NationStates Jolt Archive

"All the cat's I've seen have been black, never invisible. Therefore, all cats are black"

"All gay's I've seen are stereotypical (which is how I identify they're gay), never non-stereoytypical. Therefore, all gays are stereotpyical gays."

So, what Term is saying is "I judge all homosexuals by the ones that display the attributes I identify as 'gay' (acting like the stereotype), but never temper that with the behaviour of those that *don't* act 'gay'... because I don't identify those that don't act 'gay' as being homosexual"

What about all the homosexuals who you don't realize are gay because they don't fit the stereotype? How can they counter the stereotype if you aren't aware they exist, because you use your stereotype to look for examples of the population at large?

Apparently, it doesn't matter how many homosexuals don't fit his idea of 'gay', because he'll never realise they *are* homosexuals because, get this, they don't fit his idea of 'gay'.

It's like circular reasoning on crack cocaine.

[QUOTE]
Yes, but thats Jesus, I'm only human.

I'll do my best of course, but you can only be pushed so far.

Yeah, that's not what Jesus was teaching. In fact, that's the antithesis of that lesson. The lesson is, "Tolerate, endure, and forgive," and that doesn't end with, "Unless it's not convenient for you, " or, "Unless you don't feel like it."

So it's okay for you to make the choice to sin, but if a homosexual does, they're somehow less than human and deserve certain persecutions? Has anyone called you a hypocrite yet on this page?

I'm talking about a large area with a large population and you come up with a

truckstop, how about a bit of relevance.

Hmm, truckers are mostly straight, and a truckstop is where one would run into many truckers, much like in a gay neighborhood you run into many homosexuals. Sounds relevant to me - or is that only the case when it serves the purpose of your arguments?

Hmm, let's talk about frat houses then...let's of pictures of naked women, and stories of frat people going through yearbooks or having female quotas for party guests are hardly unheard of. Hmm, construction workers hooting and hollering at females from the workzone? Yeah, heterosexuals are demure and discreet about sexuality...one can invoke any number of heterosexual male stereotypes for your gay neighborhood stereotype.

ok look ill keep it simple. Aside from the disease arguement, the arguement from the kids. The fact that if it is allowed the next thing to go will be any speech against it. And ill even argue outside the fact that God doesnt like it.
Lets look at it in a simple way: it lacks logic. A man and a man, a woman and a woman, it is illogical. Is that simple enough for everyone to understand?

Now you have put me on the spot... my brain is trying to convince me it was Cathari, but I fear I may be confusing what was said in the persecution of Cathari, with what they actually followed.

Cathari or not, there were several 'Gnostic' factions that believed 'alternative' arrangements of the god/satan conception: Faced with the knowledge that the world is perverse, and that god is pure, they decided it made no sense for the 'pure' to have contaminated itself with the impure... so there must have been another 'creator'. This being they called 'demiurge' - the 'second mover', behind the 'prime mover', who is the true god. They believed that demiurge created the world, and was, therefore, the God of the Old Testament.

In Bogomil thought... there was a god with TWO sons, Christ, adn his older brother Satanael. Satanael gets fed up with being second-place, and creates this world, and all that are in it... but god has to help him with the breath of life. So - the god of the bible is satan, and there IS no 'satan' satan in this story. Oh, christ is eventually sent to 'claim' some of those creations, by virtue of the breath of life.

It's an interesting concept. I just wish my brain was being a little more cooperative.

I've heard of the Gnostic traditions, and they are interesting...I'll have to look the others up. They do sound fascinating. As an aside, I think they also show how easy it is to set up a cosmology, and why it's foolish for anyone to think that their current cosmological model must be True.

Funny, I missed the some time clause. And Jesus didn't say an eye for an eye.

Yeah, that was the Code of Hammurabi, at the beginnings of the idea of crime-and-punishment in justice, and some of the oldest laws known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

ok look ill keep it simple. Aside from the disease arguement, the arguement from the kids. The fact that if it is allowed the next thing to go will be any speech against it. And ill even argue outside the fact that God doesnt like it.
Lets look at it in a simple way: it lacks logic. A man and a man, a woman and a woman, it is illogical. Is that simple enough for everyone to understand?

So you admit the disease argument is invalid (or you should).

Argument... from the kids? I... have no idea what you mean. Scientific studies show that children raised by homosexuals show a) no sign of being more mentally unstable than children raised by heterosexuals and b) have no greater chance of growing up homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals.

So, whatever your point there was... I don't think it matters.

Speech against it cannot be banned, and that's a ridiculous slippery slope anyway. Homosexuals at large don't give a damn what you *say* about them, as long as they can get equal legal protection.

Two people who love each other should be able to get married. What is 'illogical' is that you randomly decide that man+woman is a viable couple, but man+man or woman+woman isn't. They love each other the same way, they live the same way. They are the same, but some people are incapable of showing empathy.

ok look ill keep it simple. Aside from the disease arguement, the arguement from the kids. The fact that if it is allowed the next thing to go will be any speech against it. And ill even argue outside the fact that God doesnt like it.
Lets look at it in a simple way: it lacks logic. A man and a man, a woman and a woman, it is illogical. Is that simple enough for everyone to understand?

Evidently not because it makes no sense? How does it follow that if gay marriage is allowed the next thing to go will be speech about it? Abortion is allowed, but there is still free speech and opposition to it--hell, pro-lifers still murder pro-choices when they get the chance.

And you want logic?

A man loves a woman, they express their love in a public cermony and are given special rights as a couple.

A man loves a man, they express their love in a public ceremony and are give special rights as a couple.

That's logic. Especially in a secular nation that has freedom of religion.

Here's another one:

A church that doesn't believe in gay marriage is allowed not to perform them.

A church that does believe in gay marriage is allowed to perform them.

It's simple really.

ok look ill keep it simple. Aside from the disease arguement, the arguement from the kids. The fact that if it is allowed the next thing to go will be any speech against it. And ill even argue outside the fact that God doesnt like it.
Lets look at it in a simple way: it lacks logic. A man and a man, a woman and a woman, it is illogical. Is that simple enough for everyone to understand?

There is simple and there is simplism. :D

So you admit the disease argument is invalid (or you should).

Argument... from the kids? I... have no idea what you mean. Scientific studies show that children raised by homosexuals show a) no sign of being more mentally unstable than children raised by heterosexuals and b) have no greater chance of growing up homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals.

So, whatever your point there was... I don't think it matters.

Speech against it cannot be banned, and that's a ridiculous slippery slope anyway. Homosexuals at large don't give a damn what you *say* about them, as long as they can get equal legal protection.

Two people who love each other should be able to get married. What is 'illogical' is that you randomly decide that man+woman is a viable couple, but man+man or woman+woman isn't. They love each other the same way, they live the same way. They are the same, but some people are incapable of showing empathy.

You know, I posted a response against him too not too minutes ago. But reading back over his post I think we should conclude that he is in somewhere between the fourth and seventh grade (maybe higher depending onw hat type of school he is in). Probably not much of a point in arguing with someone still working on the three Rs. Reading, Writing, and Ridiculous.

You know, I posted a response against him too not too minutes ago. But reading back over his post I think we should conclude that he is in somewhere between the fourth and seventh grade (maybe higher depending onw hat type of school he is in). Probably not much of a point in arguing with someone still working on the three Rs. Reading, Writing, and Ridiculous.

Hee, but it'll be good practice for when Terminalia returns and wants to debate the exact same points.

For the life of me I cannot see what's worthy of debate in Term's posts.

ok look ill keep it simple. Aside from the disease arguement, the arguement from the kids. The fact that if it is allowed the next thing to go will be any speech against it. And ill even argue outside the fact that God doesnt like it.
Lets look at it in a simple way: it lacks logic. A man and a man, a woman and a woman, it is illogical. Is that simple enough for everyone to understand?

You speak as if those arguments have any merit...

Anyway, as far as the first point you made, is speech against inter-racial marriage banned? No, so you have no argument there. There is no correlation between legalizing something and banning speech against it, and no legal precedent.

So, since your logic is simple, it must be right? Yeah, that makes sense :rolleyes: ...now, how about you go about an argument of logic the right way and try to prove your point? If you've read any of this 60+ page thread, you'd know that very few people here find it "illogical." Hell, the length of this thread makes that pretty evident.

For the life of me I cannot see what's worthy of debate in Term's posts.

Nothing...debate implies a logical and intelligent exchange. Term's posts, based in ideology and belief, are thusly not debatable, even if they were debate-worthy.

Nothing...debate implies a logical and intelligent exchange. Term's posts, based in ideology and belief, are thusly not debatable, even if they were debate-worthy.

So why do people keep replying?

So why do people keep replying?

It's a self destructive habit of auto-masochism that I've developed over the years. . . .

Actually because I find it fun. Terms' (pseudo)arguements are ones that many people around me use. I've found out new ways to counter them and perhaps help those people open their minds a little bit by talking to him. Sure, he's too stubborn, but there have to be people slightly more open and perhaps we CAN convince them some day. So basically, its good practice.

You know, I find it odd that people who believe in marrige argue about what's logical and natural.

Because polygamy is the top of both.

Funnily enough, many single straight guys have one night stands as well. Gay guys don't do any of this stuff more then your average straight guy.

lol bullshit!

lol bullshit!

o.O

*backs away slowly*

I can't believe there are people around who don't know this stuff...

*hides in pillowfort that is surrounding computer desk*

In my country homosexuality is against the law. Gay marriages are a travesty of the aincient institution of marriage.

American liberals will split the church very soon if they continue this way.

oh nooo.. the poor church.

In my country homosexuality is against the law. Gay marriages are a travesty of the aincient institution of marriage.

American liberals will split the church very soon if they continue this way.

You mean the ancient institution that existed *before* religion? The one that has variously included polygamy and marriage to minors? Arranged marriages ring a bell?

What about all the hundreds of heterosexuals who abuse the right of marriage? Don't THEY make heterosexual marriage just as much of a travesty?

American liberals don't give a damn about the church, they want equal rights for everyone, regardless of who the church wants to belittle and discriminate against.

[QUOTE=Bottle]
however, saying that somebody doesn't have the right to do those things because you think they are icky is homophobic. devaluing a person simply because they make different choices in their sex life is homophobic.

Devaluing a persons sexual preference is not devaluing them themselves,

unless you believe that it is the whole point of the persons existance.

So, sorry its not homophobic.


believing that a person should not be granted equal legal rights based on the sexual conduct they engage in with consenting adults is homophobic.

I have no problem with homosexuals having the same legal rights in most

matters, but not in the case of marriage or rearing children, as it isnt natural

for them to be involved in either activity.

You calling me a homophobe for disagreeing with you on this, proves nothing.



as long as they aren't trying to sleep with YOU, it doesn't matter what they are doing in their private life (provided all parties are consenting, of course), and there is no reason for you to attempt to force your personal values upon them.

Try to understand Bottle, I am quite entittled to enforce my personal values

on them if they go against something I believe like marriage or childrearing as

a matter for hetrosexuals only, you telling me I have no right to do this, is in

fact enforcing your personal opinion on me.

I am not walking into gaybars and calling them dirty sodomites, I stay out of

their areas generally, and if I ever go in them, I keep my opinions to myself.

I expect the same in return.


also, research has PROVEN, multiple times, that straight males who self-identify as strongly disliking homosexuality (i.e. self-identifying as homophobic) are MORE likely to have a physical arrousal reaction to gay porn than are straight males who do not hold homophobic views.

Well I dont watch gay porn for a start, in fact I dont watch any porn at all.

And as I have no interest in watching 'gay porn', then I must not be by your

logic, homophobic.


this research has been reproduced numerous times, and always with the same results. this does not mean that ALL homophobes are gay at heart, but it does provide evidence that many, if not most, homophobic males have some homosexual feelings that they are not addressing in the most healthy way.

Committing a homosexual act does not neccessarily make you a homosexual,

repeating it a few times could but, the revulsion your talking about here

would be heterosexuals who have committed this act and now feel guilt and

self loathing, this does not mean they necessarily hate homosexuals, more

likely its them themselves they hate, with time they will grow out of it, still

be repulsed by homosexuality as is natural, but not hate themselves anymore

for the mistake they made, which is the cause of the hatred.

[QUOTE]I am quite entittled to enforce my personal values

on them if they go against something I believe like marriage or childrearing as

a matter for hetrosexuals only, you telling me I have no right to do this, is in

fact enforcing your personal opinion on me.

Then logically, they can enforce personal values on you! :D

*puts on the funky porn music*

Then logically, they can enforce personal values on you! :D
*puts on the funky porn music*

Exactly, I have no problem with that, if its in their areas, but if they were to

say walk into a church where I am praying, holding hands or something, I

would deem that offensive.

I would not walk into a gay night club waving a Bible at them in return.

Exactly, I have no problem with that, if its in their areas, but if they were to

say walk into a church where I am praying, holding hands or something, I

would deem that offensive.

I would not walk into a gay night club waving a Bible at them in return.

Well said.

Exactly, I have no problem with that, if its in their areas, but if they were to

say walk into a church where I am praying, holding hands or something, I

would deem that offensive.

Then don't hold hands, etc. with a man while you're praying in a church.

I would not walk into a gay night club waving a Bible at them in return.

What if they asked you to perform a wedding ceremony? :D

What if homosexuals push to make it so you can't pray? Since prayer is an action to connect with God, I think it's fair enough. You're denying them the right to be connected legally with their partners, they can deny you the right to be connected religiously with your God.

All hail mighty logic.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

You are aware that's not from the Bible, right?

It's not at all Christian in origin.

I doubt the original speaker would have anything against gay marriage, come to think of it...

Why do religious folks seem to need something to hate...?

Why do religious folks seem to need something to hate...?

Because otherwise they'd have to turn on their own religion and tear it apart, and then live empty, empty lives?

And then discover chocolate, and become functional humans again?

(Chocolate IS TOO a god! *talks to chocolate* shhhh my pet, your time will come... *pets chocolate bar* *looks shifty*)

I do believe eating chocolate is a sin. :(

Merridew[/B]] Example: I joke around with my girl friends all the time. But that's all it is, joking. And we laugh and have fun. But I've only known four men who could freely joke in a similar manner with each other. They were comfortable with their own sexuality, and thus, they could joke about it. They aren't so easily offended because they don't feel like they are being threatened or questioned. They don't feel like they need to do something to prove their not gay. Like, say, act incredibly disgusted just because it's too guys.

So if your comfortable with your own sexuality( hetero in this case) why the

need to joke about it, to prove you are?

Example, once in Manly I went out to some nightclubs with some English

backpackers, one of them insisted while drunk on trying to tounge kiss all the

guys in the group, he proceeded to do this to one fellow.

He turned around to me, I told him to get lost, I was brayed at in a spilt

second as a homophobe, I told him he was an idiot.

Now going by your logic I should have let him pash me to prove Im not a

homophobe, that I was comfortable with my own sexuality, therefore I could

kiss a man in this manner, and not feel the slightest bit threatened by what

people might think of me.

Except for one little thing, the whole idea absolutely disqusted me.

So I am quite comfortable with my own sexuality, being not comfortable with

kissing a bloke on the mouth, doesnt in any way to me, negate this at all.

Your arguement seems to me that only people who joke around in a

homosexual manner are comfortable with their own sexuality as heterosexual.

I and many others do not see or feel the need to joke around in a queer

manner, to prove this.

who said yes is a :mad: MOTHERFUCKING BASTARD FAGGOT
WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO FUCK SOMEBODY IN SOMEBODY ASSHOLE :headbang:
WHERE YOUR"RE :gundge: SHIT COMES FROM ONLY ANIMALS DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! :sniper:
FAGS NEED TO BE SHOT DEAD :mp5:

who said yes is a :mad: MOTHERFUCKING BASTARD FAGGOT
WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO FUCK SOMEBODY IN SOMEBODY ASSHOLE :headbang:
WHERE YOUR"RE :gundge: SHIT COMES FROM ONLY ANIMALS DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! :sniper:
FAGS NEED TO BE SHOT DEAD :mp5:

Hello and goodbye, friend. :) Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.

who said yes is a :mad: MOTHERFUCKING BASTARD FAGGOT
WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO FUCK SOMEBODY IN SOMEBODY ASSHOLE :headbang:
WHERE YOUR"RE :gundge: SHIT COMES FROM ONLY ANIMALS DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! :sniper:
FAGS NEED TO BE SHOT DEAD :mp5:

GOD SAVE THE LESBIANS!!!

Well said.

Thanks buddy, welcome to the forums.

[QUOTE=New Fuglies]Then don't hold hands, etc. with a man while you're praying in a church.

There is nothing wrong with heterosexual men holding hands in Church.

There were some doing it in Church tonight with each other and their familys.


What if they asked you to perform a wedding ceremony? :D

Id tell them to hit the road.

Shaed[/B]]What if homosexuals push to make it so you can't pray? Since prayer is an action to connect with God, I think it's fair enough. You're denying them the right to be connected legally with their partners, they can deny you the right to be connected religiously with your God.
All hail mighty logic.

Yes the amount of logic you used there, is truly astounding. :rolleyes:

Actually because I find it fun. Terms' (pseudo)arguements are ones that many people around me use. I've found out new ways to counter them and perhaps help those people open their minds a little bit by talking to him. Sure, he's too stubborn, but there have to be people slightly more open and perhaps we CAN convince them some day. So basically, its good practice.

Pervert more likely.

[QUOTE=Merridew]That's like saying muslims attacked the Trade Towers on 9/11. It's extremism and fanatics. They don't count.

Who happened to be Muslims but.

Yes the amount of logic you used there, is truly astounding. :rolleyes:

Welll, I've been conversing with Lunatic Goofballs, so I'm not totally sane currently.

That and, you know, I was more taking the mickey than being serious.

Not like being serious has won you round to the world of logic, eh wot?

But it wasn't just a few people. It was ALL the churches in Germany. I'm not saying all Christians or evil. But you must admist that they can do quite a bit of it when they get together in groups.

What a load of cods, the Nazis were never Christians, and no, all the German

churches did not get together specifically to wipe out the Jews, the Nazis did

that all by themselves.

They controlled the streets, therefore they controlled the masses, which

means they controlled the state.

The German Churches were powerless against them, as was every other

German not a willing part of the Nazi reigm.

If you spoke out against the Nazis, you died, pure and simple.

Also theres hardly been a post you havent made here that doesnt have a go

at Christians in some way or another, yet you have the hide to call me a

bigot.

Your Christophobia absolutely dwarfs my 'homophobia'. :rolleyes:

Welll, I've been conversing with Lunatic Goofballs, so I'm not totally sane currently.

That and, you know, I was more taking the mickey than being serious.

Not like being serious has won you round to the world of logic, eh wot?

OK then.

i personally think that (most) people who are against gay marriges are exibiting the worst kind of selfishness: 'i have something but i don't want others who are different from me to have it', and as for the religious argument against it, i can see where they are coming from, but marrige has become something far more than just a religious ceremony, it is an internationally recognised bond between two people.

besides, if god created man, he created gays too, so if he dont like it, that's his problem

[QUOTE=Anbar]Yeah, that's not what Jesus was teaching. In fact, that's the antithesis of that lesson. The lesson is, "Tolerate, endure, and forgive," and that doesn't end with, "Unless it's not convenient for you, " or, "Unless you don't feel like it."

He never said except homosexuality but did he, if you can find that in the

Bible I'll change my opinion.

Meaning word for word, that Jesus says, 'homosexuality itself is natural and

good, and should always be accepted'.


So it's okay for you to make the choice to sin, but if a homosexual does, they're somehow less than human and deserve certain persecutions? Has anyone called you a hypocrite yet on this page?

Oh how dramatic and ridiculous you are, I dont believe they should be

allowed to marry or rear kids, therefore I am persecuting them, the poor

gays, its the end for them isnt it?(sarcasm)

So why do people keep replying?

I really have no idea...and I enjoy drawing out the fools probably more than most around here. The amount of time people have spent actually trying to get through to some people in this thread is a lot more than I'd bother to put into it. You simply can't crack the bigots and idealogues...they aren't here to discuss and think, but rather to expound and shuffle around their prejudices.

The store isn't open for new customers, so to speak.

Anbar[/B]]I really have no idea...and I enjoy drawing out the fools probably more than most around here. The amount of time people have spent actually trying to get through to some people in this thread is a lot more than I'd bother to put into it. You simply can't crack the bigots and idealogues...they aren't here to discuss and think, but rather to expound and shuffle around their prejudices.
The store isn't open for new customers, so to speak.

So if someone doesnt agree with your opinions and views you just slam them

with names like bigot or homophobe.

Your just a little PC thug, and hardly the voice of any reason.

lol bullshit!

Truly the ultimate refutation. And to think, we've been bothering with things like statistics and sources to make our points.
:rolleyes:

Grave_n_idle[/B]]Now you have put me on the spot... my brain is trying to convince me it was Cathari, but I fear I may be confusing what was said in the persecution of Cathari, with what they actually followed.
Cathari or not, there were several 'Gnostic' factions that believed 'alternative' arrangements of the god/satan conception: Faced with the knowledge that the world is perverse, and that god is pure, they decided it made no sense for the 'pure' to have contaminated itself with the impure... so there must have been another 'creator'. This being they called 'demiurge' - the 'second mover', behind the 'prime mover', who is the true god. They believed that demiurge created the world, and was, therefore, the God of the Old Testament.
In Bogomil thought... there was a god with TWO sons, Christ, adn his older brother Satanael. Satanael gets fed up with being second-place, and creates this world, and all that are in it... but god has to help him with the breath of life. So - the god of the bible is satan, and there IS no 'satan' satan in this story. Oh, christ is eventually sent to 'claim' some of those creations, by virtue of the breath of life.
It's an interesting concept. I just wish my brain was being a little more cooperative.

An interesting concept?

So your willing to believe that rubbish, but scoff at the red sea parting or

Jesus walking on the water.

Truly the ultimate refutation. And to think, we've been bothering with things like statistics and sources to make our points.
:rolleyes:

On that, you havent actually, anyway.

[QUOTE]

He never said except homosexuality but did he, if you can find that in the

Bible I'll change my opinion.

Meaning word for word, that Jesus says, 'homosexuality itself is natural and

good, and should always be accepted'.

First, you show me where Jesus condemns homosexuality. Oh, wait, you've had 70 pages to cite such a passage, and you haven't been able to. Now, what I said was that Jesus said to love everyone. If you can find the exception, go ahead. But that doesn't even pertain to my point, which was pointing out when you said, essentially, "Jesus said a lot of things, but I'll do my best to adhere to them as long as I feel like it," that a person truly following his teachings does not just abandon them to be hateful when he "can only take so much."

Oh how dramatic and ridiculous you are, I dont believe they should be

allowed to marry or rear kids, therefore I am persecuting them, the poor

gays, its the end for them isnt it?(sarcasm)

No, you said that it was okay for you to flippantly decide that you're done being tolerant, as Jesus taught, but if a homosexual acts on his urges in any way, though Jesus said nothing condemning such actions, he somehow is deserving of some consequences (or to be denied certain rights, in the legal aspect of this discussion). That's hypocrisy, and shows your pretty primitive understanding of your master's teachings.

Now, what label will you sling at me to distract further from your inability to grasp/counter this point, hmm?

[QUOTE=Pracus]You see all homosexuals as these sex addicted nymphomaniacs.

You are when you go out clubbing.


But that is because you don't see the rest of us. If you and I met in public, you would have no clue I was gay.


I would actually.


Most of us are not flamboyant nor are we out to screw every guy we can get our hands on. We are normal, everyday people that you would never be able to pick out of a police lineup.

lol, it would take less than a minute to see that you are gay.

On that, you havent actually, anyway.

Yes, numberous study, polls, and statistics on population trends have been both cited and linked to throughout this thread. Bottle has, I have, and a number of other posters have. Just because you haven't bothered to read them doesn't mean they aren't there.

It seems to me that the only folk against gay marriages are straight idiots who are trying to impose their views on everyone else. This makes them fascists and completely out of the range of any coherent and logical political argument. So I'm not even going to bother with them.

As for the rest, they're hardline christians who are trying to impose their *religious* views on everyone else. This makes them *religious* fascists. Incidentally, it is true that the Nazis didn't use religion, they accepted (unlike Bush et al) that christian values didn't fit with their politics and converted the German Protestant Church to the Reichskirche, with Hitler as its focus of worship (the bible was replaced with Mein Kampf). Anyway, I digress. The point that hardline christians are so ready to impose their values on everyone else to the point of violence makes them NO DIFFERENT to hardline Muslims or hardline Zionists: the hardline christians are only different in the fact that they control the most powerful government in the world.

Anbar[/B]]First, you show me where Jesus condemns homosexuality. Oh, wait, you've had 70 pages to cite such a passage, and you haven't been able to. Now, what I said was that Jesus said to love everyone. If you can find the exception, go ahead. But that doesn't even pertain to my point, which was pointing out when you said, essentially, "Jesus said a lot of things, but I'll do my best to adhere to them as long as I feel like it," that a person truly following his teachings does not just abandon them to be hateful when he "can only take so much."
No, you said that it was okay for you to flippantly decide that you're done being tolerant, as Jesus taught, but if a homosexual acts on his urges in any way, though Jesus said nothing condemning such actions, he somehow is deserving of some consequences (or to be denied certain rights, in the legal aspect of this discussion). That's hypocrisy, and shows your pretty primitive understanding of your master's teachings.
Now, what label will you sling at me to distract further from your inability to grasp/counter this point, hmm?

Stop dodging the question Anbar, AND ANSWER IT, where does it say in the

Bible that homosexuality is OK.

An interesting concept?

So your willing to believe that rubbish, but scoff at the red sea parting or

Jesus walking on the water.

You see, an intelligent person can discuss and ponder the views of others, because we can take an objective position on thought and needn't subscribe to a theory to consider its merits and dimensions. Some people, on the other hand, can't separate their beliefs from reality, and so can't even conceive of contemplating the beliefs of others. Those people can only point at the shadows on the cave walls (why am I wasting such a reference on you?).

Yes, numberous study, polls, and statistics on population trends have been both cited and linked to throughout this thread. Bottle has, I have, and a number of other posters have. Just because you haven't bothered to read them doesn't mean they aren't there.

I did read them, but I dont believe them.

It seems to me that the only folk against gay marriages are straight idiots who are trying to impose their views on everyone else. This makes them fascists and completely out of the range of any coherent and logical political argument. So I'm not even going to bother with them.
As for the rest, they're hardline christians who are trying to impose their *religious* views on everyone else. This makes them *religious* fascists. Incidentally, it is true that the Nazis didn't use religion, they accepted (unlike Bush et al) that christian values didn't fit with their politics and converted the German Protestant Church to the Reichskirche, with Hitler as its focus of worship (the bible was replaced with Mein Kampf). Anyway, I digress. The point that hardline christians are so ready to impose their values on everyone else to the point of violence makes them NO DIFFERENT to hardline Muslims or hardline Zionists: the hardline christians are only different in the fact that they control the most powerful government in the world.

Enter another Christian/Jew hater. :rolleyes:

And how many hardline Christian organisations have owned up responsibilty

this year, to blowing up school children in buses/schools etc for Christ?

Do you have any sources, on when or where their next possible strike could

be next?

Stop dodging the question Anbar, AND ANSWER IT, where does it say in the

Bible that homosexuality is OK.

Heh, no, the burden of proof is on you. You say Jesus condemns it, and I say bullsh-t. That's where you provide proof, and that's how debate works. You know, something to back up the crap you've been spewing forth for the last 70 pages. My only claim has been that Jesus does not condemn it, Jesus specifically said to love your neighbor as yourself, and so you are being a hypocrite because you propose to treat homosexuals as you would not want to be treated and yet call yourself some kind of devout Christian.

I did read them, but I dont believe them.

Of course you don't. *pat pat*

And, of course, that doesn't mean that you have a shred of credibility in the face of such citations. "Nuh-uh!" is not an acceptable argument. And no, I'm not dumb enough to believe that you bothered to read them, either.

Heh, no, the burden of proof is on you. You say Jesus condemns it, and I say bullsh-t.
That's where you provide proof, and that's how debate works. You know, something to back up the crap you've been spewing forth for the last 70 pages. My only claim has been that Jesus does not condemn it, Jesus specifically said to love your neighbor as yourself, and so you are being a hypocrite because you propose to treat homosexuals as you would not want to be treated and yet call yourself some kind of devout Christian.

Sorry but your telling me to accept homosexuality because according to you

its normal as hetrosexuality, as I have seen nothing in the Bible to agree with

this, I dont feel the need to agree with you.

Of course you don't. *pat pat*

And, of course, that doesn't mean that you have a shred of credibility in the face of such citations. "Nuh-uh!" is not an acceptable argument. And no, I'm not dumb enough to believe that you bothered to read them, either.

How do you know their not made up?

Do you believe everything on the net.

How naive are you?

Enter another Christian/Jew hater. :rolleyes:

If they majority are like you, I see nothing wrong with hating them.

And how many hardline Christian organisations have owned up responsibilty

this year, to blowing up school children in buses/schools etc for Christ?

Do you have any sources, on when or where their next possible strike could

be next?

The Catholic Church admitted to its atrocities in the middle ages. Now, their atrocities are being carried out in courtrooms and the White House.

Fortuntately, the Supreme Court recently ruled that all laws against sodomy were unconstitutional. :upyours: :p

So if someone doesnt agree with your opinions and views you just slam them

with names like bigot or homophobe.

Your just a little PC thug, and hardly the voice of any reason.

I almost forgot this one. Do show me where I've called you a homophobe. By definition, you are certainly a bigot, though. With the arguments you've put forth, you have no room to speak of reason, and being on the catcher end of 90% of the arguments on here, have no room to speak of me being any kind of little thug.

Sorry but your telling me to accept homosexuality because according to you

its normal as hetrosexuality, as I have seen nothing in the Bible to agree with

this, I dont feel the need to agree with you.

Yet again, one of those big red beacons that shows how little you grasp the arguments put before you.

Were I to try to say that homosexuality were as normal as heterosexuality, I would do so with science, not the Bible. Secondly, what you just said has nothing to do with the point I was making that you're referring to here. Go back and reread; I will not repost a third time, nor will I dumb it down any further for you.

[QUOTE=Tamarket]If they majority are like you, I see nothing wrong with hating them.

So you hate Christians who only condone hetrosexuality as normal, thats alot

of people you hate then, and hating a large group of people for their belief,

would make you in your own words a bigot.


The Catholic Church admitted to its atrocities in the middle ages. Now, their atrocities are being carried out in courtrooms and the White House.

Sorry, but I dont see homosexuals being burned at any stakes because of

Catholic influenced court rulings.

Bit of a drama queen arent you?


Fortuntately, the Supreme Court recently ruled that all laws against sodomy were unconstitutional. :upyours: :p

Yes Im sure a sodomite like yourself would be very happy about that, but

what can be made law can easily be undone, dont worry, your day out in the

sun will be over one day, and you will be forced back into the dark holes of

society where you belong. :upyours: as well ;) :)

[QUOTE]
Yes Im sure a sodomite like yourself would be very happy about that, but

what can be made law can easily be undone, dont worry, your day out in the

sun will be over one day, and you will be forced back into the dark holes of

society where you belong. :upyours: as well ;) :)

WWJD, anyone? For a second, imagine Jesus posting the above. No? Didn't think so. You're some Christian, Terminalia.

Gute Nacht Unglaeubigers. :)

Gute Nacht Unglaeubigers. :)

Yes, cut and run...
;)

Christianity burnt thousands of homosexuals, lesibians, non-conformists, members of other religions, mad old men, mad old women, and minor criminals through a period of centuries. Islamic extremists have rarely been this much of a problem for society up until the latter half of this century. Not that I'm defending any one religion, very few have a civilised attitude to those that don't subscribe to their views (with the exception of Buddhism and that one I can't remember the name of. Dr. Kelly was a member. You know what I mean).

Christianity was also responsible for locking up, even in the modern age, people like Oscar Wilde for the crime of being homosexual. Imperialism has been justified by religion since it began.

I don't hate the religious, its just hardliners and fundamentalists take such objection to me.

Oh, by the way, can anyone give me a reason APART FROM the frequently used "look, it says right here in this book" that homosexuality has a negative effect on them?

Damn, have all the bigots disappeared? i was just starting to get a shine on my sword of righteous social justice there...

The Disputed Territories of Interra does not believe that love is based on sexuality and therefore couldn't care less with whom or what the people marry. As long as they stay happy and under strict controll. Privacy is overrated.

Love Conquers Fear

Only the fearful require explanation of that which they can never understand.

We vote to allow Gay Marriages

Until I see one good reason why the government has a pressing interest to ban gay marriages...

Dude it's just totally WRONG!!! The Bible clearly states that "Wherefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall join with his WIFE"(Genesis, 2:24) Plus its the LEADING cause of AIDS!

Plus its the LEADING cause of AIDS!
Dude... Marriages don't cause AIDS. Unprotected sex does. And AIDS is, right now, most common among black females under 21 (in the USA, that is).

Seperation of church and state (at least in the USA): citizens are not required by the state to obey the laws of any religious text, only the laws made by the elected representatives of the people. I'm not going to go into how far American politicians are representative of American citizens rather than American businessmen, or into what I think personally of representative democracy. People around the world envy the lawful seperation of religion and state in America, don't f*** with it.

As for AIDS, homosexuality is not the main cause, as somebody already stated, it's unprotected sex. Nothing to do with sexuality, everything to do with condoms. Right?

Next, how does homosexuality harm the straight person?

So you hate Christians who only condone hetrosexuality as normal, thats alot

of people you hate then, and hating a large group of people for their belief,

would make you in your own words a bigot.

I hate them because they want to force their beliefs on millions of unwilling human beings. If they didn't want to do this, I would not hate them. I do not wish to force them to marry.

Sorry, but I dont see homosexuals being burned at any stakes because of

Catholic influenced court rulings.

Bit of a drama queen arent you?

Well, it was done before many times during the dark ages.

Yes Im sure a sodomite like yourself would be very happy about that, but

what can be made law can easily be undone, dont worry, your day out in the

sun will be over one day, and you will be forced back into the dark holes of

society where you belong. :upyours: as well ;) :)

Maybe one day extremist Muslims will take over the US and execute all Christians like you. Be thankful that atheists don't see violence as a solution.

You are aware that's not from the Bible, right?

It's not at all Christian in origin.

I doubt the original speaker would have anything against gay marriage, come to think of it...

Matthew 6:14-15 (Immediately after the Lord's prayer) Jesus says: For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

It was the introduction of Christendom that had many killed during the dark ages. When an expert in the law tested Jesus with the question "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" Jesus replied "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. All the law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40)To be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ. Christianity killed nobody.

[QUOTE]

Devaluing a persons sexual preference is not devaluing them themselves,

unless you believe that it is the whole point of the persons existance.

So, sorry its not homophobic.



Homophobic: Hating someone because of homosexual behavior. Sorry term, if the shoe fits . . .



[QUOTE]
I have no problem with homosexuals having the same legal rights in most

matters, but not in the case of marriage or rearing children, as it isnt natural

for them to be involved in either activity.

You calling me a homophobe for disagreeing with you on this, proves nothing.


So you in fact, do NOT believe in equality.


[QUOTE]
Try to understand Bottle, I am quite entittled to enforce my personal values

on them if they go against something I believe like marriage or childrearing as

a matter for hetrosexuals only, you telling me I have no right to do this, is in

fact enforcing your personal opinion on me.


Actually, you will find that you DON'T have the right to enforce your personal values on others. Why? Because they are personal. And no, people telling you that you have no right to do that isn't enforcing our personal values on you. It's the way it is. If I were to enforce my personal values on you, then you would be forced to try gay sex once because that would potentially open your eyes. Or not. Regardless, personal values with no logical reason or support behind them are non-enforceable because everyone's are different. I repeat, IT IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF YOUR RIGHTS IF GAYS MARRY.

[QUOTE]
I am not walking into gaybars and calling them dirty sodomites, I stay out of

their areas generally, and if I ever go in them, I keep my opinions to myself.

I expect the same in return.

You get the same in return. We don't call you a dirty vagina licker.



[QUOTE]
Well I dont watch gay porn for a start, in fact I dont watch any porn at all.

And as I have no interest in watching 'gay porn', then I must not be by your

logic, homophobic.

That's not what he said. He said that you probably have a deep, perhaps even unrecognized, urge for homosexuality.



[QUOTE]
Committing a homosexual act does not neccessarily make you a homosexual,

repeating it a few times could but, the revulsion your talking about here

would be heterosexuals who have committed this act and now feel guilt and

self loathing, this does not mean they necessarily hate homosexuals, more

likely its them themselves they hate, with time they will grow out of it, still

be repulsed by homosexuality as is natural, but not hate themselves anymore

for the mistake they made, which is the cause of the hatred.

Actually, what makes you a homosexual is not the sex. I could go out and have hetersexual sex all day long and it wouldn't change a thing. Homosexuality is NOT just about sex. Its about finding emotionally fulfillment and love in a person of the same gender. Now, I'm sure you're going to go "I don't believe that" because "a man could never find emotional completeness in a man" so I'm really not sure why I've bothered to make the point, but there it is just the same.

Exactly, I have no problem with that, if its in their areas, but if they were to

say walk into a church where I am praying, holding hands or something, I

would deem that offensive.

I would not walk into a gay night club waving a Bible at them in return.

No gay person has ever suggested forcing ourselves into churches where we are not welcome. We want equal rights from the government. THE GOVERNMENT. That does NOT include any church.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

As I've said before, that isn't a Christian principle. It's Hindu.

Yes the amount of logic you used there, is truly astounding. :rolleyes:

Actually it is good logic. You want to enforce personal beliefs on us, so we therefore should be able to enforce ours on you.

I am in the middle of gay married...

[QUOTE]

Who happened to be Muslims but.

You're opening yourself up to a world of hurt if you want to finish that term. Saying all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 would be like saying all Christians were responsible for the Holocaust--something I was careful to point out was not true earlier.

Quote:

Well I dont watch gay porn for a start, in fact I dont watch any porn at all.

And as I have no interest in watching 'gay porn', then I must not be by your

logic, homophobic.

That's not what he said. He said that you probably have a deep, perhaps even unrecognized, urge for homosexuality.

From my experience the least homophobic straight guys are the ones who are most secure in their identities and sexuality (The kind of guy who isn't afraid to say when he thinks aother guy is attractive etc.). The same goes for all discrimination really. So I do kind-of agree with that, except I think it's more a fear of "turning gay" or something...

What a load of cods, the Nazis were never Christians, and no, all the German

churches did not get together specifically to wipe out the Jews, the Nazis did

that all by themselves.

They controlled the streets, therefore they controlled the masses, which

means they controlled the state.

The German Churches were powerless against them, as was every other

German not a willing part of the Nazi reigm.

If you spoke out against the Nazis, you died, pure and simple.

Also theres hardly been a post you havent made here that doesnt have a go

at Christians in some way or another, yet you have the hide to call me a

bigot.

Your Christophobia absolutely dwarfs my 'homophobia'. :rolleyes:

So what happened to martyrdom? Aren't you supposed to be a Christian against things that are evil even if it means your life? And further, the Nazis WERE Christians. Check out your history books before speaking.

And I never said the word Christianity until you brought religion into it. I was perfectly happy to argue this outside the context of religion because I don't believe that religion belongs in government. You brought it in, so I've used it as yet another very effective weapon against you. Of course, you're too stupid to realize that.

And for the record, I don't hate Christians. To do so would be to hate my parents and many many of my best friends. What I do hate it fear and ignorance that tends to use Christianity as a means to hate. Which its not supposed to be.

No gay person has ever suggested forcing ourselves into churches where we are not welcome. We want equal rights from the government. THE GOVERNMENT. That does NOT include any church.

Meanwhile, spiritual warfare over the ordainment of gay ministers, bishops etc. rages on, and the Anglican church have come close to forsaking their American affiliates.

[QUOTE]

Oh how dramatic and ridiculous you are, I dont believe they should be

allowed to marry or rear kids, therefore I am persecuting them, the poor

gays, its the end for them isnt it?(sarcasm)


That's not being dramatic. That's quite a fair point. And yes, you twit, you ARE persecuting us. It may not be the end, but persecution does not necessarily lead to execution.

So if someone doesnt agree with your opinions and views you just slam them

with names like bigot or homophobe.

Your just a little PC thug, and hardly the voice of any reason.

That's not what he said. He has no problem with people disagreeing. However, he expects them to have logical, proveable reasons for disagreeing and to at least read and consider what other people you right.

I'm just as much a fool as you beacuse I'm too stupid to just start ignoring you.

You are when you go out clubbing.



Actually, no. I go out clubbing once a month or so. I never go home and have sex witha guy I met there. I dance, I flirt a little and then I move on. I've had one relationship with a guy I met in a club and it not did ever make it to the sex stage.


[QUOTE]
I would actually.


Then you need to come visit because I coudl really use your help in finding other gay guys.


[QUOTE]
lol, it would take less than a minute to see that you are gay.


And just pretail would you know? I speak and act totally differently on here than I do in real life. You do not know what my behaviors are. I don't wear pink, I don't talk with a lisp, my wrist isn't limp, and I don't look at guys butts. What would give it away?

Oh wait, you're just making more stuff up to support a point that real world fact and logic and statistics doesn't back up.

Quakers are christians and they have been against almost all of christian bigoted ideology. Quakers are Christians, but they have held standards much higher than most other christians. We have christians in Africa who kill muslims (though muslims kill christians..sortta consensual murder). We have christians in europe who hate jews. We had christians in America who feared the jews by only allowing a few of them to come into america during the holocaust. But in all of this mess we have the Quakers, from the very moment they stepped on American soil held out there hands to the "heathenous" native americans.

Quakers are christians and they support gay marriage, peace, and religious tolerance.

I did read them, but I dont believe them.

But you can't just not believe a study. Results are restults in science. You can beleive that the study was flawed. You can find that they don't have enough members or that their method was flawed or that they did it wrong.

But you can't just say "I don't believe the results because they aren't what I feel." If people did that then we would still be trying to prove that protein is the genetic material!

Also, in light of previous posts, I'm going to withdraw most of my conversation about religion because i know what I know but some things I thought I know I don't. I'm going to leave that prart of the argument in the hands of far more capable people.

Sorry but your telling me to accept homosexuality because according to you

its normal as hetrosexuality, as I have seen nothing in the Bible to agree with

this, I dont feel the need to agree with you.

No, he's telling you to show him where Jesus condemns homosexuality. Come on term, you have a chance to convert someone here if you can produce this proof.

How do you know their not made up?

Do you believe everything on the net.

How naive are you?

A. They are from a scientific organization such as the APA.
B. They also appeared in print.
C. There are reproducible experiments.
D. It's just a great letter.

Genesis 13:13 - But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

Genesis 18:20 - And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

Genesis 19:1-29 - And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law. And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city. And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed. And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord: Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast showed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live. And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken. Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar. The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD: And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

Leviticus 18:22-23 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 - There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

1 Kings 14:22-24 - And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

Isaiah 3:9 - The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

Luke 17:25-32 - But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife.

Romans 1:24-32 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 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 recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

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

1 Timothy 1:9-10 - Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

2 Peter 2:6-9 - And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Jude 1:7-8 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Dude it's just totally WRONG!!! The Bible clearly states that "Wherefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall join with his WIFE"(Genesis, 2:24) Plus its the LEADING cause of AIDS!

A. "It's just totally wrong, like oh my god heather" is not a pressing reason.
B. The Bible is NOT the basis of our government. If it was, I would probably agree with you. We are a secular nation (at least in the US) that is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not of Jesus, by the clergy and for the Christians.
C. We've already discussed the HIV/AIDS thing to death. Go read the rest of the thread.

Matthew 6:14-15 (Immediately after the Lord's prayer) Jesus says: For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

That's not saying hate the sin love the sinner (Gandhi said that). It's saying you should forgive people of their sins and not judge them. Somehow I think that "Oh my God homosexuality is just wrong, unnatural and evil" doesn't fall under that verse. In fact, denying homosexuals their rights and judging them would pose a problem.

Now, I know I said I was staying out of religious arguements. But if someone posts a verse or something, I'm still gonna get involved if they are interpreting it like a nine year old would.

It was the introduction of Christendom that had many killed during the dark ages. When an expert in the law tested Jesus with the question "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" Jesus replied "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. All the law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40)To be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ. Christianity killed nobody.

1. The Spanish Inquisition
2. At least five Crusades.
3. Salem Withtrials.

I think those three are enough.

Meanwhile, spiritual warfare over the ordainment of gay ministers, bishops etc. rages on, and the Anglican church have come close to forsaking their American affiliates.

And that's fine. That's church internal business. The government shouldn't be involved in it. I'm not telling you that there isn't going to be debate and struggle in churches. I'm telling you that gays aren't asking the government to step in and force it. Gays are leaving church matters in th church and governmental matters in the government.

Why?

Because they are separate.

Quakers are christians and they have been against almost all of christian bigoted ideology. Quakers are Christians, but they have held standards much higher than most other christians. We have christians in Africa who kill muslims (though muslims kill christians..sortta consensual murder). We have christians in europe who hate jews. We had christians in America who feared the jews by only allowing a few of them to come into america during the holocaust. But in all of this mess we have the Quakers, from the very moment they stepped on American soil held out there hands to the "heathenous" native americans.

Quakers are christians and they support gay marriage, peace, and religious tolerance.

Kudos to them! Sounds like a group of people I would like.

What does the Bible really have to do with much? Some people dont follow the ruling of the Bible's "god". Others are followers of Buddah, the Kabbalah, etc. But this has nothing to do with Gay Marriages.

It's my life. And I choose to do with it what I want. If I fall in love with a man than that's that, If I fall in love with a woman that's that. It's not the sex of the person you fall in love with. It's them, their personality, who they are on the inside.

It is not up to the government to say who we can and can not marry. It's not up to them to keep a family 1man 1 woman. It's not their say in it. Its our lives and we choose as we choose it. It's not up to the bible either because people dont follow it.

I'm a baptized Catholic, doesn't mean I go to church. I pray but I dont let the bible rule my life 24/7. If God is such a forgiving and understanding and loving God then he'd understand how Gay's and Lesbians feel about their better half.

Originally Posted by NeoAtlantica
Quakers are christians and they have been against almost all of christian bigoted ideology. Quakers are Christians, but they have held standards much higher than most other christians. We have christians in Africa who kill muslims (though muslims kill christians..sortta consensual murder). We have christians in europe who hate jews. We had christians in America who feared the jews by only allowing a few of them to come into america during the holocaust. But in all of this mess we have the Quakers, from the very moment they stepped on American soil held out there hands to the "heathenous" native americans.

Quakers are christians and they support gay marriage, peace, and religious tolerance.

All I know of them is that they have held silent vigils in Melbourne's CBD protesting various things- including I believe the government's position on indigenous issues and the Iraq war. Congrats to them.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. They are just as entitled to marriage as anybody else and I think most of you agree with me.


PS: I am not gay.

I'd just like to point out that people supporting gay marriage are winning three to one in the poll. I knwo not all of them have posted, but dude that's cool!

I've heard of the Gnostic traditions, and they are interesting...I'll have to look the others up. They do sound fascinating. As an aside, I think they also show how easy it is to set up a cosmology, and why it's foolish for anyone to think that their current cosmological model must be True.

On one of the similar threads that ran a little while back... I think it was about atheism... I documented an occasion where I imagined creating a secular 'holy book'. My secular holy book was originally just a table of do and don't instructions... like the Babylonian Code of Laws, or the Mosiac Laws of the Bible. Then, it occured to me that most people respond well to examples, especially in instructional books (think science text books, for reference)... so I imagined creating some 'example' stories.

Now, to create a linear pattern through your text-book... you use the same character for several of your stories... so your reader becomes familiar with the character... so they can identify with the person obeying the laws and WHY they do it...

At this point, it occured to me that I had, in effect, rewritten the bible.

Leave it two thousand years, let people argue over it some.... who would know?

In my country homosexuality is against the law. Gay marriages are a travesty of the aincient institution of marriage.

American liberals will split the church very soon if they continue this way.

Now THAT is about the funniest thing I have read in a very long time...

There should be no homosexual marriages because it will 'split the church'?

Which church? There are several thousand christian factions alone.... will it split all of those factions individually? Bear in mind that 'the church' started as a cult, and has fractured and divided with astounding frequency ever since.

So why do people keep replying?

Good point.

I made a post to that effect a while back. I had finally become so sick of responding to blatant hate, ill-informed rhetoric, plain untruth, incredible ignorance, and contradiction-in-place-of-debate, that I resigned from having any further communication with the offending poster.

But, I don't know if this will help the 'sufferer'. I feel like I am withholding a needed treatment from a very emotionally injured patient... and it seems callous.

I think most people respond out of a hope that an actual debate might occasionally slip in accidentally, or that the whole rage issue might be very convincing role-play... or maybe they just want to try to help someone obviously in great need.

For god's sake, just because such a huge portion of America is Christian doesnt mean everyone has to conform to what they think is right! Even if there WAS justification behind Christian laws in America, it's still not the government's business to interfere. Let them have some peace! :mad:

I'd just like to point out that people supporting gay marriage are winning three to one in the poll. I knwo not all of them have posted, but dude that's cool!

Dude, when a poll is in favor of a liberal idea, it's because of the liberal bias on the forum, but when it's against the idea, it's the will of the majority.
Has Terminalia taught you nothing? :rolleyes: ;)

Has anyone else realized its mostly democrats and liberals on here? This is awesome!! Liberals rule!! Anyways gay marraige should be allowed cuz two adults love each other and they should have every right to get married if they chose. A lot of people say they don't mind if they have a civil union, but marriage is "only between a man and a woman." how ridiculous is that? People are so petty sometimes. Its just a word!! My gawd! People need to get over petty things and think about the issue at hand. Does anyone else agree with me?

KERRY-EDWARDS
A STRONGER AMERICA

For god's sake, just because such a huge portion of America is Christian doesnt mean everyone has to conform to what they think is right! Even if there WAS justification behind Christian laws in America, it's still not the government's business to interfere. Let them have some peace! :mad:

yah! what happened to the whole "church and state can't mix" thing? I'm not Christain so I shouldn't be forced to live by their beliefs.

KERRY~EDWARDS
A STRONGER AMERICA

Dude it's just totally WRONG!!! The Bible clearly states that "Wherefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall join with his WIFE"(Genesis, 2:24) Plus its the LEADING cause of AIDS!

You realise that that part of the bible is impossible, don't you?

How is Adam supposed to have decided to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife?

Think it through....

Okay... I'll give you a hint.... who was Adam's mother....?

The author taking liberties with the text to add weight to their prejudice, methinks.

Matthew 6:14-15 (Immediately after the Lord's prayer) Jesus says: For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Doesn't say 'love the sinner, hate the sin', though, does it.

You are confusing the concept of forgiveness with love and hate.

The 'love the sinner, hate the sin' quote is from another influential speaker, and, arguably, spiritual icon... quite removed from the one you are thinking of.

Has anyone else realized its mostly democrats and liberals on here? This is awesome!! Liberals rule!! Anyways gay marraige should be allowed cuz two adults love each other and they should have every right to get married if they chose. A lot of people say they don't mind if they have a civil union, but marriage is "only between a man and a woman." how ridiculous is that? People are so petty sometimes. Its just a word!! My gawd! People need to get over petty things and think about the issue at hand. Does anyone else agree with me?

KERRY-EDWARDS
A STRONGER AMERICA

It's not all liberals on here. I'm a very strong conservative on a lot of things. I classify myself as a log cabin Republican. On social issues I tend to be more liberal--but a lot of time those are issues that I think the states or even more local governments should be dealing with and not the federal government.

Just pointing out that there are som conservatives here who DO support gay marriage :) Gay Republican really isn't all that much of an oxy-moron.

yah! what happened to the whole "church and state can't mix" thing? I'm not Christain so I shouldn't be forced to live by their beliefs.

KERRY~EDWARDS
A STRONGER AMERICA

What happened to it was atheistic communism in the forties, fifties and sixties. To counter it, our nation began adopting things like "In God We Trust" and "Under Nation Under God" instead of more traditional mottos like E Pluribus Unim. I imagine that is what happened in many western, capitalist nations. Unforutnantely, people got the idea of freedom of religion (as opposed to its banning by the USSR) confused with religious dominance.

yah! what happened to the whole "church and state can't mix" thing? I'm not Christain so I shouldn't be forced to live by their beliefs.

KERRY~EDWARDS
A STRONGER AMERICA
Perhaps Kerry/Edwards should stop making campaign speeches in black churches, right?

The Church and State separation was not meant to keep religion out of government, it was meant to keep government out of religion.
In other words they didnt make that separation so that the government would be atheistic, but that the government would not impose upon the church.
Proof of this is the fact just looking at alot of the documents such as the Declaration of Independence. It specifically states that man is endowed by his Creator with unalianable rights. Look at most of our founding fathers, they believed in God as the Creator of equal men.
Also you have to still realize that the majority of Americans are for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, and only the courts are proponents of it. Funny how you are saying the government is your enemy in gay marriage, when the judicial branch has been your biggest helper. Just look at Louisiana I believe it was, not sure, but the large majority voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman, and a judge overuled the law that they voted on to keep it that way.


btw, going back a few pages to someone who was talking about the inquisition, it wasnt Christians, it was catholics, so you dont know what you were talking about either. Christians were being killed by Catholics too, so dont say that it was a Christian thing.


Oh and I know several democrats that are for Bush...Zell Miller for instance.

Hey, haven't caome to cause offence, just realised that it's probably rude to vote and not justify, I am against gay marriage (the fact my nations called Team Jesus might have given you a clue) but not in the sense many others are, if they belong to a tolerant religion, that allows gay marraige, or intend to get married in a registry office, then i agree that they should be allowed to marry. However if they belong to a religion that does not tolerate it (i.e most denominations of Christianity) then i believe it wouldn't be right to ask a priest, pastor, minister, preacher to go against what his beliefs dictate, to go through with the ceremony.

The Church and State separation was not meant to keep religion out of government, it was meant to keep government out of religion.
In other words they didnt make that separation so that the government would be atheistic, but that the government would not impose upon the church.
Proof of this is the fact just looking at alot of the documents such as the Declaration of Independence. It specifically states that man is endowed by his Creator with unalianable rights. Look at most of our founding fathers, they believed in God as the Creator of equal men.
Also you have to still realize that the majority of Americans are for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, and only the courts are proponents of it. Funny how you are saying the government is your enemy in gay marriage, when the judicial branch has been your biggest helper. Just look at Louisiana I believe it was, not sure, but the large majority voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman, and a judge overuled the law that they voted on to keep it that way.


btw, going back a few pages to someone who was talking about the inquisition, it wasnt Christians, it was catholics, so you dont know what you were talking about either. Christians were being killed by Catholics too, so dont say that it was a Christian thing.


Oh and I know several democrats that are for Bush...Zell Miller for instance.


okay 2 things, 1 Zell Miller was a Republican until he decided that he could only become senator if he "became" a Democrat. alsoCatholics are cristians you boob, they are one of the branches learn your slander or invoke the wrath of montor the lord mighty guy (cuee lightning and spooky music) jk

Hey, haven't caome to cause offence, just realised that it's probably rude to vote and not justify, I am against gay marriage (the fact my nations called Team Jesus might have given you a clue) but not in the sense many others are, if they belong to a tolerant religion, that allows gay marraige, or intend to get married in a registry office, then i agree that they should be allowed to marry. However if they belong to a religion that does not tolerate it (i.e most denominations of Christianity) then i believe it wouldn't be right to ask a priest, pastor, minister, preacher to go against what his beliefs dictate, to go through with the ceremony.

it's nice to have someone reasonable to talk to i usually feel like this :headbang:

Meanwhile, spiritual warfare over the ordainment of gay ministers, bishops etc. rages on, and the Anglican church have come close to forsaking their American affiliates.

...based in a movement that started within the Anglican church, by some members of its clergy, who were for promoting tolerance within their ranks. This has nothing at all to do with the government legislation and civil rights we discuss here. One did not affect the other.

I say NAY! Marriages should be pre-decided by the government, and gays should be shot.

I say NAY! Marriages should be pre-decided by the government, and gays should be shot.

you are scum that should have this done to you :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: be forced to :headbang: and o, :upyours:

Hey, haven't caome to cause offence, just realised that it's probably rude to vote and not justify, I am against gay marriage (the fact my nations called Team Jesus might have given you a clue) but not in the sense many others are, if they belong to a tolerant religion, that allows gay marraige, or intend to get married in a registry office, then i agree that they should be allowed to marry. However if they belong to a religion that does not tolerate it (i.e most denominations of Christianity) then i believe it wouldn't be right to ask a priest, pastor, minister, preacher to go against what his beliefs dictate, to go through with the ceremony.
I think that is the whole idea of civil unions. Its a state documetn saying your married. Then you can find a church and get a marriage. Of course then there are many other issues, recognized in other states? etc.

Genesis 13:13 - etc

I'm missing your point in posting those verses...it's all well and good to cite passages, but you should usually conclude with your point, especially when citing that many. Otherwise, there's so much there that people wonder where it is you're going with it.

all people should visit jibjab.com it is hilarious, i now return you to your regularly schelduled thread :)

I don't understand what's so "wrong" with gay marriage. We are people too! We have feelings just like everybody else. We love. We laugh. We cry. Do we not bleed when you cut us? And furthermore, what happens in my bedroom is none of your business. You have no right to say whether or not I can marry a person. You just have to accept it. I'm not saying that you should run out and find a same-sex partner to have sex with; I'm merely saying that this is none of your business and that you need to keep your nose out of other's affairs. Would it seriously hurt anybody if gay marriages were legal? I mean physically hurt...as in like loosing a leg or something equivalent. :fluffle: You'll need to just accept the fact that there are different people with different beliefs and different feelings. But none-the-less, we are all human and we all deserve equal rights.

The Church and State separation was not meant to keep religion out of government, it was meant to keep government out of religion.
In other words they didnt make that separation so that the government would be atheistic, but that the government would not impose upon the church.
Proof of this is the fact just looking at alot of the documents such as the Declaration of Independence. It specifically states that man is endowed by his Creator with unalianable rights. Look at most of our founding fathers, they believed in God as the Creator of equal men.
Also you have to still realize that the majority of Americans are for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, and only the courts are proponents of it. Funny how you are saying the government is your enemy in gay marriage, when the judicial branch has been your biggest helper. Just look at Louisiana I believe it was, not sure, but the large majority voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman, and a judge overuled the law that they voted on to keep it that way.


btw, going back a few pages to someone who was talking about the inquisition, it wasnt Christians, it was catholics, so you dont know what you were talking about either. Christians were being killed by Catholics too, so dont say that it was a Christian thing.


Oh and I know several democrats that are for Bush...Zell Miller for instance.

Learn to read the rest of your history book, not just the parts you like.

1. Yes, the Declaration did say that God endowed humans with certain inalienable rights. However it didn't say who's God. Further, most of the founding fathers were Deists which is very different than the theistic Christianity most people here have espoused. And perhaps most importantly, the Declaration did not found the United States of America. In fact, all it did was dissolve the relationship between the colonies and the British Empire. The United States was not born until many years after the Revolutionary War and after the abolishment of the Articles of Confederation (which were a massave flop) when the Constition was written. You will find no reference to God in the Consitution--the highest governmental authority in our nation. In it you will find that the Government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Not of religion or by religion for religious people.

2. There are several examples of the early Presidents of the US who wrote papers/signed treaties (approved by the Senate etc) that expressed the fact that we are not a Christian nation. It was John Adams who coined the term Separation of Church and State when he wrote of "an invisible wall" dividing the two. Further, Jefferson signed a treaty (approved by the Senate during Adams term in office) with Tripoli that said, since the USA isn't a Christian nation, there is no reason that it could not enter into a treaty with a Mohemadan country (that was the term for Islam during that era).

3. Catholics ARE Christians. They are the original organized religion of Christianity. Now I am well aware that many protestant groups like to say that Catholicism is a cult and they aren't Christians, but the fact remains that they worship Christ as the Son of God and are therefore, Christians. As one of my Catholic friends once said when questioned on the validity of the Catholic faith "Honey, we invented Jesus."

Hey, haven't caome to cause offence, just realised that it's probably rude to vote and not justify, I am against gay marriage (the fact my nations called Team Jesus might have given you a clue) but not in the sense many others are, if they belong to a tolerant religion, that allows gay marraige, or intend to get married in a registry office, then i agree that they should be allowed to marry. However if they belong to a religion that does not tolerate it (i.e most denominations of Christianity) then i believe it wouldn't be right to ask a priest, pastor, minister, preacher to go against what his beliefs dictate, to go through with the ceremony.


Basically you are saying that the government shouldn't force religious institutions that don't believe in gay marriage to perform them. And you would be right. It shouldn't.

On one of the similar threads that ran a little while back... I think it was about atheism... I documented an occasion where I imagined creating a secular 'holy book'. My secular holy book was originally just a table of do and don't instructions... like the Babylonian Code of Laws, or the Mosiac Laws of the Bible. Then, it occured to me that most people respond well to examples, especially in instructional books (think science text books, for reference)... so I imagined creating some 'example' stories.

Now, to create a linear pattern through your text-book... you use the same character for several of your stories... so your reader becomes familiar with the character... so they can identify with the person obeying the laws and WHY they do it...

At this point, it occured to me that I had, in effect, rewritten the bible.

Leave it two thousand years, let people argue over it some.... who would know?

Indeed, and this is what makes the Bible (not that it has a monopoly on parables and fables, but it's the subject here) so effective. Most people who study the matter agree that Jesus did exist, but much of what is written of him in the NT is not substantiated by older source documents (i.e. The Q Source). So, it would seem that they took a great teacher and added to his works for maximum effect, something like the modern tall tale.

But yeah, you've nailed the "How to Write an Effective Religious Text" thing. It's all about making it relate to the reader, through examples, parables, and open text that readily applies to daily life.

I don't understand what's so "wrong" with gay marriage. We are people too! We have feelings just like everybody else. We love. We laugh. We cry. Do we not bleed when you cut us? And furthermore, what happens in my bedroom is none of your business. You have no right to say whether or not I can marry a person. You just have to accept it. I'm not saying that you should run out and find a same-sex partner to have sex with; I'm merely saying that this is none of your business and that you need to keep your nose out of other's affairs. Would it seriously hurt anybody if gay marriages were legal? I mean physically hurt...as in like loosing a leg or something equivalent. :fluffle: You'll need to just accept the fact that there are different people with different beliefs and different feelings. But none-the-less, we are all human and we all deserve equal rights.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. But you could not mention cutting us? It might give term and some others ideas . . .

Hey, haven't caome to cause offence, just realised that it's probably rude to vote and not justify, I am against gay marriage (the fact my nations called Team Jesus might have given you a clue) but not in the sense many others are, if they belong to a tolerant religion, that allows gay marraige, or intend to get married in a registry office, then i agree that they should be allowed to marry. However if they belong to a religion that does not tolerate it (i.e most denominations of Christianity) then i believe it wouldn't be right to ask a priest, pastor, minister, preacher to go against what his beliefs dictate, to go through with the ceremony.

You're new here, perhaps you haven't read this or one of the other 100s of threads on this subject...the issue is not forcing churches to perform marriaages between homosexuals. No one is advocating that, merely the government recognition of the relationship that you mention. Churches only enter into the issue when they try to use their beliefs or clout to enter the debate.

Anyway, thanks for contributing.

Basically you are saying that the government shouldn't force religious institutions that don't believe in gay marriage to perform them. And you would be right. It shouldn't.

Precisely, thank you for simplifying my long windedness

The Church and State separation was not meant to keep religion out of government, it was meant to keep government out of religion.
In other words they didnt make that separation so that the government would be atheistic, but that the government would not impose upon the church.
Proof of this is the fact just looking at alot of the documents such as the Declaration of Independence. It specifically states that man is endowed by his Creator with unalianable rights. Look at most of our founding fathers, they believed in God as the Creator of equal men.
Also you have to still realize that the majority of Americans are for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, and only the courts are proponents of it. Funny how you are saying the government is your enemy in gay marriage, when the judicial branch has been your biggest helper. Just look at Louisiana I believe it was, not sure, but the large majority voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman, and a judge overuled the law that they voted on to keep it that way.


btw, going back a few pages to someone who was talking about the inquisition, it wasnt Christians, it was catholics, so you dont know what you were talking about either. Christians were being killed by Catholics too, so dont say that it was a Christian thing.


Oh and I know several democrats that are for Bush...Zell Miller for instance.

No, separatio nof church and state was established for both reasons, or simply to keep the two apart. We'd come from an England that had a mix of government and religion, and the founding fathers felt it best to prevent that from happening here. So, you are quite wrong on that. Many of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians or members of an organized Christian religion, and those passages were common parlance of the time.

The government, at present, does not accept gay marriage nationally, hence some people are justified in saying the government is against them. If you want to get more specific, then , yes, there are certain details which show that the government is working on the matter.

Um, since when are Catholics not Christians? I'm sure this comes as quite a shock to the world's Catholics...

Zell Miller is a Democrat in name only - adhering to the party name means little when you don't support its principles (not to mention its candidate). I really don't think I need to say anything more about that.

I say NAY! Marriages should be pre-decided by the government, and gays should be shot.

Yeah, good luck with that.
:rolleyes:

I'm intrigued...I got a minor in Religious Studies focusing on Christianity, and I've never heard of this. Of course, the problems of mistranslation are nothing new, but I've never come upon this one. Got any sources on it?

Yes, but I'd have to dig through all of my old folders to find my theology folder and figure out which verse it was and since I'm moving, that may be a bit difficult.

Never said the founding fathers were Christians, merely that they believed in God to some extent, perhaps I should have made myself clearer, or you could have read.
Anyway the fact of the matter is that the laws we made were based on the principle that man needs law, that man is not inherently good. That there was some higher power. But lets look at the facts, America is, though a diverse nation, a primarily Christian or Conservative one. That is one thing that vastly sets us apart from other nations in europe, most others have adopted atheistic views entirely. Whether you want to say it or not, the USA was founded on Christian principles, not Protestant Christianity in itself, dont misunderstand me again, but on certain Christian principles.
And to the guy who said that we should butt out of his business because its in the bedroom, if you keep it in your bedroom thats one thing, but when you demand marriage for it, thats another.
And my main point was this on the Catholics, you made it sound like 'Christians' were killing all the world, a very clever trick to make us sound militantly intolerant. But again perhaps I should have worded it better, fact is that Christians were being killed in the inquisitions, so I was merely trying to show that 'Christians' werent the bad guys in the inquisition. The inquisition was the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, but I'd have to dig through all of my old folders to find my theology folder and figure out which verse it was and since I'm moving, that may be a bit difficult.

Meh, no worries, then.

Romans 1:

New International Version
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

King James Version
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


If anyone has any questions on what the Bible says about it...I didnt see any other verses on it. I know this wont sway most of you, but for those who care to read it out. I can find other translations, but this will do for now.
Its a better passage than the Genesis one for this issue.

Never said the founding fathers were Christians, merely that they believed in God to some extent, perhaps I should have made myself clearer, or you could have read.


I did, you said we were founded as a Christian nation, which we are not.



Anyway the fact of the matter is that the laws we made were based on the principle that man needs law, that man is not inherently good. That there was some higher power. But lets look at the facts, America is, though a diverse nation, a primarily Christian or Conservative one. That is one thing that vastly sets us apart from other nations in europe, most others have adopted atheistic views entirely. Whether you want to say it or not, the USA was founded on Christian principles, not Protestant Christianity in itself, dont misunderstand me again, but on certain Christian principles.


WRONG. The US was founded on principles of freedom and equality--though we've been slow to realize it. Our government does not deny religion, but it IS still a secular one. No where in our guiding documents does it say we are a Christian nation or that we are founded on Christian beliefs. If some of the beliefs that we do hold are common ones then great for all concerned, because they are likely to be the best ones. Did you read anyhting I had to say about the consitution?


And to the guy who said that we should butt out of his business because its in the bedroom, if you keep it in your bedroom thats one thing, but when you demand marriage for it, thats another.


You're right demanding marriage is a different thing. Staying in the bedroom is hiding. Going out and demanding equal and fair treatment is quite another--much higher purpose. You can play around and banter all the reasons you want to justify it, but at the end of the day you are denying people equal rights because they are different than you.


And my main point was this on the Catholics, you made it sound like 'Christians' were killing all the world, a very clever trick to make us sound militantly intolerant. But again perhaps I should have worded it better, fact is that Christians were being killed in the inquisitions, so I was merely trying to show that 'Christians' werent the bad guys in the inquisition. The inquisition was the Roman Catholic Church.

Then perhaps you should have said that. And again, I reiterate that I don't think all Christians are evil or stupid or anything of the sort. But you can hardly pretend that the organized version of the religion have been nothing but flowers, kisses, and puppies. The same is true of all religions. For some reason when humankind binds itself together in a way, they automatically take to hating those who are not the same, who don't fit into their perfect niche. It's a natural reaction, but that doesn't mean its one we shouldn't fight.

o.O

*backs away slowly*

I can't believe there are people around who don't know this stuff...

*hides in pillowfort that is surrounding computer desk*

Aww! Pillow forts rock!

In my country homosexuality is against the law. Gay marriages are a travesty of the aincient institution of marriage.

American liberals will split the church very soon if they continue this way.
Ah, the church has split over worse. The church is always splitting. I think it's time we had a few more demoniations anyway.

So if your comfortable with your own sexuality( hetero in this case) why the need to joke about it, to prove you are?

Example, once in Manly I went out to some nightclubs with some English backpackers, one of them insisted while drunk on trying to tounge kiss all the guys in the group, he proceeded to do this to one fellow.

He turned around to me, I told him to get lost, I was brayed at in a spilt second as a homophobe, I told him he was an idiot.Now going by your logic I should have let him pash me to prove Im not a homophobe, that I was comfortable with my own sexuality, therefore I could kiss a man in this manner, and not feel the slightest bit threatened by what people might think of me.

Except for one little thing, the whole idea absolutely disqusted me.So I am quite comfortable with my own sexuality, being not comfortable with kissing a bloke on the mouth, doesnt in any way to me, negate this at all.Your arguement seems to me that only people who joke around in a homosexual manner are comfortable with their own sexuality as heterosexual.I and many others do not see or feel the need to joke around in a queer manner, to prove this.On a side note, why do your posts come out double spaced and funky?

I get where you're saying we joke to prove we are straight, which made me think for a second, since I said straights act hostile to prove they are straight. But it doesn't work like that. I mean, if I wanted to prove I was straight, I wouldn't act gay. It's already made several people ask me for clarification. I've had to tell people I'm straight.

I joke because that's what you do when your 17 years old and hanging out with your friends. Laugh, joke, talk, have fun. I would also like to clarify that there's a difference between the joking I'm talking about and a drunk guy trying to french his buddies. You were right to say no, hell, I'd say no. By joking, I meant harmless flirting, verbal jokes maybe, like, teens talk about sex. It's a thing we do. But instead of saying things that might lead a boy on, my friends and I say things that would never happen. We joke like that. We don't kiss each other and stuff. I said "joke", not "physically interact".

My logic doesn't say you don't have the right to tell a guy to shove it when he tries to kiss you. That would lead someone to believe when a girl says no to a guy, she's gay. My logic was somewhere around a guy friend playfully propositioning another guy friend in a joking manner, and the other guy friend freaks out and becomes hostile. Like, he feels threatened and must assert his sexuality. That sort of thing. Does that make any sense? Or is it any clearer?

What a load of cods, the Nazis were never Christians, and no, all the German churches did not get together specifically to wipe out the Jews, the Nazis did that all by themselves. They controlled the streets, therefore they controlled the masses, which means they controlled the state.

The German Churches were powerless against them, as was every other German not a willing part of the Nazi reigm. If you spoke out against the Nazis, you died, pure and simple.

Also theres hardly been a post you havent made here that doesnt have a go at Christians in some way or another, yet you have the hide to call me a bigot.

Your Christophobia absolutely dwarfs my 'homophobia'. :rolleyes:
I agree with Term on the Nazi spell.

I agree with Term on the Nazi spell.

Fine, I'll drop the Nazis out of that end of things. It doesn't remove the fact that the churches of Germany still supported what was going on. Had a roomate who wrote a paper on that in college. And yes, were they probably badgered into it and scared? No question about it. But sometimes all it takes for evil to happen is for good men (and women!) to do nothing.

Of course, that's not saying that there weren't some who didn't help. The resistance and support for the jews in many nations was amazing. Read "Number the Stars" (I think that's its name). Oh never mind, I'm going circular and refuting my own arguements, much like the said term. I'm gonna drop the whole holocaust end of things (cause I"m not gonna win it :) ) and try to get back to the topic of whether or not the secular government should recognize gay "marriages" and grant equal rights to those couples.

Then perhaps you should have said that. And again, I reiterate that I don't think all Christians are evil or stupid or anything of the sort. But you can hardly pretend that the organized version of the religion have been nothing but flowers, kisses, and puppies. The same is true of all religions.

Except Buddhism. And Taoism. And lots of native american religions. And Sufism, and Jainism, and and and...

I'm gonna drop the whole holocaust end of things (cause I"m not gonna win it :) ) and try to get back to the topic of whether or not the secular government should recognize gay "marriages" and grant equal rights to those couples.
Good call. And I've already read the book, or rather, it was read aloud to me in the eigth grade as part of FCAT preperation. (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, all students have to pass it to graduate from Middle School, then again to pass High School. Damn Floridian school system POS.)

Romans 1:

Slightly more applicable, but not still Jesus's words, rather those of Paul, the only one who seemed to ever mention this issue. Furthermore, this seemed to be God's punishment, not the act (or sin) for which they were being punished.

Incidentally, the New Revised Standard Version is thought to be the most accurate translation of the Bible currently. But, I checked the passages there and there were only minor differences.

Slightly more applicable, but not still Jesus's words, rather those of Paul, the only one who seemed to ever mention this issue. Furthermore, this seemed to be God's punishment, not the act (or sin) for which they were being punished.

Incidentally, the New Revised Standard Version is thought to be the most accurate translation of the Bible currently. But, I checked the passages there and there were only minor differences.

Paul was a lunatic. "women should learn in silence with all subjugation, not usurping authority over men". The utter rot in his other episles makes me take him even less seriously than the other authors of the bible.

"Oh, but 15 to 18% of those who voted 'Yes' on the poll were homosexual."

Note #1: Just because more than 1 in 7 people in America (I'm assuming that roughly the same numbers hold for the world) are openly homosexual, doesn't mean that the same percentage are active on / inhabit nationstates or voted on this poll.
Worse still, I'm sure that 0.001% voted 'No' for one pathetic/retarded reason or another.

Note #2: I obviously didn't read 77 pages of this, and didn't mean to interrupt you're lovely conversation on Lois Lowry (or whatever).

I agree with Term on the Nazi spell.

Pity - he's wrong. Contrary to the simplistic view of the matter, the Nazis weren't all some kind of evil, atheistic, violent hoarde. Their troops consisted largely of family men and other perfectly normal people, much like all national armies, who were caught up in a group mentality based in a violent, nationalistic ideology. Hitler was largely successful, also, because of the widespread dislike of the Jews in Germany at that time. And where do you think that came from? Don't believe me? Read on.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521823714/103-4139936-2614257?v=glance

Now, as I've said, part of it was certainly Hitler artfully pulling the puppet strings already attached to the populace. Any church which rebelled would have been declared an enemy, as Hitler didn't like competition. But the idea that Christianity had nothing to do with the Nazis is false.

Except Buddhism. And Taoism. And lots of native american religions. And Sufism, and Jainism, and and and...

Yet again I am bested. The poor Buddhists get killed by everyone. . .

I think part of the problem is using the word "rights". Getting married is not a right in any state. I don't care what two consenting adults do, just don't ask me to affirm their life style as a good thing.

The American people are pretty much right of center and while the loud minority makes you think other wise, most Americans do not want "gay" associated with marriage. When the courts start legislating, which is unconstitutional by the way, the only option is to make an amendment. The plus side is the DoM act passed in the late 90's pretty much settled this whole argument. When the gays in MA that got married and try to file their taxes as a married couple will be in for a rude surprise when the IRS says no.

I can't see why a gay couple cannot expect to see loved ones in the hospital, or claim death benefits, but that is a state issue. Many states already allow gays that live together to get medical benefits which I think is very discriminatory since my live in g/f can't get health insurance through my company.

Even if you chose to ignore the biblical references to homosexuality, through the ages most countries found it to be abhorent. Is that right? That is for history to decide. Gay marriage is not good for any country to allow if for no other reason what it opens the door to.

Paul was a lunatic. "women should learn in silence with all subjugation, not usurping authority over men". The utter rot in his other episles makes me take him even less seriously than the other authors of the bible.

Indeed, all sorts of other highly questionable, conservative viewpoints show up in Paul's writings that do not appear in the writings of the other apostles. This is why most people who study such texts write them off as nothing more than the words of Paul - his personal additions to the teachings of Christ.

Now, as I've said, part of it was certainly Hitler artfully pulling the puppet strings already attached to the populace. Any church which rebelled would have been declared an enemy, as Hitler didn't like competition. But the idea that Christianity had nothing to do with the Nazis is false.

I might of missed something, but to take the rants of an evil, granted a great manipulator, man who happened to declare that he believed in God, Christ and the Church and say that the Church in some way got Hitler to kill Jews along with several million other people is nuts.

BTW does anybody really know what the Inquisition was about? How it devolved into what everybody loves to use as ammo against the Church

BTW does anybody really know what the Inquisition was about? How it devolved into what everybody loves to use as ammo against the Church
Oh yes, the Inquisition was about purifying the church and removing dangerous heretics. At least, that's what I was taught in religion class at my Catholic school.

I think part of the problem is using the word "rights". Getting married is not a right in any state. I don't care what two consenting adults do, just don't ask me to affirm their life style as a good thing.

Actually, it seems a right to anyone who wants it (including Britney Spears), save that they want to marry someone of the other gender, which is discriminatory. The rights come with marriage. These are not few, nor are they minor, for example:

http://www.nclrights.org/publications/leftout0904.htm

And how is committing oneself to a lifetime mate not a good thing?

The American people are pretty much right of center and while the loud minority makes you think other wise, most Americans do not want "gay" associated with marriage. When the courts start legislating, which is unconstitutional by the way, the only option is to make an amendment. The plus side is the DoM act passed in the late 90's pretty much settled this whole argument. When the gays in MA that got married and try to file their taxes as a married couple will be in for a rude surprise when the IRS says no.

I love how social conservatives are now trying to paint America as a conservative nation. America, a nation founded in rebellion. I guess if you repeat it over and over again enough times, some people will buy it. And, of course, anyone who tells you otherwise is just one of those loud, pesky minorities.

It is not unconstitutional for courts to make decisions on laws - that's what they do. Just because Republicans are unhappy that their laws are being struck down for being unconsitutional does not mean that suddenly the Judicial Branch has run amok. It means, as it always has, that America is moving forward to allow more freedoms, rather than less. Don't give me that "activist judges" crap.

I can't see why a gay couple cannot expect to see loved ones in the hospital, or claim death benefits, but that is a state issue. Many states already allow gays that live together to get medical benefits which I think is very discriminatory since my live in g/f can't get health insurance through my company.

Well, then perhaps you and your girlfriend ought to file as domestic partners or some such thing. Better yet, lets see some sources that show that gays can just get all these medical benefits simply by living together, because quite frankly I'm not taking your word for it.

Even if you chose to ignore the biblical references to homosexuality, through the ages most countries found it to be abhorent. Is that right? That is for history to decide. Gay marriage is not good for any country to allow if for no other reason what it opens the door to.

Are you implying that if we won't look at the Bible, we should look at what's been done in the past?! Yeah, that's so much better...slavery, subjugation of women...

And what, pray tell, does it open the door to? Civil rights for happier people? More people living in stable relationships? More children taken into loving homes? You can't just go floating that phantom around here and expect us to recoil, recant, and say, "Oh my, he's right, what have we been thinking?" Some of us actually think these things out.

I might of missed something, but to take the rants of an evil, granted a great manipulator, man who happened to declare that he believed in God, Christ and the Church and say that the Church in some way got Hitler to kill Jews along with several million other people is nuts.

BTW does anybody really know what the Inquisition was about? How it devolved into what everybody loves to use as ammo against the Church

No, I'm saying that many Christian churches stood by and did nothing and a great many of the Nazis at all levels in the heirarchy were Christians. Christian thought was very much involved in the Reich, Christians most definitely had a part in the actions, and thusly, one cannot say the Nazis had nothing to do with Christianity or that Christianity as a belief system had nothing to do with the Nazis. I really don't think I can simplify the truth any more than that, and I think my sources should have covered much of this.

I think part of the problem is using the word "rights". Getting married is not a right in any state. I don't care what two consenting adults do, just don't ask me to affirm their life style as a good thing.


I'm not asking you to affirm my lifestyle in any way. I'm asking you to step aside and let me be treated as an equal human being. Marriage IS a right no matter what you want to think. It is a right because of the shear virtue that it grants privledges to people--and if America is truly about freedom and equality, then that freedom has to be shared with all


The American people are pretty much right of center and while the loud minority makes you think other wise, most Americans do not want "gay" associated with marriage. When the courts start legislating, which is unconstitutional by the way, the only option is to make an amendment. The plus side is the DoM act passed in the late 90's pretty much settled this whole argument. When the gays in MA that got married and try to file their taxes as a married couple will be in for a rude surprise when the IRS says no.

A. If America were so totally center of right, we wouldn't need an election.
B. Courts don't legislate. They interpret laws made by the legislature. When it doubt, they turn to the Constitution--which by the way says that NO ONE can be deprived of any right without due process unless a compelling interest for the public welfare can be shown. Gay marriage does not threaten the public welfare, ie no legal reason to ban it. If you want to amend the consitution, fine that is your legal right. However, you'll have to forgive me if I call you a homophobic bigot.

DOMA, BTW, is unconstitutional. It's going to be overturned pretty damned quickly. Family law (who can get married, etc.) has ALWAYS been left us to the states and under the current constitution is still the prevue of the states. So when the government refuses to recognize a states right to determine who is married, poof, there goes DOMA.


I can't see why a gay couple cannot expect to see loved ones in the hospital, or claim death benefits, but that is a state issue. Many states already allow gays that live together to get medical benefits which I think is very discriminatory since my live in g/f can't get health insurance through my company.


A gay couple cannot always to expect to see loved ones in the hospital or to have death benefits because they are not married and because many gays have families members as ignorant and stereotypical of you. It's just like with your girlfriend. Let's say she were dying of breast cancer and her family didn't like you (never mind the fact that her parents haven't spoken to her in years because they don't like the fact that she is dating you) they can keep you away from her. They can choose to not allow you to be there or to make decisions for her. Decision that you and she may have previously discussed. That's just one of the rights of marriage. Same goes for inheritance--family members can challenge even the most water-tight wills if you aren't legally married.

And the difference in gay couples getting health insurance coverage while your GF cannot? YOU CAN GET MARRIED. And a lot of areas/companies are offering domestic partnership options anyways.


Even if you chose to ignore the biblical references to homosexuality, through the ages most countries found it to be abhorent. Is that right? That is for history to decide. Gay marriage is not good for any country to allow if for no other reason what it opens the door to.

This country is not a theocracy, so "ignoring" Biblical references in making governmental decisions is no big thing. And many countries held that interracial marriages was disgusting and wrong--yet we have it. Many countries thought of women as property--but no longer. Just because a stereotype has been around for ages doesn't make it true. Humankind is quite obviously meant to grow and learn from the past--otherwise we wouldn't have memories.

And I'd like you to go ahead and finish your sentence . . .what does gay mrriage open the door to? Please tell us. And then let us totally debunk you. Of course I doubt you will realize when you are debunked because you'll pull a term and go (without anything to back you up) "I just don't believe that."

Pity - he's wrong. Contrary to the simplistic view of the matter, the Nazis weren't all some kind of evil, atheistic, violent hoarde. Their troops consisted largely of family men and other perfectly normal people, much like all national armies, who were caught up in a group mentality based in a violent, nationalistic ideology. Hitler was largely successful, also, because of the widespread dislike of the Jews in Germany at that time. And where do you think that came from? Don't believe me? Read on.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521823714/103-4139936-2614257?v=glance

Now, as I've said, part of it was certainly Hitler artfully pulling the puppet strings already attached to the populace. Any church which rebelled would have been declared an enemy, as Hitler didn't like competition. But the idea that Christianity had nothing to do with the Nazis is false.
I may have over-scanned Term's post. I don't think nazi soldiers were evil, blood thirsty demon hordes. However, I also don't think christianity played a large role in the Holocaust.

Though I'm sure the sites you linked are very throrough and well researched, they have many words and I have school tomorrow. I'll read them later.

I have scanned them, though, and first I'd like to say the second link, the one to the article, sounds biased. I'll have to take time later to read it more thoroughly, but just because it's published on the internet or in a paper doesn't mean it's true. Just thought I'd point that out.

Next, the Holocaust and the Nazi party and the German role in WWII were mostly affected by Hitler. Hitler motivated the German people, envigorated the German land, and started the Second World War. Hitler infused Germany with his own anti-jewish propaganda, partly because he had a personal vendeta against the jews, mostly because they made a nice political scapegoat.

I may also like to point out that Hitler was a fanatic, and he was insane. He had syphilis, which tends to drive a person mad, and he was dying. Not to mention he was a little looney to begin with. Real violent an' stuff. I do not believe that Hitler, and the things he and his fellow Nazis did in Germany, or anything that may have occured due to that, are proper examples of the Christian Community.

I stand by my argument that Christianity had nothing to do with the Nazis aside from being a religion of the people.

Please argue more, I'd like to debate this.

Hello all. I'm totally new to this forum and stuff. I need help! How do I view replies to my post? How do I view my post? How is that editor thing work? If I can just get at least the first 2 questions answered, I think I'll get it from there. My e-mail address is: DMcCauley26@WideOpenWest.com (e-mail me them ... {{{{{PLEASE}}}}}

I'd just like to point out that people supporting gay marriage are winning three to one in the poll. I knwo not all of them have posted, but dude that's cool!

I find it interesting that on most of the poll-threads like this (there was one on abortion, and one on whether homosexuality is a choice), the results seem to stabalise at 75%-25% (with logic winning! yay!)

I find it interesting that on most of the poll-threads like this (there was one on abortion, and one on whether homosexuality is a choice), the results seem to stabalise at 75%-25% (with logic winning! yay!)
It really reflect the leftist bias of the site, with three-quarters of the people left(wrong) and a quarter right(right). :)

Hitler may have believed in God...but he was insane. He was way off in his belief that he was serving God by killing Jews. Anyone who actually reads through their Bible and understands it knows that the Jews are God's chosen people. So Hitler was doing the exact opposite of what the Bible says. So no his 'Christianity' was actually contrary to the Bible.
And Paul did not add on to scriptures. After he was converted he spent 3 years in discipleship, under the Holy Spirit. Hence what he wrote was factual. And all that the passage on women learning is silence means is that women cant preach and userp authority over the man, isnt that what every culture has believed since...oh the beginning of time.
And let met tell you just what gay marriage will open the door to:
If a man can love a man and because he really loves him he can get married, then since I really love my dog or my horse, why cant I marry them? If a woman and a woman can be married, why cant I have multiple wives?
Homosexuals want to be seen as normal, so you know what will be next after gay marriage if they get it? the pushing for laws against hate speech. Thus making it illegal for anyone to say anything about gays, including pastors and preachers. No longer will anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong be able to say anything about it, thus you have given away the right of one group for the other. And since hate speech is a hate crime, and the penalty for hate crimes is death....think about it.

And let met tell you just what gay marriage will open the door to:
If a man can love a man and because he really loves him he can get married, then since I really love my dog or my horse, why cant I marry them? If a woman and a woman can be married, why cant I have multiple wives?
Homosexuals want to be seen as normal, so you know what will be next after gay marriage if they get it? the pushing for laws against hate speech. Thus making it illegal for anyone to say anything about gays, including pastors and preachers. No longer will anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong be able to say anything about it, thus you have given away the right of one group for the other. And since hate speech is a hate crime, and the penalty for hate crimes is death....think about it.

You've quite obviously not read this thread because ever poitn you just made has already been addressed and debunked--with the possible exception of polygamy. The difference between gay marriage and beastiality is that gay adults can give informed consent. An animal cannot. Period. End of stord. QED. The polygamy matter I cannot quite address because, well, when I think about it logically I cannot see a problem to it as long as everyone is willing <shrugs>.

And no, hate speech isn't goign to be banned (unless its libelous which is already a law). No one has proposed limiting free speech. If anything, this is about expanding freedoms to include all human beings, not about restricting them. Gay marrige does not restrict straight peoples freedom. You can talk about us all you want as long as it doesn't break the laws already established concerning free speech (libel, privacy, not yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.).

I may have over-scanned Term's post. I don't think nazi soldiers were evil, blood thirsty demon hordes. However, I also don't think christianity played a large role in the Holocaust.

Let's get this straight: I'm not arguing an orchestrated conspiracy here, merely refuting the idea that it had no role in the Nazi movement ("no role" being the absolute state of being entirely devoid of a connection).

Though I'm sure the sites you linked are very throrough and well researched, they have many words and I have school tomorrow. I'll read them later.

I have scanned them, though, and first I'd like to say the second link, the one to the article, sounds biased. I'll have to take time later to read it more thoroughly, but just because it's published on the internet or in a paper doesn't mean it's true. Just thought I'd point that out.

Yes, it's a secular humanist site...and while the truth they push seems quite unpleasant, there's nothing there that I haven't read elsewhere from respected sources. The only reason I included it, in fact, was because it was so comprehensive, despite being from such a site.

Next, the Holocaust and the Nazi party and the German role in WWII were mostly affected by Hitler. Hitler motivated the German people, envigorated the German land, and started the Second World War. Hitler infused Germany with his own anti-jewish propaganda, partly because he had a personal vendeta against the jews, mostly because they made a nice political scapegoat.

You can dispense with the background info - I studied the Holocaust, the surrounding circumstances, and Hitler's methods of motivation for several months.

I may also like to point out that Hitler was a fanatic, and he was insane. He had syphilis, which tends to drive a person mad, and he was dying. Not to mention he was a little looney to begin with. Real violent an' stuff. I do not believe that Hitler, and the things he and his fellow Nazis did in Germany, or anything that may have occured due to that, are proper examples of the Christian Community.

I'm not arguing that Christianity as a belief system is evil. I'm not even arguing that the HOlocaust was carried out exclusively as a Christian action. I'm arguing that people who believed in Christianity and called themselves Christians planned and executed it. I'd argue that many people these days are very poor examples of Christians, but I certainly wouldn't try to claim that, for that reason, that these people are not Christians, because they are acting in Christ's name, or under the impression that they are Christians. As such, to claim just because the Nazis perverted Christianity to their ends does not mean that Christianity ceased to be a factor. On the contrary, it was associated, and it was a factor, regardless of the form it took.

I stand by my argument that Christianity had nothing to do with the Nazis aside from being a religion of the people.

Please argue more, I'd like to debate this.

To say it was not a factor in a mass movement of the people, and in the same sentence say that it was a religion of those same people people is contradictory. Add in my sources, which show that it was intricately woven into the National Socialist ideology, and it becomes quite obviously wrong. Say all you like that you disagree with their version of Christianity, that doesn't negate the fact that it is a version of Christianity, and thus said religion is involved and certainly factored into it.

I have to say that Iam against gay marriages. Im not a religous person and i dont go to church but i do believe in God. I have to stand behind god when he says No to gay marriages. If you are persons who read the bible you will know that this is one of the reasons why God flooded the Earth (Noah's Ark)
I just dont want to be the one who went against Gods word.. People kill people every day is it right no are we gonna make that legal no!! I dont think any less of this gay marriage situation. Its wrong and Immoraln and i think this issue should be laughed out and dropped!!!!!!!!!!

It really reflect the leftist bias of the site, with three-quarters of the people left(wrong) and a quarter right(right). :)

You mean the logical versus illogical bias? Yeah, intelligent discussion usually is biased that way. ;)

Hitler may have believed in God...but he was insane. He was way off in his belief that he was serving God by killing Jews. Anyone who actually reads through their Bible and understands it knows that the Jews are God's chosen people. So Hitler was doing the exact opposite of what the Bible says. So no his 'Christianity' was actually contrary to the Bible.

See above - most people today are sh-tty Christians - they're still counted among the masses, though.

And Paul did not add on to scriptures. After he was converted he spent 3 years in discipleship, under the Holy Spirit. Hence what he wrote was factual. And all that the passage on women learning is silence means is that women cant preach and userp authority over the man, isnt that what every culture has believed since...oh the beginning of time.

Really, so why weren't the other apostles inspired as such? You do know that there is significant, measureable overlap between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John's accounts of Christ's teachings, right? Such a thing provides proof that translations and such over the years have kept these ideas true. Now Paul's stuff has none of that...funny the Holy Spirit didn't inspire the other disciples to write the same thing...almost as if Paul or some later scholar added his two cents.

Naw, couldn't be, since the Bible says this thing and then says it's infallible. It must be true!

And let met tell you just what gay marriage will open the door to:
If a man can love a man and because he really loves him he can get married, then since I really love my dog or my horse, why cant I marry them? If a woman and a woman can be married, why cant I have multiple wives?
Homosexuals want to be seen as normal, so you know what will be next after gay marriage if they get it? the pushing for laws against hate speech. Thus making it illegal for anyone to say anything about gays, including pastors and preachers. No longer will anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong be able to say anything about it, thus you have given away the right of one group for the other. And since hate speech is a hate crime, and the penalty for hate crimes is death....think about it.

Ooh, booga booga booga! I am the spectre of gay marriage! I will corrupt your desires, destroy your marriage, and turn your children! Booooo....

Yeah, this is all nothing new - same old claptrap and talking points that have zero validity.
-Your animals can't give legal consent, and so you can't marry them.
-I don't give two sh-ts if you want multiple wives, I just hope you can stand the multiple mothers in law.
-Is racial hate speech illegal? 'Cause I could swear we legalized inter-racial marriage some time ago. Guess what? People made similarly baseless arguments then, too. Same old prejudice, new group.
-Not that this gross exaggeration has anything to do with this, but who, exactly has been killed for espousing hate speech. I want a name - just one little name; and I expect you to deliver, since you've so clearly thought about this. ;)

Do you have anything else? Because this is all about as new as, well, threads on gay marriage.

I have to say that Iam against gay marriages. Im not a religous person and i dont go to church but i do believe in God. I have to stand behind god when he says No to gay marriages. If you are persons who read the bible you will know that this is one of the reasons why God flooded the Earth (Noah's Ark)
I just dont want to be the one who went against Gods word.. People kill people every day is it right no are we gonna make that legal no!! I dont think any less of this gay marriage situation. Its wrong and Immoraln and i think this issue should be laughed out and dropped!!!!!!!!!!

Are you aware that the same Bible you profess also condemns people to death for touching women during their menstrual period, allows you to sell your daughter into slavery, and says that clothes made out of two types of fabric are abominations?

If you are and you tell me that you do all these things, I might think that you are less than a twelve year old playing with mommy and daddy's computer. Until then, have a nice life.

Ooh, booga booga booga!

...you ok man? Spazzin out on the internet or something?

anyway dont try to compare this with interracial marriage. Want to know why? Cuz a black man and a white woman are still a man and a woman.
ok lets see if I can define the lack of logic in homosexuality...I got it!

Two nuts and two bolts, now you dont put the two nuts together, because then they wont work right as they are meant to function, ditto for two bolts.

And for the whole lack of free speech thing I leave you the example of Sweden I believe it is, or one of those Euro countries I forget at the moment, homosexual marriage is legal, preaching the Bible is restricted.

-Not that this gross exaggeration has anything to do with this, but who, exactly has been killed for espousing hate speech. I want a name - just one little name; and I expect you to deliver, since you've so clearly thought about this. ;)


You know, I figured that I could probably come up with someone just to make this interesting. But for the life of me I cannot. I can come up with quite a few people who were either attacked/killed for being gay or for espousing tolerance, acceptance and equality for all.

...you ok man? Spazzin out on the internet or something?

anyway dont try to compare this with interracial marriage. Want to know why? Cuz a black man and a white woman are still a man and a woman.
ok lets see if I can define the lack of logic in homosexuality...I got it!

Two nuts and two bolts, now you dont put the two nuts together, because then they wont work right as they are meant to function, ditto for two bolts.

And for the whole lack of free speech thing I leave you the example of Sweden I believe it is, or one of those Euro countries I forget at the moment, homosexual marriage is legal, preaching the Bible is restricted.

Until you can remember the country, don't talk about it. Go look it up if you don't know.

And as for the nuts and bolts analogy--you are comparing people's lives to hardware now? Fine, here's one for you:

Screw goes into the screwhole.

Penis can go into any hole in the body it will fit in--this includes the anus and the mouth, two orifices used by many heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.

And then of course there is the matter that homosexuality is NOT JUST ABOUT SEX. Just like heterosexual love, its about finding emotional fulfillment and hapiness.

Oh wait, I just had an epiphany! I know now why half of straight marriages end in divorce. Because to straight men (and maybe women too!) it IS only about sex. No wonder a lifelong relationship can't survive when its only about getting some! I'm so glad I've figured this out--now all gays can be just like heterosexuals. Forget finding a soulmate guys--marry any one you see, afterall, its only about sex!

love? that is why marriage is so screwed now adays. On this one issue I agree with you, marriage is messed up because alot of people think it is about sex. But the thing that adds to that is this, we have so many definitions of love and use it for everything, few people will ever know the true meaning of love. Love isnt a feeling or some warm fuzzies you get.

well before we start using the bible to go against gay marriage

maybe u nuts could look at the rest of it

Proverbs 23:4
Do not overwork to be rich; Because of your own understanding, cease!

Matthew 5:9
blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God

yah, so go back to ur capitalist lifes of worshipping money
and go back to ur support for wars that are killing more innocents than 'bad guys'

pretend ur religious n dislike the idea of a gay couple
thatll sure get u into heaven
;)

Yes Im sure a sodomite like yourself would be very happy about that, but

what can be made law can easily be undone

So if Christians became marginalised in the future and it is illegal to be a Christian, you won't complain then, will you? :cool:

love? that is why marriage is so screwed now adays. On this one issue I agree with you, marriage is messed up because alot of people think it is about sex. But the thing that adds to that is this, we have so many definitions of love and use it for everything, few people will ever know the true meaning of love. Love isnt a feeling or some warm fuzzies you get.

Just because many may never know true love, doesn't mean you quit looking. And I do agree with you taht love is more than just a the "warm fuzzies" though that is a part of it. Love is hard work. Love is sticking together no matter what, love is unconditional, love loves without thought of recompense.

I don't know if you've ever read any Madeline L'Engle, but the definition of love one of her characters gave in A Wind In The Door has always stuck with me. He was a cherubim and was therefore incapable of feelings (they didn't have emotions in this book) but was still capable fo love because love wasn't feelings. It was actions. Love isn't love until you do something with it.

If you read the bible, which is where marrage was invented, it says marrage is between a man and a women, nothing more, nothing less.

The debate ends with that statement.

If you read the bible, which is where marrage was invented, it says marrage is between a man and a women, nothing more, nothing less.

The debate ends with that statement.

The bible also states that marraige is the complete ownership of a woman by her husband. The bible is full of incitements to commit horrific acts and is an appalling guide for morality. Also, it is incredibly self-contradictory (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com)

If you read the bible, which is where marrage was invented, it says marrage is between a man and a women, nothing more, nothing less.

The debate ends with that statement.

The debate doesn't even begin with or include that statement, for at least two reasons that I can think of at 2AM.

1. Marriage is older than the Bible. Or Christianity. Marriage is known to have existed in ancient Greek and Roman society and probably in mesolithic times. Christianity certainly does not hold a monopoly on it.

2. Our country (at least assuming you are from the USA) is NOT a theocracy. What the Bible says it not law here. We have a civil government--one not based on religion but on secular thought, logic, and rights.

2. Our country (at least assuming you are from the USA) is NOT a theocracy. What the Bible says it not law here. We have a civil government--one not based on religion but on secular thought, logic, and rights.

Correct! And I also believe that one of the great Christian leaders said that logic or reasoning must be destroyed in all Christians.

LOL. Nice points guys.

I am no christian and I am no American. I come from Australia, over there is pretty much the same as America, both better than France :)

...you ok man? Spazzin out on the internet or something?

I see you can't even grasp basic humor. Makes me worry that this'll be yet another sad end for yet another person with your viewpoint. More's the better.

anyway dont try to compare this with interracial marriage. Want to know why? Cuz a black man and a white woman are still a man and a woman.
ok lets see if I can define the lack of logic in homosexuality...I got it!

Two nuts and two bolts, now you dont put the two nuts together, because then they wont work right as they are meant to function, ditto for two bolts.

But the blacks are a different race - it's totally different than a marriage betweeen two God-fearing white folks! Please, your kind of crap has been used before - same old, same old. History will look back at people like you like they do the bigots of the old South. And they'd be right to do so.

So, marriage is all about sex, then, huh? Ok, time we go and annul the marriages of all women after menopause, all fertile people, and anyone else who can't have sex and/or procreate. Yeah, that's a pretty stupid argument you've got there. But then, I notice you had to change the direction of the conversation rather than quoting and addressing my points.

And for the whole lack of free speech thing I leave you the example of Sweden I believe it is, or one of those Euro countries I forget at the moment, homosexual marriage is legal, preaching the Bible is restricted.

Your claim was that the price of being found guilty of hate speech is death. Well? C'mon, let's hear it. Certainly you wouldn't make this claim without having a shred of proof to back it up!

I bet you can't even prove the claim you've backpedaled to here.

So if Christians became marginalised in the future and it is illegal to be a Christian, you won't complain then, will you? :cool:

Heh, one can't suggest removing two 40-50 year-old words from the Pledge without them raising a huge fuss, as it is.

Two nuts and two bolts, now you dont put the two nuts together, because then they wont work right as they are meant to function, ditto for two bolts.


Ok, lets go back to another argument that is around 20 posts back or something like that:

In many different species homosexuality occurs, so obviosly there is a purpose for it. This purpose is to keep the population under control or, as some others believe, they are there to take in abondoned children. I tend to believe in the population control theory, homosexuals are there to control an increasing population.
If you think that I am relating humans to animals by the first thing I said (it's in bold letters) then you are probably right, that is because, yes, we are animals. Also, we did evolve and don't argue with that since it has been scientifically proven.

So if Christians became marginalised in the future and it is illegal to be a Christian, you won't complain then, will you? :cool:
What do you mean in the future? It's happening now; being a Christian is punishable by prison or death in some countries. Just not in your little world.

What do you mean in the future? It's happening now; being a Christian is punishable by prison or death in some countries. Just not in your little world.

Off course, when it's *Christians* being opressed, then it's bad. Everyone else, no problem.

What do you mean in the future? It's happening now; being a Christian is punishable by prison or death in some countries. Just not in your little world.

Rather like being gay is punishable by prison and death in some coutnries. Or not being a Christian used to be punishable by death and imprisonment in some countries. Religions have been doing that to one another since their inception.

What do you mean in the future? It's happening now; being a Christian is punishable by prison or death in some countries. Just not in your little world.

"Help Help Im being repressed, come see the violence inharent in the system"

Seriously everyone is repressed somewhere, and usualy it is one religion doing it to another one, another beef I have with religions

This is one of those issues which is a non-issue. It's something our descendants will look at us and go "what were you thinking?" like we do to our parents over the "interracial marriage issue". Thirty years ago, "The Jeffersons" was controversial. Now, its so normal to see interracial couples, its... normal.

The opposition to "Gay Marriage" is made up entirely of those who will not bend. And history shows that those who cannot adapt are crushed and left behind - evolution goes only one way, and it does not play favorites. Evolution favors the most adaptable, and this includes social as well as biological evolution.

Besides - think of the boon to the marriage industries (flowers, chapels, dresses and suits) and to divorce lawyers!

That's right! We are the next generation, and we can wait until you're all dead to fix your mistakes and laugh at your stupidity!

That's right! We are the next generation, and we can wait until you're all dead to fix your mistakes and laugh at your stupidity!


No you cant … lol the being the next generation by the time they are dead you yourself will be rather “ancient” and at that point the generation after YOU will be getting into power :-P

Rather like being gay is punishable by prison and death in some countries. Or not being a Christian used to be punishable by death and imprisonment in some countries. Religions have been doing that to one another since their inception.
Exactly. Solution:
Step 1) round up every politician/clergyman/religious leader and send them to the Int Space Station.
Step 2) conveniently forget to send food and supplies to said space station.
Step 3) Make me your leader and give me a huge army with absolute loyalty.
It's a simple plan..

Long live`Gay Marriages. ` God Bless em` for doing what they (and I)believe to be Right :) :fluffle:

Long live`Gay Marriages. ` God Bless em` for doing what they (and I)believe to be Right :) :fluffle:


So ironic with the god bless them

I love it :-D

Well, I'm from Massachusetts, I'm not gay.. but I think they should have it, becuase we're taking a stand against Bush by doing it... besides... it makes the gays happy and there won't be so much complaining about them not having it. However, I don't think that all the gays should flock her to get married.

Once Christians are dead you are saying? ha! that is what has been happening to them since...oh the Roman Empire. All sorts of people have tried to wipe out Christianity and the Bible, but they havent yet, tell you anything?
And why is it that you are all free to bash Christians left and right and yet we are the bigots? "Christians hate all" and crap like that. Or why is it that you can call us "holy joe's" "Jesus Freaks" "Bible Thumpers" and all your cute little stupid comments, but the moment I call all you gays out there fags, everyone is up in arms and now whoever said it is the bigot. Forget what he has been called because of his beliefs.

Well, I'm from Massachusetts, I'm not gay.. but I think they should have it, becuase we're taking a stand against Bush by doing it... besides... it makes the gays happy and there won't be so much complaining about them not having it. However, I don't think that all the gays should flock her to get married.

Seesh I see your in support of gay marriage but damn I don’t know if it is just language but if I was gay I wouldn’t want you “supporting the gays”

And the fact that a main point of your support is just so they don’t complain …

Yikes


I am glad you support it but … yikes

Once Christians are dead you are saying? ha! that is what has been happening to them since...oh the Roman Empire. All sorts of people have tried to wipe out Christianity and the Bible, but they havent yet, tell you anything?
And why is it that you are all free to bash Christians left and right and yet we are the bigots? "Christians hate all" and crap like that. Or why is it that you can call us "holy joe's" "Jesus Freaks" "Bible Thumpers" and all your cute little stupid comments, but the moment I call all you gays out there fags, everyone is up in arms and now whoever said it is the bigot. Forget what he has been called because of his beliefs.

Not everyone calls you that … and those of us that don’t also don’t like calling people “gays” and “fags” either

I find it ironic that you are getting angry at stereotyping when you point out when others get mad at you stereotyping
Really should you expect any less
Hate begets hate … that’s what happens. Slowly people are opposing you and people make mistakes. Act like an adult and just because people call you names doesn’t give you the right to do the same.

Seesh I see your in support of gay marriage but damn I don’t know if it is just language but if I was gay I wouldn’t want you “supporting the gays”

And the fact that a main point of your support is just so they don’t complain …

Yikes


I am glad you support it but … yikes

I supports John Kerry's position.

I supports John Kerry's position.

That’s nice lol
So?

I am completely in favor of gay marriages, because they really can't do any worse than the straight couples do.

I am completely in favor of gay marriages, because they really can't do any worse than the straight couples do.

...I'm just posting here because my forum screen name is buggy...

You all know what I think about the deluded fools who are against gay marriage for religious/un-"scientific" reasons.

If it was a question of monetary expenses on the part of the state, i.e. equal benefits for straight and gay couples cost too much, why not just cut off all the benefits (for all couples)?

Hitler may have believed in God...but he was insane. He was way off in his belief that he was serving God by killing Jews. Anyone who actually reads through their Bible and understands it knows that the Jews are God's chosen people. So Hitler was doing the exact opposite of what the Bible says. So no his 'Christianity' was actually contrary to the Bible.
And Paul did not add on to scriptures. After he was converted he spent 3 years in discipleship, under the Holy Spirit. Hence what he wrote was factual. And all that the passage on women learning is silence means is that women cant preach and userp authority over the man, isnt that what every culture has believed since...oh the beginning of time.
And let met tell you just what gay marriage will open the door to:
If a man can love a man and because he really loves him he can get married, then since I really love my dog or my horse, why cant I marry them? If a woman and a woman can be married, why cant I have multiple wives?
Homosexuals want to be seen as normal, so you know what will be next after gay marriage if they get it? the pushing for laws against hate speech. Thus making it illegal for anyone to say anything about gays, including pastors and preachers. No longer will anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong be able to say anything about it, thus you have given away the right of one group for the other. And since hate speech is a hate crime, and the penalty for hate crimes is death....think about it.

The bible doesn't teach tolerance of Jews, any more than any other group. Sure, the Old Testament has a deal to say about how special they are, but the New Testament pretty much deletes that... since the 'rights' that were only available to Hebrews (the access to God, if you will) were opened up to everybody... and then the Jews had Jesus killed. (Their words, not mine).

The fact that Hitler grew up in one of the few areas of Europe that still actively had 'Passion Plays' probably had a profound effect on him, and, unfortunately, if you read your history, christianity almost always goes hand-in-hand with anti-semitism... and all because "they killed Christ".

Further Note: Look at Mel Gibson's recent movie version of the 'Passion Plays', and listen to the amount of critics that have denounced it as anti-semitic because of it's content... which is the same content as found in the book version of the story.

Hitler was, in all probability, TRAINED to kill Jews, by his christian surroundings as a youth.

Not everyone calls you that … and those of us that don’t also don’t like calling people “gays” and “fags” either

I find it ironic that you are getting angry at stereotyping when you point out when others get mad at you stereotyping
Really should you expect any less
Hate begets hate … that’s what happens. Slowly people are opposing you and people make mistakes. Act like an adult and just because people call you names doesn’t give you the right to do the same.

Turn the other cheek and what not. :P

Besides, being a homosexual, just like being of a certain "race" (in quotes because humans are all of one race) or having a certain IQ, can't be helped... it isn't chosen.

On the other hand, one's personal ideologies/mythologies/delusions are chosen...ergo, "fair game".

I have to say that Iam against gay marriages. Im not a religous person and i dont go to church but i do believe in God. I have to stand behind god when he says No to gay marriages. If you are persons who read the bible you will know that this is one of the reasons why God flooded the Earth (Noah's Ark)
I just dont want to be the one who went against Gods word.. People kill people every day is it right no are we gonna make that legal no!! I dont think any less of this gay marriage situation. Its wrong and Immoraln and i think this issue should be laughed out and dropped!!!!!!!!!!

No, God flooded the earth because the 'Daughters of Men' had intercourse with the 'Sons of God', causing the generation of a population of Giants that thought about evil all the time.

Note: This intercourse with angels... that created the Giants, that caused the flood... this is the sin that the people of Sodom attempted to replicate, and then they were destroyed with fire...

Looks like the crime of Sodom wasn't sodomy, at all, but angelophilia.

The bible doesn't teach tolerance of Jews, any more than any other group. Sure, the Old Testament has a deal to say about how special they are, but the New Testament pretty much deletes that... since the 'rights' that were only available to Hebrews (the access to God, if you will) were opened up to everybody... and then the Jews had Jesus killed. (Their words, not mine).

The fact that Hitler grew up in one of the few areas of Europe that still actively had 'Passion Plays' probably had a profound effect on him, and, unfortunately, if you read your history, christianity almost always goes hand-in-hand with anti-semitism... and all because "they killed Christ".

Further Note: Look at Mel Gibson's recent movie version of the 'Passion Plays', and listen to the amount of critics that have denounced it as anti-semitic because of it's content... which is the same content as found in the book version of the story.

Hitler was, in all probability, TRAINED to kill Jews, by his christian surroundings as a youth.

Ohh so was the book better then the movie [/sarcasm]

And a fav comedy clip of mine from a local station

“And now running the ending to the passion of the Christ:
“you know he dies… in the end”

“god damn you ruined the whole damn movie! [crowd boo’s]

No, God flooded the earth because the 'Daughters of Men' had intercourse with the 'Sons of God', causing the generation of a population of Giants that thought about evil all the time.

Note: This intercourse with angels... that created the Giants, that caused the flood... this is the sin that the people of Sodom attempted to replicate, and then they were destroyed with fire...

Looks like the crime of Sodom wasn't sodomy, at all, but angelophilia.

Uh oh Im in trouble (my gf is going as an angle for Halloween)

Once Christians are dead you are saying? ha! that is what has been happening to them since...oh the Roman Empire. All sorts of people have tried to wipe out Christianity and the Bible, but they havent yet, tell you anything?
And why is it that you are all free to bash Christians left and right and yet we are the bigots? "Christians hate all" and crap like that. Or why is it that you can call us "holy joe's" "Jesus Freaks" "Bible Thumpers" and all your cute little stupid comments, but the moment I call all you gays out there fags, everyone is up in arms and now whoever said it is the bigot. Forget what he has been called because of his beliefs.

This is priceless: "All sorts of people have tried to wipe out Christianity and the Bible, but they havent yet, tell you anything?"

Think about it for a second. It means that they have managed to annoy EVERYBODY, right?

Oh - and christians have spent at least as long trying to eliminate the Jews, and they were around for at least a thousand years longer... by your argument, that means the Jews were more right than the christians... so Jesus isn't Messiah.

And, thinking about it, anyway... haven't christians done more damage to christians than any other religion, with their Salem trials, and their Inquisitions and their eleimination of heresies?

This is priceless:

Think about it for a second. It means that they have managed to annoy EVERYBODY, right?

Oh - and christians have spent at least as long trying to eliminate the Jews, and they were around for at least a thousand years longer... by your argument, that means the Jews were more right than the christians... so Jesus isn't Messiah.

And, thinking about it, anyway... haven't christians done more damage to christians than any other religion, with their Salem trials, and their Inquisitions and their eleimination of heresies?

Yeah and that is saying a lot considering what they have done to other religions :-P (note crusades)

You're still talking about this? Man, you homos demand too much attention.

I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to marry another adult, if both parties agree. :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Uh oh Im in trouble (my gf is going as an angle for Halloween)

Well, you'd best be on your best behaviour then, or you might get flooded or destroyed by fire and brimstone.

:)

You're still talking about this? Man, you homos demand too much attention.

Lol great observation

Have you cared to look at the fact that I think about 95% of the people posting on here are not themselves homosexual

Probably not … would require … um what’s that word again … reading and … um thinking. (sorry if I used too big of words)

You're still talking about this? Man, you homos demand too much attention.

Now, this is an interesting post.

See, I assume by 'homo', you are being crass, and are refering to homosexuals, yes?

And, by that logic... you must be assuming that the debate is being carried by homosexuals, yes?

And, you just posted in this thread, identifying yourself as.... what, I wonder?

Maybe I use logic too much....

Now, this is an interesting post.

See, I assume by 'homo', you are being crass, and are refering to homosexuals, yes?

And, by that logic... you must be assuming that the debate is being carried by homosexuals, yes?

And, you just posted in this thread, identifying yourself as.... what, I wonder?

Maybe I use logic too much....

Lol somehow our replies to this comment are strongly similar including point out the fact that the percent of homosexuals on here is not high) lol

Ohh so was the book better then the movie [/sarcasm]

And a fav comedy clip of mine from a local station

“And now running the ending to the passion of the Christ:
“you know he dies… in the end”

“god damn you ruined the whole damn movie! [crowd boo’s]

Actually, I prefer the movie to the book... if only because it's over in like 3 hours...

It's not a very faithful reading of the book, though.

I did like the fact that they used Aramaic... but I agree with a lot of other people that the movie takes an already anti-semitic storyline, and really takes the anti-semitism up a notch.

Lol somehow our replies to this comment are strongly similar including point out the fact that the percent of homosexuals on here is not high) lol

I guess it's the simple fact that stupid assumption + logic = sarcastic response....

or something like that... :)

Once Christians are dead you are saying? ha! that is what has been happening to them since...oh the Roman Empire. All sorts of people have tried to wipe out Christianity and the Bible, but they havent yet, tell you anything?

It tells me that Christians are resilient beings just like Muslims, Buddhists, Ba'hai, Daoists, Jews, et. al. Nearly every major world religion has tried ot wip eout the others at some point or other, yet most are still around. Tell you something?


And why is it that you are all free to bash Christians left and right and yet we are the bigots? "Christians hate all" and crap like that. Or why is it that you can call us "holy joe's" "Jesus Freaks" "Bible Thumpers" and all your cute little stupid comments, but the moment I call all you gays out there fags, everyone is up in arms and now whoever said it is the bigot. Forget what he has been called because of his beliefs.

Note, none of us said we hate all Christians. Just the ones, like you, who espouse hate towards us. Most gay people are perfectly happy just to be left alone. The same doesn't seem true of many (though certainly not all) Christians. And to my recollection, I for for one have never used those terms against all Christians--certain individuals yes, but not for the whole group. That would be unfair and inconsistent. Granted, I realize you weren't personally targetting me.

Why is that so many people hear us say "I have a problem with the groups of Christians who feel it their obligation to enforce their world views on me without any regard for my rights" and somehow think we've said "Christians all suck!"

I am glad you support it but … yikes

Take what you can get, lol.

You're still talking about this? Man, you homos demand too much attention.

No one twisted your arm to get you here.

I don't understand what the issue is here. I am a christian.. and I am not gay. But I see nothing wrong with gay people living the way they believe. Its really not an issue on religion. Its the way they are. Leave them alone about it.

I don't understand what the issue is here. I am a christian.. and I am not gay. But I see nothing wrong with gay people living the way they believe. Its really not an issue on religion. Its the way they are. Leave them alone about it.



Too bad a majority of don’t see it that way, either because of morals, disgust, or (the biggest reason) the bible tells them its bad. They cant handle it.

I'm not christian, and I'm not gay. But I'm not opposed to gay marriage either. I am however against anybody who is militant about any cause. That's what's really disgusting. I mean, eventually, the people will figure out what is fair and equal themselves. Either that, or will completely destroy the world and everybody on it.

I'm not christian, and I'm not gay. But I'm not opposed to gay marriage either. I am however against anybody who is militant about any cause. That's what's really disgusting. I mean, eventually, the people will figure out what is fair and equal themselves. Either that, or will completely destroy the world and everybody on it.


Agreed, extremists suck
On any side of an issue

Agreed, extremists suck
On any side of an issue

yeah. Especially when its none of their business.. and the issue has nothing to do with them anyway.

That's not saying hate the sin love the sinner (Gandhi said that). It's saying you should forgive people of their sins and not judge them. Somehow I think that "Oh my God homosexuality is just wrong, unnatural and evil" doesn't fall under that verse. In fact, denying homosexuals their rights and judging them would pose a problem.

Now, I know I said I was staying out of religious arguements. But if someone posts a verse or something, I'm still gonna get involved if they are interpreting it like a nine year old would.

The bible specifically states that we should have faith like a child (Mark 10:14) be childlike as opposed to childish (Matthew 18:1-4) that children have the kind of attitude needed to approach God (Matthew 19:13-15) and that believers are God's children (1 John 3:1)

I'm not christian, and I'm not gay. But I'm not opposed to gay marriage either. I am however against anybody who is militant about any cause. That's what's really disgusting. I mean, eventually, the people will figure out what is fair and equal themselves. Either that, or will completely destroy the world and everybody on it.
You can't blame people for getting militant. The black civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s had its militant side and its peaceful side. It sure as hell took a long time for people to figure out what is fair and equal (having separate water fountains apparently was just dandy). In any case, I don't see much militancy in the gay rights movement, unless you consider big rainbow parades to be militancy.

I still haven't heard a convincing argument against gay marriage; religion does not count, seeing as we (the US) have a seperation of church and state.

I still haven't heard a convincing argument against gay marriage; religion does not count, seeing as we (the US) have a seperation of church and state.
In theory yes, in practice, no.

If the government could get out of the religious aspect of marriage this would all go over much smoother.

1. The Spanish Inquisition
2. At least five Crusades.
3. Salem Withtrials.

I think those three are enough.

All three can be directly linked to Christendom. If you take the time to look into the difference between Christianity and Christendom, I think you will find that we in fact agree on this issue.

Too bad a majority of don’t see it that way, either because of morals, disgust, or (the biggest reason) the bible tells them its bad. They cant handle it.

Now now, nobody ever said it was even a majority of Christians. They like to call us a vocal minority, how do we not know that we aren't doing the same? Given everyone the benefit of the doubt untilt hey prove they are a mindless twit who is trying to force their beliefs on you. . .then destroy them :)

The bible specifically states that we should have faith like a child (Mark 10:14) be childlike as opposed to childish (Matthew 18:1-4) that children have the kind of attitude needed to approach God (Matthew 19:13-15) and that believers are God's children (1 John 3:1)


What does that have to do with love the sinner, hate the sin? Methinks you are grasping. . .that or my three hours of sleep in the last forty eight hours are catching up with me.

All three can be directly linked to Christendom. If you take the time to look into the difference between Christianity and Christendom, I think you will find that we in fact agree on this issue.

At this point I've forgotten what the precise point I was trying to make it. Likely that Christians are capable of a shit load of evil and have been known to organize campaigns of it. Whether Christianity (which by nature is a peaceful religion . . . at least by Jesus' portion of it) or Christendom was the culprit, it doesn't change that point.

Of course again it seems to me that we've drifted from teh topic.

ok.. if you're going to put bible verses.. at least put one on topic.

Lev. 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." NIV

I have already stated my thoughts on this whole issue. I just decided to give you a bible verse that is actually on topic.. since no one else seems to.

i agree that gays should be allowed to be married...but not by the church! they ask for equality, but when they start calling the bible hate literature and making us marry them in our churchs when it totally goes against our beliefs, i think thats when its been taken too far.
im from canada, conservative christian, i dont know if this has been an issue in US yet, but it probably will.It has already been an issue in Canada--sort of. There has been a great deal of contention within some churches regarding same-sex marriages. But I don't see legislation ever requiring churches to marry same-sex couples. Heck, unless I'm much mistaken, neither churches in the United States or Canada are required to marry interracial couples.

-_- I thought we already established that the disease came from africa and was transmitted to humans by hunting.I didn't know the last part. I thought that how HIV jumped to humans was still a mistery, and blood-blood contact during butchering was merely the most compelling theory.

Why do religious folks seem to need something to hate...?Because the most hateful religious folks are also the loudest? They're fortunately not representative.

Dude... Marriages don't cause AIDS. Unprotected sex does. And AIDS is, right now, most common among black females under 21 (in the USA, that is).No. Neither marriage nor unprotected sex causes AIDS. HIV causes AIDS.</nit-pick>

Or why is it that you can call us "holy joe's" "Jesus Freaks" "Bible Thumpers" and all your cute little stupid comments, but the moment I call all you gays out there fags, everyone is up in arms and now whoever said it is the bigot.I believe it's called hypocracy. Whereas what you just did is called stereotyping.
Forget what he has been called because of his beliefs.How is it relevant? Two wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes.

The fact that Hitler grew up in one of the few areas of Europe that still actively had 'Passion Plays' probably had a profound effect on him, and, unfortunately, if you read your history, christianity almost always goes hand-in-hand with anti-semitism... and all because "they killed Christ".Naw, I 'recon it was more a matter of slandering the competition. Though I don't know how much competition Judaism could have offered given that it wasn't a prostetizing religion at the time of the plays.
Further Note: Look at Mel Gibson's recent movie version of the 'Passion Plays', and listen to the amount of critics that have denounced it as anti-semitic because of it's content... which is the same content as found in the book version of the story.Some of the criticism is that Gibson had gone beyond what was in the biblical accounts.

Agreed, extremists suck
On any side of an issueDeath to extremists! Moderation always!

ok.. if you're going to put bible verses.. at least put one on topic.

Lev. 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." NIV

I have already stated my thoughts on this whole issue. I just decided to give you a bible verse that is actually on topic.. since no one else seems to.

Sorry... this particular verse has already been dissected into it's component atoms, and acid and whitewash poured over those atoms before feeding them to pigs.

Which is to say... we've already done this one, and the translation is incredibly biased, totally wrong, and is more about menstruation than about sexuality.

Naw, I 'recon it was more a matter of slandering the competition. Though I don't know how much competition Judaism could have offered given that it wasn't a prostetizing religion at the time of the plays.
Some of the criticism is that Gibson had gone beyond what was in the biblical accounts.


That's why I kept using the quotes.... I'm saying that it is certain people who perpetuate anti-semitism because of the 'they killed christ' mindset.

There is evidence for it... look at places like Lincoln, England - which, after Passion Revivals, rounded up the Jews of the city (who were already made to wear yellow), dropped them in a pit, and stoned them to death.

Ah, the tolerance of the zealous.

That's why I kept using the quotes.... I'm saying that it is certain people who perpetuate anti-semitism because of the 'they killed christ' mindset.

There is evidence for it... look at places like Lincoln, England - which, after Passion Revivals, rounded up the Jews of the city (who were already made to wear yellow), dropped them in a pit, and stoned them to death.

Ah, the tolerance of the zealous.


But what about the ummmm atheists and their ummm persecution of the … ummm

Well maybe agnostics they got to have started a racial war somewhere


Oh wait no that seems to be reserved for other groups

I still haven't heard a convincing argument against gay marriage; religion does not count, seeing as we (the US) have a seperation of church and state.

Unfortunately religion does have a part in this conversation, so don't try to rule out religion in this thread altogethor. Although it would be nice to hear some more arguments that aren't religous arguments.
Though I do agree that religion shouldn't be a main factor in the government deciding whether it should be legal or not. If they legalize it then it's up to the churches to decide whether they would wed homosexuals. Chances are there would be some churches willing to do so.

So if Christians became marginalised in the future and it is illegal to be a Christian, you won't complain then, will you? :cool:

That day is pretty much nearly here, and no I wont complain, as I have

been expecting it for a while.

That day is pretty much nearly here, and no I wont complain, as I have

been expecting it for a while.

No, that won't happen. You're just clutching at straws and making things up. I'm wondering if you've actually persuaded yourself that what you're saying here is true.

That said, why wouldn't you complain? You have enough selfishness that you'd forbid every person who doesn't share your personal views on marriage to ever be together and legally recognised as such. So why the sudden apathy if your entire lifestyle was actually, definitely under attack?

Or is this a little bit of soap opera?

No, that won't happen. You're just clutching at straws and making things up. I'm wondering if you've actually persuaded yourself that what you're saying here is true.

That said, why wouldn't you complain? You have enough selfishness that you'd forbid every person who doesn't share your personal views on marriage to ever be together and legally recognised as such. So why the sudden apathy if your entire lifestyle was actually, definitely under attack?

Or is this a little bit of soap opera?
the persecution complex is an integral part of the Christian faith. haven't you noticed how much they LOVE martyrs?

Anbar[/B]] Now, as I've said, part of it was certainly Hitler artfully pulling the puppet strings already attached to the populace. Any church which rebelled would have been declared an enemy, as Hitler didn't like competition. But the idea that Christianity had nothing to do with the Nazis is false.

Of course, like the whole idea that Florists or Librarians had nothing to do

with the Nazis is false.

The Nazis were running Germany for 12 years could not be avoided, they

were everywhere.

The German Churches having contact with the Nazis, doesnt mean they were

involved in some huge papal conspiricy to kill all the Jews in Europe.

lol at Pracus for saying the only reason the Nazis triumphed in Germany was

because good men sat on their hands and did nothing, anyone who even

spoke out against them was shot, what would you have done?

One man after the night of the longknives, a brownshirt, said in a drunken

speech God save Hitler, a man listening to him said quietly, and God save us

from him, two days later his ashes were sent to his family in an urn.

My point being, the Nazis were beyond bad, they were incredibly evil, and

would stoop to any depravity.

[QUOTE=Pracus]Actually, no. I go out clubbing once a month or so. I never go home and have sex witha guy I met there. I dance, I flirt a little and then I move on. I've had one relationship with a guy I met in a club and it not did ever make it to the sex stage.

Yes your so sweet and innocent arent you, *coughs


And just pretail would you know? I speak and act totally differently on here than I do in real life. You do not know what my behaviors are. I don't wear pink, I don't talk with a lisp, my wrist isn't limp, and I don't look at guys butts. What would give it away?

Well first like most gay guys do , you have a good look at my crotch, then

you might lick your lips accidently, and of course you would have a dirty look

in your eye.

Just because your not mincing around in a skirt Pracus, doesnt mean you

cant be spotted easily, your whole body language is different compared to a hetrosexuals.

Well first like most gay guys do , you have a good look at my crotch, then

you might lick your lips accidently, and of course you would have a dirty look

in your eye.

Just because your not mincing around in a skirt Pracus, doesnt mean you

cant be spotted easily, your whole body language is different compared to a hetrosexuals.
isn't it cute how all homophobic guys think they are attractive to gay guys? newsflash: you aren't that hot.

Good point.
I made a post to that effect a while back. I had finally become so sick of responding to blatant hate, ill-informed rhetoric, plain untruth, incredible ignorance, and contradiction-in-place-of-debate, that I resigned from having any further communication with the offending poster.

But, I don't know if this will help the 'sufferer'. I feel like I am withholding a needed treatment from a very emotionally injured patient... and it seems callous.

I think most people respond out of a hope that an actual debate might occasionally slip in accidentally, or that the whole rage issue might be very convincing role-play... or maybe they just want to try to help someone obviously in great need.


Aww Grave your like a father to me. lol

isn't it cute how all homophobic guys think they are attractive to gay guys? newsflash: you aren't that hot.

Seen me have you?

looks around