things ad infinitum, even after they've been addressed.

"It was a Supreme Court case; Brown versus the Board of Education.

They had separate schools for blacks and whites, but the school themselves were supposed to be the exact same, with the exception of the locations. The Supreme Court ruled that "separate is inherently unequal" and that the schools must me integrated at once.

Civil marriage is the same thing...they would be exactly the same, except for the names. But the Supreme Court ruled that "separate is inherently unequal" and so the civil unions being proposed as a "compromise" are just as unconstitutional ("we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain, unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the goverened...").

The other thing is:
What if I got a civil union with my wife. Could I then turn around and get married to a guy? (It would be a loveless, sexless marriage, but just pretend ^-^) I mean, I'm not *married* to my wife, so it wouldn't be polygamy.

Separate is inherently unequal.

There's also a latin term...I forget what it is but what it means is that the courts tend to stick with their previous decisions...what was ruled in one case should also be ruled in a similar case in the future. And they like to not overturn the decisions of other [lower] courts. Damn it all that I sold my Am Gov book.

Something else is that it's not a random name change....if every person (hetero, bi, trans, homo, whatever) who came in to get married was RANDOMLY assigned either civil union or marriage...that would be "fair" (completely pointless, but fair).

I (and others like me) am being singled out because the person I want to marry has a specific trait (namely, the same genetalia I do). That's discrimination. When something is singled out because it bears a specific trait, that's discrimination.

I am the same as any other person out there...you can't look at me and say that I'm this or that. I want to marry someone who is of legal age to consent. I want to marry a rational adult, whom I love and who loves me. Maybe we've even been together for a long time. I want to marry them to gain tax benefits and and security should one of us die. I want to marry them because I love them.

Not a problem as far as the government is concerned.
But suddenly I want to marry a woman and my right to marry is revoked.

WTF?"

If anyone wants me to ask her anything else, feel free. She loves this debate, because *she* actually has proper logic and reasoning on her side (not just a bunch of dusty old quotes).

My religion is against same sex marriage and gay rights and I am darn proud of it too. However, it works the other way around. Why are you pressing marriage between gay partners when it goes against the beliefs of millions of people?

Because gay marriages DO NOT AFFECT YOUR RELIGION!

The church DOES NOT has to recognise the marriages! ARGH! Read the post! it's been said SO MANY TIMES!

Ugh, I hate using capitals, but you people keep saying the same damn points over and over again.

Your religion has nothing to do with it. Your majority status has nothing to do with it. Fricken' deal with it.

I still can't understand how a book based largely on myths, stories, legends, assumptions, and pre-existing texts from earlier civilazation, and/or other religions can hold so much power and be used to "justify" so much atrocities, discrimination and other "evil" stuff.



Oh the wonders of mass-thinking.
I agree with you completely, the Bible is a collection of STORIES. I believe they are MORAL stories however.

Regardless, who cares? It's all about words, marriage is something associated with the bible...Unions are not. Just use Unions for everything and there will be minimal arguements. You definitely won't hear one from me.

Uh...if "marriage" is a church thing, then why not let the individual churches decide? After all, tell the churches who they can and can not marry violates the seperation of church and state (because the government is telling people what they can and can not religiously believe, and marriage is a religious thing). Even if you argue that gays can't marry in Christianity, not all Americans are Christian...

El Aguila, could you please read my post above? the one that explains in detail why calling them unions is unfair?

It's like I'm talking to myself here, seriously. What's the point of a discussion where no one listens?

Opal Isle, marriage is not a 'church thing'. You can get married at a registry office, and you need a STATE license for it to be legal. It's been said a thousand times - nothing to do with churches.

:fluffle:
I do not believe the gay community should be making such a big fuss to their politicians and churches about being married. If you look up the word "marraige" in any dictionary it will tell you it is the legal and religious bond between a husband and a wife. If the gays want to change the defenition of marraige they should go whine to Webster not to the rest of the world.
:headbang:

The dictionary uses the description based on the current accepted form. Change the law, the dictionary would also change. If you want gays to shut up, let them marry. Or come up with some sort of actual point.

Definitions change. They rely on tradition. And the "tradition" response has already been disproven.

Marrige used to be defined as "A union between a man and a woman of the same racial heretige." Thankfully, that changed. Hopefully, it'll change again in the future.


Read above Land.

One thing I forgot to mention in my last post that I meant to touch on is, "Why do gays want to be called married?" I'm sure there are many reasons, but why can't they be satisfied with the 'civil union?' The most logical theory I've come up with is the issue of the legal front. Do married couples get better tax breaks or legal benefits? If so then I think the civil unions should get all the same benefits as a married couple, but why do they need to call it mairrage? See my last post for my thoughts on that.

One thing I forgot to mention in my last post that I meant to touch on is, "Why do gays want to be called married?" I'm sure there are many reasons, but why can't they be satisfied with the 'civil union?' The most logical theory I've come up with is the issue of the legal front. Do married couples get better tax breaks or legal benefits? If so then I think the civil unions should get all the same benefits as a married couple, but why do they need to call it mairrage? See my last post for my thoughts on that.
Don't you think that they might want to fit in and not be looked at as outsiders?

My religion is against same sex marriage and gay rights and I am darn proud of it too. However, it works the other way around. Why are you pressing marriage between gay partners when it goes against the beliefs of millions of people?

Let me take your post apart sentance by sentance.

My religion is against same sex marrige and gay rights and I am darn proud of it too

So you're a bigot asshole.

However, it works the other way around

Actually, most gay people that I know of arn't "anti-religious and proud of it!" Who are you talking about?

Why are you pressing marriage between gay partners when it goes against the beliefs of millions of people?

Because it's a stupid, idiotic belief that degrades a human being, that's why. But that's beyond the point. Nobody is pressing anything on you. Now grow a brain and read the entire topic, dipshit.




If anyone can't tell, I have little to no patience anymore regarding this topic. Almost everyone that's against it is willfully ignorant and stupid. Stupid people give me a headache.

The Land of the Enemy, I already answered that. For crying out loud, it's only back one *page*. Click and read it.

The Land of the Enemy, I already answered that. For crying out loud, it's only back one *page*. Click and read it.

Oooooh, but that takes WORK, and then I might get proven wrong!

Enemy, for this act of stupidity, you are now recognized as a grade A dumbass ;)

Oooooh, but that takes WORK, and then I might get proven wrong!

Enemy, for this act of stupidity, you are now recognized as a grade A dumbass ;)


:D Why thank you Goed. I am an average American; ignorant, over-opinionated and just plain arrogant. And if ANYONE disagrees with me, you are a TERRORIST!!!:D


:rolleyes: In truth I didn't take the time to read all replies to this post so sorry 'bout that.

If you don't read the replies, why the hell do you ask questions? Is it some sort of crazy mastibatory aid, being able to end sentences with a question mark? All the questions you ask have been answered! You're driving people insane because you have the attention span of cheese.

The Land of the Enemy, I already answered that. For crying out loud, it's only back one *page*. Click and read it.


Shaed, you're putting off the appearance here of someone with an unusually high blood pressure. I suggest you read my last post to Goad. I admit it. I didn't read all the replies, but then does everyone really read *every* reply all the time?

Shaed, I suggest you take some time and calm down and don't bitch at people who do care to read every thing that O High and Mighty Shaed posts.

It's not just my posts. None of the anti-gay marriage people are reading *anyones* posts. And yes, high blood pressure. If the only Christian person I know wasn't so nice and level headed, I'd probably be heading out to punch him right now.

Seriously, if you can't be bothered reading what other people say, DON'T REPLY. It's pointless and annoying.

I read every reply. Because I actually care about the topic, and am not just here to piss people of by repeating the same questions over and over and over again. It's also annoying when I post a point (about, say, the unfairness of the term 'civil unions), and the *very next* post is "why don't we just call them civil unions?"

GAH!

She makes a good point.

Don't post unless you've already read everything that was already posted.


It's a good way to prevent looking like an ass ;)

She makes a good point.

Don't post unless you've already read everything that was already posted.


It's a good way to prevent looking like an ass ;)


But being an ass is the whole point of being American isn't it? :confused:

If you want to show off your American-ness, could you please do it on another thread?

Oh wait, then no one would be disagreeing! My mistake. Hell, I'm half American, and I don't go around acting stupid just to prove that I am, in fact, half American.

If you want to show off your American-ness, could you please do it on another thread?

Oh wait, then no one would be disagreeing! My mistake. Hell, I'm half American, and I don't go around acting stupid just to prove that I am, in fact, half American.


Ok Shaed, by now we've left the issue of the gays behind and are talking all about me. I'm just showing how easily such a thing can be accomplished be a show of false stupidity. I really never had much an opinion on the gay marraige debate but I noticed how you seem to get really worked up over there small things and I decided to conduct this little experiment because I was pretty sure you and/or Goed would respond. Thank you for taking part in this little study. You have contributed to the advancement of understanding the human mind. God bless. :)

all i'm sayin' is this, God didn't make Adam and Steve.

From what I can tell, Jesus was a Communist ...

I wonder if he would have outlawed himself.

You're an idiot. :confused:

Doesn't matter, you're religious beliefs don't affect others. The US isn't a religious nation, it is most definatly NOT a christian nation, read Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.



NEXT!

all i'm sayin' is this, God didn't make Adam and Steve.

No, because at the time there was a need for offspring.

Notice how a) this has nothing to do with religion (read the damn thread) and b) we now live on an overpopulated planet.

And sure it was an experiment Land... totally. I really, really believe that. You are ever such a clever mastermind.

"Hmm... let's see... will people be pissed off by a display of complete ignorance... I wonder....?"

all i'm sayin' is this, God didn't make Adam and Steve.


I was ready to leave this Thread, but saw this. Thinking on a religious thread, if God intended a man to have sex with another man, wouldn't He have given the man a vagina? If He did that then He wouldn't have had to make woman.
Damn!
Why didn't God just give men vaginas? Do you realize what a better place the world would be without women?
...
...
I wonder, how many people here have read Ursula K. Le Guin's novel 'The Left Hand of Darkness?' She describes a frozen world where the people have lived so long that they had lost their bi-sexual nature and everyone was one sex. Usually. Most of the time the people were non-sexual hermaphrodites (I hope I spelled that right) with little or no hormones running through their bodies, but once a month they would enter a phase, called "kemmer," where they would take on a sex, male or female, whatever they choose. One of the conflicts revolved around a man who is from off-world and gets stuck there. He has an interesting time getting along in a culture that has sex with others that either birth or sire the offspring. The pairs do have a special bond like marraige, I can't think of the right term right now, so if someone could help me out thanks A good book if you haven't read it. If you have, I think there may be some thing in there that may pertain to this debate.

"Actually, it does say Adam and Steve. This is what you get for reading a translation." -God

No, because at the time there was a need for offspring.

Notice how a) this has nothing to do with religion (read the damn thread) and b) we now live on an overpopulated planet.

And sure it was an experiment Land... totally. I really, really believe that. You are ever such a clever mastermind.

"Hmm... let's see... will people be pissed off by a display of complete ignorance... I wonder....?"


Ok Shaed, I'm tired of this debacle. I'm formally offering a peace. Those last few posts were only postes because I knew I could get your blood going. My first three would be about the only honest ones, and the one just before this. I just saw your remarks to my first post and thought I'd have a little fun. Shaed, I just want to apologize for offending you, I meant no harm, I was just having some fun, but you seem to be in a much too serious mood to joke. And I understand this is a touchy subject to some, but life should be taken with a spoonful of sugar. I know you'll probably say something smart to this but I don't really care I'm leaving this Thread alone, but before I go I just don't want to end this on such a bad note. Sorry to anyone else I managed to piss off too. :p

Sigh. It really wasn't just you. And I must admit I have very little patience with people who say stuff like. Mainly because I know far too many people who seriously act like that.

You're lucky this is all online, or you would have *so* been shot with some sort of fish. Probably a salmon.

As it is, I'm willing to accept peace. And heck, at least I had something to reply to :p

there is a saying. if you are not a liberal at 20 you have no heart. if you are not a conservative by 40 you have no brain. you still have 5 years so there is still hope for youWell, I was a conservative at 20 and am a liberal at 35 and am much happier for the change. And at 35 with a teenage daughter, I certainly feel more old than young these days.

As to the brains part, well, I started my college education 9 years ago, and now have two degrees and a fellowship at the most prestigious university on the west coast to show for it, and I have plans to continue to get degrees in a wide variety of subjects for the years to come.

Answer a series of questions, please.

Do you believe in pressing your religious beliefs on others?

You aren't understanding this I think. These people who oppose gay marriage are not saying they are explicitly against homosexuality (although many are) and they are not pressing their views on everybody. Their position is that marriage is a religious ceremony, and that gay marriage is a perversion of this ceremony. The people who are having and conducting gay marriages are willfully participating in their religion, not being forced to. It is not a civil rights issue so much as an internal church debate.

For my part, I would say a more harmonic answer would be to fully turn over marriage ceremonies to religious organizations. This way, religions could do whatever they pleased, and the state could conduct civil unions, granting all the same benefits of marriage. Not too many feet get stepped on, everybody comes out on top, and the church can work out its own internal conflicts instead of making it a pointless political debate.

If the state turned over marriage to religions, then couldn't people could get both a civil union and get married to someone else? ie bigamy?

The only way that would work is if the marriages conducted by religions were not viable to receive any sort of benefit (extra rights, financial support etc), to remove the incentive for people to get both.

Otherwise I agree that that would make the best compromise; if *everything* was a civil union, and some civil unions were also marriages (under a church).

Chances are though, straight, non-religious people won't want that, because saying "I am civily united to that person over there" is apparently harder than saying "we're married". Although maybe that was just a complaint local to the other board I visited.

You aren't understanding this I think. These people who oppose gay marriage are not saying they are explicitly against homosexuality (although many are) and they are not pressing their views on everybody. Their position is that marriage is a religious ceremony, and that gay marriage is a perversion of this ceremony. The people who are having and conducting gay marriages are willfully participating in their religion, not being forced to. It is not a civil rights issue so much as an internal church debate.

For my part, I would say a more harmonic answer would be to fully turn over marriage ceremonies to religious organizations. This way, religions could do whatever they pleased, and the state could conduct civil unions, granting all the same benefits of marriage. Not too many feet get stepped on, everybody comes out on top, and the church can work out its own internal conflicts instead of making it a pointless political debate.Nothing personal--and I agree with the compromise you suggest in your second paragraph btw--but if you read through this thread (and the hundreds of others that will come along on this forum since it seems we can't get past this subject), you'll find that a large percentage of the people who oppose gay marriage oppose it because they consider homosexuality an abomination. You'll find a few who are willing to compromise the way you suggest, but the most loud-mouthed, rude and quite frankly, mentally unstable people who oppose same-sex marriage both here and in the US Senate (Rick Santorum, I'm looking at you) oppose it because it involves gay people, plain and simple.

The Bible specifically speaks against the act of homosexuality. In Romans, Chapter 1, Verse 27 it says, when talking about who will not inherit the Kingdom of God,:
"and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
(from the King James version)

If you don't believe me, whip out your own Bibles and read that passage and the ones leading up to it. I left the book, chapter and verse number, I hope you're all at least competent enough to finding it.


p.s. Hi, Shaed, I'm back. I got bored with the other Threads so I thought I'd check back here. :p

If the state turned over marriage to religions, then couldn't people could get both a civil union and get married to someone else? ie bigamy?

They could... but you would only be allowed the tax and legal benefits of one civil union probably. Can't have people filing for a million tax breaks because they file their entire metro area as dependents. Like I said, anything with marriage would be up to the church, wouldn't be americas problem any more.


The only way that would work is if the marriages conducted by religions were not viable to receive any sort of benefit (extra rights, financial support etc), to remove the incentive for people to get both.

Exactly.

Otherwise I agree that that would make the best compromise; if *everything* was a civil union, and some civil unions were also marriages (under a church).

I suppose you could get some package deal. Anybody getting a plain old vanilla marriage could also immediately get civil union status. Cooperation between state and religion is ok.

Chances are though, straight, non-religious people won't want that, because saying "I am civily united to that person over there" is apparently harder than saying "we're married". Although maybe that was just a complaint local to the other board I visited.

Yes, it'll probably be some time before we'd ever see this. "marriage" is so ingrained in our society that people will instinctively resist changing it to anything else. Even if its exactly the same.

The Bible specifically speaks against the act of homosexuality. In Romans, Chapter 1, Verse 27 it says, when talking about who will not inherit the Kingdom of God,:
"and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
(from the King James version)

"In the bible itself it says that homosexuality is an abomination against God"

Other things the Bible calls an abomination:
Shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)
Ants (Leviticus 11:20)
women wearing pants (Deuteronomy 22:5)
Getting remarried after divorce (Deuteronomy 24:4)


Unless you can follow the entire Law, do not rely on it for
salvation. (Romans 4:16)



And The Land of the Enemy; I like you much better when you're serious (saves my blood pressure for one thing :p)

but it should. we ought to be punishing people for adultry.



Perhaps by stoning? Or perhaps a scarlet letter? Let's allow our government to make it a crime (again). I thought conservatives were for less governmental intrustion in their lives.

:fluffle:
I do not believe the gay community should be making such a big fuss to their politicians and churches about being married. If you look up the word "marraige" in any dictionary it will tell you it is the legal and religious bond between a husband and a wife. If the gays want to change the defenition of marraige they should go whine to Webster not to the rest of the world.


Shouldn't make a big fuss? They should be able to say whatever the hell they want to. Last time I checked, we do have freedom of speech, and we are also free to try to change the laws of this land. And guess what? You have to accept it! I'm sure you'd like to have these radical homosexuals silenced, for the children, or course.

And since when do we base our laws on the goddamn dictionary? I don't know if you know this, but the dictionary is a reflection of our language and culture. It does not dictate it. We didn't invent e-mail, hip-hop, blogging or any of the hundreds of new words added to the dictionary periodically simply because they were printed in the dictionary first.

Apply the same logic to the Yellow Pages. Did Domino's Pizza come into existence because someone at the phone company decided to make up a company and phone number and print it in a big book?

If society evolves and finally allow gays to marry, you can bet your ass that the definition will no longer be gender-specific.

Why don't you concern yourselves with your own lives and shortcomings, and stay out of other peoples business?

Perhaps by stoning? Or perhaps a scarlet letter? Let's allow our government to make it a crime (again). I thought conservatives were for less governmental intrustion in their lives.
stoning doesn't fit the crime.
I say if you committ adultery with another persons spouse,
they should have the right to sue you in court for civil damages and for attempting to destroy their family

I don't see why these people keep coming up with these Biblical references that don't hold;
"and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
Paul was either impotent or a repressed homosexual himself, leading to rather extreme views on sexual purity. In this specific piece, he is both referring to Leviticus 20:13 and making stuff up all by himself. The entire Bible says not one word on lesbianism, except for Romans 1:26-27. That should give you an idea on how extreme he was. Furthermore, he is difficult to interpret because his chapters come in the form of letters replying to questions. His actual point is sometimes lost.

As for the Leviticus verse he refers to;
1. Look at the other Leviticus verses you do not follow as a Christian
2. Most of the Laws had to do with distinguishing Jews from the idol worshippers, and this was most likely one of them. The pagans engaged in ritual homosexual rape during their ceremonies, and on no account should the Jews be associated with that. It has no bearing whatsoever on homosexuals in a loving, long term relationship such as we know today.

But apart from all that, isn't homosexuality a sin like all others? Why the vehement response? It is not consistent with what your religion teaches, so I can only assume it stems from some kind of inner "ick"-factor.

John 8:7
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Have you no sense of decency, Sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

I don't see why these people keep coming up with these Biblical references that don't hold;

Paul was either impotent or a repressed homosexual himself, leading to rather extreme views on sexual purity. In this specific piece, he is both referring to Leviticus 20:13 and making stuff up all by himself. The entire Bible says not one word on lesbianism, except for Romans 1:26-27.

What didn't make it past the editor's desk...


Did ye not know, for the woman which take unto themselve's are His chosen for they make the men burn with pure adoration and thus she is spared the wrath of God upon her brethren, for they do detestable things. [Leviticus 28:1]

going beyond religion, homosexuality is not natural and not in tune with the order of the universe. man was designed to be with women, not other men. we're too caught up in this american idea of "who are you to tell me what to do?!"
do whatever you want
it doesnt make it natural, or perhaps... even right.

going beyond religion, homosexuality is not natural and not in tune with the order of the universe.

Hey... wanna help me break the laws of thermodynamics? :D

going beyond religion, homosexuality is not natural and not in tune with the order of the universe. man was designed to be with women, not other men. we're too caught up in this american idea of "who are you to tell me what to do?!"
do whatever you want
it doesnt make it natural, or perhaps... even right.

Natural law fallacy. Don't you see the contradiction in using an electro-optic computer to tell people something is 'unnatural?'

It is natural. Many other animals take part in gay sex. Don't pull 'facts' out of your arse unless you have some proof.

And whittier, it's the *bible* that says 'stoning fits the crime' of adultary.

It also says that you either follow all the rules, or you can't expect to be saved by them. Make up your mind.

I won't pretend to be able to argue all the points on this particular issue. So, I simply point to a valuable website which answers the question:

What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01

It answers that question in a logical and progressive order.

Pure propeganda. :rolleyes:

I'm bisexual. I didn't choose to be that way. After a huge scare this evening in which my heterosexual partner (who is very uneducated concerning the facts about GLBT, such as the fact that it is/can be genetic) freaked out after learning that I'm bisexual, I'd give anything to be strictly heterosexual.

Thankfully he got over the shock and we're back on good terms.

I love him, but what if he was a she? And I loved her just the same? If the anti-gay-marriage bill passes, I would be coldly barred from publicly aknowledging the fact that I love that theoretical her.

When you reduce the concept of marriage to a meer facilitation of procreation, you have brought yourself down to the level of primitive animals, mating strictly for reproduction.

And not even primitive animals mate only for procreation, like I've been saying. Dolphins have sex purely for pleasure (both gay sex and inter-species sex, with no chance of viable offspring), and there are many monkeys and chimps that have sex to release social tensions.

And yes, I'd like it everyone on posting here would learn at least one thing:

Being gay is *not* a choice. It's been connected to hormone levels present from birth. You cannot 'catch' gayness from being around gays, just like you cannot catch 'tallness' from being around tall people. Gays can't be 'cured' through psychiatric intervention - they will simply going into denial, which is harmful.

Essentially, they are attracted to the same sex for the same reason straight people are attracted to the opposite sex - it's the hormones.

but animals also kill each other and eat their babies... :O

And not even primitive animals mate only for procreation, like I've been saying. Dolphins have sex purely for pleasure (both gay sex and inter-species sex, with no chance of viable offspring), and there are many monkeys and chimps that have sex to release social tensions.

That's why I said primitive! Lol. I meant primitive as in insects, etc....

Sorry for the confusion.

but animals also kill each other and eat their babies... :O
Humans are sometimes kind and peaceful. But sometimes they're aggressive and warlike. Because of the latter everything they do is bad. <insert sarcasm here>