NationStates Jolt Archive

I became aware recently of a ballot initiative in Ohio designed to ban gay marriage. Such a prospect terrifies me, as I do not wish to be remembered as a member of the generation that made hatred and prejudice a constitutionally-sanctioned phenomenon. I therefor offer an abbreviated argument in favor of gay marriage, starting with some basic ethical and moral tenets.

First, I define the nature of evil to be pain, suffering, malice, cruelty, ignorance, and greed. If you are a devout Christian, then you know that these are the lessons in the condition of the human being that Jesus Christ was trying to teach us, among others. But I've noticed that these themes can be found in many religions around the world. This suggests to me that human beings strive towards a certain set of inalienable human rights, and that social constructs can be a barrier to the achievement of these rights.

Second, if all of the above are to be considered evil, then deliberately inflicting those conditions upon another human being must ALSO be evil. To cause pain, suffering, ignorance, deprivation, exc. is evil.

Understandably, there are certain times when inflicting such an evil upon other human beings seems unavoidable, such as when somebody breaks into your house and you are forced to smack them with a baseball bat in self-defense. This is still evil, but it's a NECESSARY EVIL.

With all of the above in mind, take a look at what we do to gay people in our society. We force them to cloak, hide in plain sight, and stuff their feelings down into the very wells of their souls. Such an activity cannot be without consequences, as you are essentially forcing someone to be something they are not. We mock them, in some cases even kill them (as we saw in the tragic case of Matthew Sheppard), and we inflict a special type of misery on them. Many states are now in the process of trying to write laws that deprive gays of the right to marry whom they choose, in effect creating a caste of second-class citizens who do not get every opportunity that normal people get just because of the accident of their birth. And mind you, most studies that I have seen suggest that homosexuality is a natural condition, not an adopted lifestyle.

That said, who are we to inflict such a condition on such a large portion of the society? To do so causes them suffering, anguish, confusion. To deny them is to harm them, and by extension is to commit evil. The moral, ethical person must therefore stand up and fight for their rights even if it is not a popular thing to do because it is the RIGHT thing to do.

I would also like to say that I am aware I screwed up the spelling of "Argument" in the title of this thread. My bad.

The BIble saYs you are WRONG! HELLBOUND LOLLERS!


Just prepping you up for what's bound to come sooner or later :p

First, I define the nature of evil to be pain, suffering, malice, cruelty, ignorance, and greed. If you are a devout Christian, then you know that these are the lessons in the condition of the human being that Jesus Christ was trying to teach us, among others.

Going from Jesus' ethics: Pain, suffering, and ignorance are not "evil." They are the results of evil, specifically, the evils of sin.

Second, if all of the above are to be considered evil, then deliberately inflicting those conditions upon another human being must ALSO be evil. To cause pain, suffering, ignorance, deprivation, exc. is evil.

Understandably, there are certain times when inflicting such an evil upon other human beings seems unavoidable, such as when somebody breaks into your house and you are forced to smack them with a baseball bat in self-defense. This is still evil, but it's a NECESSARY EVIL.

It is not evil to inflict pain and suffering on another human being if he has done something worthy of such punishment and if you are in a legitimate position of authority. Violent defense is not evil, either, given violent aggression.

With all of the above in mind, take a look at what we do to gay people in our society. We force them to cloak, hide in plain sight, and stuff their feelings down into the very wells of their souls. Such an activity cannot be without consequences, as you are essentially forcing someone to be something they are not. We mock them, in some cases even kill them (as we saw in the tragic case of Matthew Sheppard), and we inflict a special type of misery on them. Many states are now in the process of trying to write laws that deprive gays of the right to marry whom they choose, in effect creating a caste of second-class citizens who do not get every opportunity that normal people get just because of the accident of their birth. And mind you, most studies that I have seen suggest that homosexuality is a natural condition, not an adopted lifestyle.

What opportunities don't homosexuals get? Homosexuals are one of the wealthiest and most influential groups in the nation. Else we wouldn't even have this problem with "gay marriage." They are often discriminated against in evil ways, true enough, but legally they have every right that heterosexuals do (yes, including the right to marry: marriage being by definition between a man and a woman, and no one being denied the ability to marry anyone he chooses of the opposite sex). There is nothing wrong, however, with disapproving of their lifestyles on moral grounds, nor with not giving state sanction to their relationships.

That said, who are we to inflict such a condition on such a large portion of the society? To do so causes them suffering, anguish, confusion. To deny them is to harm them, and by extension is to commit evil. The moral, ethical person must therefore stand up and fight for their rights even if it is not a popular thing to do because it is the RIGHT thing to do.

If I felt that the rights of homosexuals were actually being denied, I would uphold those rights. But I do not see that this is the case.

It is not evil to inflict pain and suffering on another human being if he has done something worthy of such punishment and if you are in a legitimate position of authority. Violent defense is not evil, either, given violent aggression.

The Golden rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," not "Do unto others as you would have do unto you if...and...but...if...but not if...and as long as...unless....and...if.."

It is not evil to inflict pain and suffering on another human being if he has done something worthy of such punishment and if you are in a legitimate position of authority.

Pardon my for asking, I'm not Christian so I don't know, but I always had the impression that it was God's place to judge?
That is, His retribution should be meted out by Him, and not by any of His instruments unless He gives them specific instructions. That's what I thought.
I mean, it seems to me if we're perfectly capable of doling out His punishment, we don't really need Him, now do we?

I apologize if your argument there was not from a religious standpoint (in which it has much more merit), but your first response led me to believe that you are Christian.

What opportunities don't homosexuals get? Homosexuals are one of the wealthiest and most influential groups in the nation. Else we wouldn't even have this problem with "gay marriage." They are often discriminated against in evil ways, true enough, but legally they have every right that heterosexuals do (yes, including the right to marry: marriage being by definition between a man and a woman, and no one being denied the ability to marry anyone he chooses of the opposite sex). There is nothing wrong, however, with disapproving of their lifestyles on moral grounds, nor with not giving state sanction to their relationships.

Individuals do not have the right to marry - pairs of individuals (aka. couples) have the right to marry. Thus, heterosexual couples can marry and homosexual couples cannot. The "they have the same rights as us" argument is trite and a complete non sequitur.

And your morals have no business is my state unless they involve harm. Two people engaging in a homosexual relationship does not harm you in any way. So yes, there is something absolutely wrong with witholding state recognition on the basis of your particular religious morals.

If I felt that the rights of homosexuals were actually being denied, I would uphold those rights. But I do not see that this is the case.

So you think it is fine for a person to lose the house they paid for for half of their lives just because their partner dies? You think it is fine for someone to lose their child just because their partner dies? You think it is fine for a child to be without health insurance just because one of his parents cannot extend health insurance to him? You think it is perfectly alright for homosexuals to have to pay less federal income tax than heterosexuals? You think it is right that homosexual couples cannot even adopt a dog together from the humane society? You think it is right that someone can build an entire life with someone else, but not have a say in their medical treatment or funeral arrangements.

You have a funny definition of upholding rights.

It is not evil to inflict pain and suffering on another human being if he has done something worthy of such punishment and if you are in a legitimate position of authority.
But what have homosexuals done that is worthy of any punishment? And I would certainly say that denying someone the right to marry whomever they choose has the potential to cause suffering.

The Golden rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," not "Do unto others as you would have do unto you if...and...but...if...but not if...and as long as...unless....and...if.."

If I committed murder, I would have them execute me.

Pardon my for asking, I'm not Christian so I don't know, but I always had the impression that it was God's place to judge?
That is, His retribution should be meted out by Him, and not by any of His instruments unless He gives them specific instructions. That's what I thought.
I mean, it seems to me if we're perfectly capable of doling out His punishment, we don't really need Him, now do we?

I apologize if your argument there was not from a religious standpoint (in which it has much more merit), but your first response led me to believe that you are Christian.

I am a Christian and my argument was, ultimately, based on Biblical principles. It is indeed God's place to judge. However, God uses certain means to exact earthly judgement apart from the final judgement. One of these ordained means is civil government. The best civil government will not judge according to human standards, but will judge according to biblical principles.

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath [of God], for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Every person is to be in subjections to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Individuals do not have the right to marry - pairs of individuals (aka. couples) have the right to marry. Thus, heterosexual couples can marry and homosexual couples cannot. The "they have the same rights as us" argument is trite and a complete non sequitur.

No, it is YOUR argument which is "trite and a complete non sequitur." Yes, individuals do have a right to marry---i.e., to enter into a marriage. What is a marriage? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not between any two persons. Opposite-sex couples can marry because only opposite-sex couples can CONSTITUTE a marriage! Same-sex couples cannot.

And your morals have no business is my state unless they involve harm. Two people engaging in a homosexual relationship does not harm you in any way. So yes, there is something absolutely wrong with witholding state recognition on the basis of your particular religious morals.

All right, so here we have what you think: My morals have no business in your state (i.e., not my state) unless they agree with your morals (i.e., they involve harm). Two people engaging in a homosexual relationship do not harm you, so you think, and by extension they must not harm me or anyone else. Therefore, there is something absolutely wrong about my expressed opinion that the state ought to withhold recognition of homosexual relationships on the basis of a moral system to which you do not adhere (i.e., my particular religious morals).

In essence, you're nothing more than a simple hypocrite. You deliver an ultimatum as to the extent to which I have the right to influence the state to abide by my morals, pretending that you do not do anything similar. But this isn't the case! Indeed, your morals limit to what extent you believe you have a right to influence the government to abide by your morals. There are some who, because of their morals, believe they have no right whatever to influence the government, and so they do not participate in the political process. There are others who, because of their morals, believe they have an absolute right to force the government to abide by their morals, and so they become militant and rebellious.

So you think it is fine for a person to lose the house they paid for for half of their lives just because their partner dies?

No, but this has little to do with the state not recognizing their relationship. It has much more to do with poor planning on the part of the owner of the house!

You think it is fine for someone to lose their child just because their partner dies?

Is it actually their child? Are they the legal guardian? If not, what rights are being denied?

You think it is fine for a child to be without health insurance just because one of his parents cannot extend health insurance to him?

I don't believe health insurance to be a basic human right, so I don't think this is a problem. Let the actual parent provide health insurance. Rights being denied? Nope.

You think it is perfectly alright for homosexuals to have to pay less federal income tax than heterosexuals?

Um . . . ? I don't see what'd be the problem with that, except that perhaps heterosexuals are being "discriminated against." :-P But homosexual individuals pay according to the same standards as everyone else. Homosexual couples, not being marriages, do not have the same tax standards as do marriages. But then, neither do unmarried heterosexual couples. Rights being denied? Nope.

You think it is right that homosexual couples cannot even adopt a dog together from the humane society?

I think it neither right nor wrong. In either case, I don't see any rights being denied.

You think it is right that someone can build an entire life with someone else, but not have a say in their medical treatment or funeral arrangements.

I don't think their "life-building-together" is morally legitimate in the first place.

You have a funny definition of upholding rights.

You have a funny definition of morality. But what more can I say?

But what have homosexuals done that is worthy of any punishment?

I haven't advocated the punishment of homosexuals, have I?

And I would certainly say that denying someone the right to marry whomever they choose has the potential to cause suffering.

So what? The suffering isn't being "inflicted" upon them, is it? Any suffering they undergo as a result of not being able to receive state recognition for their relationship is the result of their own immoral desires.

I became aware recently of a ballot initiative in Ohio designed to ban gay marriage. Such a prospect terrifies me, as I do not wish to be remembered as a member of the generation that made hatred and prejudice a constitutionally-sanctioned phenomenon. I therefor offer an abbreviated argument in favor of gay marriage, starting with some basic ethical and moral tenets.

What I'd like my generation to be remembered as is the one who removed this bastardized myth of love being the driving force of marriage and returned to the other more practical factors behind it. While there is nothing wrong with love, it's what has led to the ridiculous divorce rates, because people are blinded from the cold hard realities of life. Of course this is wishful thinking.

So you think it is fine for a person to lose the house they paid for for half of their lives just because their partner dies?

write a will, even hetero couples do that...

You think it is fine for someone to lose their child just because their partner dies?

It can't be the child of two same sex couples, this is the same sort of problem that happens in 2nd marriages if the original parent disallows adoption to be made, it's not a new concept, nor is it unique to same sex couples

You think it is fine for a child to be without health insurance just because one of his parents cannot extend health insurance to him?

Health insurance, the inalienable human right...

You think it is perfectly alright for homosexuals to have to pay less federal income tax than heterosexuals?

Yes it's perfectly alright for the homosexuals to pay less tax, more power to them, anyway you can get out of paying tax, go for it, why would you give the government money you can otherwise avoid? it's not as though they do a decent job of spending it.

You think it is right that homosexual couples cannot even adopt a dog together from the humane society?

Would I care if I couldn't adopt an animal in conjunction with my wife, and one of us had to do it "alone"? I wouldn't care one iota more than nothing. In fact I've never heard of anything more ridiculous, what do you do? cut it in half if the relationship fails? We're talking about a pet here, not some multi million dollar breeding stallion, the thought of them being some sort of commodity to be negotiated against a money cost on a breakup (the only real reason "duel ownership" is required) is deplorable.

You think it is right that someone can build an entire life with someone else, but not have a say in their medical treatment or funeral arrangements.

What I think is that anyone who doesn't have a will is a moron, it doesnt take much effort to do this... You can't explain a lack of rights in cases of extreme laziness.

Really your material is just drivel, it is completely nonsensical, but maybe you can appeal it to the courts, because hell, when your elected legislators won't give you what you want, your black robed dictators can always step in.

Ordon, as a homosexual, I feel like you are punishing me. I can't marry a woman without lying, do you have no shame, do you think I should pretend to love a woman so I may marry. I know you don't pity for me, but what about the poor lady? SHould she be expected to live along with the lie?

Ordon, as a homosexual, I feel like you are punishing me.

Then you are being irrational, overemotional, and I daresay delusional. You are not being punished by me for engaging in your homosexuality. However, I am opposed to your wish to have the state recognize and sanction homosexual relationships on par with marriage.

I can't marry a woman without lying, do you have no shame, do you think I should pretend to love a woman so I may marry. I know you don't pity for me, but what about the poor lady? SHould she be expected to live along with the lie?

Yes, you most certainly can marry a woman without lying, assuming she knows that you are sexually attracted to men but you are willing to have sex with her and engage in a lifelong relationship with her. You don't need to find her sexually attractive to have sex with her, how much less so is attraction necessary to love.

Then you are being irrational, overemotional, and I daresay delusional. You are not being punished by me for engaging in your homosexuality. However, I am opposed to your wish to have the state recognize and sanction homosexual relationships on par with marriage.



Yes, you most certainly can marry a woman without lying, assuming she knows that you are sexually attracted to men but you are willing to have sex with her and engage in a lifelong relationship with her. You don't need to find her sexually attractive to have sex with her, how much less so is attraction necessary to love.
Haa ha ha oh my god thats funny. Gay men don't love woman that way remember. I wouldn't enjoy the sex at all and wouldn't love the woman in a fully partnering way....You sound like you would support polygamy. Free for all or something. Marriage is also a decree of love isn't it? Would you have sex with me? It's the same thing. Now read this paragraph until you understand what being gay means. I love men, not women...meeennn.

And what if someone said your marriage wouldn't be legally recognized? You woudln't feel like a bag of posies would you now.

Marriage is also a decree of love isn't it?

But love is not the core of marriage, it's a beneficial component, yet not entirely necessary. I'm sure you've heard of the concept of the nuclear family, this is what marriage is supposed to be about.

And what if someone said your marriage wouldn't be legally recognized? You woudln't feel like a bag of posies would you now.

Personally I wouldn't care. I don't even understand the concept of requiring government sanctions, it's as though the hippies and their preaching of love lost its "all about us" anti government stance and took on some political propaganda machination.

I'm just glad the constitution in my country allows the government full authority over marriage laws *shrug*.

But love is not the core of marriage, it's a beneficial component, yet not entirely necessary. I'm sure you've heard of the concept of the nuclear family, this is what marriage is supposed to be about.

Personally I wouldn't care. I don't even understand the concept of requiring government sanctions, it's as though the hippies and their preaching of love lost its "all about us" anti government stance and took on some political propaganda machination.

I'm just glad the constitution in my country allows the government full authority over marriage laws *shrug*.

Marriage without love leads to divorce. I think it's pretty low to suggest one should get married without love. If America is supporting this I see why you guys have such an awful marriage success rate.

Haa ha ha oh my god thats funny. Gay men don't love woman that way remember. I wouldn't enjoy the sex at all and wouldn't love the woman in a fully partnering way....

Well, now, that's your problem and the problem of gay men, isn't it, and not the problem of the rest of the world? Life's not fair.

You sound like you would support polygamy. Free for all or something.

I don't know where you would get that idea, considering that I oppose homosexual relationships.

Marriage is also a decree of love isn't it? Would you have sex with me? It's the same thing. Now read this paragraph until you understand what being gay means. I love men, not women...meeennn.

No, you are sexually attracted to men rather than to women. Sexual attraction does not equal love. Marriage does not equal love. Marriage does not equal sexual attraction. Marriage equals the union between a man and a woman who are committed to each other for life.

And what if someone said your marriage wouldn't be legally recognized? You woudln't feel like a bag of posies would you now.

Well, I'd wonder what criteria disqualified my marriage from legal recognition---perhaps I was marrying too close a blood relative?

But a man's relationship with another man isn't a marriage, nor is a woman's relationship with another woman. A marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage without love leads to divorce. I think it's pretty low to suggest one should get married without love. If America is supporting this I see why you guys have such an awful marriage success rate.

Marriage without commitment leads to divorce. America has such an awful divorce rate because Americans have by and large fallen for the subtle lie that a marriage should be founded on warm, fuzzy feelings and/or sexual attraction. When the warm, fuzzy feelings fade, or when sexual attraction fades, they divorce.

I'm just glad the constitution in my country allows the government full authority over marriage laws *shrug*.

What country is that, may I ask?

Australia, although I was tempted to answer no you may not :P

Well, now, that's your problem and the problem of gay men, isn't it, and not the problem of the rest of the world? Life's not fair.

It's actually never going to be a problem since no one is even considering your idea. Except hetrosexuals but I don't see how thats validated.

No, you are sexually attracted to men rather than to women. Sexual attraction does not equal love. Marriage does not equal love. Marriage does not equal sexual attraction. Marriage equals the union between a man and a woman who are committed to each other for life.

I think sexual attraction is apart of it, if it weren't you might fall in love with something with as much personality as you, like this empty bag of chips here. Love is a combination of alot of things just not because that person is conveniant for baby making.

Well, I'd wonder what criteria disqualified my marriage from legal recognition---perhaps I was marrying too close a blood relative?

I don't think it's healthy to marry your mother hun.

But a man's relationship with another man isn't a marriage, nor is a woman's relationship with another woman. A marriage is between a man and a woman.
Because your countries law says so. But if it changed would you be just as defiant. What if I lived in Spain or Denmark, how would you fight your argument there. WOuld you just satnd on a street side and yell "A marriage is between a man and a woman and not about love" whilst everyone just stares and thinks it's foolish you haven't learnt already?

Because your countries law says so. But if it changed would you be just as defiant. What if I lived in Spain or Denmark, how would you fight your argument there. WOuld you just satnd on a street side and yell "A marriage is between a man and a woman and not about love" whilst everyone just stares and thinks it's foolish you haven't learnt already?

I have no opposition to you moving there if that's the viewpoint you hold, but I don't hold a great deal of weight in the opinions of nations that elect socialist governments.

I have no opposition to you moving there if that's the viewpoint you hold, but I don't hold a great deal of weight in the opinions of nations that elect socialist governments.

Good point, then again neither of us have a great deal of weight the opinions of each other. This subject is clearly one that hits me deep since it directly applies to me, so I generally feel insulted by people disagreeing, your disagreement leads me to think you don't condone of my behaviour or recognize my reltionship on any level. Honestly I would just like to say "I'm married to this guy" and have a house and the ability to adopt a child and have it recognized as belonging to both me and my husband. It's degrading to think that whoever is written as the one to adopt, if they die before the child is of a legal age, that child would be taken away from me. I consider myself a decent, good parent having rasied my younger siblings. I know I could get along quite well without benefits as I'm well educated and have a firm job at the age of 17, honestly it's more the recognition.

Good point, then again neither of us have a great deal of weight the opinions of each other. This subject is clearly one that hits me deep since it directly applies to me, so I generally feel insulted by people disagreeing, your disagreement leads me to think you don't condone of my behaviour or recognize my reltionship on any level. Honestly I would just like to say "I'm married to this guy" and have a house and the ability to adopt a child and have it recognized as belonging to both me and my husband. It's degrading to think that whoever is written as the one to adopt, if they die before the child is of a legal age, that child would be taken away from me. I consider myself a decent, good parent having rasied my younger siblings. I know I could get along quite well without benefits as I'm well educated and have a firm job at the age of 17, honestly it's more the recognition.

Yes, but you choose to be homosexual. And by "choose" I meant "was born with it, but fuck, we can't use THAT, maybe if we just lie and keep our heads in our asses they won't notice." And by all that, I mean "Hellooooo, mister second rate citizen."

And by that I mean...oh fuck it, I mean that there bigoted FUCK HEADS that want you to be seeing as "anti-normal" or "evil."

Honestly, it's enough to make me come really close to losing my patience sometimes.

Yes, but you choose to be homosexual. And by "choose" I meant "was born with it, but fuck, we can't use THAT, maybe if we just lie and keep our heads in our asses they won't notice." And by all that, I mean "Hellooooo, mister second rate citizen."

And by that I mean...oh fuck it, I mean that there bigoted FUCK HEADS that want you to be seeing as "anti-normal" or "evil."

Honestly, it's enough to make me come really close to losing my patience sometimes.

Wait can you clear that message up, I can't tell if you want me to burn on a stake or if your agreeing. Um I do agree that I was born in it. I won't shame a woman by pretending to love her. Um yeah clear up the message me no comprende. Just the first bit, I mean I get that you don't think I'm evil but what does the second rate citizen mean.

Well, I'd wonder what criteria disqualified my marriage from legal recognition---perhaps I was marrying too close a blood relative?


Ok, anyone that blindly fundimentalist in their viewpoint is obviously inbred, just like Jerry Falwell. (That was just way too easy man, christ be more careful. Thats just sad...)

But seriously, I know Im going to hell since Im agnostic, but that aside, exactly what is evil about homosexuality? Does it say directly in the bible that god smote all the gays because they were gay, or just the general evilness.
</point.>

I could delve into alot of issues, but I wont change your opinion and you wont change mine. And thats the most pertinent to the subject. :sniper:

Ok, anyone that blindly fundimentalist in their viewpoint is obviously inbred, just like Jerry Falwell. (That was just way too easy man, christ be more careful. Thats just sad...)

But seriously, I know Im going to hell since Im agnostic, but that aside, exactly what is evil about homosexuality? Does it say directly in the bible that god smote all the gays because they were gay, or just the general evilness.
</point.>

I could delve into alot of issues, but I wont change your opinion and you wont change mine. And thats the most pertinent to the subject. :sniper:

Eh, *Waits for TT to pull out his pre-human latin phrase which basically comdemns having a life lol*. I think the bible has like one line that says something about lying with a man as a man, and marriage man and a woman, but I'm not religious so F-that crap! But sex before marriage is just as common and EEVVIILLL and law doesn't do crapola cola about that. It's men twisting and manipulating the bible to somehow fit into law so that conservative christians go "Oh well if it's in the bible!". Pathetic and historic really.

Also, chew on this. Not only was the bible written by many many people, but it has been changed so many times its not even funny. Every christian and non christian knows that, its even acknowledged by the catholic church. If you ask me to find documentation you can go to hell, but I know its around somewhere. lol

And I highly doubt god spoke individually to every person who wrote (and rewrote) the bible. So, who even knows what the original bible was. Its rediculous. Give me an ORIGINAL bible, and maybe you can convert me after I read it.

Tee hee

Also, chew on this. Not only was the bible written by many many people, but it has been changed so many times its not even funny. Every christian and non christian knows that, its even acknowledged by the catholic church. If you ask me to find documentation you can go to hell, but I know its around somewhere. lol

And I highly doubt god spoke individually to every person who wrote (and rewrote) the bible. So, who even knows what the original bible was. Its rediculous. Give me an ORIGINAL bible, and maybe you can convert me after I read it.

Tee hee

There actually is an ORIGINAL bible, but you can't read it. The pure wisdom would make your head explode. Kinda like in that movie Dogma.

There actually is an ORIGINAL bible, but you can't read it. The pure wisdom would make your head explode. Kinda like in that movie Dogma.
LoL, yes clearly, lets all us folk get the born again catholic and christian(TT's) idea right (not the humble religious type).....Here it comes...it's a tricky one!:

"It is because the book says so, even though the book still can't figure out what it wants to say! But it still is!"

Intriging!

LoL, yes clearly, lets all us folk get the born again catholic and christian(TT's) idea right (not the humble religious type).....Here it comes...it's a tricky one!:

"It is because the book says so, even though the book still can't figure out what it wants to say! But it still is!"

Intriging!

:D

Well then who transcribed the original bible and who copied over the others, or are those all frauds and arent anything like the actual bible? I think you mean the Ark of the Covenant... lol But still, it made me laugh. 5 points.

The State has to keep the line drawn between a man and a woman.

If the line is moved for one special interest group to be recognized by the government there is the very real possibility, as cited by Justice Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas, that the Court will be forced to rule in favor of other special interest groups.

Personally, I believe the State (and by this I mean government, not specifically each individual state) already established the ability to regulate what marriage arrangement it will recognize when Utah was forced to abandon polygamy.

Well then who transcribed the original bible and who copied over the others, or are those all frauds and arent anything like the actual bible? I think you mean the Ark of the Covenant... lol But still, it made me laugh. 5 points.

5 points? Score!

It could also be like that Monty Python skit: the funniest joke in the world. If you hear it you die laughing!

Ok. Point: Why would straight people care about gay marriage. Will they ever be involved in a gay marriage?

No. Only a gay person can be in a gay marriage.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, blah blah blah...

Gay marriage, is between gays. How can you possibly argue against that. There wont be any damage done to marriage, because itll be the same.

o_O

Ok. Point: Why would straight people care about gay marriage. Will they ever be involved in a gay marriage?

No. Only a gay person can be in a gay marriage.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, blah blah blah...

Gay marriage, is between gays. How can you possibly argue against that. There wont be any damage done to marriage, because itll be the same.

o_O

Your opinion on polygamy, please.

And, if you choose to back out of that question by stating it's not a two-party relationship, your opinion on consensual incest (between adults).

Before you use the "children will come out retarded"-line, the National Association of Genetic Councilers has already debunked this myth between first-cousins, yet first-cousins cannot marry in over half of the Union.

Ok. Point: Why would straight people care about gay marriage. Will they ever be involved in a gay marriage?

No. Only a gay person can be in a gay marriage.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, blah blah blah...

Gay marriage, is between gays. How can you possibly argue against that. There wont be any damage done to marriage, because itll be the same.

o_O

Good point, nothing that can harm people is caused by gay marriages. I still don't quite understand why people oppose gay marriages in the first place.

Your opinion on polygamy, please.

And, if you choose to back out of that question by stating it's not a two-party relationship, your opinion on consensual incest (between adults).

Before you use the "children will come out retarded"-line, the National Association of Genetic Councilers has already debunked this myth between first-cousins, yet first-cousins cannot marry in over half of the Union.

My opinion on either is the same as homosexual marriage. I don't care, it does not affect me.

Well, let it be known first of all, Im engaged, and straight.
Secondly, Polygamy. Well, do they call it marriage or polygamy? If they define it as simple "marriage" its not gonna happen, because that has its definition. Polygamy isnt marriage, its polygamy. lol We could save alot of bs if we just let marriage be marriage, gay marriage be gay marriage, and polygamy be polygamy and so on. Of course, that doesnt mean calling something by what it is makes it good and/or legal, lets clear that up.

I will enter into a monogamous (sp) relationship as soon as I get a ring I feel is the earthly equivalent of worthy to my fiance (as the regular term worthy is impossible unless it was made of orgasms and sunbeams), and I think to get "married" you must be devoted to that person, whether its a gay marriage, or whatever. Polygamy is kinda screwy and I wouldnt do it, but given that, I cant really give an accurate opinion. Regardless, what about people who have premarital sex without marrying 40 people.... Marriage itself should be between people who truly love each other. Polygamy could be conceivable under civil union, since marriage isnt in there anywhere.

Next up, consentual incest. Love transcends alot of bonds, but only true love. As long as there wont be any ill effects caused to others, children included, then I could honestly care less. Kinda freaky, but hey.

This is fun...FEED ME MORE! lol

My opinion on either is the same as homosexual marriage. I don't care, it does not affect me.

At least you are consistent.

At least you are consistent.

Yes, and I wish more people were.

Your opinion on polygamy, please.

And, if you choose to back out of that question by stating it's not a two-party relationship, your opinion on consensual incest (between adults).

Before you use the "children will come out retarded"-line, the National Association of Genetic Councilers has already debunked this myth between first-cousins, yet first-cousins cannot marry in over half of the Union.

I'd be interested to see why people look towards incest. Incest seems to occur when one is in a very confined environment which is unhealthy mentally. Incest is definately rare for a reason I suppose. The general "mis"conception that it will affect the children hasn't been swayed enough though. So you should express that. I personally do think it a little out of the ordinary because it is rare! I won't go as far to say it's a sin or anything but it makes me squeamish to think of my family that way. Ya know? See maybe thats what straight guys feel against me? I don't feel that way towards straight guys though *shrugz shoulders* But yeah, I would never think of a family member that way. But I'm pretty sure that incest is only occurs through nurture, but in the expectance I'll be proved wrong. If I have the right to marry everyone should. But I'm not big on polygamy as it usually swings toward oppression of gender (usually women) and oppresion aint cool. And don't marry animals or street poles. They'll just cheat on you!

Well, let it be known first of all, Im engaged, and straight.
Secondly, Polygamy. Well, do they call it marriage or polygamy? If they define it as simple "marriage" its not gonna happen, because that has its definition. Polygamy isnt marriage, its polygamy. lol We could save alot of bs if we just let marriage be marriage, gay marriage be gay marriage, and polygamy be polygamy and so on. Of course, that doesnt mean calling something by what it is makes it good and/or legal, lets clear that up.

I will enter into a monogamous (sp) relationship as soon as I get a ring I feel is the earthly equivalent of worthy to my fiance (as the regular term worthy is impossible unless it was made of orgasms and sunbeams), and I think to get "married" you must be devoted to that person, whether its a gay marriage, or whatever. Polygamy is kinda screwy and I wouldnt do it, but given that, I cant really give an accurate opinion. Regardless, what about people who have premarital sex without marrying 40 people.... Marriage itself should be between people who truly love each other. Polygamy could be conceivable under civil union, since marriage isnt in there anywhere.

Next up, consentual incest. Love transcends alot of bonds, but only true love. As long as there wont be any ill effects caused to others, children included, then I could honestly care less. Kinda freaky, but hey.

This is fun...FEED ME MORE! lol


What exactly is polygamy?

Marriage to mutiple spouses I belleive. Think harem. I do when Im asleep...hahaha

Also, this is kinda off topic, but funny. I still cant figure out how masturbation being evil is constituted given its health benefits...
Dont beleive me find the back issue of "Discover" Magazine baby.

Is it just me or are we just agreeing with each other now?
We need to find a homophobic, bring him into this thread, beat him up with our arguments and then try and find another homophobic...

Its just that most of the evengelical nuts arent posting yet lol They have...some...religion thing they have to go to bed early for or some crap I dunno.

Its just that most of the evengelical nuts arent posting yet lol They have...some...religion thing they have to go to bed early for or some crap I dunno.

Lol :)

Because your countries law says so. But if it changed would you be just as defiant.

Actually, my country's law never said so until homosexuals started clamoring to get state marriage sanctions for their non-marriages. Before that, it was always simply understood that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

What if I lived in Spain or Denmark, how would you fight your argument there. WOuld you just satnd on a street side and yell "A marriage is between a man and a woman and not about love" whilst everyone just stares and thinks it's foolish you haven't learnt already?

I would fight it in exactly the same way I've carried on here. What marriage actually is does not change according to the country I happen to be in.

But seriously, I know Im going to hell since Im agnostic, but that aside, exactly what is evil about homosexuality? Does it say directly in the bible that god smote all the gays because they were gay, or just the general evilness.
</point.>

It does say in the Bible that those who engage in homosexual lifestyles will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Ordon, if you can sucessfully deal with my posts I shall develope a spark of respect for you.

Without circular "The bible says so" reasoning of course.

Also, chew on this. Not only was the bible written by many many people, but it has been changed so many times its not even funny. Every christian and non christian knows that, its even acknowledged by the catholic church. If you ask me to find documentation you can go to hell, but I know its around somewhere. lol

Well, if you won't present documentation, there's no point in contradicting what you said, because you've not established anything.

It does say in the Bible that those who engage in homosexual lifestyles will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Shame most gay people don't beleive in the Bible. Eh, I'm off to partay. Good luck to ya'l. I think some posts got wiped away or something. Or maybe it just didn't post oh well. Hurrah for countries that allow gay marriage. ANd long live love in marriage! The End. Don't reply to this I'm gone *throws some confetti at the room

Ok. Point: Why would straight people care about gay marriage.

Because their marriages will be equated to homosexual relationships.

Well, let it be known first of all, Im engaged, and straight.
Secondly, Polygamy. Well, do they call it marriage or polygamy? If they define it as simple "marriage" its not gonna happen, because that has its definition. Polygamy isnt marriage, its polygamy. lol We could save alot of bs if we just let marriage be marriage, gay marriage be gay marriage, and polygamy be polygamy and so on. Of course, that doesnt mean calling something by what it is makes it good and/or legal, lets clear that up.

What's monogamy, then? (After all, you do want to practice monogamy.) Actually, polygamy refers to engaging in more than one marriage at once. Monogamy is engaging in only one marriage at a time.

Marriage to mutiple spouses I belleive. Think harem. I do when Im asleep...hahaha

Actually, it's being involved in multiple marriages simultaneously.

Ordon, if you can sucessfully deal with my posts I shall develope a spark of respect for you.

Without circular "The bible says so" reasoning of course.

I rarely use the Bible in debates with non-Christians unless it is specifically mentioned.

Shame most gay people don't beleive in the Bible.

Well, he asked what the Bible said. I answered him. I know that most gay people don't believe the Bible and I don't expect them to.

"Married to multiple spouses" and "More than one marriage". What, pray tell is the difference?

Ok, another. "Ive been married to my wife for 12 years..." "WHAT!? YOUR GAY!?" Sorry, but I really dont see that happening...
Gay marriage, and marriage, they would be two different things, no?

Things may be alittle confusing as Im tired as hell, but still.

"Married to multiple spouses" and "More than one marriage". What, pray tell is the difference?

It's more semantic than anything. "Married to multiple spouses" may imply that a marriage can consist of more than two people. "Engaged in more than one marriage at a time" is clearer.

Ok, another. "Ive been married to my wife for 12 years..." "WHAT!? YOUR GAY!?" Sorry, but I really dont see that happening...
Gay marriage, and marriage, they would be two different things, no?

Things may be alittle confusing as Im tired as hell, but still.

They would both be classified as "marriage" and given the same treatment and benefits, thus obscuring the differences between them. If you call it a dog a duck, and treat it like a duck, eventually you'll stop noticing that there is a difference between a dog and a duck.

Ordon, if you believe that gay people will be denied the right to heaven then fine we will let you believe in that as long as you let us believe in gay rights.

No, we definatly would never obscure dog and duck. How many people call a penis weiner, and do we ever actually think its an oscar meyer sex organ? Or vice versa? Only the incredibly Naive. What about a civil union between gays. If you argue that shouldnt be instituted then you are just plain hating on gays.

Edit: Stupid example, but the basic statement is there.

Oh...Ordon's offline, now who are we gonna fight?

BAH! Wuss.

Going from Jesus' ethics: Pain, suffering, and ignorance are not "evil." They are the results of evil, specifically, the evils of sin.

Then they are evil, because a bad tree can produce only bad fruit, according to jesus.

It is not evil to inflict pain and suffering on another human being if he has done something worthy of such punishment and if you are in a legitimate position of authority. Violent defense is not evil, either, given violent aggression.

It is evil if there are nonviolent means of stopping the aggressor.

What opportunities don't homosexuals get? Homosexuals are one of the wealthiest and most influential groups in the nation.

BUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Bullshit! The most influential people in the US are religious bigots, specifically Christians.

Else we wouldn't even have this problem with "gay marriage."

It's not a problem. People like you are, IMO.

They are often discriminated against in evil ways, true enough, but legally they have every right that heterosexuals do (yes, including the right to marry: marriage being by definition between a man and a woman, and no one being denied the ability to marry anyone he chooses of the opposite sex). There is nothing wrong, however, with disapproving of their lifestyles on moral grounds, nor with not giving state sanction to their relationships.

Polygamy was legal in the bible (see the story of David), and marraige has been redefined in good, progressive ways through history.

If I felt that the rights of homosexuals were actually being denied, I would uphold those rights. But I do not see that this is the case.

Well many other people do see this as the case, unfortunately for you.

I am a Christian and my argument was, ultimately, based on Biblical principles. It is indeed God's place to judge. However, God uses certain means to exact earthly judgement apart from the final judgement. One of these ordained means is civil government. The best civil government will not judge according to human standards, but will judge according to biblical principles.
(Emphasis mine)

Perhaps you are living in the wrong country then. Since, the the some of rules and ideals that America was founded upon include the right to practice any religion as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others, and... here's the big one, the one that makes even a looney liberal commie pinko America-hater like myself weep in patriotic pride, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

So, if you don't deeply believe in these fundamental things, then you are not interested in being an American. Unfortunately for some, America was not founded as a Christian state, regardless of the fact that the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christian. They were not so provincial as to believe that writing "religious freedom" into the Constitution meant, "as long as it's a branch of Christianity."

There are other countries that follow your belief system more closely, perhaps you should move there.

As far as considering gays "special-interest groups" that don't deserve special treatment: Homosexuals have identical reasons for entering a marriage as do straight couples.
1) Financial or Business purposes: I won't denigrate anybody by explaining why everyone's got equal motivations on this one.

2) Having and raising children with their partner. Two people who are desire children so badly as to be willing to overcome biological obstacles to have the child are very likely to be caring, attentive parents. Will being raised by homosexuals "warp" the child? There are so many ways to warp children, I'm willing to gamble on one raised by two well-intentioned, loving adults. The current studies show that the child is no more likely to become gay. However, we can cite opposing sources at each other all day and not come up with a mutually agreeable answer. :(

caveat for #2) Having appropriate male and female role models for children:
People are capable of assuming more flexible roles than just man and woman, mother and father.
Example 1: My best friend's grandmother could have been a drill sergeant. She was both father and mother to her children after her husband died. Their family only had one role model, and they turned out to be fine, upstanding Christians, thank you.
Example 2: My buddy Jerry was raised a tough as nails Nebraska farmboy. He knows what it means to be a man. He's also pretty swishy sometimes. ;) He has a capacity for love and caring that I am in awe of.

3) The desire for the close companionship of another human being (This is more specific than the blanket word "Love", and is purposely seperated from sex here.):
Can homosexual couples have the same kind of intimate, close relationships as heterosexuals? Based upon my own observations, this is a universal human trait. Since this is pretty subjective, I suggest having a face to face discussion with a homosexual and asking them how they feel. Or you could read some Samuel R. Delany or Oscar Wilde.

4) Sex: Duh. Which poky, stinky, moist, or twiddly bits go with which in what position, and what feels good are highly discretionary among couples. If anybody wants to argue that, I'm going home. :)
Much has been said on the topic of "attraction" with the implication that it is limited to sexual feelings. If a person is only strongly attracted to one gender, it means they also desire to be intimate and emotionally close to someone of that gender only. Someone who says a gay man should just marry a woman and repress himself is fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of attraction. It includes many more variables than just the desire for sex.

---

The statement that marriage is between a man and a woman is fundamentally sexist. It presupposes that men and women are inequal in their roles in marriage, or that these roles are predefined. Women can be the breadwinners and men can stay home and take care of the children. After pregnancy and childbirth, the difference between the sexes is not as important as what roles they're willing to undertake. I know some very feminine men and some pretty butch women. It's up to the individual.

The purpose of a parent is to be strong, caring, firm, nurturing, responsible, fun-loving, wise, guiding, and to instill these virtues in their children. Any human being is capable of doing these things, if they try.

Gay marriage is the slippery slope to sanctioning incest or polygamy:
Yes, inbreeding among consenting adults is "icky", but from a strictly biological standpoint, inbreeding can be beneficial for up to 7 or 8 generations. In animal husbandry, animals with desireable genetic traits are inbred to reinforce good genes. (I trust we've all taken basic Biology. I refer people to the August 2003 issue of Discover Magazine for more info.)
Is it possible for two adults from the same family to sucessfully engage in an intimate relationship? My personal opinion is that this kind of relationship will not last due the the extra emotional "baggage" that a family brings with it. I also think that this is a highly marginal case, and you're not going to find a whole bunch of people fighting for their rights to marry their sister. I'm sure I could find something more intelligent to day than this cop-out, but it's five AM and I've been writing for 3 hours.

Polygamy: It's certainly common biologically, but is it possible to for human beings to engage in healthily? I would have to guess that for most people, there would be a lot of wrestling for dominance and control of the relationship.

OK, you guys cover this, I'm too tired.

---

One final thought -
Making a "mockery" of "marriage":
Personally I respect a person that can make a long term commitment to another human being. It actually takes a lot of trust and courage to do. But, your marriage is really none of my business. If you work at it and take pride in it, nothing anybody else does or says can take that sanctity away. You can redefine the word, but you can't redefine the bond and the oath.

i believe that everyone has a right to do as theey please and it's none of our business. as long as they're happy they can do what they like so leave them alone. how would you like it if someone said you couldn't do something that meant so much to you? that's my opinion, if you dissagree then that's your choice and i'll respect that.

i personally do not believe in gay marriage, or gaydom once so ever, because i am a God fearing person, but you may believe whatever you like, i cannot stop you, and that is your right
but one thing i must say
God bless you

Ordon, if you believe that gay people will be denied the right to heaven then fine we will let you believe in that as long as you let us believe in gay rights.

Heaven is not a right, of course. And homosexuals already have equal rights.

Then they are evil, because a bad tree can produce only bad fruit, according to jesus.

They are "evils" in the sense that they are not nice, pleasant things. They are not moral evils, however, which is what I took to be the meaning.

BUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Bullshit! The most influential people in the US are religious bigots, specifically Christians.

I doubt it. But I didn't say that homosexuals were the most influential people; I said they were one.

Polygamy was legal in the bible (see the story of David), and marraige has been redefined in good, progressive ways through history.

Polygamy was not a different definition of marriage; polygamy is engaging in more than one marriage at a time. Marriage is and has always been a union between a man and a woman.

Perhaps you are living in the wrong country then. Since, the the some of rules and ideals that America was founded upon include the right to practice any religion as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others, and... here's the big one, the one that makes even a looney liberal commie pinko America-hater like myself weep in patriotic pride, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

So, if you don't deeply believe in these fundamental things, then you are not interested in being an American. Unfortunately for some, America was not founded as a Christian state, regardless of the fact that the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christian. They were not so provincial as to believe that writing "religious freedom" into the Constitution meant, "as long as it's a branch of Christianity."

Where have I said that homosexuals are not equal human beings worthy of the same rights as others? As I've said before, any homosexual can enter into a marriage---that is, a union with a person of the opposite sex---just like everyone else. I have made quite clear, however, that same-sex couples are not marriages, cannot be, and should not be treated as such, and it doesn't matter whether the people be gay or straight.

Furthermore, that America was not founded as a theocracy does not mean that biblical principles need be utterly ignored in law-making.

There are other countries that follow your belief system more closely, perhaps you should move there.

I'm sure there are other countries that follow your belief system more closely than America; why don't you move there? Perhaps you, like me, prefer to stay here and do what you can to make America the best it can be. We obviously have different ideas of what that entails, though.

I don't have the time or desire to deal with the rest of your post since I've dealt with the same points innummerable times in other threads and very recently.

There actually is an ORIGINAL bible, but you can't read it. The pure wisdom would make your head explode. Kinda like in that movie Dogma.

Then how the hell did people read it and translate it? Or did they just make up the bible that we have now? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Furthermore, that America was not founded as a theocracy does not mean that biblical principles need be utterly ignored in law-making.
Actually, that's a very reasonable point. :) However, one must be cautious not to tread on the fundamental rights of others as defined by the Constitution. Since, by continuing to live in America, we tacitly agree that the Constitution is the highest law in the land. Whether any Constitutional righta are being violated has been discussed at some length already, but I'm not sure if everything has been expressed optimally. :)

I'm sure there are other countries that follow your belief system more closely than America; why don't you move there? Perhaps you, like me, prefer to stay here and do what you can to make America the best it can be. We obviously have different ideas of what that entails, though.
Hehe, nice shot. Nope, America most closely approximates my belief system. I've posted some of my views on a "normal, stable" society elsewhere.

(I'm starting to wish I'd picked a less whimsical name - I didn't know how engaging the forums were when I signed up. I'd find it hard to have a rational discourse with a guy named Oogerboogerstan, myself. :D)

I don't have the time or desire to deal with the rest of your post since I've dealt with the same points innummerable times in other threads and very recently.
Pardon, although I admit it appears that way, the entire post was not directed specifically at you, more as a topic for general discussion.

Think of all the other marvelous theocracies... Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nazi germany... I think that all you people who disagree with basing a country's laws on a religion should just look at history and see how absolutely profoundly wrong you are. I mean seriously, whats left to be desired?
</sarcasm>

:headbang:
Why dont people EVER learn from past mistakes?
You know, Allah simply is the Arabic word for god. Hell, just because their god is called Allah doesnt make them evil, do you think the english language was around at the time of the conception of christianity? And on that, whats wrong with the eqyptian religion. Or Hinduism for that matter. They MUST be wrong, any religion that old has to be unfounded lol

Who the hell made christians the head authority on a practice dating back before their snot nosed little adolescent religion anyways. Its not like christians had this huge epiphany and were like HOLY CRAP! I HAVE THIS AWESOME NEW IDEA! MARRIAGE!. Its way older than christianity people. Wake up and smell the musty smell of ancient practice.
And seriously, no lame half ass arguements about the "One true religion" or something equally stupid, because everyone knows the earth is at the very least, given written history, about 40000 years old, considering cave paintings, and about 4 billion giving traceable planet activity.
So god just condemned the people from 2005 or so years ago to hell so he could say "HA! GOTCHA! SUCKER!" at the millenial heaven/hell potluck? Gimme a break.

No, it is YOUR argument which is "trite and a complete non sequitur." Yes, individuals do have a right to marry---i.e., to enter into a marriage. What is a marriage? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not between any two persons. Opposite-sex couples can marry because only opposite-sex couples can CONSTITUTE a marriage! Same-sex couples cannot.

If marriage were simply an individual right, I could go down to the county courthouse and get a marriage right now. Of course, I can't, because I have to be a member of a consenting couple in order to do so. I can't go get married unless my boyfriend agrees that he wishes to get married as well. At that point, we can become a single legal entity.

All right, so here we have what you think: My morals have no business in your state (i.e., not my state) unless they agree with your morals (i.e., they involve harm). Two people engaging in a homosexual relationship do not harm you, so you think, and by extension they must not harm me or anyone else. Therefore, there is something absolutely wrong about my expressed opinion that the state ought to withhold recognition of homosexual relationships on the basis of a moral system to which you do not adhere (i.e., my particular religious morals).

It has nothing to do with whether or not I adhere to them. The fact is, we have a little thing called the 1st Amendment. If Congress passes a law based entirely on one person's particular religious morals, it is establishing that religion as being above all the others. Therefore, it cannot be done. You can blame me if you like, but I didn't write the 1st or the 14th amendment.

I know for a fact that two people being in a relationship does not harm me. Can you demonstrate any way in which they harm you that isn't "I think it is icky!"?

In essence, you're nothing more than a simple hypocrite. You deliver an ultimatum as to the extent to which I have the right to influence the state to abide by my morals, pretending that you do not do anything similar. But this isn't the case!

Actually it is. There are many things that the government allows that are against my moral code. Hunting for pleasure is one of them. However, I am intelligent enough to recognize that (a) the 1st Amendment bars me from passing a law based on nothing but my particular religious views and (b) not everyone subscribes to my particular religious views. Do you see the difference?

Indeed, your morals limit to what extent you believe you have a right to influence the government to abide by your morals. There are some who, because of their morals, believe they have no right whatever to influence the government, and so they do not participate in the political process. There are others who, because of their morals, believe they have an absolute right to force the government to abide by their morals, and so they become militant and rebellious.

And your point is what? I am simply talking about the extent to which the Constitution allows those who so choose to control their government.

No, but this has little to do with the state not recognizing their relationship. It has much more to do with poor planning on the part of the owner of the house!

If you knew anything about the law, you would know that this is entirely untrue. Homosexuals have no legal way in which to ensure that they don't have to pay inheritance tax on at least half of the value of the house to Uncle Sam in the event that a tragedy occurs and one partner dies.

Is it actually their child? Are they the legal guardian? If not, what rights are being denied?

You're right. It isn't biologically their child. Just like my stepfather is not my biological father. I guess step-parents should never have any way of being a legal guardian for the children they take care of.

I don't believe health insurance to be a basic human right, so I don't think this is a problem. Let the actual parent provide health insurance. Rights being denied? Nope.

The actual parent may be a stay-at-home parent with no way to provide health insurance. Try again.

And if you really want kids being without health insurance because some people hold bigotted views of their parents, go right on ahead and push for it. You won't get much respect from me.

I think it neither right nor wrong. In either case, I don't see any rights being denied.

Ok, then, we will take out all benefits of marriage that allow heterosexual couples to jointly purchase/adopt something. Then, no rights will be denied to anyone.

I don't think their "life-building-together" is morally legitimate in the first place.

And some people don't think interracial couples should be able to build a life together. Does that mean it is perfectly ok to ban such marriages?

You have a funny definition of morality. But what more can I say?

You have no idea what my definition of morality is.

I haven't advocated the punishment of homosexuals, have I?



So what? The suffering isn't being "inflicted" upon them, is it? Any suffering they undergo as a result of not being able to receive state recognition for their relationship is the result of their own immoral desires.

These two statements are completely irreconcilable.

What I'd like my generation to be remembered as is the one who removed this bastardized myth of love being the driving force of marriage and returned to the other more practical factors behind it. While there is nothing wrong with love, it's what has led to the ridiculous divorce rates, because people are blinded from the cold hard realities of life. Of course this is wishful thinking.

If you think love has nothing to do with marriage, that is fine. All of my arguments still apply.

write a will, even hetero couples do that...

A will does not keep someone from having to pay so much inheritance tax on a house that they have to sell the house to pay the taxes.

It can't be the child of two same sex couples, this is the same sort of problem that happens in 2nd marriages if the original parent disallows adoption to be made, it's not a new concept, nor is it unique to same sex couples

But heterosexual couples do have protection from it. Even in the absence of a recognized second biological parent, homosexual couples do not.

Health insurance, the inalienable human right...

I never said that. I simply pointed out that child (inherently likely to be sick or have an injury more often than adults) should not be denied health insurance just becaues you don't like their parental arrangement.

What I think is that anyone who doesn't have a will is a moron, it doesnt take much effort to do this... You can't explain a lack of rights in cases of extreme laziness.

You haven't looked into law much if you think a will provides all of the protections of marriage.

Really your material is just drivel, it is completely nonsensical, but maybe you can appeal it to the courts, because hell, when your elected legislators won't give you what you want, your black robed dictators can always step in.

My material is quite accurate, you just don't care because you think homosexuals are somehow "lesser people." As for the courts, they are not dictators, they are checked by the legislature and executive branch just as much as any of the three branches. Stop being pissed off at the judicial branch for doing their job and get on your legislative and executive branch to use their power of checks and balances if you don't like the decisions being made.

But love is not the core of marriage, it's a beneficial component, yet not entirely necessary. I'm sure you've heard of the concept of the nuclear family, this is what marriage is supposed to be about.

Wow, so you subscribe to a view of family that has only been around since the 50's? Well, that is fine, just don't try to claim tradition, or that "this is the way it has always been."

Personally I wouldn't care. I don't even understand the concept of requiring government sanctions, it's as though the hippies and their preaching of love lost its "all about us" anti government stance and took on some political propaganda machination.

So you would support a law banning the government from recognizing marriage at all?

I'm just glad the constitution in my country allows the government full authority over marriage laws *shrug*.

But you just said that you don't understand the concept of having the government recognize marriage.

Ok. Point: Why would straight people care about gay marriage. Will they ever be involved in a gay marriage?

Well, some of us care because we want our close friends to be happy. =)

It does say in the Bible that those who engage in homosexual lifestyles will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

It says in the Bible that I can own slaves (or at least could if I were male), that my boyfriend has to pay my father (who I rarely even talk to) to marry me, that my father can sell me into slavery.

It also says that if I have a girl child, I will be dirtier than if I have a male child.

It also says that if someone sues me for everything I own, I should get naked in court.

What is your point, exactly?

Well, he asked what the Bible said. I answered him. I know that most gay people don't believe the Bible and I don't expect them to.

Many homosexuals believe the Bible. They simply don't believe that all of it is literally the word of God. And when you get down to it, neither does anyone else.

Think of all the other marvelous theocracies... Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nazi germany...

Nazi Germany was NOT a theocracy, neither was (or is!) Iraq. Furthermore, Iran and Afghanistan are not Christian, and moreover, I have not advocated a Christian theocracy in the United States.

I think that all you people who disagree with basing a country's laws on a religion should just look at history and see how absolutely profoundly wrong you are. I mean seriously, whats left to be desired?
</sarcasm>

Do you think rights theory developed in a vacuum?

:headbang:
Why dont people EVER learn from past mistakes?
You know, Allah simply is the Arabic word for god. Hell, just because their god is called Allah doesnt make them evil, do you think the english language was around at the time of the conception of christianity? And on that, whats wrong with the eqyptian religion. Or Hinduism for that matter. They MUST be wrong, any religion that old has to be unfounded lol

Christian Arabs say "Allah" as well. The difference between Christianity and Islam is actually theological, not merely linguistic, and the same goes for ancient Egyptian religion and Hinduism.

But really, you're just going off on a massive tangent.

Who the hell made christians the head authority on a practice dating back before their snot nosed little adolescent religion anyways. Its not like christians had this huge epiphany and were like HOLY CRAP! I HAVE THIS AWESOME NEW IDEA! MARRIAGE!. Its way older than christianity people. Wake up and smell the musty smell of ancient practice.
And seriously, no lame half ass arguements about the "One true religion" or something equally stupid, because everyone knows the earth is at the very least, given written history, about 40000 years old, considering cave paintings, and about 4 billion giving traceable planet activity.
So god just condemned the people from 2005 or so years ago to hell so he could say "HA! GOTCHA! SUCKER!" at the millenial heaven/hell potluck? Gimme a break.

Wow, where the hell did this all come from? Yes, marriage is much older than Christianity, which should only prove that Christians aren't making things up from within their own religion when they say things like "marriage is a union between a man and a woman."

Well, some of us care because we want our close friends to be happy. =)

Well, the point in that statement was mostly that straight people arent affected by gay marriage, as they will never engage in one, so they really cant say that its bad. lol


As for Orden, what is Nazism then? It is both spiritual and political. It constitutes religion. Next, Yes, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all essentially theocracies, their leading political groups are all religious groups. They are all fundementalist. Well, unless you call that whole Iraq thing now as a government, but whatever. Thats another issue. lol

And most importantly, you are acknowledging other religions as having basis? Therefore, if other religions are correct how can you possibly say that yours is the only one not going to hell. You are making contradictory arguements.

Plus, I dont see why people want to make a law based on religion i.e. no gay marriage, because there is a law seperating church and state, as there should be, or else we would have the spanish inquisition and the crusades all over again. The past has shown that when any one religion takes the reins, people die. And for the record, every religion is the "right" one, and they all have a thick book. "Its the word of god." "Ok, how do you know?" "The bible says its the word of god. Duh."

I vote we all go make a religion based on Stephen Kings "The Stand". Or maybe, Encyclopedia Brittanicanism. They have waaay more books that christianity.
Websterism anyone? lol

And yes, I may go off on tangents as I see fit, because its fun. And you havent made one convincing point yet that makes me even begin to think you arent going to hell for condemning others. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

And you also neglected to explain why "Merciful loving God" Condemns all the people previous to the birth of christianity to eternal damnation. Was he incompetent, just an idiot, or a bastard asshole. It has to be one of them.

If marriage were simply an individual right, I could go down to the county courthouse and get a marriage right now. Of course, I can't, because I have to be a member of a consenting couple in order to do so. I can't go get married unless my boyfriend agrees that he wishes to get married as well. At that point, we can become a single legal entity.

This is, I believe, the third time you've presented this ludicrous argument to me. You, as an individual, have a general right to engage in marriage. If you didn't, you couldn't go to the courthouse even with your boyfriend to apply for a license. OBVIOUSLY, if you don't have a consenting member of the opposite sex, there's no possible marriage to engage IN, and so a license would of course not be issued. But guess what? No homosexual is being denied the right to marry! Homosexual couples ARE NOT MARRIAGES.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I adhere to them. The fact is, we have a little thing called the 1st Amendment. If Congress passes a law based entirely on one person's particular religious morals, it is establishing that religion as being above all the others. Therefore, it cannot be done. You can blame me if you like, but I didn't write the 1st or the 14th amendment.

Congress cannot outlaw the free practice of religion, nor can it make any established religious group the national church. There is nothing about not passing laws that have their basis in religious principles, and the religious principle against homosexual unions is NOT limited to Christianity! Also, by the way, there is a difference between restricting practice and not extending benefits. If homosexuals want to be gay, I'll let them be gay. But I'm not interested in the government extending benefits to their relationships in opposition to my beliefs.

I know for a fact that two people being in a relationship does not harm me. Can you demonstrate any way in which they harm you that isn't "I think it is icky!"?

They harm society by promoting a relationship that distorts human sexuality and obscures the sexes. Therefore, their relationships should not be sanctioned.

Actually it is. There are many things that the government allows that are against my moral code. Hunting for pleasure is one of them. However, I am intelligent enough to recognize that (a) the 1st Amendment bars me from passing a law based on nothing but my particular religious views and (b) not everyone subscribes to my particular religious views. Do you see the difference?

So, your morals prevent you from thinking you have a right to restrict what others do. But your morals do not prevent you from thinking you have a right to make sure that others also do not influence the government to be restrictive, thusly forcing your moral of not restricting what others do onto others.

And your point is what? I am simply talking about the extent to which the Constitution allows those who so choose to control their government.

My point is that your morals agree with your interpretation of the Constitution. My morals do not agree with your interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, you'll use the Constitution to restrict the influence of my morals on the government.

If you knew anything about the law, you would know that this is entirely untrue. Homosexuals have no legal way in which to ensure that they don't have to pay inheritance tax on at least half of the value of the house to Uncle Sam in the event that a tragedy occurs and one partner dies.

Boohoo. The same goes for unmarried heterosexual couples, and since homosexual couples do not constitute a marriage, there you have it.

You're right. It isn't biologically their child. Just like my stepfather is not my biological father. I guess step-parents should never have any way of being a legal guardian for the children they take care of.

I didn't say that, did I? I specifically mentioned the legal guardian. If the surviving homosexual partner is not a legal guardian of the child, he has no rights over the child. Period.

The actual parent may be a stay-at-home parent with no way to provide health insurance. Try again.

Then maybe the actual parent should STOP BEING a stay-at-home parent and START WORKING to provide health insurance.

And if you really want kids being without health insurance because some people hold bigotted views of their parents, go right on ahead and push for it. You won't get much respect from me.

Frankly, I could care less how much you respect me. Kids do not have a universal right to health care. No one does.

Ok, then, we will take out all benefits of marriage that allow heterosexual couples to jointly purchase/adopt something. Then, no rights will be denied to anyone.

Fine by me, although no one was being denied rights in the first place.

And some people don't think interracial couples should be able to build a life together. Does that mean it is perfectly ok to ban such marriages?

Nope. Marriage is not "a union between a man and a woman of the same race." It is, however, a union between a man and a woman.

You have no idea what my definition of morality is.

I do have some idea, and it's quite obvious that your definition is not mine.

I haven't advocated the punishment of homosexuals, have I?

So what? The suffering isn't being "inflicted" upon them, is it? Any suffering they undergo as a result of not being able to receive state recognition for their relationship is the result of their own immoral desires.

These two statements are completely irreconcilable.

Would you like to explain to me how? How is not extending benefits to which they are not entitled a punishment?

Many homosexuals believe the Bible. They simply don't believe that all of it is literally the word of God. And when you get down to it, neither does anyone else.

I believe that all of it is literally the word of God. I do not believe that all of it ought to be literally interpreted and applied, as this would make nonsense out of it.

Ok, lets boil this down real simple like. Orden, what is your basis for thinking that marriage can only be extended to a man or a woman. And explain why that basis is valid, or whether you just chose that basis for the hell of it.

Also, What would you say to a civil union between two members of the same sex.

Also, for what reason is it that god has stopped extending his "word" to us. How come he doesnt send forth prophets with his word to tell us about modern issues that arent referenced in the bible, unless made so by various wordsmithing evangelists. Is he dead? Has he forsaken us?

And, how would a prophet handle the word of god, wouldnt that shatter their feeble imperfect human mind? And how would God, this perfect being, trust a fundimentally flawed creature to record his words without corrupting them.

As for Orden, what is Nazism then? It is both spiritual and political. It constitutes religion.

Well, then, so does absolutely any political philosophy which does not outright deny the existence of the spiritual.

Next, Yes, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all essentially theocracies, their leading political groups are all religious groups. They are all fundementalist. Well, unless you call that whole Iraq thing now as a government, but whatever. Thats another issue. lol

Iraq was a secular dictatorship. It was not ruled by any church. And I agree that Iran is and Afghanistan was a theocracy, but they aren't Christian.

And most importantly, you are acknowledging other religions as having basis? Therefore, if other religions are correct how can you possibly say that yours is the only one not going to hell. You are making contradictory arguements.

Where did I acknowledge that other religions the truth? They exist. People believe in them. They occasionally get certain things right. But that doesn't make them the truth. You're building straw men and knocking them down.

Plus, I dont see why people want to make a law based on religion i.e. no gay marriage, because there is a law seperating church and state, as there should be, or else we would have the spanish inquisition and the crusades all over again. The past has shown that when any one religion takes the reins, people die. And for the record, every religion is the "right" one, and they all have a thick book. "Its the word of god." "Ok, how do you know?" "The bible says its the word of god. Duh."

Honestly, if your arguments are going to be so utterly vacuous and devoid of reasoning, I'm not going to continue addressing your points for much longer.

And yes, I may go off on tangents as I see fit, because its fun. And you havent made one convincing point yet that makes me even begin to think you arent going to hell for condemning others. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

You haven't even ADDRESSED my points! You've gone all around them and off on tangents. And I could care less whether you think I'm going to hell. It doesn't bother me, why should it bother you if I think others are? Oh, and as far as Jesus' statement, "Judge not," it might do you well to read it in the context, which condemns hypocritical and false judgement, not judgement in general.

And you also neglected to explain why "Merciful loving God" Condemns all the people previous to the birth of christianity to eternal damnation. Was he incompetent, just an idiot, or a bastard asshole. It has to be one of them.

He didn't condemn them all. But He had a right to, because they all had sinned against Him in various ways. That He saved any at all, and that He continues to save, is evidence of His love of mercy. But He is also holy and just, and unrepentant sin must be punished and the evil destroyed.

Ok, lets boil this down real simple like. Orden, what is your basis for thinking that marriage can only be extended to a man or a woman. And explain why that basis is valid, or whether you just chose that basis for the hell of it.

My basis is ontological, historical, and sociological. I.e., by it's nature, according to the record of history, and in the development and propagation of society, marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman, and the benefits and status granted it have never been granted to any other kind of relationship.

Also, What would you say to a civil union between two members of the same sex.

I would say it ideally shouldn't receive any benefits whatever; but it at least should never receive equivalent benefits to marriage.

How exactly would those without the knowledge of repentance or god acknowledge him and repent their sins which they didnt know were wrong in the first place. Thats inane.

Ordon: But guess what? No homosexual is being denied the right to marry! Homosexual couples ARE NOT MARRIAGES.

Forgive my ignorance, but who made the right wing in general (and you in particular) the arbiters of what "marriage" means? I looked up Princeton University's definition in the dictionary:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" [syn: matrimony, union, spousal relationship, wedlock] 2: two people who are married to each other.

Now of course, you'll be able to go to other dictionaries and find definitions that support your point of view. The difference between you and me, however, lies in the fact that I am inclusive, and you are exclusive.

I believe that social equality is one of the building blocks our nation was founded on. I believe that God approves of our efforts to achieve greater justice for the masses. Why else would He put us on this world, if not to help each other?

What makes the love of two men or two women different from the love of a man and a woman? Will you discern between their chromosomes? Love is one of those great, unconquerable forces of human nature. It transcends all other powers, even death. If love beats death itself, I'm pretty sure it transcends your sex, a relatively minor condition by comparison.

I think that in their hearts, the social conservatives who rail so loudly against gay marriage are afraid. People often seem to fear things which they don't understand. They don't make any effort TO understand, to accept. Gays and lesbians are enemies to be destroyed, to these people. It's not right. It's not right to forbid marriage on such trivial grounds. Reread your Bibles and learn something about "turning the other cheek".

I suggest you move to the Vatican, as that is the only place anyone is damn fool enough to put their entire world in the hands of some decrepit self contradicting religion.
This whole arguement is rediculous because god gave humans free will. Why should anyone care if gays want to marry, they are the ones who supposedly have to pay for it.If we werent supposed to sin, we would lack the capacity, it wouldnt be in human nature. If humans were created in gods image, he is one twisted psychotic confused son of a bitch.

God must he himself have the capacity for homosexuality or it wouldnt be in humans, as we are in his image. God, in all his might, is a glorified homophobe.

This is, I believe, the third time you've presented this ludicrous argument to me. You, as an individual, have a general right to engage in marriage.

It is not a general right if I have to have someone else to do it.

Congress cannot outlaw the free practice of religion, nor can it make any established religious group the national church. There is nothing about not passing laws that have their basis in religious principles, and the religious principle against homosexual unions is NOT limited to Christianity!

There is if all religions don't feel that way and your only reasoning is religious. If that is the case, Congress is establishing a national church as being right.

Also, by the way, there is a difference between restricting practice and not extending benefits. If homosexuals want to be gay, I'll let them be gay. But I'm not interested in the government extending benefits to their relationships in opposition to my beliefs.

Check the 14th amendment. The govnerment cannot extend benefits to one group and not to another without showing a compelling interest. They have not done so in this case. This is no different from disallowing homosexuals to get driver's licenses, hunting licenses, or a defense attorney based on their sexuality.

They harm society by promoting a relationship that distorts human sexuality and obscures the sexes. Therefore, their relationships should not be sanctioned.

Ok, so you (a) haven't studied sexuality and (b) are a sexist who thinks people should fall into societal gender roles. Well, that is great for you. Do you think we should legislate that women should stay at home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen too?

Besides, if your morals are so weak that someone else not following them makes you not follow them either, it seems like you have a problem.

So, your morals prevent you from thinking you have a right to restrict what others do. But your morals do not prevent you from thinking you have a right to make sure that others also do not influence the government to be restrictive, thusly forcing your moral of not restricting what others do onto others.

I am not talking about my morals here. You have no right to harm others (and if you can find something in the Constitution that says you do, by all means show it to me). By being restrictive without just cause, you are doing so.

My point is that your morals agree with your interpretation of the Constitution. My morals do not agree with your interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, you'll use the Constitution to restrict the influence of my morals on the government.

Fine, let's legislate that everyone has to go to church on Sunday and have a family Bible. After all, your morals are just fine being legislated into the government. While we're at it, let's ban eating pork and make women dress in burquas, since Muslim religion dictates that. And how about we ban women from cutting their hair and reallow men to sell their daughters into slavery - that is all Biblical.

Boohoo. The same goes for unmarried heterosexual couples, and since homosexual couples do not constitute a marriage, there you have it.

You are an idiot. The unmarried heterosexual couples have the option of getting married and having the protections applied to them, homosexual couples have no such recourse.

This is like saying "people who don't go get a driver's license aren't allowed to drive. If we ban homosexuals from getting driver's licesnses, they will be just like heterosexuals who chose not to go get a driver's license. Therefore, no rights are being denied."

I didn't say that, did I? I specifically mentioned the legal guardian. If the surviving homosexual partner is not a legal guardian of the child, he has no rights over the child. Period.

How compassionate you are that you would rip a child away from the parent who has raised him all of his life just because of your own personal views of the parent's actions. It is great that you advocate doing irreperable harm to other people just because you think it's icky that they have sex you don't like.

Then maybe the actual parent should STOP BEING a stay-at-home parent and START WORKING to provide health insurance.

That is not your choice to make. Many people decide to be stay-at-home parents. Do you think all of them should go out and get a job just so that they can be the ones to provide health insurance. More to the point, do you think this is a bad thing:

-Mother has a child from a previous marriage.
-Mother marries father and father adopts child.
-Mother stays at home to take care of children, house, etc. because it the couple decided that someone should stay home with the children.
-Father works and has a job that provides health insurance.
-Father extends health insurance benefits to mother and child.

Now, unless you think the above situation is inherently wrong, you haven't got a leg to stand on here.

Frankly, I could care less how much you respect me. Kids do not have a universal right to health care. No one does.

I didn't say they do. What I said was that, if it is possible, they should have health care. You are denying them that possibility.

Nope. Marriage is not "a union between a man and a woman of the same race." It is, however, a union between a man and a woman.

Well, that's what it used to be, and it got changed. If you are not against the idea of marriage being changed to include interracial unions, then you are obviously not against having the definition changed. You just are a bigotted ass who hates gays because you have no understanding of biology, love, or society. I understand.

Would you like to explain to me how? How is not extending benefits to which they are not entitled a punishment?

What you said in that post was first, that you are not advocating punishing homosexuals and second, that homosexuals deserve suffering for what they do. These two statements are quite clearly irreconcilable.


I believe that all of it is literally the word of God. I do not believe that all of it ought to be literally interpreted and applied, as this would make nonsense out of it.

So your God condones slavery, genocide, denigration of women, murder of a rape victim if she is inside a town or city and no one comes to her rescue (so much for all the rape victims in New York), ostracizing women during their natural menstruation period, etc.?

According to your God, we should enslave all of the Iraquis, since we won the war and all.

Wow, I'm really glad that the 1st Amendment keeps us from passing laws based on nothing more than what you think your God said.

Reread your Bibles and learn something about "turning the other cheek".

Not that I don't agree with your general sentiment, but know that this is a bad example to use here. If read in the proper context, one realizes that "turn the other cheek" is not "lay down and deal with it" but is, in fact, a very effective form of passive resistance.

http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~rah56/images/handy/images/godsays.jpg

They are "evils" in the sense that they are not nice, pleasant things. They are not moral evils, however, which is what I took to be the meaning.

I see. They are still evils, however, which contradicts what you said earlier.

I doubt it. But I didn't say that homosexuals were the most influential people; I said they were one.

In which case I feel you are incorrect.

Gay rights activists may be one of the most influential groups, and these activists include all kinds of people.

Polygamy was not a different definition of marriage; polygamy is engaging in more than one marriage at a time. Marriage is and has always been a union between a man and a woman.

Polygamy was accepted practice in biblical times and in Muslim countries, while it is not acceptable in the US and most western countries today.

I notice something about the liberal/conservative stance on freedom.

Libertarians and anarchists will not restrict any freedom at all.

Liberals will only restrict freedom if they feel it is harmful to society or the general good.

Conservatives will only restrict freedom if it conflicts with their religion.

I think gay-marriage is a non-issue. Who really cares if gays want to get married. Will it change your life? If you're not gay it probably won't.

But still, I think an anti-gay marriage bill is the stupidist idea ever, because marriage has always been and should remain a reserved power for the States. The federal government should not even be discussing it.

:headbang: There's a few reasons why I hate threads like these, one is that they attract hot headed idiot talk, another is that with a few outstanding exceptions they are exactly the same and the other is that they promote extra division in an allready non-too-stable community.

There's a common patterns to these threads, nothing ever changes. I can tell you now how the next one of these threads will turn out:
- Person posts already argued P.O.V.
- Someone argues against.
- Idiots flame and argue back.
- That someone holds his ground.
- Any coherent discussion is lots and the thread moves off on a tangeant because: Surprise! Surprise! Another message board is unable to shake peoples opinions with boring arguments and pety nit-picking.

Here's an idea: Shut up.
Find something new to talk about for God's sake, or at least for your own sake. You'll send each other nuts with your pathetic attempts at pasting your regurgitated opinions onto the internet and trying to argue them.

There's got to be something else for you people to argue about. Or if you'd really like to get onto the issue take it to you senator. Write a letter, just please don't type up another post.

:headbang: There's a few reasons why I hate threads like these, one is that they attract hot headed idiot talk, another is that with a few outstanding exceptions they are exactly the same and the other is that they promote extra division in an allready non-too-stable community.

There's a common patterns to these threads, nothing ever changes. I can tell you now how the next one of these threads will turn out:
- Person posts already argued P.O.V.
- Someone argues against.
- Idiots flame and argue back.
- That someone holds his ground.
- Any coherent discussion is lots and the thread moves off on a tangeant because: Surprise! Surprise! Another message board is unable to shake peoples opinions with boring arguments and pety nit-picking.

Here's an idea: Shut up.
Find something new to talk about for God's sake, or at least for your own sake. You'll send each other nuts with your pathetic attempts at pasting your regurgitated opinions onto the internet and trying to argue them.

There's got to be something else for you people to argue about. Or if you'd really like to get onto the issue take it to you senator. Write a letter, just please don't type up another post.


Heres why. Because its fun.

You obviously dont think so, so dont bother reading the post.
I personally find it interesting to know other peoples opinions, and as tangents go, message boards are just glorified chat rooms.
Go start your anti-post post or something. Shoo

A will does not keep someone from having to pay so much inheritance tax on a house that they have to sell the house to pay the taxes.

I agree, that's quite unfair, that's why estate taxes need to go.

But heterosexual couples do have protection from it. Even in the absence of a recognized second biological parent, homosexual couples do not.

I don't think you got my point.

Let's say you have a kid with someone, and you marry your current partner, and the kid's parent refuses to allow adoption, you die, your current partner gets squat even if he's raised the child for years. The real issue comes to a log ahead because blood relatives are far more inclined to challenge a same sex parent (not to mention the courts will lean against them), but the reasons behind this will be addressed at the end of my post.

I never said that. I simply pointed out that child (inherently likely to be sick or have an injury more often than adults) should not be denied health insurance just becaues you don't like their parental arrangement.

Then pay for it? The child isn't being denied health insurance, whose right is it to decide how health insurance policies function? I'd say the health insurance company. Havign a couple actuary friends, there's actually a reason the insurance companies don't want this (they could easily add, a defacto partner clause, they choose not to), that's because they risk rate them higher and so they'd have to increase everyone's policies to compensate.

You haven't looked into law much if you think a will provides all of the protections of marriage.

Other than children, there are ways to protect everything.

My material is quite accurate, you just don't care because you think homosexuals are somehow "lesser people." As for the courts, they are not dictators, they are checked by the legislature and executive branch just as much as any of the three branches. Stop being pissed off at the judicial branch for doing their job and get on your legislative and executive branch to use their power of checks and balances if you don't like the decisions being made.

Wow, go the ad hominem, I read your legislative branch is though, that lovely no court can has the right to hear an appeal against this clause being added to DOMA, probably sick of activist judges *shrug*.

Wow, so you subscribe to a view of family that has only been around since the 50's? Well, that is fine, just don't try to claim tradition, or that "this is the way it has always been."

Gravity existed well before it was defined also. The date of occurrence of a definition term has no real reflection on just how long the concept has been around.

So you would support a law banning the government from recognizing marriage at all?

I wouldn't care if it occured, except for one key issue to follow.

But you just said that you don't understand the concept of having the government recognize marriage.

Actually the reason the government has controlled marriage laws for most of the modern history is because they've used the tax system unique to them (that and dependant taxes) to control population growth, "different marriages" were never even considered until recently. In fact it's the only reason I support government marriage laws, as I consider population control in this sort of invisible manner a requirement. (invisible as in 99% of the population would probably think I'm making this up, might makes right after all).

You might be surprised to hear that there are many non religious reasons for thinking same sex marriage is absurd, and in the case of children, one of the most vocal group against same sex parents after religious groups is homosexual groups.

Have you ever considered the welfare of the child rather than the couple? no matter what liberal flavour you want to dose it with, same sex couples ARE shunned by great swabs of general society. Same sex couples can make good or bad parents as much as any hetero couple, but the fact they are same sex adds another problem for the child to deal with when growing up.

Making a child a political statement because you feel you are oppressed is a disgrace, and the fact they can't see it only makes it worse.

This issue is going to go one of 2 ways, either the government is just going to start flexing its muscles and obliterate any hope, or people will just stop caring, and say what the heck, doesn't make a diff, and until the latter occurs (I don't have any vested interests in it going either way, I wouldn't care) I will be against same sex child raising. This is also a reason why you will find courts tend to give them next to no parental rights even without legislation.

Gay Marriage need not take from hetrosexual marraige, why on earth would it Ordon. What are you scared that homosexual marriage would be more successful and make hetrosexuals look bad. Of course friggin not! It wouldn't effect hetrosexuals at all.

Equality for all, no matter what. If Jesus wanted anything, I'd say that was one of the things he wanted. Love is not a throw away issue as you so claim it to be. If you have a loveless life, in the end, no matter what, you will be the one that has lost.

What the Bible says about marraige:


That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one flesh.
Gen 2:24

After the flood, God gives the whole world 7 basic laws to abide by. These are known as the Laws of Noah, since everyone's descended from Noah.

1. BELIEF IN G-D
Do not worship Idols

2. RESPECT G-D AND PRAISE HIM
Do Not Blaspheme His Name

3. RESPECT HUMAN LIFE
Do Not Murder

4. RESPECT THE FAMILY
Do Not Commit Immoral Sexual Acts

5. RESPECT FOR OTHERS’ RIGHTS AND PROPERTY
Do Not Steal

6. CREATION OF A JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Pursue Justice

7. RESPECT ALL CREATURES
Do Not Eat the Flesh of An Animal While it is Still Alive

If you'll look at #4, you'll notice the law against sexual immorality. Many commentators have expounded this law to mean the prohibition against homosexuality as well.

And then there's the destruction of Soddom and Gemorrah (as describe in 19:3-5)

But he urged them persistently, so they turned aside with him and entered his house. He prepared a feast for them, including bread baked without yeast, and they ate. Before they could lie down to sleep, all the men—both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom—surrounded the house. They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”

Clearly homosexuality was one of the causes of Soddom's destruction, otherwise, why would it have specifically been mentioned in the chapter about its destruction?

So tell me then, why are there still so may homosexuals if they can't even reproduce?

Where, pray tell, are those "7 Laws of Noah", so I may look them up? Because it sure looks like you're adding what's not there, thus sinning already by adding stuff that's not in the bible.

Also, when you retold the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, you also blasphemed, as "so we can have sex with them" is nowhere in the Bible. It's "so we may know them".

Also, why, if I was a Christian, should I heed the words of a worthless man, when the Lord Jesus Christ stated that the ultimate sin that they were destroyed for was inhospitability?

Since when does marriage have anythng to do with ethics? Half the people against gay marriages believe fully in "shotgun weddings" anyway.

Clearly homosexuality was one of the causes of Soddom's destruction, otherwise, why would it have specifically been mentioned in the chapter about its destruction?Meh? Might not have non-consent have something to do with it? Just because forced sex with Lot's daughters would have been a-ok doesn't mean that forced sex with (presumed) men would have been.

Also, when you retold the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, you also blasphemed, as "so we can have sex with them" is nowhere in the Bible. It's "so we may know them".Translations vary. As do the reasons given in the bible for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Then pay for it? The child isn't being denied health insurance, whose right is it to decide how health insurance policies function? I'd say the health insurance company. Havign a couple actuary friends, there's actually a reason the insurance companies don't want this (they could easily add, a defacto partner clause, they choose not to), that's because they risk rate them higher and so they'd have to increase everyone's policies to compensate.

That excuse is stupid. If the insurance companies are so worried about risk rating homosexuals higher, they shouldn't cover homosexuals at all. Last time I checked, they do. Besides, homosexuals in a stable, committed relationship are no more of a risk than heterosexuals in a similar relationship, so health insurance companies are full of shit if they use that excuse.

Other than children, there are ways to protect everything.

Wrong again, but thanks for playing. Look up the marriage laws.

Wow, go the ad hominem, I read your legislative branch is though, that lovely no court can has the right to hear an appeal against this clause being added to DOMA, probably sick of activist judges *shrug*.

Wrong again. No court lower than the Supreme Court has the right to hear an appeal against DOMA. The Supreme Court itself can accept any case relating to it that they wish to.

Gravity existed well before it was defined also. The date of occurrence of a definition term has no real reflection on just how long the concept has been around.

I wasn't talking about the term, I was talking about he concept. Nuclear family is a very new concept. Before the '50's, children were raised by parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, older siblings, etc. all living either in the same house or at least on the same land. When (in the '50s or so) people started moving to the man, woman, 2.5 kids, and a dog family that we now call the nuclear family, more "traditional" families yelled and screamed that it would be the downfall of society (sound familiar?). Personally, I tend to agree with them much more than the idiots who claim that homosexual parents are inherently bad parents - anyone who thinks all their kids need are two role models, one male and one female, are seriously selling their kids short.

Have you ever considered the welfare of the child rather than the couple? no matter what liberal flavour you want to dose it with, same sex couples ARE shunned by great swabs of general society. Same sex couples can make good or bad parents as much as any hetero couple, but the fact they are same sex adds another problem for the child to deal with when growing up.

And I suppose you are against interracial couples having children as well then? Or disabled parents? Or fat parents? Or parents with moles on their chins? Children are made fun of about their parents, no matter what type of parents they have.

Besides, in most cases these children will be adopted. They will be shunned by a large part of their peers for being foster kids, or orphanage kids *on top of* not having a stable, loving family. Which do you think is better?

first of all i would like to point out all these who say "If I was Christian" or things like that well you are not Christian so stop quoting the bible and telling Christians what they should believe. Secondly marriage is not an inalienable right and thus can be denied to certain people without sin. We, Christians, are not intolerable when we do not accept the way homosexuals live their lives for there is a difference between tolerating people and condoning what they do.

first of all i would like to point out all these who say "If I was Christian" or things like that well you are not Christian so stop quoting the bible and telling Christians what they should believe. Secondly marriage is not an inalienable right and thus can be denied to certain people without sin. We, Christians, are not intolerable when we do not accept the way homosexuals live their lives for there is a difference between tolerating people and condoning what they do.

I am a Christian and I call bullshit.

You are right that marriage is not an inalienable right and if the government stopped giving marriage licenses altogether, there would be no problem. But our government is not a theocracy and your particular version of Christianity does not make the laws for it, thus by the 14th Amendment, homosexuals are entitled to equal protection. If the government is going to provide benefits for civil marriage to [/i]anyone[/i], they must do so equally.

No one is asking you to condone anything, you are simply being asked to stop trying to enforce your religion on others - it is unChristian to do so.

first of all i would like to point out all these who say "If I was Christian" or things like that well you are not Christian so stop quoting the bible and telling Christians what they should believe. Secondly marriage is not an inalienable right and thus can be denied to certain people without sin. We, Christians, are not intolerable when we do not accept the way homosexuals live their lives for there is a difference between tolerating people and condoning what they do.

You're very wrong about Christians not accepting gay marriage. As a matter of fact, some Christian Churches already bless same-sex unions, even though it's not necessarily legal where they perform the ceremony. Not all Christian denominations denouce same-sex couples.

If you say that it's you Catholics who doesn't accept the way homosexuals live, then it's another story.

first of all i would like to point out all these who say "If I was Christian" or things like that well you are not Christian so stop quoting the bible and telling Christians what they should believe. Secondly marriage is not an inalienable right and thus can be denied to certain people without sin. We, Christians, are not intolerable when we do not accept the way homosexuals live their lives for there is a difference between tolerating people and condoning what they do.

Surprise surprise-some churches DO allow homosexuals to wed.

And here's the great thing: you don't have to accept it.

If two gay people are married, you can think to your grinchy little self "They arn't REALLY married!"



Hell, the Catholic church does it. Anyone who isn't married Catholic isn't considered married to them.But do they try to force a "only Catholics can get married" rule?

Where, pray tell, are those "7 Laws of Noah", so I may look them up? Because it sure looks like you're adding what's not there, thus sinning already by adding stuff that's not in the bible.

Also, when you retold the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, you also blasphemed, as "so we can have sex with them" is nowhere in the Bible. It's "so we may know them".

Also, why, if I was a Christian, should I heed the words of a worthless man, when the Lord Jesus Christ stated that the ultimate sin that they were destroyed for was inhospitability?

The Seven Laws of Noah are mentioned in many old books, of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages. However, the Hebrew one (the Talmud) is the only one that lists the first 6 and then the 7th later, which Noah was given. it also expounds them, while the others simply mention them.

And secondly, I am aware of what it says relating to Soddom and Gemorrah, that they wanted to "know" them. In the Bible however, the verb "to know" commonly refers to sexual relations (such as Genesis 4:1 "Now the man had known his wife and she concieved and bore Cain saying..." and again later in 4:17 "And Cain knew his wife and she concieved and bore Enoch.") "Know doesn't mean that he knew who she was, because then that would have nothing to do with her bearing a kid.

What the Bible says about marraige:



Gen 2:24

After the flood, God gives the whole world 7 basic laws to abide by. These are known as the Laws of Noah, since everyone's descended from Noah.



If you'll look at #4, you'll notice the law against sexual immorality. Many commentators have expounded this law to mean the prohibition against homosexuality as well.

And then there's the destruction of Soddom and Gemorrah (as describe in 19:3-5)

Clearly homosexuality was one of the causes of Soddom's destruction, otherwise, why would it have specifically been mentioned in the chapter about its destruction?

So tell me then, why are there still so may homosexuals if they can't even reproduce?

Come ON people! This is coming out of a book that was written thousands of years ago by HUMAN BEINGS! God only gave us the stone tablets...the Bible was of human manufacture. Are you going to judge social policy in the modern world on a book written by people THAT far back? They could not have possibly anticipated the modern scenario!

And there are homosexuals because it's a natural, biological condition. Don't you guys understand the pain we are causing them by persecuting them? Do you WANT to inflict pain and suffering on others?! God doesn't approve of that! It's wrong! When did YOU presume to judge people? When last I'd checked, it's God that does the judging, not puny mortal humans.

Gay Marriage need not take from hetrosexual marraige, why on earth would it Ordon. What are you scared that homosexual marriage would be more successful and make hetrosexuals look bad. Of course friggin not! It wouldn't effect hetrosexuals at all.

Equality for all, no matter what. If Jesus wanted anything, I'd say that was one of the things he wanted. Love is not a throw away issue as you so claim it to be. If you have a loveless life, in the end, no matter what, you will be the one that has lost.

Besides, if you will recall, Jesus deliberately steered clear of enforcing religious law on secular society. He did not oppose the Romans. His was the first wall between church and state, if you will. ;) (Even if he had no church at the time).

And by making marriage more inclusive by including gays and lesbians, you make it larger and stronger than it was before. I am a history major. I can see the interrelationships. And one thing I've learned is that divided systems fall, while united systems endure.

So let me get this straight.

To an alcoholic we say your life style is destructive , stop doing that. We will help you if you want.

To the coke addict we say your life style is destructive, stop doing that. We will help if you want.

To the smoker we say your habit is destructive, stop doing that. We will help if you want.

To the homosexual we say that's nice. Keep doing that. If fact we will help you if you want. Maybe if you got married then people would know that you live in a committed relationship and be more accepting of you.

I did not know I like to drink until I had a drink. When I misused that pleasure people became concerned and tried to stop me. I did not like coke until I tried it or smoking either. Why should we be discussing gay marriage. When we should be seeking to save people from a very unhealthy lifestyle? Just like we try to educate the alcoholic, the coke addict and the smoker about how harmful their behavior is to themselves and to others

So let me get this straight.

To an alcoholic we say your life style is destructive , stop doing that. We will help you if you want.

To the coke addict we say your life style is destructive, stop doing that. We will help if you want.

To the smoker we say your habit is destructive, stop doing that. We will help if you want.

To the homosexual we say that's nice. Keep doing that. If fact we will help you if you want. Maybe if you got married then people would know that you live in a committed relationship and be more accepting of you.

I did not know I like to drink until I had a drink. When I misused that pleasure people became concerned and tried to stop me. I did not like coke until I tried it or smoking either. Why should we be discussing gay marriage. When we should be seeking to save people from a very unhealthy lifestyle? Just like we try to educate the alcoholic, the coke addict and the smoker about how harmful their behavior is to themselves and to others
demonstrate how homosexuality is unhealthy before you make these claims. be sure to explain why homosexual females are less likely to contract STDs than heterosexual females, and why the life expectancy for homosexual females is 2 years higher than that for their heterosexual counterparts.

We could all cite studies written by people who support our own viewpoint. In your heart, do you really believe that male homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle?

If the answer is yes. There is little I could say to alter your position. If the answer is no, why do we not try to educate them to alter their behavior?

We could all cite studies written by people who support our own viewpoint. In your heart, do you really believe that male homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle?

If the answer is yes. There is little I could say to alter your position. If the answer is no, why do we not try to educate them to alter their behavior?
unlike yourself (apparently), i am easily swayed by conclusive evidence on any subject. i haven't decided to support or oppose gay rights purely because of my personal feelings on the subject, but rather have based my opinions on empirical evidence. if new evidence is brought to my attention then i will be more than willing to re-examine my position.

the answer to your first question is that i have been given no reason to believe the male homosexual lifestyle is inherently less healthy than the male heterosexual lifestyle. in some ways it might be considered more healthy, since the potential for fathering unwanted children is significantly lower. i also find it interesting that you specify MALE homosexual lifestyle; does this mean that you support lesbianism, but not male homosexuality? how can you condemn homosexuality in general, if you only object to the acts performed by homosexual males?

the answer to your second question is that we already do educate homosexuals about the dangers of sexual relationships, just as we educate heterosexuals about those dangers. sexual education in America isn't segregated by the sexual orientation of the students, so gay students will receive the same education as straight ones. of course, the dangers of such acts as anal sex are equally valid for heterosexual couples, so i am still not sure what specific dangers you are referring to as "homosexual" in nature.

Cross-posting from another thread, since that one was not answered.

I am advocating the establishment and continuation of a particular social norm, not any and all social norms under the sun.

Why this particular social norm and not another? Why is it superior to have children raised by a "nuclear family"? Why not large families that include aunts uncles, grandparents or cousins living in the same house or neighbor hood, sharing responsibility for each other's children. Obviously the parents excercise final control over their offspring, but perhaps they are very busy performing other functions for this large group of common genetic interest. The other community members come in and fill this gap. And, since we're all civilized people, why can't communities of mutually agreeable, unrelated, folks get together and raise children?

As a society, sometimes we take children away from parents we deem unfit. This implies that we collectively have responsibility for children in the macro sense. Does this apply to smaller situations?

Personally, I think the concept of the nuclear family has been overdone, and it leads to disconnected, disaffected children who have a hard time relating to others. Children are stuck in front of the TV, and isolated from complex, real social dynamics because they have smaller social circles than they would if they lived in a more tribal environment - which is what we're evolved for. Take a look at the social structures of the apes, which are simplified models of human interactions. Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey make for fascinating reading.

A healthy stable society does not necessarily result from the model of a man, a woman, and their 2.5 children.

Some research indicates that homosexuality arises as a result of overpopulation pressures, indicating that there are plenty of children, and propagation needs to slow. The theory is that the homosexual members of the family function as aunties and uncles and proagate their genes by helping to raise and provide for children that they are related to. Whoa! Sounds like a sensible, stable way to do things. (I believe this research was mentioned in Discover magazine, but I'm not going through 15 years of back issues tonight.)

Logically however, this suggests that homosexuals should not seek children of their own. However, it does suggest that they make perfectly competent and acceptable caregivers. But wait! Modern farming and food distribution techniques make it possible to healthily support a population that would be "overcrowded". Ergo, there is no biological reason for homosexuals not to raise children.

So, is it "normal" that homosexuals should form healthy pair-bonds? Well, if this great system that the process of evolution (or perhaps divine design) has developed, why do these "auxiliary" members of society have any sexual / pair-bonding instincts at all? Why are they not sexually / pair-bonding neutral? It seems to be a stable, natural arrangement, why is it "wrong" to be homosexual?

The only argument that I've heard that "might" make sense is that homosexuality is an "aberration" inflicted by satan, and that same-sex attraction is a corruption of the body and soul by same.

But, if you believe that, I believe you subscribe to a unstable worldview that will not propagate healthy children that are good for healthy society, and probably should avoid having them at all costs.

There is relevance to love in marriage, but "love" as it is typically understood---an emotional attachment based on "good feelings" about and sexual attraction to another person---is not the foundation of marriage, nor is it ultimately of any real importance. This kind of "love" fades in and out. Real love is COMMITMENT, which I have expressed is essential to marriage.

Is the implication that homosexuals are not capable of the level of commitment required to sustain a same-sex marriage / lifetime civil union?

Have you ever considered the welfare of the child rather than the couple? no matter what liberal flavour you want to dose it with, same sex couples ARE shunned by great swabs of general society. Same sex couples can make good or bad parents as much as any hetero couple, but the fact they are same sex adds another problem for the child to deal with when growing up.

So, since racial minorities and even mixed-race couples are shunned by large portions of society, they shouldn't be allowed to get marred and have children either.

BUNK.

EDIT: The people doing the shunning are the ones using it as an argument against gay marriage. Talk about an obscenity of logic! (I'm not just getting on your case Vold - lots of people do this.)

That excuse is stupid. If the insurance companies are so worried about risk rating homosexuals higher, they shouldn't cover homosexuals at all. Last time I checked, they do. Besides, homosexuals in a stable, committed relationship are no more of a risk than heterosexuals in a similar relationship, so health insurance companies are full of shit if they use that excuse.

Homosexual couples are just as likely as heterosexual couples to cheat, a cheating homosexual is at higher risk than a cheating homosexual. Insurance companies don't consider monogamy a given.

Wrong again, but thanks for playing. Look up the marriage laws.

Other than stupid antiquated estate laws, how is it impossible to protect all property in death, this was about property transfer upon death....

Wrong again. No court lower than the Supreme Court has the right to hear an appeal against DOMA. The Supreme Court itself can accept any case relating to it that they wish to.

An appeal to the Supreme court is after a lower court has heard it, but since no lower court is allowed to, apppellate jurisdiction never occurs, the only way it could be heard is through direct hearing, which is restricted in the writing of the law.

And even if they did choose to, the government could force it out by stating the only direct jurisdiction the supreme court is allowed is in cases of State vs State, but to make sure this wasn't bent, it was added also.

I'd also be willing to put money on the Supreme Court not choosing to hear it even if they could, since the last thing they would want to do is state that the government stripping all courts of power is legitimate.

And I suppose you are against interracial couples having children as well then? Or disabled parents? Or fat parents? Or parents with moles on their chins? Children are made fun of about their parents, no matter what type of parents they have.

Do you seriously think these are even in the same playing field? no seriously, do you? How many states do you think would have a referendum that supported not extending marriage rights to black people? fat people? A big fat 0, these issues are apples and oranges.

Now time to debunk some other arguments

Clearly homosexuality was one of the causes of Soddom's destruction, otherwise, why would it have specifically been mentioned in the chapter about its destruction?

The adding of homosexuality to Sodom and Gammorrah (sp?) was entirely the product of a Greek Philosopher/writer named Philo who was alive shortly before Jesus (just to make sure, we created the word Sodomy). Previous to that S + G's destruction was entirely because they were murdering, destructive, etc, the point was they reaped what they sowed, murder and destruction. Note : I'm not saying that the "Word is wrong", I'm saying the church bent it to mean something that was unintended, much like calling Lucifer the devil (when it was clearly a reference to Nebuchadnezzar).

The question of course is, where did this agenda come from, well I suppose if you read Plato's books, especially laws 8, it might become clear. Plato was the first person to echo the idea that sexual intercourse should be limited to marriage only (man and woman only obviously, since marriage was seen as a contract to produce children) as he saw the people who achieved the most in greek society abstained from "sexual frenzy" in order to pursue more noble goals.

Of course he was right, the great athletes abstained indefinitely, and neither Plato, nor Socrates, nor Alexander the Great (an often spread myth is these 3 did, however all writings tend to indicate they didn't, Alexander especially, was a mummy's boy in the purist sense (isn't that ironic, the greatest military leader to ever live was a mummy's boy), and his mother despised Philip's affairs and had her son taught Plato's theory to respect his wife(s) as his only sexual partners) engaged in "sexual frenzy" which was defined as sex outside of marriage. ie the greatest athletes, the greatest thinkers and the greatest leader of Greece all disavowed their rampant sexuality in search of "higher goals".

After all, it is Plato and Aristotle who are the fathers of western society.
Plato leading to much of the direction of thinking of Paul, Augustine; Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas.

Personally, I think the concept of the nuclear family has been overdone, and it leads to disconnected, disaffected children who have a hard time relating to others.

I agree with you there, when I used nuclear family, i didn't mean all encompassing husband wife and that's it. I meant the loose leaf meaning of what construed the parental structure rather than the entire family structure.

We, Christians, are not intolerable when we do not accept the way homosexuals live their lives

No, you are not intolerable, but you are intolerant.


On an unrelated note, Voldavia, Plato is widely regarded as gay, or at least bi.
See, for instance, this link: http://www.glbtq.com/literature/plato.html , which uses a lot of primary sources so should be hard to dismiss out-of-hand. I don't know what you think of Wikipedia, but I find it is hardly ever wrong, and it lists Plato as a "confirmed" queer and Aristotle as "debated" on its List of famous queer academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_gay%2C_lesbian%2C_or_bisexual_academics).

Do you seriously think these are even in the same playing field? no seriously, do you? How many states do you think would have a referendum that supported not extending marriage rights to black people? fat people? A big fat 0, these issues are apples and oranges.
There have been many recent referendums on whether or not to remove racist language from state constitutions, including bans on interracial marriage. The percentages of people voting to retain the language are frightening. Definitely indicative of the amount of open racism still existing in America.

http://www.jbhe.com/features/37_white_racism.html

First, in 1996, an initiative was proposed to voters in Kentucky to repeal a provision in the state's constitution that stipulated that black and white children could not be educated in the same classrooms. Of course, this provision was nullified by the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court in the Brown decision, but the ban on racially integrated education remained in the official Kentucky state constitution for another 42 years. In 1996 Kentucky voters passed an amendment to remove the provision. However, nearly 250,000 Kentuckians, about a third of the total Kentucky electorate, voted to keep the provision as part of the official state constitution.
Two years later, in 1998, South Carolina voters were presented with the opportunity to remove an 1895 provision from the state constitution that banned marriages between blacks and whites. Of course, this clause also was moot because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that laws forbidding interracial marriages were unconstitutional. However, the provision remained part of the state constitution.
As expected, the amendment to the South Carolina constitution passed easily. But the remarkable aspect of the vote was the fact that in 1998 326,000 South Carolinians, 38 percent of the total South Carolina electorate, voted to retain the provision as part of the state constitution. In fact, a majority of voters in six counties in South Carolina voted to keep the ban on interracial marriage as part of the fundamental charter of the state.
In November 2000, voters in Alabama were presented with a referendum to repeal a ban on interracial marriage which had been part of that state's constitution since 1901. More than 525,000 voters in Alabama — some 40 percent of the total electorate — voted to keep this provision as part of the fundamental law of the state. In view of the fact that blacks make up more than 20 percent of the voting age population in the state, and in all likelihood voted almost unanimously to remove the ban, it is probable that a majority of the white voters in the state wished to keep the ban on interracial marriage as part of the Alabama constitution. In fact, the referendum to remove the ban was voted down by a majority of voters in 24 of Alabama's 67 counties.
Finally, in 2002 voters in the traditionally liberal state of Oregon were offered the opportunity to remove racist language from the 1857 state constitution. The original language of the state constitution called for the apportionment of state Supreme and Circuit Court judgeships by the number of people in the "white population." Also, a provision of the 1857 state constitution called for a vote on whether slavery would be permitted in the new state and whether "free Negroes" and "mulattos" would be allowed to own property in the state. Oregon voters at that time voted "No" on both questions. To this day the language has remained part of the state's constitution.
Measure 14, which was put before the voters, called for the removal of the racist language. The measure passed. But 29 percent of all Oregon voters wanted to keep the racist language in the state constitution. More than 339,000 Oregonians voted "No" on the measure.

On an unrelated note, Voldavia, Plato is widely regarded as gay, or at least bi.

It's incorrect (funny that from a gay site), Plato was the person who brought the beginning of the end of sex outside of marriage. It's just people misinterpret the fact that he wrote about what he saw and had no pre conceived notions of discomfort. There were a heck of a lot of same sex relationships in Greece, so he wrote about them, later he used those writings to destroy them as acceptable practices in the Republic and Laws. If anything, Plato was abstinent, as he seemed to believe that sexuality destroyed one's ability to achieve their goals/responsibilities in life.

One thing often missed is Plato used the Socrates character (although unknown Athenian in Laws) as the "wisest one". The rest of his characters were deliberately flawed, sexual frenzy, being one of the core elements that is expressed as being flawed (Never once did "Socrates" ever engage in such a relationship, he stood on and wasn't overly judgemental of it though.)

Ooger, do you realise those laws are aimed at white people, not black people?

IE they are totalitarian grabs at stopping WHITE people from marrying. If you weren't white, you could marry anyone but white, if you were white, you could ONLY marry white, whose the target here?

to help you on your way.

Gay + Gay = Black + Black

To say Gay + gay = white + black shows a law as restrctive to white people as it does black, or do you honestly believe the minorities are the only people being effected, personally as a white man, if i wanted to marry a black, asian, etc and the law was stopping me, I'd feel pretty damn oppressed too ><

Let me reiterate this, those laws are more restrictive to white people than they are to anyone else because you see, black could marry black, white could marry white, black could marry asian, white could not.

white + black would = Gay male + hetero female which is legal.

These rules, even as far back as the Saxons were a case of

"We are superior, therefore we have a responsibility to stop other members of our own kind from ruining their genepool"

The laws have and were always intended to restrict their own kind.

Think about this though, if you as a white man marry a black woman in that sort of society, who is looked down upon further than before by their respective societies?

Obviously, the black woman is not seen differently by the whites, but by the blacks she is, and vice versa for the white male. Xenophobic laws *blech*

Personally, I feel in the end it comes down to this. If anyone can think of a reason not to allow it that isn't religious that can be rebutted, then they've won. However, all the reasons are religious and that violates the church and state seperation bit.

First non-religious one though, would be that it does defy the norm. when it comes to our nature. Of course, white men close to the equate also defy nature and people don't get pissed off about that. We are no longer bound by nature, only by morals that say hurt no one. And who cares what two people are doing when they're having sex?

The sad part for them is that with Plato, it was his writings that influenced Paul and Augustine's writings which banned homosexuality (and sex outside of marriage full stop), yet they continue to propogate that Plato was in fact gay.

Plato wrote that humans must strive for honour, etc, and he wrote that sex outside of marriage (for anything other than child production) was directly harmful to reaching said goals, in fact he claimed in looking at greek society to be the single most harmful thing. Now either the man had no integrity and was a hypocrite, or he was in fact abstinent. Looking at his life, soldier, traveller, scholar, teacher, politician, he was always busy, and he wrote about what he saw and how he thought things should change.

But claiming Plato to be gay is like claiming Hitler was a Jew.

So let me get this straight.

To an alcoholic we say your life style is destructive , stop doing that. We will help you if you want.

To the coke addict we say your life style is destructive, stop doing that. We will help if you want.

To the smoker we say your habit is destructive, stop doing that. We will help if you want.

To the homosexual we say that's nice. Keep doing that. If fact we will help you if you want. Maybe if you got married then people would know that you live in a committed relationship and be more accepting of you.

I did not know I like to drink until I had a drink. When I misused that pleasure people became concerned and tried to stop me. I did not like coke until I tried it or smoking either. Why should we be discussing gay marriage. When we should be seeking to save people from a very unhealthy lifestyle? Just like we try to educate the alcoholic, the coke addict and the smoker about how harmful their behavior is to themselves and to others

Improper analogies. You didn't know you liked to drink before you had a drink. But a homosexual knows they like people of the same gender long before they have sex.

Homosexual couples are just as likely as heterosexual couples to cheat, a cheating homosexual is at higher risk than a cheating homosexual. Insurance companies don't consider monogamy a given.

And why is that, pray tell? Homosexuals are no longer the highest risk group for AIDS, so that can't be what you are talking about. Are homosexuals more likely to get hit by a car while cheating?

Other than stupid antiquated estate laws, how is it impossible to protect all property in death, this was about property transfer upon death....

No, your statement was that all of the protections of marriage can be obtained through other legal means. Your statement was completely false.

An appeal to the Supreme court is after a lower court has heard it, but since no lower court is allowed to, apppellate jurisdiction never occurs, the only way it could be heard is through direct hearing, which is restricted in the writing of the law.

Congress does not have the power to restrict what cases the Supreme Court takes. Otherwise, the entire point of checks and balances would be out the window. They, do, however, have the power to restrict lower courts.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court went fishing for a case involving the recently passed law specifically to strike it down. They don't generally take kindly to power grabs.

Do you seriously think these are even in the same playing field? no seriously, do you? How many states do you think would have a referendum that supported not extending marriage rights to black people? fat people? A big fat 0, these issues are apples and oranges.

Well, there were once laws that banned black people from getting married, that is where the tradition of jumping the broom came from. And the, for many years, there were laws banning interracial marriages (which is actually what I referred to anyways), and those were struck down.

However, this is besides the point. You said that homosexuals should not have children because people shun homosexuals. By that logic, interracial marriages should never have been allowed, or they should have been banned from having children, since such people were shunned by many people. (And believe me, I have seen the ridicule that interracial children get, and it is no worse than anything a child of homosexual parents would receive, or any child with anything at all to pick on for that matter). People of different religions should never wed, because many people will shun them. Your argument falls apart at the seams here.

I notice you ignored the fact that the nuclear family as a concept is very new. You concede that point then?

I agree with you there, when I used nuclear family, i didn't mean all encompassing husband wife and that's it. I meant the loose leaf meaning of what construed the parental structure rather than the entire family structure.

The only decent argument for saying that a child *has* to have a nuclear family is the implication that they need both a single male and a single female role model. If you disagree with this premise, you should have no problem with homosexuals adopting as they can, just like heterosexual couples or single parents, ensure that their children have role models of both genders.

But claiming Plato to be gay is like claiming Hitler was a Jew.

He was half-Jew, and brown haired and brown eyed, and physically handicapped. Looks like Hitler was all the things he hated.

Even if all you say about Plato is true, recent evidence suggests that he woudl then be, in fact, a closet homosexual.

He was half-Jew, and brown haired and brown eyed, and physically handicapped. Looks like Hitler was all the things he hated.

"The Nordic race is the most superior and of them, the Aryan is the most superior of all."

Hitler himself wasn't Aryan, but he was definitely Nordic, the Germans are/were a nordic people, they were not all Aryan.

As for Hitler being Jewish

Question
hello! i am a ninth grader and i have been reasearching the holocaust for three years now and i am very interested in it. i have a question. my english teacher told me that Hitlers grandmother was Jewish and i was wondering if he did to her what he did to her what he did to the other jewish people. thank you very much

Harry W. Mazal OBE answers:
I am one of the persons who responds to questions about the Holocaust. It is possible that you will receive answers from my other colleagues too.

Hitler's grandmother was not Jewish.

There are some rumors hinting that Hitler's grandfather was Jewish. Few, if any, of the reputable historians on the Holocaust believe that this is so. It is more likely that Hitler tried to keep the murky history of his family quite secret because there was a high incidence of insanity and feeble-mindedness in his ancestors.

Rumors die hard, though.

One of Hitler's henchmen, Hans Frank, declared during the Nuremberg Trials in 1945-46, that Hitler's grandmother had worked in the town of Graz as a servant in the home of a Jewish family named Frankenberger. He further claimed that she was seduced by the head of the household and that Hitler's grandfather was the result of that liaison.

A subsequent analysis of Frank's statement by Simon Wiesenthal disclosed that there was no evidence of any Jewish family named Frankenberger ever living in Graz. What is more, Jews had been driven out of Graz in the 15th century and had not been allowed to return until 1856, nearly twenty years after Hitler's grandfather had been born.

Hitler's grandmother's maiden name was Schickelgruber. There is considerable evidence that this family produced abnormal progeny. Examples are: one of Hitler's relatives through his mother's side committed suicide in 1920, another, Aloisha had been placed in an insane asylum, another was "feeble-minded," and yet another was retarded.

According to the article from which I am quoting this material:


"Hitler's real fear, then, was not that someone would discover that he has a Jewish grandfather, but that it would someday come to light that he carried a hereditary disposition toward mental illness and retardation."
You might ask your English teacher to go to a good library and see the following article:


"Hitler's Family Secret: A file recovered from the Nazi Archives tells of a Gestapo investigation into the Fuehrer's murky family history."
By: Ben S. Swearingen
Civilization: The Magazine of the Library of Congress Volume 2, Number 2, Arcg/April 1995, pp. 54-55
Harry W. Mazal OBE

Question:
I realize that Harry Mazal OBE has addressed this question. But here's this:
Hitler's father, Alois, was the 'illegitimate' son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber-she refused to name the father. This has led to much speculation, but the reality is that we have no certainty as to the father. Thus, Hitler was unable to produce the certificate of origin he required of every German citizen on hazard of death. The various rumours suggest as father of Alois: a Jew called Frankenberger, Johann Nepomuk Hüttler[1a], or one Trummelschlager who acted as godfather. Illegitimacy was widespread in the Waldviertel, now estimated at about 40%. The most persistent rumour is that his father was a Jew, possibly an itinerant trader, at Graz. What little evidence there is, supports that rumour. (From http://www.abelard.org/hitler/hitler.htm#introduction.)

I am a 47 year old Jew. I would hate to think that this is true. It is terrible enough to know what awful things were done to us without having to think that we did it to ourselves.

Of course, even knowing that people of Christian heritage doesn't avoid the irony - only removes it by a few thousand years: The first Christians were Jewish and it was the Jews who originally created the religion.


Gord McFee answers:
***, this question has been asked many times before. I can understand your feelings on this issue. The best research I have seen on the issue is by Werner Maser in his book _Hitler: Legend, Myth & Reality_. After exhaustive research, he concludes very convincingly that Hitler was *not* part Jewish. Check out chapter 1 of the book if you want all the details.


Even if all you say about Plato is true, recent evidence suggests that he woudl then be, in fact, a closet homosexual.

Plato, seemed at peace with himself, after he finally came to grips with Socrates' death, he seem unphased by pretty much anything (although I imagine spending 5 years fighting a war, where killing people at melee range was common would help with desensitizing one to pretty much anything)

Plato was an exceptional writer, but his personal disposition is best defined by his writings where he actually states opinions rather than just telling stories.

Congress does not have the power to restrict what cases the Supreme Court takes. Otherwise, the entire point of checks and balances would be out the window. They, do, however, have the power to restrict lower courts.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court went fishing for a case involving the recently passed law specifically to strike it down. They don't generally take kindly to power grabs.

This is rhetoric from a left wing website, in fact you've basically quoted them. Unfortunately, for them, and you, it's quite wrong. The rep who proposed this law, knew exactly what he was doing, he knew the exact limitations and he used them in a complex, intricate and potentially dangerous way.

Read this, because this pertains to their power.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

notice the last phrase, congress has the power to set exceptions and regulations to their jurisdiction in all matters except the aforementioned issues, this is neither of those aforementioned conditions and hence Congress can and have.

In layman's terms, congress has told them they can not hear it, and so according to the constitution, they can not.

And why is that, pray tell? Homosexuals are no longer the highest risk group for AIDS, so that can't be what you are talking about. Are homosexuals more likely to get hit by a car while cheating?

Whose first now, injecting drug users or teenagers? so they've moved into 2nd...they're still significantly higher than heterosexual couples. Of course hea;th insurance for teenagers also benefits from the fact even if they get HIV, they will probably still be healthier at this stage of their life than the average 40 year old. Injecting drug users deserve high premiums too, and prison sentences too, since drugs are illegal...

However, this is besides the point. You said that homosexuals should not have children because people shun homosexuals. By that logic, interracial marriages should never have been allowed, or they should have been banned from having children, since such people were shunned by many people. (And believe me, I have seen the ridicule that interracial children get, and it is no worse than anything a child of homosexual parents would receive, or any child with anything at all to pick on for that matter). People of different religions should never wed, because many people will shun them. Your argument falls apart at the seams here.

You're still talking apples and oranges. Do you understand the vast difference in public stigma between having a president (and his opponent) who both think "same sex marriages" should not be allowed and a bunch of pro active bigots?

On one hand, you have

president-opponent-senate-congress-public on a whole all against.

on the other you have

2 or 3 of 50 states-xenophobes-racists

Blacks and Gays ARE NOT THE SAME.

Their issues are NOT THE SAME.

The day you can prove to me that looking at a 6 month old child and can tell me their sexual orientation as easily as you can their skin colour, you might have a point.

You can claim that anything in Plato's writing not specifically said by Plato is the opposite of his viewpoint, but he quoted people at such length that that seems quite unlikely. Here's what he has Aristophanes saying, in his Symposium (emphasis mine):
But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, [192a] they hang about men and embrace them, and they are themselves the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature. Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, [192b] and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saying.

You don't persuade people by showing them a whole lot of empassioned rhetoric espousing the opposite view.

you do understand in Plato's writing, it's the view of Socrates (and the unknown Athenian in Laws) that is what he is claiming is the "view of ultimate wisdom" and he deliberately demonstrates character weakness in all other personas? (he doesn't make them stupid, but he deliberately portrays them as below Socrates/The Unknown Athenian for understanding)

Also keep in mind, his opposition wasn't to male bonding, it was to sex, in fact he had opposition to sex outside of marriage, child rearing, because he thought that being controlled by one's sexuality was bad for you.

Kissing another male on the cheek is not gay, it's quite common still in a lot of cultures, and it's only the last 50 years where male male contact of any kind has started to be labelled "homosexual" in the western culture.

So you're saying that he loved men, encouraged men to love men, thought men loving men was the best kind of love, but wasn't gay? Gay doesn't just mean "loves the butt sex."

umm yes

I believe we call it

Platonic love

To whom do you think the term is named after? ;)

First of all, many dictionaries (http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Platonic) today define Platonic love as only existing between people of different genders. If you accept that definition (which I don't think is a particularly good one), then Plato's love for men was not Platonic.

Second of all, just because his love for men was Platonic doesn't mean he wasn't gay. If he eschewed sex as much as you claim, that would make him entirely asexual, and I don't see you claiming that. It seems to me that he was ascetic and so denigrated sex, regardless of whom it was between. The feelings he seems to have borne for men are still those of a gay man, whether he liked sex or not.

If he eschewed sex as much as you claim, that would make him entirely asexual, and I don't see you claiming that.

When i called him abstinent?

Have you ever seen Demolition Man?

Where do you think they got the idea of San Angeles from? A society ruled by a philosopher king where they had no real intimacy and their non platonic relationships were only for the point of child rearing?

Holding that male male relationships are the most important has nothing to do with homosexuality.

The current US president, when asked about Yale commented that the admission of women was harmful the male cameraderie, and caused the school atmosphere to go downhill - What do they call this? not gay, but sexist...

Then of course there's the military, they still do not allow women or openly homosexual men in combat positions (combat as in infantry, cavalry front line forces), the level of trust and respect in this sort of atmosphere is unfathomable, this is the sort of relationship, but calling it love, even platonic love would have you labelled gay ><

When i called him abstinent?

No, I didn't see you claiming he was asexual when you called him abstinent. One can be abstinent and still not be asexual.

Have you ever seen Demolition Man?

No.

Where do you think they got the idea of San Angeles from? A society ruled by a philosopher king where they had no real intimacy and their non platonic relationships were only for the point of child rearing?

I'm guessing from Plato. So? Even someone who believed that he wanted such a society could be gay.

No, I didn't see you claiming he was asexual when you called him abstinent. One can be abstinent and still not be asexual.

The Pope could be gay too, but considering he like Plato have written in ways against it later in their life, I'd assume the Pope isn't.

Even reasonably recent italian culture espoused a distinctness of the male male relationship, and its core importance above the male-female relationship, I wouldn't exactly say it made them closet homosexuals though.

Ooger, do you realise those laws are aimed at white people, not black people?
Pardon me, I misread your statement. You're right, my post was not a good counterpoint to that subject.

On the subject of Plato: My recollection of Plato was that he was fully in favor of homosexual relationships, and speaks of them as above all others. I hold in my hands a copy of The Symposium and one of Phaedrus. Both on the topic of Love. There is a statement, "Evil is the vulgar lover who lovers the body rather than the soul" However, in the context of what follows, I interpret this to mean one who loves just the body - cheap sex.

In The Symposium, Plato writes of the speech of Aristophanes. (Speaking of Zeus' splitting of human beings) and after the [change], the male generated in the female in order that by mutual embraces of man and woman they might breed, and the race might continue; or if man came to man they might be satisfied, and rest and go their ways to the business of life: so ancient is the desire of one another which is implanted in us, reuniting our original nature, making one of two, and healing the state of man.

Sounds as if he's spiritualizing the sex act; homosexual or not.

Shortly thereafter speaking of male-male relationships: And when one of them finds his other half, whether he be a lover of youth or a lover of another sort, the pair are lost in an amazement of friendship and initmacy, and one will not be out of the other's sight, as I may say, even for a moment: these are they who pass their lives with one another; yet they could not explain what they desire of one another. For the intense yearning which each of them has towards the other does not appear to be the desire of intercourse, but of something else which the soul desires and can not tell, and of which she has only a dark and doubtful presentiment. Suppose Hephaestus, with his instruments, to come to the pair who are lying side by side and say to them, "What do you want of one another?" they would be unable to explain. And suppose further, that when he saw their perplexity he said: "Do you desire to be wholly one; always day and night to be in one another's company? for if this is what you desire, I am ready to melt you into one and let you grow together, so that being two you shall become one, and while you live, live a common life as if you were a single man, and after your death in the world below still be one departed soul instead of two - I ask whether this is what you lovingly desire, and whether you are satisfied to attain this?"

I believe the traditional response to Hephaestus' ceremony is, "I do." Gay marriage in a nutshell - and you say Plato is against it?

One could argue with this, "For the intense yearning which each of them has towards the other does not appear to be the desire of intercourse" but, in context, I don't believe Plato precludes sex, merely puts it below the connection of souls.

Thanks Vold, I'm enjoying this discourse. I'm a technician, not a literate man - this is a good stretch. :)

I beleive it would be more unhealthy for a gay man to marry a woman and lie to himself probably leading to some stress orientated disease like some cancers, than to happily respect himself by loving his boyfriend or her loving girlfriend. It is not at all unhealthy. Actually today kissing my boyfriend makes me feel healthier than ever and it seems not one person had a problem with it. Actually I saw some people smiling, deary me...the sky is falling, isn't it.

I beleive it would be more unhealthy for a gay man to marry a woman and lie to himself probably leading to some stress orientated disease like some cancers, than to happily respect himself by loving his boyfriend or her loving girlfriend. It is not at all unhealthy. Actually today kissing my boyfriend makes me feel healthier than ever and it seems not one person had a problem with it. Actually I saw some people smiling, deary me...the sky is falling, isn't it.

I totally agree with you, and that's the attitude people should have when people of the same sex publicly show their attraction to each other. People should think it normal for two men to kiss each other in the street...or jealous, either is fine by me.

The day you can prove to me that looking at a 6 month old child and can tell me their sexual orientation as easily as you can their skin colour, you might have a point.

Is that supposed to mean that all children raised in a homosexual family will be homosexual?

also, to anyone who goes for the biblical juggular in this issue...

(This is from another post by Hirota)

"OOC: And to totally mess up your efforts to "clear up" the biblical standpoint on homosexuality, I note that The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:

Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis my own)

Notice how certain parts of the quote are different? That's because it has been translated differently from the greek word malakoi. I've found several different translations for that particular phrase/word.....effeminate, homosexual, male prostitutes, catamites, pederasts or pervert. Take your pick. The version you quote was biased - probably from a time when homosexuality was strongly frowned upon and the powers that be sought justification for their stance.

This is one of the reasons that the bible is unreliable, and one of the reasons why I personally remain sceptical over it's value.

(note: this mistranslation issue has been thrown at me several times when I was going about debunking the bible on another forum, and then advised by the "believers" that my source had translated a single word or passage different to other sources. I find it highly amusing to use the same issue to throw a spanner into the proverbial works now)"
AAAnnnd....
"I you don't mind me making an observation on this....Christians interpret the Bible in very different ways. This leads to distinct and contradictory sets of beliefs within Christianity on just about every conceivable topic. Homosexuality is no exception. I've already outlined the contradictions in Corinthians 6:9-10 (which you seem to have not noticed and I would appreciate in future you look at all the posts).

Anyway, the only entry in the NT is Romans 1:26-27, which I'll quote below (again from the King James Version): 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: 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.

First of all, this was written by Paul, who also happened to leak some of his predujices on his support for the oppression of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35), and his acceptance of slavery as a normal social practice in (Philemon 1:15 to 16). Both of these are outdated, stagnant beliefs, so it's very easy to consider this belief similarly outdated. Paul is here declaring that, in his opinion, all homosexual behavior is sinful and unnatural. However, most modern, intelligent Christians have gone beyond Paul's teachings; they have deviated from those biblical teachings that denigrate women and considered them as property. They have rejected slavery. Modern-day Christians have evolved towards a new understanding of gender, human rights, and higher regard for woman. So too many Christians are now evolving towards a different regard and understanding of persons with homosexual orientation. Christians today are aided by recent findings of human sexuality research to which Paul did not have access. Thus, Romans 1 may accurately reflect Paul's beliefs; but they are beliefs that now have to be largely abandoned, as we have already abandoned slavery, dictatorships, theocracies, and the oppression of women.

Anyway...

Quote:
Anyone remember what happened to Soddom and Gomorrah?


It can be argued that texts in Genesis and the rest of the Bible make it clear that Sodom et al were punished for their violent, abusive, inhospitable, greedy, and unsympathetic behavior of its citizens towards visitors, and other disadvantaged persons. Genesis 19 may condemn homosexual rape simply because it is rape. It would then be consistent with other passages which condemn heterosexual rape. The passage does not impact on consensual homosexual activities between consenting adults, and is totally unrelated to loving, committed, same-sex relationships.

It's interesting and ironic that God seems to condemn the citizens for insensitive treatment and harassment of others, but that this passage is one of the main justifications that many Christian faith groups use to attack, mistreat and harass gays and lesbians."
AND heres some food for thought...
"Could you answer why did God "inspire" verses in the bible which appear to describe emotionally close relationships between two people of the same gender which appear to have progressed well beyond a casual friendship. The relationship between David and Jonathan is the most documented:

Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women hardly spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he may have been referring to sexual love here.

Samuel 20:41"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse:
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (King James Version)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)

The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest.

Note: The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

Again, I observe that you cannot blindly rely upon the bible as the word of god, as it has been mistranslated throughout the generations. 9 different versions of the same single verse? One must carefully examine the original texts from the point of view of ancient Israeli and early Christian societies in order to begin to determine their precise meaning. So how exactly can you blindly follow the bible when it has been translated by different people with different motives over time? Moreover, how can you blindly follow the bible when large sections of it have already been considered unacceptable by society? "

Id have done some of my own stuff, but he said it oh so well.

By the way, one thing. Im not gay, and the thought of a guy having sex with another guy is kinda gross to me, but then again, I dont have to do it. Some people think meat is gross, and wont eat it. They think its morally wrong to partake of it, does that mean we should outlaw eating meat? lol

I beleive it would be more unhealthy for a gay man to marry a woman and lie to himself probably leading to some stress orientated disease like some cancers, than to happily respect himself by loving his boyfriend or her loving girlfriend. It is not at all unhealthy. Actually today kissing my boyfriend makes me feel healthier than ever and it seems not one person had a problem with it. Actually I saw some people smiling, deary me...the sky is falling, isn't it.

While it's definitely unhealthy, I think the true victim of this scenario is the woman, and I think the guy should be beaten for being a prick ><

Marginalisation to the victim being a minority always annoys me ><

I believe the traditional response to Hephaestus' ceremony is, "I do." Gay marriage in a nutshell - and you say Plato is against it?

The final and most political writings of Plato's career

Ath. : A good objection; but was I not just now saying that I had a way to make men use natural love and abstain from unnatural, not intentionally destroying the seeds of human increase, or sowing them in stony places, in which they will take no root; and that I would command them to abstain too from any female field of increase in which that which is sown is not likely to grow?

This seems to espouse a view that sex outside of the need for procreation is wrong.

Ath refers to the Unknown Athenian who had the persona of Socrates of his earlier writings or the person of "ultimate wisdom".

He even goes into how to stop it, if you haven't read it, I won't spoil the surprise, it's really quite an incite into modern society.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.8.viiii.html

I personally found much of Plato's writings, especially his early stuff being artistic in nature in which he didn't really answer a great deal but posed a lot of questions, but as he got older, his opinions became more to the forefront, and he started to answer the questions. It almost seems as if the execution of Socrates prevented him from stating his true opinions until he no longer cared of the ramifications for them or not (Remember, his teacher Socrates was executed for stating opinions against the establishment). The writings of the Republic and especially Laws started to be more political.

It's almost as though, these were originally Socrates' ideas and only at the end of his life was he willing to state that which he agreed upon and Socrates was killed for.

NO, NO, NO. The citizens of Elpaso are against gay marriage. We shot down all the gays in Elpaso. :mp5:

NO, NO, NO. The citizens of Elpaso are against gay marriage. We shot down all the gays in Elpaso. :mp5:

Either you are sarcastic, which means....Hahaha kinda funny.

Or are a homophobe. Which means that you like sex with your own gender. You repressed homosexual you, go give your most attractive samesex-friend-fantasizee a big meaty horny hug.

While it's definitely unhealthy, I think the true victim of this scenario is the woman, and I think the guy should be beaten for being a prick ><

Marginalisation to the victim being a minority always annoys me ><

Upon reading this out I let out a loud "that's right!" lol

The fact is eventually a gay man will leave the wife, or express truthfulness. Being gay doesn't change. It never has and never will. When it does the men must leave terribly empty lives. It's not fair on the wives, and as I know of a personal friend, the children, who are ultimately left with no father. The whole family become a victim of someone elses stupid insecurities.

Upon reading this out I let out a loud "that's right!" lol

The fact is eventually a gay man will leave the wife, or express truthfulness. Being gay doesn't change. It never has and never will. When it does the men must leave terribly empty lives. It's not fair on the wives, and as I know of a personal friend, the children, who are ultimately left with no father. The whole family become a victim of someone elses stupid insecurities.
that's only if the guy really is a prick at heart; a couple of my friends went through divorce in their family when their dad came out, and they haven't lost him or suffered any more than other kids who go through any other kind of divorce. their dad is still very much a part of their lives. in fact, their divorce was unusually amicable because their mother didn't feel as hurt...i mean, her husband was gay, so it's not like she personally did something to drive him away, and he had loved her enough to marry her despite being gay. both parents were adults about the situation, and the kids were NEVER abandoned by either parent at any point.

any guy who would simply leave his family for a lover, gay or straight, is a prick. but a guy who would stay in an unhappy marriage simply to protect himself from the realities of his own sexuality isn't doing anybody any favors, either. the best thing is for honest and compassionate discussion to rule the day...*sigh*, if only.

We could all cite studies written by people who support our own viewpoint. In your heart, do you really believe that male homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle?I don't think that male homosexuality is a lifestyle.

Having lots of casual sex and no intimate relationships: not healthy.

Settling down with a lover and getting married, and yes having lots sex: healthy.

(There are as always exceptions.)

But neither is inherently a homosexual or heterosexual lifestyle.

Unfortunately and understandably, gays to tend to be more self-destructive than the population at large. But even if for some reason you wish to discriminate against people in unhealthy lifestyles, gay couples seeking to get married are the wrong target.

Is that supposed to mean that all children raised in a homosexual family will be homosexual?

No what it meant was that being black and the difficulties surrounding and being homosexual and the difficulties surrounding it.

is like apples and oranges.

hey i never knew you were black! :p

It can be argued that texts in Genesis and the rest of the Bible make it clear that Sodom et al were punished for their violent, abusive, inhospitable, greedy, and unsympathetic behavior of its citizens towards visitors, and other disadvantaged persons. Genesis 19 may condemn homosexual rape simply because it is rape. It would then be consistent with other passages which condemn heterosexual rape. The passage does not impact on consensual homosexual activities between consenting adults, and is totally unrelated to loving, committed, same-sex relationships.

The name you're looking for Dregath is Philo, it was Philo who turned Sodom and Gomorrah into an issue of sexuality. This was around the time of Jesus' birth.

This leads to distinct and contradictory sets of beliefs within Christianity on just about every conceivable topic.

The rebellious latins, err Catholics are to blame for this ;)

Note: The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

This argument though is utter drivel however. There has never been any evidence of Judaism supporting this viewpoint at any time, historial documents regarding it as well as any rabbi, especially those schooled in ancient hebrew would debunk this. Claiming they have an agenda is just plain conspiracist.

First of all, this was written by Paul, who also happened to leak some of his predujices on his support for the oppression of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35), and his acceptance of slavery as a normal social practice in (Philemon 1:15 to 16). Both of these are outdated, stagnant beliefs, so it's very easy to consider this belief similarly outdated.

Yes it is easy, but being easy doesn't make it right.

This is a slippery slope, with no real logical backing.

It's like saying, I love Genocide, rape and chocolate. (No I'm not Saddam Hussein ;) )

So since genocide and rape are bad, so must chocolate be.

Each view must be addressed upon its own merit, and trying to just group them together is ignorance, even Hitler had some positive viewpoints.

Now there was a lot of Plato in Paul's direction of writing, as there was Augustine, then we reach Aquinas 1000 years later where the influence is predominantly Aristotle.

In the end what I am is a realist, hurting someone's feelings I'm not afraid of (thought if I'm doing business with you, different story ;) ), but sifting through the bullsh** for the truth is what I'm really after.

I don't really have much in the way of pre conceptions of homosexuality, I don't think it's either good nor bad, however I don't buy into the its natural argument (I don't consider sexual orientation either direction "natural", it's a product of the psyche that occurs as one grows up, in fact I'm 100% certain if I took a young child, I could turn the same child into just about any sexual orientation I so desire with enough control, removing random occurences and manipulating the human mind to certain personal characteristics from a clean slate is easy, changing it after its occured is not so easy).

Key assumption of the following : Life is not fair, I don't consider the following fair.

The reality of much of western culture is that homosexuals are outcasts, you may feel this is wrong, but you need to face the cold hard reality that it is in fact true. Trying to force society to abide by a view they don't wish to accept will only cause more problems in future. In time acceptance may well come (it also may not), but that time is most certainly not now.

When it comes to children, the onus of responsibility needs to be placed upon the children themself. Being homosexual is not an accepted lifestyle. Placing children in an environment of a societally unaccepted lifestyle because "said parents" feel they need to fight the system is the epitome of selfishness. I have no problems with people lobbying for change, they can do it to their heart's content, but when a child becomes a political statement (hey, we're great parents, look at our kid here!), the 2 people need to be kicked in the ass. A child is not a political statement, let me repeat this, a child is not a political statement.

When you deliberately try to butt heads against the government, what you are making is a "political statement", while I'm usually all for political freedom, this is not one of them.

Lobby for change all you like, but until such change occurs, please refrain rom using the "welfare of a child" as a bargaining chip in the argument.

Plato, seemed at peace with himself, after he finally came to grips with Socrates' death, he seem unphased by pretty much anything (although I imagine spending 5 years fighting a war, where killing people at melee range was common would help with desensitizing one to pretty much anything)

Plato was an exceptional writer, but his personal disposition is best defined by his writings where he actually states opinions rather than just telling stories.

None of this changes the fact that men who are very anti-gay are usually hiding latent homosexual feelings themselves.


notice the last phrase, congress has the power to set exceptions and regulations to their jurisdiction in all matters except the aforementioned issues, this is neither of those aforementioned conditions and hence Congress can and have.

It still refers to them regulating *appelate* jurisdiction. However, if one were to sue, for instance, the rep who proposed the law (which would be the procedure, since you cannot sue the federal government directly), the Supreme Court could take the case.

Whose first now, injecting drug users or teenagers? so they've moved into 2nd...they're still significantly higher than heterosexual couples. Of course hea;th insurance for teenagers also benefits from the fact even if they get HIV, they will probably still be healthier at this stage of their life than the average 40 year old. Injecting drug users deserve high premiums too, and prison sentences too, since drugs are illegal...

No, actually it is heterosexual black women. Either way though, we're really talking about the chicken and the egg here. Only younger, more promiscuous gay men are generally at higher risk for AIDs, and they are generally promiscuous because of the elations that comes with finally being free to be who you are. As I said, however, a stable homosexual couple is at no greater risk than a stable homosexual couple.

You're still talking apples and oranges. Do you understand the vast difference in public stigma between having a president (and his opponent) who both think "same sex marriages" should not be allowed and a bunch of pro active bigots?

And you think that we didn't have presidents who thought interracial marriage should not be allowed?

On one hand, you have

president-opponent-senate-congress-public on a whole all against.

Wrong, you have president against, opponent against *in those terms* but for in general, senate split, congress split, public split.

on the other you have

2 or 3 of 50 states-xenophobes-racists

Darling, go to any state and see how a mixed-race child is treated. We aren't only talking about 2 or 3 here. And if it were 40 years ago, we'd be talking about even more.

Blacks and Gays ARE NOT THE SAME.

I never said they were.

Their issues are NOT THE SAME.

No, the current issues with homosexuals are the issues that blacks faced years ago and are, to a point, still suffering some of the latent affects.

The day you can prove to me that looking at a 6 month old child and can tell me their sexual orientation as easily as you can their skin colour, you might have a point.

A 6 month old child has no sexuality - they haven't reached the point where they are sexually attracted to anyone yet. Don't be an idiot.

I know a bloke who married a lampshade.

While it's definitely unhealthy, I think the true victim of this scenario is the woman, and I think the guy should be beaten for being a prick ><

Marginalisation to the victim being a minority always annoys me ><

This is funny from the person who has repeatedly claimed that homosexual men should just suck it up and marry a woman.

This seems to espouse a view that sex outside of the need for procreation is wrong.

So you think he believed homosexual sex was wrong, not homosexual relationships. I see.

This is one thing you need to remember, homosexuality =! anal sex.

No what it meant was that being black and the difficulties surrounding and being homosexual and the difficulties surrounding it.

is like apples and oranges.

Except that you are wrong. It's really more like oranges and tangerines, different but extremely similar.

Yes it is easy, but being easy doesn't make it right.

Doesn't make it wrong either. Logic says that if some of Paul's opinions were wrong, all of them are suspect. One must figure the truth out through prayer and meditation individually. His denigration of women was wrong. His acceptance of slavery was wrong. And his hatred of homosexuals was wrong. Of course, you can tell from the writing that Paul had the same view of homosexual sex that many people do today - that it is necessarily promiscuous and lustful and never associated with love. Of course, any idiot today knows that this is untrue unless they are hateful bigots.

I don't really have much in the way of pre conceptions of homosexuality, I don't think it's either good nor bad, however I don't buy into the its natural argument (I don't consider sexual orientation either direction "natural", it's a product of the psyche that occurs as one grows up, in fact

Explain that to all of the gay animals that don't have psyches nearly as developed as ours. Explain it to the transexual bighorn sheep or the homosexual elephant. Explain it to the bisexual dolphin or ape.

I'm 100% certain if I took a young child, I could turn the same child into just about any sexual orientation I so desire with enough control, removing random occurences and manipulating the human mind to certain personal characteristics from a clean slate is easy, changing it after its occured is not so easy).

Yeah, because all of the super fundamental Christians weren't trying to make their kids straight. Don't be silly.

The reality of much of western culture is that homosexuals are outcasts, you may feel this is wrong, but you need to face the cold hard reality that it is in fact true. Trying to force society to abide by a view they don't wish to accept will only cause more problems in future. In time acceptance may well come (it also may not), but that time is most certainly not now.

Actually, forcing society to abide by a view they don't wish to accept is often the only way to end injustice.

When it comes to children, the onus of responsibility needs to be placed upon the children themself. Being homosexual is not an accepted lifestyle. Placing children in an environment of a societally unaccepted lifestyle because "said parents" feel they need to fight the system is the epitome of selfishness. I have no problems with people lobbying for change, they can do it to their heart's content, but when a child becomes a political statement (hey, we're great parents, look at our kid here!), the 2 people need to be kicked in the ass. A child is not a political statement, let me repeat this, a child is not a political statement.

People who want a child want a child for the same reason that I do, because they want to raise a child. That is it. Your political statement bullshit is exactly that, bullshit. Did all of the interracial couples that wanted children do so just to make a political statement? I think not. And as much as you can try and claim that it is not the same, it is damn similar.

Lobby for change all you like, but until such change occurs, please refrain rom using the "welfare of a child" as a bargaining chip in the argument.

So you would advocate taking children away from their mothers just because their mothers are lesbians? Or away from their fathers because their fathers are gay? What a wonderful person you are, to be so judgemental.

None of this changes the fact that men who are very anti-gay are usually hiding latent homosexual feelings themselves.

This is nothing more than anecdotal, there is no real evidence to prove this.

Hitler wasn't a Jew
Stalin wasn't a Capitalist
Paul wasn't Gay
And I'm not French ;)

Generally when people really hate something, it's really that they're just that... like the French! ;)

And you think that we didn't have presidents who thought interracial marriage should not be allowed?

And you had presidents who felt only white males should be allowed to vote.

And you had kings who didn't think you should be allowed to own land at all.

You're missing the core concept of the here and now does not equate to the past.

Wrong, you have president against, opponent against *in those terms* but for in general, senate split, congress split, public split.

DOMA passed, didn't the new law also?

Not wanting to constitutionalise something will often be as much about not wanting a constitutional amendment as the contents of it.

As for the people, well California passed the public vote 4 years ago, do you even want to know about the inland or southern states?


Darling, go to any state and see how a mixed-race child is treated. We aren't only talking about 2 or 3 here. And if it were 40 years ago, we'd be talking about even more.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Your "class" will have as much, if not more of an effect on perception as anything else. *cough* white trailer trash *cough* will face nearly every one of the same problems, but has no race/sex/whatever card to pull out. You know the first thing I look at in someone? the "language" they use in conversation. (but this could be the fact I come from a European aristocratic background)

No, the current issues with homosexuals are the issues that blacks faced years ago and are, to a point, still suffering some of the latent affects.

Racial minorities generally face classism more than anything, and when a race fits entirely into lower class backgrounds, they get the double whammy, it's not uncommon to see Asians treated significantly better than other racial minorities simply because their class doesn't cause a historical stigma. Classism is something you will never ever ever get rid of.

No, the current issues with homosexuals are the issues that blacks faced years ago and are, to a point, still suffering some of the latent affects.

Point here is, you won't get rid of it through court action, in fact you stand to make portions of society more hostile by forcing it upon them, especially if their cause happens to be championed by the guy in the white house.

A 6 month old child has no sexuality - they haven't reached the point where they are sexually attracted to anyone yet. Don't be an idiot.

What I'm iterating is that sexual inclination is not a genetic disposition. It's a product of the psyche when growing up, much like disposition to violence, things you like, dislike, etc

This is funny from the person who has repeatedly claimed that homosexual men should just suck it up and marry a woman.

Tell me where I said that?

So you think he believed homosexual sex was wrong, not homosexual relationships. I see.

This is one thing you need to remember, homosexuality =! anal sex.

You just don't get it do you.

A male male relationship including love doesn't necessarily make it homosexual.

It's only a very recent outcry in western society that has started labelling everything as "Gay".

Yeah, because all of the super fundamental Christians weren't trying to make their kids straight. Don't be silly.

Intention does not imply ability.

Explain that to all of the gay animals that don't have psyches nearly as developed as ours. Explain it to the transexual bighorn sheep or the homosexual elephant. Explain it to the bisexual dolphin or ape.

nearly as developed? ahahaha

yeah, the chimp which is 96% human and the fir tree which is 90% human.

If you're pulling out the "animals" argument, you're really stretching.

Doesn't make it wrong either. Logic says that if some of Paul's opinions were wrong, all of them are suspect.

All opinions are subject to qualification if you wish to start using them as a basis of rulesets, what I dismissed was the contention that because A is wrong, therefore B is wrong, even when B and A have nothing in common, but thanks for trying.

Actually, forcing society to abide by a view they don't wish to accept is often the only way to end injustice.

You really need out of that bubble you live in. The extension of things like AA have only served to further extentuate the gap between whites and blacks in many places, in fact the comparative average earnings of blacks vs whites since it came to be in all but the southern states has decreased for "blacks", but don't let IRS figures stand in the way of how those wonderful plans have benefitted them. It doesn't need to actually work, it just needs to make a few guilty white liberals feel like it does.

People who want a child want a child for the same reason that I do, because they want to raise a child. That is it. Your political statement bullshit is exactly that, bullshit. Did all of the interracial couples that wanted children do so just to make a political statement? I think not. And as much as you can try and claim that it is not the same, it is damn similar.

If inter-racial marriages were illegal at the time? the answer is yes, they ran the risk of the government just up and taking the children away, which could right royally screw the kid up, but don't let that get in the way. They must have their child regardless of what could happen to him!

I know inability to take responsibility for the reality of one's actions isn't the in thing of the current era, but sheesh, can you not see the difference between

solve problem -> benefit from solved problem

defy law -> cry foul -> have government actually follow law -> cry foul again -> gain nothing but a screwed up child

:headbang:

Actually, my country's law never said so until homosexuals started clamoring to get state marriage sanctions for their non-marriages. Before that, it was always simply understood that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

and interracial marriage was illegal too. until all those mixed race couples deceided to be asses and demand sanctions for their non-marriages. before that, everyone understood that marriage was between a man and woman of the same race.

A male male relationship including love doesn't necessarily make it homosexual.

i'm well aware of that. i'm a girl and i have female friends whom i love. hell, i love my mom and sisters. it's not homosexual.

It's only a very recent outcry in western society that has started labelling everything as "Gay".

i find it's the homophobes who do more of this than anyone else.

"omg! you love your best friend! you're so flaming!"

people who can't deal with their own sexuality so much that they hate an attack people who can.

This is nothing more than anecdotal, there is no real evidence to prove this.

Last time I checked, a man getting an erection from seeing a picture and hearing about what he would do with that picture is pretty good evidence. It is also how they *diagnose* pedophiles, by the way.

Generally when people really hate something, it's really that they're just that... like the French! ;)

And most people who hate the French do so because they are very much like them.

And you had presidents who felt only white males should be allowed to vote.

And you had kings who didn't think you should be allowed to own land at all.

You're missing the core concept of the here and now does not equate to the past.

I never said it equated. I pointed out that the issue is similar. Irrational discrimination is irrational discrimination, regardless of the time period.

DOMA passed, didn't the new law also?

Unless every single person voted for it, you can't use that as proof that the population is not split.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Your "class" will have as much, if not more of an effect on perception as anything else. *cough* white trailer trash *cough* will face nearly every one of the same problems, but has no race/sex/whatever card to pull out. You know the first thing I look at in someone? the "language" they use in conversation. (but this could be the fact I come from a European aristocratic background)

So your point that children will be made fun of for something means nothing unless you are going to ban every parent-combination that might cause a child to be in a "shunned" group. I suppose that, in your little world, only white upper-class aristocratic type people should have kids.

Racial minorities generally face classism more than anything, and when a race fits entirely into lower class backgrounds, they get the double whammy, it's not uncommon to see Asians treated significantly better than other racial minorities simply because their class doesn't cause a historical stigma. Classism is something you will never ever ever get rid of.

And yet you don't ask that certain classes abstain from having children.

Point here is, you won't get rid of it through court action, in fact you stand to make portions of society more hostile by forcing it upon them, especially if their cause happens to be championed by the guy in the white house.

You fail to see the point here. People who fight for the rights of homosexuals are not trying to get public approval. We are simply pointing out that *the government* has no business withholding protection from a people group that is not being harmful to others. If this were about KKK members being denied the right to marry, I would fight just as hard. KKK members are never going to be accepted by the bulk of society, but they are entilted to equal protection, just like everyone else.

What I'm iterating is that sexual inclination is not a genetic disposition. It's a product of the psyche when growing up, much like disposition to violence, things you like, dislike, etc

There is already ample evidence that it is partially a product of genetic disposition, partially a product of hormone balance in the mother's womb during pregnancy, and partially a product of experiences growing up. However, regardless of how it is "caused," sexuality is an inherent part of a person - who you are attracted to is something you cannot change.

Tell me where I said that?

You have stated repeatedly that homosexuals have the same rights you do, to marry a person of the opposite gender and that if they want those benefits (which, of course, only make sense if they can get them with the person they want them with - but you ignore that), they should get married to a member of the opposite sex.

You just don't get it do you.

A male male relationship including love doesn't necessarily make it homosexual.

It does if it is romantic love.

Don't be silly.
Intention does not imply ability.

You were the one who said you could take any child and make them whatever sexuality you wanted to. Looks like you've contradicted yourself here, unless you think you are God.

nearly as developed? ahahaha

yeah, the chimp which is 96% human and the fir tree which is 90% human.

If you're pulling out the "animals" argument, you're really stretching.

So you believe that animals (or fir trees, for that matter) have the intellectual ability to "choose" a sexual orientation based on life experiences? All of them?

And I'm not stretching here. You said that sexuality was not something that could be termed "natural." I pointed out that different forms of sexuality exist in nature. Sounds like your conclusion is dead wrong.

All opinions are subject to qualification if you wish to start using them as a basis of rulesets, what I dismissed was the contention that because A is wrong, therefore B is wrong, even when B and A have nothing in common, but thanks for trying.

No, you assumed that's what the person was saying so that you could argue. It was quite clear that all they were saying is that, if it is logical to believe that slavery is wrong even though Paul said it was correct, then it is logical to believe that he might have been wrong about homosexual behavior as well.

You really need out of that bubble you live in. The extension of things like AA have only served to further extentuate the gap between whites and blacks in many places, in fact the comparative average earnings of blacks vs whites since it came to be in all but the southern states has decreased for "blacks", but don't let IRS figures stand in the way of how those wonderful plans have benefitted them. It doesn't need to actually work, it just needs to make a few guilty white liberals feel like it does.

Hey, fun assumptions again. I didn't say anything about AA, now did I? I simply said that the government sometimes has to be forced to recognize someone as *equal*. This is historically very true.

If inter-racial marriages were illegal at the time? the answer is yes, they ran the risk of the government just up and taking the children away, which could right royally screw the kid up, but don't let that get in the way. They must have their child regardless of what could happen to him!

They ran no such risk, as it was not *illegal* to have children out of wedlock. Your argument has been that the child will undergo hardships because their parents are not "normal", I am pointing out an example of other couples that were not deemed to be "normal".

I know inability to take responsibility for the reality of one's actions isn't the in thing of the current era, but sheesh, can you not see the difference between

solve problem -> benefit from solved problem

defy law -> cry foul -> have government actually follow law -> cry foul again -> gain nothing but a screwed up child

Are you just making shit up now? We are talking about solving a problem. It is called the government openly discriminating against a subset of the population that has done nothing wrong. As for intolerant bigots, being intolerant is their problem, not mine, and not the homosexual couple's.

How exactly would those without the knowledge of repentance or god acknowledge him and repent their sins which they didnt know were wrong in the first place. Thats inane.

1) There is not a single man who has no indication of right and wrong. In other words, everyone has a conscience, even if it is miniscule, corrupt, and fallacious. The evidence for this is that we all feel wronged at some point in our lives, and we all have done wrong at some point in our lives: we naturally judge both others and ourselves according to the categories of "right" and "wrong," "good" and "bad." We also know that it is "right" to make amends when we have wronged another person whom we love. So already we all know that "wrongfulness" exists, even if we may not conceive of it in the Christian sense of "sin"; and we all know about "making amends," even if we may not conceive of it in the Christian sense of "repentance."
2) God is seen through His creation which surrounds us. Even the most cursory rational inquiry into existence must conclude that there is some ordering principle underlying it all. Logic might be an answer a secular Westerner would give. A statement such as "a thing cannot both exist and not exist" is imminantly reasonable and fundamental to a proper understanding of existence. Were men's faculties of reason not so damaged by sin, all men would see that this "ordering principle" is ultimately a creator God. Were men's faculties of moral judgement not so corrupt, all men would perceive that God is perfectly holy, just, and good, such that wrongfulness cannot go perpetually unpunished, and that men must somehow make amends with God so as not to incur punishment and rather to attain goodness.
3) However, since men ultimately prefer sin to that which is really true, they reject the overwhelming evidence for God's existence and for His attributes, and delude themselves with fanciful and false interpretations of the world around them. They can do little else since they are consumed by willful sin. They have no excuse because the evidence around them shows them to be wrong, and yet they willfully engage in their own deception.
4) God, being merciful, did two important things to remedy this situation and to redeem His creation from its enslavement to sin:
a) Through the law, He revealed what is sin, how man is guilty of and captive to it, the death that necessarily results from sin, and the inability of man to live a life of sinless perfection. Those who reject this revelation have no excuse when the day of judgement comes, because they cannot claim not to have known sin.
b) Through Christ, God became a man, yet without losing one ounce of His Godhood. He lead a life of sinless perfection, fulfilled the law of God in its entirety, died on a cross and suffered the punishment of wrath due to sinners, and finally rose from death victorious over sin. Those who believe in Him are freed from the condemnation which sin brings, ultimately ridded of all sin and made holy instead, and granted eternal life. Those who do not believe in Him are reigned over by sin and will find eternal death as the punishment and defeat of sin in them. They are condemned because they denied the savior which had been revealed to them.

Now, chances are, you find this entire scheme to be ridiculous. I won't try to convince you otherwise, because it is. It is ludicrous, totally and utterly ludicrous. There is no reason you have to believe any of it, save the work of the Holy Spirit in your heart and mind. That work I leave to God.

Forgive my ignorance, but who made the right wing in general (and you in particular) the arbiters of what "marriage" means?

Forgive my ignorance, but who gave gay-rights advocates the right to change what marriage is? The definition I have provided is nothing short of the nature of marriage over the entire history of human society, and no amount of emotional argumentation or political force on the part of gay-rights advocates will change that. A marriage is, by its very nature, a union between a man and a woman.

The difference between you and me, however, lies in the fact that I am inclusive, and you are exclusive.

You're damn right I'm exclusive: marriage itself is exclusive.

I believe that social equality is one of the building blocks our nation was founded on. I believe that God approves of our efforts to achieve greater justice for the masses. Why else would He put us on this world, if not to help each other?

I think it's an injustice to treat homosexual relationships as though they were marriages. I think homosexuals do and should have legal equality as human beings and citizens. I do not think they should have social equality, i.e., they should not be accepted as carrying on a morally legitimate lifestyle. (They aren't the only ones.) I do not think homosexual relationships are or ought to be considered equal to marriages.

What makes the love of two men or two women different from the love of a man and a woman? Will you discern between their chromosomes? Love is one of those great, unconquerable forces of human nature. It transcends all other powers, even death. If love beats death itself, I'm pretty sure it transcends your sex, a relatively minor condition by comparison.

Yes, I will discern between their chromosomes, because no matter how much two people love each other, it is quite simply wrong to engage in sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex, just as it would be wrong to engage in sexual intercourse with one's biological father or mother, and even more so with an animal (if, theoretically, the animal could love back on the same level).

I think that in their hearts, the social conservatives who rail so loudly against gay marriage are afraid. People often seem to fear things which they don't understand. They don't make any effort TO understand, to accept. Gays and lesbians are enemies to be destroyed, to these people. It's not right. It's not right to forbid marriage on such trivial grounds.

The grounds are not trivial, unless you think that the existence of the two sexes is trivial—which would needs be willful ignorance (or perhaps denial) of biology on your part.

Reread your Bibles and learn something about "turning the other cheek".

I challenge you to read the entire Bible straight through from Genesis to the end of Revelation and show me that you find any ethic consistent with what you and other various types of liberals preach, regarding especially lax sexual mores. Do not quote the Bible unless you know it and understand it well.

I suggest you move to the Vatican, as that is the only place anyone is damn fool enough to put their entire world in the hands of some decrepit self contradicting religion.

Well, I certainly agree that Roman Catholicism is a decrepit, self-contradictory religion. But that's the Protestant in me. :-P

This whole arguement is rediculous because god gave humans free will.

Where, might I ask, do you get this idea? Not from the Bible, I'm sure.

Why should anyone care if gays want to marry, they are the ones who supposedly have to pay for it.

No man is an island unto himself. We live in a thing called a society; marriage is a relationship specifically approved of and supported by society, and meant indeed to stabilize and propagate society. It would affect ALL of society to grant sanction to homosexual relationships.

If we werent supposed to sin, we would lack the capacity, it wouldnt be in human nature.

So, are you supposed to commit murder? Should you commit murder? Do you lack the capacity to commit murder?

If humans were created in gods image, he is one twisted psychotic confused son of a bitch.

That would be the case if we were this way without having sinned. But the fact of the matter is, we've sinned. So we can't claim to possess the perfect image of God, but only the ruins of it.

It is not a general right if I have to have someone else to do it.

This really isn't worth a response.

There is if all religions don't feel that way and your only reasoning is religious. If that is the case, Congress is establishing a national church as being right.

All right then, explain to me, which church exactly would be established? Which clergy, which doctrines in particular, and would you have to pay taxes to support it?

Check the 14th amendment. The govnerment cannot extend benefits to one group and not to another without showing a compelling interest. They have not done so in this case. This is no different from disallowing homosexuals to get driver's licenses, hunting licenses, or a defense attorney based on their sexuality.

Wrong. Really, now, if you want to uphold your silly "couple's rights" argument from earlier, it's not a good idea to speak of rights and privileges that apply to the individual, don't you think? You give me a single case of any couple eligible for marriage that has been denied a license on the basis of sexuality. Even a gay man and lesbian woman could apply for a marriage license and get one.

Ok, so you (a) haven't studied sexuality and (b) are a sexist who thinks people should fall into societal gender roles. Well, that is great for you. Do you think we should legislate that women should stay at home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen too?

(a) I have studied sexuality. Guess which form is the most effective for reproduction. Guess also which is overwhelmingly extant in human populations.
(b) Men and women are different biologically (and even psychologically, to some extent). This is scientific. Men impregnate, women become impregnated. Men are physically larger and stronger than women. Societies necessarily develop roles for these sexes based partly on these differences. Not all roles are morally correct.

Besides, if your morals are so weak that someone else not following them makes you not follow them either, it seems like you have a problem.

It has little to do with my ability to abide by my morals; it has much more to do with the society as a whole slipping into worser moral conditions.

I am not talking about my morals here. You have no right to harm others (and if you can find something in the Constitution that says you do, by all means show it to me). By being restrictive without just cause, you are doing so.

WHO AM I HARMING? And yes, you are talking about your morals. Rights theory is a theory of morality, whether you like it or not. That you desire to uphold the Constitution in the point of rights theory proves that you use the government to enforce your morality (in this case, of a particular kind of rights theory) on others.

Fine, let's legislate that everyone has to go to church on Sunday and have a family Bible. After all, your morals are just fine being legislated into the government. While we're at it, let's ban eating pork and make women dress in burquas, since Muslim religion dictates that. And how about we ban women from cutting their hair and reallow men to sell their daughters into slavery - that is all Biblical.

My system of morality prevents me from enforcing every aspect of my morality on others, just as yours does. I can't nor do I have any desire to force people to become Christian. But in this representative republic, I have every right to express such a desire, should I actually hold it, and every right to work through current legal means to bring it to fruition.

You are an idiot. The unmarried heterosexual couples have the option of getting married and having the protections applied to them, homosexual couples have no such recourse.

Neither would two straight male friends have such recourse.

This is like saying "people who don't go get a driver's license aren't allowed to drive. If we ban homosexuals from getting driver's licesnses, they will be just like heterosexuals who chose not to go get a driver's license. Therefore, no rights are being denied."

No, it's more like saying that people who don't pass the driver test shouldn't be given a license. To make it more obvious, a couple which doesn't meet the requirements for a legitimate marriage should not receive a marriage license—the same rule applies to incestuous couples, for example, as to homosexual couples.

How compassionate you are that you would rip a child away from the parent who has raised him all of his life just because of your own personal views of the parent's actions. It is great that you advocate doing irreperable harm to other people just because you think it's icky that they have sex you don't like.

Sorry, I'm not going to fall for emotionalism. I don't find it convincing in the least. Perhaps if we forbade all homosexual relationships altogether, we wouldn't happen upon this unhappy situation. But surely you're not willing to have that.

That is not your choice to make. Many people decide to be stay-at-home parents. Do you think all of them should go out and get a job just so that they can be the ones to provide health insurance.

If they want insurance, yes. The are consequences to choices. If a parent chooses to remain at home, he must understand that he will not be able to provide health insurance for his child.

More to the point, do you think this is a bad thing:

-Mother has a child from a previous marriage.
-Mother marries father and father adopts child.
-Mother stays at home to take care of children, house, etc. because it the couple decided that someone should stay home with the children.
-Father works and has a job that provides health insurance.
-Father extends health insurance benefits to mother and child.

Now, unless you think the above situation is inherently wrong, you haven't got a leg to stand on here.

It's not inherently wrong, but neither is the relationship between the parents.

I didn't say they do. What I said was that, if it is possible, they should have health care. You are denying them that possibility.

No, the stay-at-home parent is denying them that possibility. Don't try to put it off on me.

Well, that's what it used to be, and it got changed. If you are not against the idea of marriage being changed to include interracial unions, then you are obviously not against having the definition changed. You just are a bigotted ass who hates gays because you have no understanding of biology, love, or society. I understand.

The laws against interracial marriages were a novelty. Interracial marriages had been practiced from time imemorium. Dropping the prohibition restored a better understanding of marriage. None the less, they weren't ever considered non-marriages, but rather illegitimate marriages. Homosexual relationships are non-marriages.

What you said in that post was first, that you are not advocating punishing homosexuals and second, that homosexuals deserve suffering for what they do. These two statements are quite clearly irreconcilable.

Not at all. One need not advocate punishment to say that others are deserving of the suffering which they bring upon themselves. A many who squanders all of his money need not be legally punished, and I would not advocate it. But the suffering he experiences as a result of his poor choices is deserved by him.

So your God condones slavery, genocide, denigration of women, murder of a rape victim if she is inside a town or city and no one comes to her rescue (so much for all the rape victims in New York), ostracizing women during their natural menstruation period, etc.?

According to your God, we should enslave all of the Iraquis, since we won the war and all.

Wow, I'm really glad that the 1st Amendment keeps us from passing laws based on nothing more than what you think your God said.

Why is it that I am NEVER the first person to bring up the Bible in debates like this?

They are "evils" in the sense that they are not nice, pleasant things. They are not moral evils, however, which is what I took to be the meaning.

I see. They are still evils, however, which contradicts what you said earlier.

No, it doesn't, because the definition being used is different.

I doubt it. But I didn't say that homosexuals were the most influential people; I said they were one.

In which case I feel you are incorrect.

Gay rights activists may be one of the most influential groups, and these activists include all kinds of people.

I fail to see how you are in disagreement with me here.


Polygamy was not a different definition of marriage; polygamy is engaging in more than one marriage at a time. Marriage is and has always been a union between a man and a woman.

Polygamy was accepted practice in biblical times and in Muslim countries, while it is not acceptable in the US and most western countries today.

I'm well aware, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? The definition of marriage which I've repeated remains unchanged.

Gay Marriage need not take from hetrosexual marraige, why on earth would it Ordon. What are you scared that homosexual marriage would be more successful and make hetrosexuals look bad. Of course friggin not! It wouldn't effect hetrosexuals at all.

As I have said before, it would have ill social and moral consequences, particularly since they would be sanctioned by the government, which is an extension of society.

Equality for all, no matter what. If Jesus wanted anything, I'd say that was one of the things he wanted. Love is not a throw away issue as you so claim it to be. If you have a loveless life, in the end, no matter what, you will be the one that has lost.

With how greatly you misunderstand Jesus, it's no surprise that you completely misunderstand me.

Since when does marriage have anythng to do with ethics? Half the people against gay marriages believe fully in "shotgun weddings" anyway.

All of life involves ethics. And I don't support "shotgun weddings." I think they are a farce. I also think no-fault divorce should be outlawed.

You're very wrong about Christians not accepting gay marriage. As a matter of fact, some Christian Churches already bless same-sex unions, even though it's not necessarily legal where they perform the ceremony. Not all Christian denominations denouce same-sex couples.

If you say that it's you Catholics who doesn't accept the way homosexuals live, then it's another story.

Not all "Christian" denominations are Christian.

And there are homosexuals because it's a natural, biological condition.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean it occurs in nature, yes. If you mean that it is conditioned entirely on genetics, you're wrong.

Don't you guys understand the pain we are causing them by persecuting them? Do you WANT to inflict pain and suffering on others?! God doesn't approve of that! It's wrong! When did YOU presume to judge people? When last I'd checked, it's God that does the judging, not puny mortal humans.

Wait, now, how do YOU know what God approves? And how is it that YOU get to judge us wrong for "inflicting pain"?

The definition of marriage which I've repeated remains unchanged.

...and here I thought words acquired meaning instead of meaning determined by the word. :confused:

And most people who hate the French do so because they are very much like them.

Tbh I found the french really quite polite despite all the stigma, something I'm not very much like at all ;)

You were the one who said you could take any child and make them whatever sexuality you wanted to. Looks like you've contradicted yourself here, unless you think you are God.

Umm let me reiterate this with another example.

Intention does not mean ability.

Let's say you wanted to run a 4 minute mile, no amount of wishful thinking in the universe could allow you to run it if you're simply incapable of it for some reason or another.

So you believe that animals (or fir trees, for that matter) have the intellectual ability to "choose" a sexual orientation based on life experiences? All of them?

No what I mean is they don't have the choice as humans do.
So using the sexuality of animals is irrelevant. Male dolphins are generally bisexual, but we aren't dolphins. et al?

No, you assumed that's what the person was saying so that you could argue. It was quite clear that all they were saying is that, if it is logical to believe that slavery is wrong even though Paul said it was correct, then it is logical to believe that he might have been wrong about homosexual behavior as well.

He may have been (even though the bible didn't support slavery, it actually granted slaves rights far beyond what they had previously making their lives better, or do you actually think he was naive enough to think he could just say "ban slaves" and that would be accepted ? There's really nothing so intrinsically wrong with owning a slave so long as they are treated fine. The problem historically has always been that treating them decently is next to impossible to actually have happen).

the government sometimes has to be forced to recognize someone as *equal*. This is historically very true.

Those who have been accepted without force are historically always better off in the future than those who aren't. Countries like England don't even have a "Real constitution" and rights have really only been granted by the government of the time, but yet in England the prevalence of "hate" towards minorities is what compared to the US?

The leader of their state sanctioned church the Arch Bishop of Canterbury favours allowing homosexuals to be married in the Church, be priests in the church, allowed to fully unified into society, racial minorities have nowhere near the stress etc, but yet these movements can only be finalised into law via the house of commons rather than black robed dictators.

Give it time and let it happen naturally, and you and nearly everyone else will be better off for it in the long run.

Are you just making shit up now? We are talking about solving a problem. It is called the government openly discriminating against a subset of the population that has done nothing wrong.

Yet what happens if you lose? the government will lock the ruling down onto it for decades, all I'm saying is a child should not be caught in the middle of this "problem solving" until the problem is solved.

Why this particular social norm and not another? Why is it superior to have children raised by a "nuclear family"?

I've not been talking about nuclear families. I've been talking about marriage, and how it provides a basis for a stable environment in which to raise children. Surely, you cannot argue that this applies exclusively to nuclear families? You've gone off on a tangent which I have not addressed nor intended to address.

Is the implication that homosexuals are not capable of the level of commitment required to sustain a same-sex marriage / lifetime civil union?

No, the implication is that love, especially as it is commonly understood (warm-fuzzies mixed with sexual attraction), is not the sole basis of a legitimate marriage.

and interracial marriage was illegal too. until all those mixed race couples deceided to be asses and demand sanctions for their non-marriages. before that, everyone understood that marriage was between a man and woman of the same race.

The sheer number of times I must repeat myself in debates like this is absolutely ridiculous. If you're not willing to read every post I've written in a thread, DO NOT RESPOND WITH CLICHÉS. No one has YET to break down the logic I've used in my definition of marriage. Interracial marriages were ontological marriages; they were, however, legally invalid marriages, much as are incestuous marriages today. The prohibition against interracial marriage was itself a novelty in the grand scheme of things, as humans all over the world had long engaged in interracial marriages. Homosexual relationships, however, are not marriages, nor have they ever been considered such.

...and here I thought words acquired meaning instead of meaning determined by the word. :confused:

Perhaps, then, you should consider that I'm not speaking of etymology, but of a sociological concept which we call "marriage."

Quote:
This whole arguement is rediculous because god gave humans free will.



To which you replied:



Where, might I ask, do you get this idea? Not from the Bible, I'm sure.



I'm not much in religion but isn't god for free will?

So, are you supposed to commit murder? Should you commit murder? Do you lack the capacity to commit murder?



Yes, in some cases we should commit murder (war for instance) and we are probably meant to do it to keep our territories. Though if raised in the wrong way and taught the wrong way we may use murder in the wrong way. Many animals do kill, do you think it is wrong for wolves to kill other wolves when they step into their territory?

Yes, I will discern between their chromosomes, because no matter how much two people love each other, it is quite simply wrong to engage in sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex, just as it would be wrong to engage in sexual intercourse with one's biological father or mother, and even more so with an animal (if, theoretically, the animal could love back on the same level).



If it is wrong then how come we do it, and have been doing it for many years and we're not the only animal that do it (several dolphines prefer the same sex). This may be another thing of human nature.
But if it is wrong and we are freaks of nature then we can't do anything about it, we are born this way and it cannot be changed, so stop making our lives harder then yours just for being gay.

I'm not much in religion but isn't god for free will?

Man's will is constrained by his nature, i.e., a man wills only what is ultimately in accordance with his nature. Since his nature is evil and corrupted, so also his will. Martin Luther is good on this subject.

Yes, in some cases we should commit murder (war for instance) and we are probably meant to do it to keep our territories. Though if raised in the wrong way and taught the wrong way we may use murder in the wrong way. Many animals do kill, do you think it is wrong for wolves to kill other wolves when they step into their territory?

Murder is not the same as just any kind of killing. Murder is wrongful killing. A soldier killing an enemy soldier in combat is not killing wrongfully. A soldier killing a P.O.W. without cause, on the other hand, is.

As far as animals go, I don't consider them to be moral creatures, so it doesn't apply.

If it is wrong then how come we do it, and have been doing it for many years and we're not the only animal that do it (several dolphines prefer the same sex). This may be another thing of human nature.

Then I submit to your consideration the act of cannibalism, which occurs in humans as well as in other species.

But if it is wrong and we are freaks of nature then we can't do anything about it, we are born this way and it cannot be changed, so stop making our lives harder then yours just for being gay.

I'm not convinced either that homosexuals are "born that way" nor that "it cannot be changed."

Murder is not the same as just any kind of killing. Murder is wrongful killing. A soldier killing an enemy soldier in combat is not killing wrongfully. A soldier killing a P.O.W. without cause, on the other hand, is.

As far as animals go, I don't consider them to be moral creatures, so it doesn't apply.

As i said before: Though if raised in the wrong way and taught the wrong way we may use murder in the wrong way. In other words killing is our nature but if trained or taught in a wrong way (like a gaurd dog for instance) we will use killing in the wrong way.

I'm not convinced either that homosexuals are "born that way" nor that "it cannot be changed."

Trust me, I've been gay as long as I can remember, though when I was younger I didn't notice it as much since I hadn't gone through puberty. And we can't be changed, just trust me on that one.

Ordon, you're obviously religious, so i have a quote for you.

"It seems to me rather sad, and rather revealing, that when it comes to sex we suddenly become much less intelligent about our reading of the Bible.
If the Bible is very clear - as I think it is - that a heterosexual indulging in homosexual activity for the sake of variety and gratification is not following the will of God, does that automatically say that that is the only sort of homosexual activity there could ever be? "

- Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Worldwide leader of the Church of England (Episcopal to you americans)

Ordon, you're obviously religious, so i have a quote for you.

"It seems to me rather sad, and rather revealing, that when it comes to sex we suddenly become much less intelligent about our reading of the Bible.
If the Bible is very clear - as I think it is - that a heterosexual indulging in homosexual activity for the sake of variety and gratification is not following the will of God, does that automatically say that that is the only sort of homosexual activity there could ever be? "

- Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Worldwide leader of the Church of England (Episcopal to you americans)

So are you for or against gay marriages?

I'm against "Forcing the issue against a vocal (and potentially destructive) majority"

I'm fine with it if the change comes smoothly through a change in society (I sit on the fence to be honest, I don't feel "effected by it" either way), and I see a general change as the only way for it to be successful in the long term.

I'm really against regurgitated opinions and warlike minorities though ;)

I prefer to see people think, take a look at issues, try to see it from both sides of the coin, try to understand where the other side is coming from, why they think that way (you know, for you hippies, religion isn't the only reason, and for you bible thumpers, there are respected highly positioned members of the fraternity who are more open to a moderate stance) and what can go wrong trying to make them change...

In all reality, I think the "need" for the word marriage is one of the real wedges in the argument though, as I've heard someone mention, civil unions would be acceptable, and would foster change gradually much easier than trying to kick the door down and go straight for the "marriage" word.

I'm against "Forcing the issue against a vocal (and potentially destructive) majority"

I'm fine with it if the change comes smoothly through a change in society (I sit on the fence to be honest, I don't feel "effected by it" either way), and I see a general change as the only way for it to be successful in the long term.

Ok, fair enough. You shouldn't feel as though it effects you unless you're the actual person getting married.

Ok, fair enough. You shouldn't feel as though it effects you unless you're the actual person getting married.

Why do you think I said I don't feel "effected" by it.
Now If i hated the lifestyle with a passion, I can understand how being forced to do things like extend spousal rights to a group you despise that you never needed to previously could feel tyrannical.

(yes, I know there's the vice versa, but 2 wrongs don't make a right)

There are also some rights they claim are restricted that they "want" that I think they shouldn't get (I'm talking about trivial ones here, like being unable to join "The Navy Wives of America", since there's really, no wife)

Perhaps, then, you should consider that I'm not speaking of etymology, but of a sociological concept which we call "marriage."


Oh you mean that religious abstraction of human nature evidently reserved for heterosexuals to form pair bonds? How clicky.

The religion is to the biology as three to one, preceed by the sociology and followed by legalities so get out of the way! :P

Why do you think I said I don't feel "effected" by it.


Yeah, I read it, I was just agreeing with you in more depth.

All right then, explain to me, which church exactly would be established? Which clergy, which doctrines in particular, and would you have to pay taxes to support it?

Adopting any law simply because your particular brand of Christianity says so is exactly the same as banning pork or requiring women to cover their hair because Islam says so. It establishes a state-sponsored religion.

And yes, since money would go into the application of such a law, my taxes would be going to support a view of my religion that I do not agree with.

Wrong. Really, now, if you want to uphold your silly "couple's rights" argument from earlier, it's not a good idea to speak of rights and privileges that apply to the individual, don't you think?

Not really. There is only one type of license that applies to a couple. On the other hand, there are many that apply to the individual (although, to a married couple, a fishing license is often applied to both). The point in this case was that if we cannot discriminate on the basis of sexuality for *all* types of government-issued licenses because "doing otherwise would condone their lifestyle," we cannot discriminate on that basis for marriage licenses either.

You give me a single case of any couple eligible for marriage that has been denied a license on the basis of sexuality. Even a gay man and lesbian woman could apply for a marriage license and get one.

Oh yeah, go ahead and push for people to live a lie. Great idea. Saying that a gay man and a lesbian woman could get a marriage license is like suggesting that I dress up as a man and go try and get one with a woman. It is completely outrageous to suggest that two people who cannot share a true marriage go and get a marriage license and to suggest it denigrates marriage much more than any homosexual couple ever will.

(a) I have studied sexuality. Guess which form is the most effective for reproduction. Guess also which is overwhelmingly extant in human populations.

You obviously missed the part that sexuality is not completely about reproduction. You also missed the fact that being in a minority does not make something wrong.

(b) Men and women are different biologically (and even psychologically, to some extent). This is scientific. Men impregnate, women become impregnated. Men are physically larger and stronger than women. Societies necessarily develop roles for these sexes based partly on these differences. Not all roles are morally correct.

And none of the roles are morally correct if the person does not feel comfortable within them. If a man does not want to impregnate a woman, he should not be forced to. If a woman does not wish to become impregnanted, she should not be forced to. If a small skinny man doesn't want to take steroids to be big and strong, he shoudl not be forced to. And if a man falls in love with a man, he should not be forced to give that up just because of your preconceived notions.

It has little to do with my ability to abide by my morals; it has much more to do with the society as a whole slipping into worser moral conditions.

Oh, I see, so you think that no one other than you has any morals. "Live and let live as long as you don't mess with me" is not a bad moral - maybe you should check it out sometime.

WHO AM I HARMING? And yes, you are talking about your morals. Rights theory is a theory of morality, whether you like it or not. That you desire to uphold the Constitution in the point of rights theory proves that you use the government to enforce your morality (in this case, of a particular kind of rights theory) on others.

You are harming those on which you are forcing your particular religious morals. You are harming the people who want nothing more than to be themselves but are spit on and harrassed for doing so, regardless of the fact that they harm no one. You are harming people who build an entire life together, only to have it ripped out from under them completely if their partner dies suddenly.

As for my morality, I wish to uphold the Constitution. If you would like to call that a moral, fine - but at least it is a legally binding moral. Besides, as I have pointed out, I am not asking you to be homosexual, nor am I asking you to personally accept it as valid.

My system of morality prevents me from enforcing every aspect of my morality on others, just as yours does. I can't nor do I have any desire to force people to become Christian. But in this representative republic, I have every right to express such a desire, should I actually hold it, and every right to work through current legal means to bring it to fruition.

1st amendment. You have every right to express such a desire, but the only current legal means to bring it to fruition would be to amend the Constitution to make our great country a theocracy. Go ahead and try for that.

Neither would two straight male friends have such recourse.

Nor would they need it.

No, it's more like saying that people who don't pass the driver test shouldn't be given a license. To make it more obvious, a couple which doesn't meet the requirements for a legitimate marriage should not receive a marriage license—the same rule applies to incestuous couples, for example, as to homosexual couples.

You are truly missing the point here. You personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You have the personal right to discriminate all you want against homosexuals. The government does not have that right. They cannot discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, or sexual orientation without showing a damn good reason. So far, their only reason is "God said it" (which is invalid as per the 1st amendment) and "It's tradition" (which should never be used in denying rights).

So, it can only be compared to not passing the driver's test if the driver's test includes a requirement that you must be straight to get your license.

Sorry, I'm not going to fall for emotionalism. I don't find it convincing in the least. Perhaps if we forbade all homosexual relationships altogether, we wouldn't happen upon this unhappy situation. But surely you're not willing to have that.

Of course I'm not, and if you are, you should move to a theocracy.

It's not inherently wrong, but neither is the relationship between the parents.

Nor is a homosexual relationship according to any logic. You only find it wrong based on twisted morals.

The laws against interracial marriages were a novelty. Interracial marriages had been practiced from time imemorium. Dropping the prohibition restored a better understanding of marriage. None the less, they weren't ever considered non-marriages, but rather illegitimate marriages. Homosexual relationships are non-marriages.

A novelty, eh? Is that why they had similar laws in ancient Israel?

And homosexual unions were recognized in certain religions, just not in yours.

Not at all. One need not advocate punishment to say that others are deserving of the suffering which they bring upon themselves. A many who squanders all of his money need not be legally punished, and I would not advocate it. But the suffering he experiences as a result of his poor choices is deserved by him.

Well, if sexuality was a choice, you would have a point here. But you don't.

Why is it that I am NEVER the first person to bring up the Bible in debates like this?

You had already brought it up, which is why I was responding to it. Do you deny that you advocate all of these things?

Umm let me reiterate this with another example.

Intention does not mean ability.

In other words, you were lying when you said you could take any child and make them become whatever sexuality you want. Point taken.

No what I mean is they don't have the choice as humans do.
So using the sexuality of animals is irrelevant. Male dolphins are generally bisexual, but we aren't dolphins. et al?

Humans don't choose their sexuality either. They can choose whether or not to act upon it, but asking that homosexuals abstain without asking that all human beings abstain is like saying "People who like chocolate should never eat chocolate but people who like sugar candy should eat all of it that they want, because they are right according to me and my God."

He may have been (even though the bible didn't support slavery, it actually granted slaves rights far beyond what they had previously making their lives better, or do you actually think he was naive enough to think he could just say "ban slaves" and that would be accepted ? There's really nothing so intrinsically wrong with owning a slave so long as they are treated fine. The problem historically has always been that treating them decently is next to impossible to actually have happen).

A truly all=good God would be unable to support an immoraly practice. Besides, since when has God decided what to ask based on whether or not it would be accepted. Since when does an all-powerful God have to ask humankind permission to set morals?

And there *is* something intrinsically wrong with owning a slave - because you are treating them poorly simply by implying that they able to be owned. It is a clear mistreatment to treat any human being like an object to be owned.

And yes, the Bible does clearly condone slavery. Did you know that, if you beat your slave to death and he survived at least one night before dying, God said that was perfectly fine since he was your property? Did you know that God condoned forcing someone into life-long slavery by basically holding their wife and child (who could not go free) hostage? Did you know that God condoned the idea that if you killed a neighboor's slave, you had to give your neighboor a cow, but never had to make any reparations to the slave's family. Did you know that we should have enslaved all of the Iraqis, since they are the spoils of war? If you believe that everything in the Bible is the word of God, you believe all of this.

Yet what happens if you lose? the government will lock the ruling down onto it for decades, all I'm saying is a child should not be caught in the middle of this "problem solving" until the problem is solved.

So would you condone taking children away from their parents, then?

And how can you possibly believe that *any* stable, loving family is worse than an orphanage or foster home, where children have no stability and feel as if they will never find a family to love them?

Man's will is constrained by his nature, i.e., a man wills only what is ultimately in accordance with his nature. Since his nature is evil and corrupted, so also his will. Martin Luther is good on this subject.

Luther based that mostly off of Augustine, and Augustine was an idiot.

In all reality, I think the "need" for the word marriage is one of the real wedges in the argument though, as I've heard someone mention, civil unions would be acceptable, and would foster change gradually much easier than trying to kick the door down and go straight for the "marriage" word.

Many people would be fine with it if the government stopped using the term altogether and just left it up to the churches. The government could exclusively use the term civil union. Then there would be not constitutional problems here.

And homosexual unions were recognized in certain religions, just not in yours.

Bad bad example, you really don't want to get into the pros and cons of "other religions".

As for Christianity in society....Thanksgiving, one of the world's only holidays with 100% Christian historical background. (even Christmas and that has some paganism to its origins, but not thanksgiving)

Adopting any law simply because your particular brand of Christianity says so is exactly the same as banning pork or requiring women to cover their hair because Islam says so. It establishes a state-sponsored religion.

This is a question I asked on another board, maybe I might have a better chance of having it answered here.

Why is the Democrats/Left so distinctly anti/threatened by religion? Take DOMA for example, it was Clinton (an atheist as far as i can tell) who signed it into law, but yet when a "Christian" favours a law with the same outcome, they're suddenly transformed into some monster?

There's really nothing wrong with people lobbying for laws based on their beliefset, heck, modern liberalism is like a religion with no god, and the tree hugging greens are a religion :P Take Turkey for example, whilst Islam is far and away the dominant religion, and many of their laws reflect islam, they're certainly not a Theocracy.

Bad bad example, you really don't want to get into the pros and cons of "other religions".

In other words, you think all other religions are inferior to yours. Nice.

As for Christianity in society....Thanksgiving, one of the world's only holidays with 100% Christian historical background. (even Christmas and that has some paganism to its origins, but not thanksgiving)

Thanksgiving is Christian only in that the Puritans were Puritans. The actual celebration has to do with having plenty to eat and not dying. As for the fact that these are holidays in society, both holidays (even if you think Thanksgiving was completly based on religion) have been secularized to the point that nearly everyone, regardless of religion, celebrates them in some way, even if it is just to say "YAY! I get a holiday home from work!"

This is a question I asked on another board, maybe I might have a better chance of having it answered here.

Why is the Democrats/Left so distinctly anti/threatened by religion?

Beats me. I suppose if you find a Democrat or a Leftist, you can ask them that. Personally, I am a religious person. However, I feel threatened by anyone who tries to force their particular religion upon me. I am fine with discussing religion, but not legislating it (as this violates (a) the 1st amendment and (b) the right of all human beings to determine their own religious beliefs)

Take DOMA for example, it was Clinton (an atheist as far as i can tell) who signed it into law, but yet when a "Christian" favours a law with the same outcome, they're suddenly transformed into some monster?

I condemned Clinton (who I actually believe was a Christian, but rarely brought his religion into politics) for that action just as much as I have anybody else. In fact, Clinton was even worse when you consider that he ran on a ticket including equal rights for homosexuals, but supported dont-ask-don't-tell and DOMA.

There's really nothing wrong with people lobbying for laws based on their beliefset, heck, modern liberalism is like a religion with no god, and the tree hugging greens are a religion :P

There is nothing wrong with people lobbying for laws because they have a hangnail. However, there is something wrong with enforcing laws based entirely on religion on people who are not of that particular religion.

Take Turkey for example, whilst Islam is far and away the dominant religion, and many of their laws reflect islam, they're certainly not a Theocracy.

And if the laws that reflect Islam restrict individual rights without justification other than Islam, they are laws that should not be there, and Turkey is, at least partially, a theocracy.

Here is the thing. We live in a democratic republic, and what the people want is law. It may not be the right thing, but that's what happens when you have majority rule.

sidenote: I am an Ohio voter who voted absentee. I voted against the ban.

In other words, you think all other religions are inferior to yours. Nice.

There aren't many religion that don't, which is why it's a bad example.

"Some religions accept it, some don't" yes but some religions accept and expect virginal sacrifices also...

Beats me. I suppose if you find a Democrat or a Leftist, you can ask them that. Personally, I am a religious person. However, I feel threatened by anyone who tries to force their particular religion upon me. I am fine with discussing religion, but not legislating it (as this violates (a) the 1st amendment and (b) the right of all human beings to determine their own religious beliefs)

Yet the laws of western cultured societies ooze Christianity like a giant zit.
Western society is so fundamentally structured around the modern takings of the early greek writers and later refined thru Augustine and Aquinas, that people seem to not realise that really we do live in "Christian Democracies".

"Some religions accept it, some don't" yes but some religions accept and expect virginal sacrifices also...



So. What if the sacrifice was consentual? I fail to see why that is wrong on any level. If you want someone to kill you, why not? Youll be the one paying for it if you are into that whole hell thing.

This is all moot, anyway. Religion ought not to be mixed into politics. The Founding Fathers, devout Christians that they were, STILL created the separation of church and state.

I am a Christian and my argument was, ultimately, based on Biblical principles. It is indeed God's place to judge. However, God uses certain means to exact earthly judgement apart from the final judgement. One of these ordained means is civil government. The best civil government will not judge according to human standards, but will judge according to biblical principles.

Good GOD. That would enact a Christian Talibanish state. No, Ordon, you are wrong. God gave us freedom, not chains. The best civil government will AVOID judging by biblical principles. The Bible is, after all, of human origin. The only rules we received straight from God were the ten commandments. Hence the term, "graven in stone".

This is all moot, anyway. Religion ought not to be mixed into politics. The Founding Fathers, devout Christians that they were, STILL created the separation of church and state.

And most of them were Deists anyways, not Christians. =)

Ordin, seriously, you're completely batshit crazy.

God is seen through His creation which surrounds us. Even the most cursory rational inquiry into existence must conclude that there is some ordering principle underlying it all. Logic might be an answer a secular Westerner would give. A statement such as "a thing cannot both exist and not exist" is imminantly reasonable and fundamental to a proper understanding of existence. Were men's faculties of reason not so damaged by sin, all men would see that this "ordering principle" is ultimately a creator God. Were men's faculties of moral judgement not so corrupt, all men would perceive that God is perfectly holy, just, and good, such that wrongfulness cannot go perpetually unpunished, and that men must somehow make amends with God so as not to incur punishment and rather to attain goodness.
3) However, since men ultimately prefer sin to that which is really true, they reject the overwhelming evidence for God's existence and for His attributes, and delude themselves with fanciful and false interpretations of the world around them. They can do little else since they are consumed by willful sin. They have no excuse because the evidence around them shows them to be wrong, and yet they willfully engage in their own deception.

Thanks for proving everyone who thinks Christians are loonies right.

Thanks for proving everyone who thinks Christians are loonies right.

I beg to differ...

I'm a heterosexual Christian, and I totally support gay marriage. To my understanding, marriage is the opposite to what has been argued earlier in this thread - marriage is a formal, ceremonial expression of love and commitment and the legal benefits are purely ceremonial. Why then, should homosexuals be legally forbidden from committing themselves in this manner? Do they not feel love just as much as straight people?

I'm not a loony! Being called a loony makes me a sad panda.

But you're right, that guy is. :p

I beg to differ...

I'm a heterosexual Christian, and I totally support gay marriage. To my understanding, marriage is the opposite to what has been argued earlier in this thread - marriage is a formal, ceremonial expression of love and commitment and the legal benefits are purely ceremonial. Why then, should homosexuals be legally forbidden from committing themselves in this manner? Do they not feel love just as much as straight people?

I'm not a loony! Being called a loony makes me a sad panda.

But you're right, that guy is. :p

Um....ditto! Although to me, the issue of having a ceremonial expression of love and commitment is not the issue we are fighting for. Many homosexual couples already have these ceremonies performed. The real issue is that they cannot receive equal protection under the law, and such unions are in much more danger of financial and health problems.

Marriage is as god defines it - a man and a woman.

Gay marriage should not be acceptable under the Catholic church.
I don't see a problem with gay marriage outside the Catholic church though.

Marriage is as god defines it - a man and a woman.

Which god?

My God says it's just fine and dandy with him. And my God-note the capital letter there, it's not on yours-could SO kick your wimpy little god's ass.

Marriage is a contract between a couple and the government.. some of the other posts have made clear the benefits of that contract...I'm not worried about the religious aspects of that because its not illegal for any priest, minister, or what-have-you to declare someone married. What I'm concerned about is this ...Why should "Straight" couples get the benefit of this Contract with the government (marriage) and "Gay" couples not? If marriage is defined as "the union between a MAN and a WOMAN" then maybe the union between two men or two women could be called something else?

Marriage is a contract between a couple and the government..

That's really the problem in itself

Why should "Straight" couples get the benefit of this Contract with the government (marriage) and "Gay" couples not?

Because the contract requires both parties to be in agreeance, and while one (the government) isn't, there's not much you can do except fight it (as hopeless as it really is).

As the case the government is holding is "it's not that we're banning it, it's that we're not recognising the agreement for legal status", it turns it into a regulation. Much like the government can regulate who has a driver's license or who who has a liquor license etc.

Also in their advantage is they can claim sexual orientation blindness.

Ie, where restricting say a black person, they need to specifically pick out a factor, ie their skin colour. In the case of same sex couples, they can say "it's a universal law, one man and one woman, their sexual orientation (wait for this one) is none of our business, but this our marriage regulation.