NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Humans kill each other and leave their babies on the streets - what's your point?

so...if anyone's saying that the bible doesn't allow gays to marry...are you interested in buying my daughter? last offer was 30 sheckels...or if you're a catholic reniassance throwback, if you see any women wearing pants, make sure to alert the authorities so she can be burned at the stake as soon as possible.

that may sound like a joke but it's either in the bible or supported by the churches at some point in history. once you allow common law to be dictated by the churches you put the rights of many in the hands of the few. there's a reason for seperation of church and state.

Humans kill each other and leave their babies on the streets - what's your point?

I was merely mocking the weird arguements sometimes popping up in this topic.

...jsut being a toad in other words. :D

Well then :p to you :D

Honestly, it's so hard to tell when people are serious online... too many people actually believe idiotic points count as evidence... gah i say.

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]
You're being sarcastic, right? There is no mention of lesbian sex in the entire Bible except for Paul. Furthermore, there is no Leviticus 28:1.

wait a while, someone will come to defend me. :D

You're being sarcastic, right? There is no mention of lesbian sex in the entire Bible except for Paul. Furthermore, there is no Leviticus 28:1.


bwhahaa, gotcha...

oops now everyone knows my clone. :D

You managed to make me look, out of pure confusion ;)

It's there if only implied. ;)

I beg to differ, considering that there is not in the entire Bible a clear condemnation of even male homosexuality as we know it today :p
I doubt you could extend the non-existing condemnation to lesbianism.

Seriously, what is condemned is gay rape, pagan rituals, and gay prostitution. But then, other rape is condemned too, so are other pagan rituals, and so is prostitution in general.

It's really a question of people trying to justify their inner "ick"-feeling with religious texts, because the latter are somewhat of a "respected excuse" for all kinds of horrible behavior. Crusades, racial discrimination, repression of women and so on (check their precious Paul again for most of that).

But what baffles me most is not that people don't like gays (people didn't like "darkies" at one time either) but mainly that they want to deny them equal treatment before the law. On what can only possibly be a religious base. The "congress shall make no law" concept is clearly lost on them. It's both sad and below humane levels of conduct.

Hence my using the "decency" quote as a sig in this thread.

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

hmm i thought my post was deleted but i just couldnt figure out where it was...
I see the contradiction.. but what does that have to do with the post?
Oh, just enhancing your original statement. I am going to refrain from posting on this forum.
Knowing stuff doesn't make you intelligent

ehhh one more thing.. animals probably take part in gay sex because they don't have the mental capacity to realize what they are doing. I'm not an animal psychologist, though; so who knows

Are you insinuating that if animals would "know what they were doing", they'd know it was "wrong" or something?

There is no reason at all to believe that homosexuality is "wrong", apart from the "ick"-feeling (which, as you might imagine, homosexuals feel similarly with regards to heterosexual sex), and "God says it's wrong". I think I have debased the latter claim quite structurally, but even if I hadn't - I think you will agree that "God" says nothing about what animals are allowed to do or not. Why would it be "wrong" for animals to be gay? What's the secular reason that gayness is wrong?

For all the people who are saying that since marriage is a religious thing, that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married...

Does that mean that atheists shouldn't be allowed to get 'married' either? What about people who don't attend church? Who don't respect their father and mother? Who break any of the other commandments?
I don't see anybody demanding that these people only be allowed civil unions.

Why use the argument for gay people if you're not willing to apply the same argument to others?

Good point. Anyone care to reply to that?

For all the people who are saying that since marriage is a religious thing, that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married...

Does that mean that atheists shouldn't be allowed to get 'married' either? What about people who don't attend church? Who don't respect their father and mother? Who break any of the other commandments?
I don't see anybody demanding that these people only be allowed civil unions.

Why use the argument for gay people if you're not willing to apply the same argument to others?

marriage used to be sacred. it's not now. those who view marriage to be sacred, like me, can carry on being sacred. i've thought over it now, although i'm still convinced that homosexuality is wrong, including with homosexual marriages, i wouldn't care two hoots about who you would marry. marry whoever you want. you can marry your dog for all i care. the point is, i DON'T care.

Woo Dragons Bay, you got the point we were making! Congradulations (not sarcasm - seriously, that's a huge step from 'close-minded' to 'opininated' - one is bad, the other is just human :p)

I never set out to say 'you must love gays! Gays are great! Homosexuality is the path of the future!'. The point being made was, in effect, the anti-gays shouldn't care, it doesn't effect anyone except the people wanting to be allowed to marry.

Now, if only everyone else was as tolerant...

There are religions which accept homosexuality. These religions are allowed to perform marriage ceremonies for heterosexuals, why not for homosexuals? The stance against homosexuality is a moral stance and shouldn't be enshrined in law. No religious organisation can be forced to carry out a marriage ceremony, so no-one will be forced to go against their morality.

The United States is supposed to have the seperation of Church and State as one of its basic assumptions. This makes any marriage in terms of legality nothing more than a contract, no matter what the view of the organisation that carried it out the ceremony. So why should this contract discriminate on the basis of gender?

1) so you support slavery?

That is extremely CHEAP. :rolleyes:

That is extremely CHEAP. :rolleyes:

So is a packet of flour and some water, you can still make bread if you mix it up and bake it. It doesn't stop it being a valid point that the Bible allows several practices which we find abhorrent and inhuman, such as putting homosexuals to death.

I would like to say that i read this ENTIRE freakin' thread, but after hearing all the bashing of those who didn't i though it best to be prepared (plus im interested enough to read through 18 pages)

So a question:
Someone (im sorry i dont remember who, please dont stone me) but someone mentioned that this country has never been religious, never will (the US). But my question is that, i feel it's a little short sighted, perhaps on paper the US has never supported, aknowledged, whatever, any religion, but it seems that in practice it clearly favors christianity. Do you agree, or can you provide more evidence contrary to this? I mean look at the faith based initiative, something which clearly favors christian groups. secondly most of out political leaders ARE christian, and i feel that maybe sometimes unconsiously they make decisions based on their faith. i feel like its practically impossible not to. So please, explain the US not being religious thing. Im curious.

The whole debate on definitions... the law defines things differently then many other people, organizations, whatever. Example: Insanity- there is no such thing in psychology, that word, insanity, doesnt define anything anymore. But in law, it has a "clear" definition. really its quite vague and its used all the time. Look it up on dictionary.com

The point im trying to make is that the law draws definitions and explanations from society and the people who are part of it. Thus, the word marriage, i feel for numerous people isn't necessarily associated with religion. basically, religious people, get over it. it's just a word, if you want to get married and see it as sacred, then do so. i dont care. i dont see how britney spears getting married and then getting it annuled 48 hrs later makes it at all sacred. its just a word now. and i dont see how this definition should bar some from equal rights. same-sex couples should get all the protection of traditional marriage if they choose to.

so there

You're right, the US *is* religious. I believe most people here are arguing it *shouldn't* be, and that for amendments to be made to the constituition based on the fact that a large group of people think one thing in inherently unfair.

It is also the same group who fought tooth and nail to keep their slaves, so my opinion of the 'religious' side of things is pretty damn low.

And your description of language and how it changes to reflect society (rather than prescribe it) was very good. well done :D