NationStates Jolt Archive

The study asked if they had either been in a relationship or if they wanted to. Only 0.3% of the homosexuals asked said yes. Since homosexuals only make up aprox 5% of any population, the total percentage of those who actually want Gay marriage and who are directly affected by it is 0.015%

You mean only five percent who will admit it. Most people won't admit to something like that. They could lose their jobs, their friends, and pretty much be ostracized from society. And all because somebody had to convince people that it was wrong. The numbers cannot be counted on. And trust me, a LOT can happen in just ten years. People can go through spiritual rebirths, children grow up and realize their having THOSE feelings, etc. You just want to believe that the number is ridiculously small, so you can verify your beliefs that God doesn't want it, and that God is preventing such things.

The study asked if they had either been in a relationship or if they wanted to. Only 0.3% of the homosexuals asked said yes. Since homosexuals only make up aprox 5% of any population, the total percentage of those who actually want Gay marriage and who are directly affected by it is 0.015%

This is only true if those being polled are representative of the entire gay population.

Even those who did the study themselves have since admitted that it was not - as it was only those who were openly gay at the time.

Therefore, your numbers mean nothing - as they are not statistically backed up.

The study asked if they had either been in a relationship or if they wanted to. Only 0.3% of the homosexuals asked said yes. Since homosexuals only make up aprox 5% of any population, the total percentage of those who actually want Gay marriage and who are directly affected by it is 0.015%

Off course, this assumes that only homosexuals would ever want/approve of same-sex marriages.

Someone once said "I may kill you for what you say, but I will defend you with my last drop of blood for your right to say it". If your going to start saying "X, Y and Z only can lobby the governent but not A becuase A is opressive and nasty" then you are being opressive.


They can lobby all they want, just like the KKK can lobby to make all "the niggers" slaves agin, does that mean they should be listened to?

You cant just dismiss an entire source. Quote from it and then disprove it,

I have done this. It isn't my fault you chose to ignore it.

it uses the Bible. It uses fact, not opinon.

Wrong. Why don't you think about history a little bit and then get back to me on how very wrong you are.

I use the Bible and I use fact - based on your definition of fact. I have history to back me up and Bible verses. And I don't conveniently ignore Bible verses I don't like.

You cannot say "Its Biased" and then ignore its viewpoints entirely. Anyone who has done year 9 history can tell you that.

You can if less biased sources contradict it. Which they do.

They can lobby all they want, just like the KKK can lobby to make all "the niggers" slaves agin, does that mean they should be listened to?

Yes it does. And then the KKK needs to come up with good arguments... :rolleyes:

Yes it does. And then the KKK needs to come up with good arguments... :rolleyes:

And since (at least in the US) we have this little thing called the 1st Amendment "becaues my religion says so" doesn't cut it.

You fail to take into account for the flaws of the study itself, which would have concentrated on a specific subset of the gay community which, much like many young and wild heterosexuals, are unlikely to worry about marriage at all.


Since you have no comparable study and no evidence of the flaw, you cant complain.


Under the US Constitution, the law cannot offer special privileges to a subset of people without a good reason to do so. They have good reasons to offer marriage protections. However, these reasons apply to homosexual couples just as much as they do to heterosexual couples. The fact that the definition of marrage is "a man and a woman" is just as discriminatory and just as unconstitutional as it was when the definition was " a white man and a white woman."


1) The diffrence is that race is defined from birth, and you have not sucessfuly proved that homosexuality is defined from birth

2) Good reason: The majority of the population is Christian and oppose this view and in a democracy you have to listen to the majority, unless the minority is signifent, which it isnt in this case



And again you miss the point. The numbers mean nothing. If there were 9999999999999999999999990 people against it and only 2 for it, it would still be an unconstitutional law. Meanwhile, the difference is not nearly that large. In fact, there is a close to 50-50 split between those who want to extend the protections to homosexuals and those who don't. There is roughtly a 75-25 split when you worry about what to call it.

The number of those who actually want gay marriage and are directly affected by it is 0.015% of the population. The rest are just liberals supporting them becuase they are determined to find birds with broken wings and are not tied down to any specific cause. Christians are the majortity and are tied to a cause. Its not like a Muslim nation where it is illegal to publish any Christian litriture or anything that is non Muslim at all.

They can lobby all they want, just like the KKK can lobby to make all "the niggers" slaves agin, does that mean they should be listened to?
every1 has a right to be listened to

but the fact still remains, the topic is "why is homosexuality a sin?"
and people say it because of the bible, but there are no quotes in the bible that says directly "homosexuality is a sin". so with out your bible argument what makes it a sin? why is it so bad? its their life, leave them alone and let them live it theway they want to.

but the fact still remains, the topic is "why is homosexuality a sin?"
and people say it because of the bible, but there are no quotes in the bible that says directly "homosexuality is a sin". so with out your bible argument what makes it a sin? why is it so bad? its their life, leave them alone and let them live it theway they want to.

Leviticus 18: 22

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

every1 has a right to be listened to

but the fact still remains, the topic is "why is homosexuality a sin?"
and people say it because of the bible, but there are no quotes in the bible that says directly "homosexuality is a sin". so with out your bible argument what makes it a sin? why is it so bad? its their life, leave them alone and let them live it theway they want to.

So far, I've seen several bible quotes that may or may not, depending on how they are translated, call sex between two men a sin.

And I've seen some vague nonsense about it abusing how God meant for us to be, despite the fact that all other things we do that we weren't originally meant to do are magically ok.

Since you have no comparable study and no evidence of the flaw, you cant complain.

You are right. The fact that the researchers themselves have talked about this flaw is no evidence. The fact that studies have been done in the US that contradict this is no evidence.

Not to mention that if you read a scientific study and don't look at it critically, you haven't really read it. So why don't you go back to science, learn how to read a journal, and then get back to me?

1) The diffrence is that race is defined from birth, and you have not sucessfuly proved that homosexuality is defined from birth

It doesn't matter whether it is birth or environmental factors up to age three or a combination of the two. They are both things that are a matter of circumstance, not of choice. And they are both things that do not make the person inferior or cause harm to anyone else. *Those* are the reasons that we cannot discriminate agaisnt them. Birth has nothing to do with it. If someone's melanin content changed over time and made them dark skinned, it still wouldn't mean we could discriminate against them for it.

2) Good reason: The majority of the population is Christian and oppose this view and in a democracy you have to listen to the majority, unless the minority is signifent, which it isnt in this case

Wrong. As I have said, it doesn't matter if only two people meet the requirements. Also, religion is *never* a sufficient reason for lawmaking unless you are in a theocracy, which we are not. You apparently need to study political science as well as biology, history, and theology.

Albinos are a less significant population than homosexuals, but we cannot discriminate unfairly against them. Black lesbian jews are a very small population, but we aren't allowed to shit on them either. The number means nothing. The laws must apply equally to all citizens, not just to white, rich, Christian fundamentalists.

Not to mention that, depending on the poll, the majority in this country is *for* giving the protections of marriage to homosexual couples. They just don't like the name marriage.


The number of those who actually want gay marriage and are directly affected by it is 0.015% of the population. The rest are just liberals supporting them becuase they are determined to find birds with broken wings and are not tied down to any specific cause.

I'm sorry. I guess I'm just a liberal supporting this....

WRONG. I am supporting this because, in my country, all people are entitled to equal protection under the law.

I suppose all the white people supporting equal rights for blacks were just "determined to find birds with broken wings."

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't give you the right to be idiotic.

Christians are the majortity and are tied to a cause.

The majority of Christians in this country are *for* a civil union of some type. It is a very loud minority that is not.

Its not like a Muslim nation where it is illegal to publish any Christian litriture or anything that is non Muslim at all.

Yes, it is. It is less extreme, but is still similar. Religion is not to be made into law in this country. Period.

I am sorry for what happened to you. I can assue you that Christianity as a doctrine says nothing about persecuting anyone. All have sinned therefore persecuting sinners would be to perscute ourselves. The Bible says Homosexuality is a sin, but sin can be delt with thanks to Jesus. Tell these people if you see them again of Matthew 7: 1 "Judge not or you will be judged". Humans have no right to judge others sin, to say "Im better than X because I sin less" or anything like that. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3: 23. The Bible may say things are sins but that does not mean we should perceute the perpretators of sin. That is for God to do later.

I don't want your sorrow, your prayers or your pity (no offence, but they don't mean anything to me). I want an explanation. I asked questions which you ignored. I'm not going to start quoting some 2000 year old book at people, especially not the people who did this to me, because that would make me just as bad as them.

By what right do you, church, government or anybody else have to tell me that I can't be who and what I am? That is an infringement on basic human rights. What are you/they? Big Brother?

The Church has been responsible for more 'Sin' (war, killing, murder, witch trials, theft etc etc) down the ages - all in the name of 'God' - that pretty much any organisation. Do you HONESTLY believe that the church is in a position to judge anybody? Especially given your comment above about judging not - if you are not to judge then what gives you the right to say that I sin because of what I do?

Sacred Flames, you are my new best friend.

it is a sin god made love between a man and a woman. I am cool with lesbians :cool: . but a guy and a guy, :mad: youve got to be kidding me! I live near, not in, but near San Francisco, so I've learned to deal with gay guys but i still want to :mp5: them to death.

it is a sin god made love between a man and a woman. I am cool with lesbians :cool: . but a guy and a guy, :mad: youve got to be kidding me! I live near, not in, but near San Francisco, so I've learned to deal with gay guys but i still want to :mp5: them to death.

Don't worry, Jesus still loves you.
Granted, it's taking Him quite some effort, but there you go.

it is a sin god made love between a man and a woman. I am cool with lesbians :cool: . but a guy and a guy, :mad: youve got to be kidding me! I live near, not in, but near San Francisco, so I've learned to deal with gay guys but i still want to :mp5: them to death.

You fucking, chauvanistic, genital groping bastard. What IS it with you god damn horny shits? "It's all fine and dandy if it's women; after all, weren't they put on Eath merely for the entertainment of men? Ooooh, go to it, girls, that's HOT!" You are a disgrace to humanity, a fool, and a very hypocritical man, if that word even applies to you.

i think that the reason it is being "condemned" as a sin is b/c people are prejudiced against differences. it's been happening all through time. first, the rich people didn't like the poor people. they started holdin' them down. next, it was the black man. the white man didn't like them, so they held the black man down. it's just a chain of insecurities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3211772.stm

"One 22-year-old gay man who fled from Gaza into Israel four years ago told BBC World Service's Outlook programme he was almost killed when his family found out about his sexuality.

He says that when he was 18, he was caught with his boyfriend by his brother.

"[My brother] brought a stick and hit us," he said. "He tied us up with an iron rope and went to call my dad, and tell my partner's. Then he came back and hit us again."

The man said he escaped after his brother went out and told his mother and sister-in-law to make sure they did not run away.

"I started crying to my mum, begging her to let us go. So she untied us, and said if my dad found out, he would kill me on the spot."

Yes, being gay is obviously a choice. :rolleyes:

Sacred Flames, you are my new best friend.

*looks embarrassed*

what did I say?

The Phoenix Declaration (2003) was signed by 86 ordained religious leaders representing in descending numerical order, the United Methodist, United Church of Christ, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Unitarian-Universalist, Episcopal and Metropolitan Community Church traditions of Christianity. Opening this Declaration was the rather bold but accurate claim that the debate on homosexuality in our society “is over” and that the verdict “is clear.”

“As Christian clergy we believe it is time to share our perspective concerning gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) persons,” they began. “Homosexuality is not a sickness, not a choice, and not a sin,” they continued. “GLBT persons are distinctive, holy, and precious gifts to all who struggle to become the family of God. We are committed to work and pray for full acceptance and inclusion of GLBT persons in our churches and in the world.” They went on to state their opposition to those religious persons who continue to condemn and exclude homosexual persons while calling that behavior “Christian.” The “Christian faith compels us,” they concluded, “to be part of the healing for the souls wounded by this tragic violent and destructive hatred.”

http://nolongersilent.org

Actually the debate is over. Foxhunting is now going to be banned by parliament, the question is when. And most people in Britain are oposed to foxhunting, 82%


82% of what?

I don't recall ever taking part in a referendum.

Silly dear, you do know I am British? I know what I'm talking about. There may or may not be a ban, but whether it is ever enforceable is another thing.


Banning Gay marriage is not forcing you all into a religion this is just a democratic decsion.


You support a ban on gay marriage for religious reasons. Therefore you are forcing your religious beliefs onto everyone else.


Every group of people from the individual to the mutinational corperation has the right to pressureise the government in legitamate ways to get them to do what they would like to. Christians in the US have this right as much as any other. And as I have said, the Christians of the US want to ban gay marriage and they are the vast majority.


So if 80% of the country voted to exterminate the other 20%, you'd give it your wholehearted support?


However in the homosexual community only 0.3% actually want have been involved in any kind of monogmous commited relationship with another member of the same sex. Given that homosexuals make up aproximately 5% of any population the actual percentage of the population that want gay marriage is aprox 0.015%. Given that Christians who oppose Gay marriage are the vastly larger number who should get there way.

EDIT

And for those who say "What if Islam got in as the largest religon? Should they make up the laws etc" I say that this example here (Banning Gay marriage) is not nearly as extreme as most muslim laws (IE cutting off hands when someone steals etc)

So what?

What if 80% of the public wanted public guillotining, stoning to death for adultery, the cutting off of limbs for minor offences, and the banning of mixed fibre clothes? Oh, and the removal of the vote for women, gays, and black people. And the return of slavery.

Are you saying banning gay marriages isn't extreme?

So if 80% of the country voted to exterminate the other 20%, you'd give it your wholehearted support?

No, no. According to Neo, it has to be an insignificant amount. Therefore, if 99.9% of the population wanted to exterminate the other 0.1%, he would give his wholehearted support (unless he was in the 0.1%, I would wager).

"Not all Christians reject homosexuality as incompatible with the Christian faith. It's true that some Christians maintain the stance that homosexuality is abominable and can quote several (meaning eleven) out-of-context Biblical citations to back up their claim. But using such prooftexts oversimplifies the issue, a favorite tactic employed in the inflammatory rhetoric of the Christian right. The Biblical texts quoted by many as the unquestionable and inerrant final word on the issue of homosexuality have many different and legitimate interpretations.

As Biblically-centered Protestants, we reject the homophobic position so vehemently proclaimed by some Christians. We believe that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice nor a deviant urge reversible through earnest prayer and counseling. It is simply the way God has created some people. We advocate the welcoming of all -- regardless of their orientation -- because that is the message of the Gospel. Jesus brought a message of love and redemption from God to all who would accept it. Those who seek to love their gay or lesbian family member or friend should not feel bullied into rejecting those for whom they care by vocal extremists. "

If you read the New Testement you will find said list. Its not actually a list but it does explain itself. See here for further info

http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX.HTM


That is a huge and virtually unreadable rant against homosexuality, that has nothing to do with my request for a list of what parts of the bible are and are not relevant any longer. It also makes several references to Leviticus - y'know, the book you say is no longer canon?

Please check links before blindly pasting them.


and here

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

That is a PDF file, and I tend to not download those as they are bloated pieces of crap. Again, my request is not specifically about rants against homosexuality. I just have to open the bible to Leviticus to find enough of that. I want to know, in a cast iron, unchanging format, what parts of the bible are no longer canon, and what are.

Or was I right the first time, and the accepted and unaccepted parts chop and change according to the will of the person doing the arguing?

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?

let me count the ways.....tax benefits, inheritance, right to visit spouse in hospital....get the picture?

Marriage is not only a religious institution, and the fundamentalists know this. Perhaps marriage should be separated: the religious part and the secular part.

The secular rights and responsibilities should be available to everyone, no ifs, ands or buts.

As for the religious, well, I don't care whether it's called marriage. But every church has the right to deny its "benefits" to whomever they choose. However, that should not then apply to the secular aspects.

Separation of church and state is a very good thing. Go to church, get married, get what you want spiritually. But for the secular rights, you need to file that marriage license. So maybe we should just call it a partnership license or something. And if you don't want or need a church's recognition, that's good too. Just file the license.

Seems to me everyone can have what they want. Why get so worked up over a word, when it's the rights everyone is fighting over?

I personally can not see how a religion could speak love and peace to all but then condemn gays, transsexuals, crosdressers, and bis to an eternity of misery and be correct in what will happen when it is not the choice of said people to be the way they are. The Bible has lies put into it by the Romans to solve their social issues that were only problems because of fear of the simple-minded idiots in power at the time.

I believe that it is not a sin, but rather a challenge that God bestows upon us (I'm a Transsexual) for us to overcome our mental blocks and the blocks society has in place for us.

Tryanny of the majority is one thing. Tyrrany over a minortity that is 0.015% of the population is something else.




The Islamic majority do get there way in many Muslim nations. But I think you will agree that Islamic law on cutting hands off is far more extreme than banning Gay marriage. And in any case if it was a Muslim nation in power in the US and the Christian population was only 0.015% then they could easily leave. My point is insignificent minoritys do not deserve an entire re-working of the law just for them. That is unnessecary.

From what I understand from the marriage licenses being granted by them damnable "activist judges", no entire reworking is necessary.

However it seems that Bush and Co want there to be an entire reworking of the highest law of your country, specifically for that 0.015% (you really are the king of underestimation) of people.

Detestable TO YOU. Not God. Thats what it says in my translation. And here to. Abomination TO YOU. Find one that says TO GOD or just abomination.

Leviticus, 18:22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Come on Neo, I thought you'd have remembered that one.

Also, Proverbs:

3:30 Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm.
3:31 Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways.
3:32 For the forward is abomination to the LORD: but his secret is with the righteous.

A particularly apt section, given the thread, I thought.

The Gay population of any country at present is aproximately 5% of the total. In Kaye Wellings an Anne Johnson study "Sexual Behaviour and Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles" published in 1994 which remains to this date the largest study into homosexuality only 0.3% of the homosexuals they asked had ever had or ever wanted to have a monogmous relationship. So 5 / 0.3 = 0.015. Ergo 0.015 of the population want gay marraige

Your arguement falls down at this hurdle, marriage is not a right.

It is a reworking of the definition of marriage which to a Christian is abhorrent as marriage is acording to Christians and Jesus between a man and a woman. See Genesis 2:24 and Mark 10:6-8

I can't believe it.

Neo Cannens grasp of math is actually more flawed than his grasp of theology.

First) I argue against your 5% figure. The figure I have heard most commonly is 10% EXCLUSIVELY homosexual, with varying figures above that of homosexual experimentation or bisexual activity.

Second) You don't divide your .3 figure by the gay population, silly... you would multiply it, to get an accurate representation of the actual whole population. Explain why you divided, please? Since it was already divided (effectively... as it WAS only homosexuals questioned).

Third) If you want some other numbers to play with, might I suggest: http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm

Which shows a clear increase in number of admitted homosexuals over a ten year period.

Of course, I disagree with their numbers too... just because I have actually met a lot of people in my life, and I estimate... just from those I know where homosexual, bisexual or homo-experimental - that the figures are much MUCH higher than those given.

As with anything that has a stigma attached, and isn't immediately visible - the numbers are far reduced by the number of people WILLING to admit under interview conditions.

God is supposed to be this omnipotent, omnipresent being, he supposedly gave man free will and then sat back and watched them kill each other or persecute homosexuals and other minority groups.

If he [god] knows all, before it even happens how can he be even remotely looked upon as a benevolent God?
How can a good God sit back and watch all the misery he inflicted on the planet?

Before you spout some rubbish about free will Neo, you believe God to be the all knowing sentient being, he must have "known" that by giving man free will he was setting them up for misery and pain, he must have known this even before he gave them free will so how can you justify him be the "good guy" and all us down here as the "sinners"?


So what would you have him do? Control us to the point of us not being able to control it? If your angry with what God has done fine but provide an alternitve.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part3.html


Explains more

Heaven.
Do people in heaven kill, steal, rape, lie, and generally cause others to be miserable?
I don't think so. (wouldn't be much of a heaven otherwise)
So either those people don't have free will, or God found a way to make them not to bad things.

Second) You don't divide your .3 figure by the gay population, silly... you would multiply it, to get an accurate representation of the actual whole population. Explain why you divided, please? Since it was already divided (effectively... as it WAS only homosexuals questioned).


The 0.3 is the percentage of the total gay population studied who wanted to be in or were/had ever been involved in a monogmous relationship. Therefore since homosexuality is 5% of the population you divide the 0.3% by 5% to get the total percent of people out of the entire nation who want a homosexual monogmous relationship

Heaven.
Do people in heaven kill, steal, rape, lie, and generally cause others to be miserable?
I don't think so. (wouldn't be much of a heaven otherwise)
So either those people don't have free will, or God found a way to make them not to bad things.

In Hevan our spirts will become Christ like and so we will no longer commit sin as we are Christ and do not sin.

In Hevan our spirts will become Christ like and so we will no longer commit sin as we are Christ and do not sin.
so why did God not make us Christ-like to begin with? if it is possible for us to have free will and yet be all-good, then why not create us that way from the start?

I have decided to round up my time on this post as it is clear that no one on here will actually listen to what I have to say. I will therefore summerise my points and any specific questions you have please telegram me and I will answer

1) I believe homosexuality is a sin because in every refrence the Bible makes to homosexuality it condems it. There is no positive refrence to homosexual behavior anywhere in the Bible. The Bible does not contridict itself on this point.

2) However the homosexual attraction its not the sin but merely the temptation to sin, homosexual sex is the sin. This people can refrain from.

3) Many people have made a mistake in believing that because Christianity (not all sections but many) believes homosexual sex to be a sin that they therefore hate and percecute homosexuals. This is not the case. While there may be examples of people you can point to, the Bible as a doctrine does not support persecution of any kind of sinner. All sin in the eyes of God is the same and so to persecute one would be to persecute all. All have sinned.

4) The reasons that I believe that Gay marriage can be outlawed by the US government is that a very insignifent minority want it and will use it but a far more signifent majority do not want it and will have their religion directly offended by it. It is not a question of equal rights, as I can argue that the foxhunters had equal rights to continue their activities but they were viewed as destestable by the massive majority and were thus removed. In this case, the law is not making it illegal to be Gay, just illegal to be married. Since the Gay community do not seem to interested in the idea of marriage and that it is only liberals who are trying to find a cause where none exists. By definition opression is when the majority removes a right from a minortiy which the minority want. However the minority (Gays) do not want it. They have no interest in marriage as has been shown in London and Holland. It is not a question of religion forcing its views on others or a question of equal rights, it is a question of the majority and whether or not they want a law passed. In this case the vast majority want a law passed that bans homosexual marriage, as was the case when the foxhunting bill was passed (all polls indicated over 80% of people were in favour of banning foxhunting).

I hope I have been helpful in putting across the views of many Christians. For more infomation, see here

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

Both sides have stated there case clearly now, it is up to individuals which one to believe, although I would ask that the continual insulsts hurlled at me for my beliefs not come into it. God himself predicted that as Christians our beliefs will be ridiculed by the world (non Christisns) but that we should not compromise because of that. If we are being ridiculed, we know we are doing well, as the world is more frightened by our beliefs and thus the distinciton between us and the world is made clear. As I said earlier, telegram me with specific questions. Thank you for you time.

The 0.3 is the percentage of the total gay population studied who wanted to be in or were/had ever been involved in a monogmous relationship. Therefore since homosexuality is 5% of the population you divide the 0.3% by 5% to get the total percent of people out of the entire nation who want a homosexual monogmous relationship

But they didn't ASK heterosexuals... they ONLY asked homosexuals... which IS the 5%.

If you assume that that is proportional, you would multiply your .3% by 20, to find out the proportion of 100%.

Exit polls in the US around the last election showed that about 70% of people (homosexual OR heterosexual) were in favour of some kind of gay union... although maybe not called 'marriage' - so your figures are pretty sketchy, not to mention, drastically out-of-date.

How many people supposedly took part in your ".3%" study? Didn't I read somewhere that they only asked about a thousand people? Hardly representative in a city that had a standing population of about 9 million, in 1990.

I have decided to round up my time on this post as it is clear that no one on here will actually listen to what I have to say. I will therefore summerise my points and any specific questions you have please telegram me and I will answer

1) I believe homosexuality is a sin because in every refrence the Bible makes to homosexuality it condems it. There is no positive refrence to homosexual behavior anywhere in the Bible. The Bible does not contridict itself on this point.

2) However the homosexual attraction its not the sin but merely the temptation to sin, homosexual sex is the sin. This people can refrain from.

3) Many people have made a mistake in believing that because Christianity (not all sections but many) believes homosexual sex to be a sin that they therefore hate and percecute homosexuals. This is not the case. While there may be examples of people you can point to, the Bible as a doctrine does not support persecution of any kind of sinner. All sin in the eyes of God is the same and so to persecute one would be to persecute all. All have sinned.

4) The reasons that I believe that Gay marriage can be outlawed by the US government is that a very insignifent minority want it and will use it but a far more signifent majority do not want it and will have their religion directly offended by it. It is not a question of equal rights, as I can argue that the foxhunters had equal rights to continue their activities but they were viewed as destestable by the massive majority and were thus removed. In this case, the law is not making it illegal to be Gay, just illegal to be married. Since the Gay community do not seem to interested in the idea of marriage and that it is only liberals who are trying to find a cause where none exists. By definition opression is when the majority removes a right from a minortiy which the minority want. However the minority (Gays) do not want it. They have no interest in marriage as has been shown in London and Holland. It is not a question of religion forcing its views on others or a question of equal rights, it is a question of the majority and whether or not they want a law passed. In this case the vast majority want a law passed that bans homosexual marriage, as was the case when the foxhunting bill was passed (all polls indicated over 80% of people were in favour of banning foxhunting).

I hope I have been helpful in putting across the views of many Christians. For more infomation, see here

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

As I said earlier, telegram me with specific questions. Thank you

You are wrong, Neo Cannen - people are listening to what you say. They just disagree, and with very good reasons.

Your take on scripture is flawed. You do not appreciate that the English translation is an abomination of the Hebrew and Greek scripts. I still urge you to try to experience the scripture in 'native tongue'... but I know you will not.

You are statistically wrong, also - recent polling showed that the vast majority (at least in america) DO support gay unions.

Your sources are biased, incomplete, and usually - just wrong. That isn't really your failing... there just aren't that many credible sites that will back up your side of the argument.

I have given up debating things like scripture with you, because you refuse to listen, even when presented word-for-word translations. I find it ironic that you, of all people, now claim to be bowing out because of a refusal to listen.

I still hold that you must not actually know any homosexuals - or you would clearly see that the statisitics you have been 'fed' do not match up with reality...

Anyway, have fun.

Your take on scripture is flawed. You do not appreciate that the English translation is an abomination of the Hebrew and Greek scripts. I still urge you to try to experience the scripture in 'native tongue'... but I know you will not.


I thought people might just respect what I was saying and leave it be but aparntly this is not the case. The fact that you dismiss my intepretation as flawed is my problem. You will not even contemplate that I am right.


You are statistically wrong, also - recent polling showed that the vast majority (at least in america) DO support gay unions.


As I have said, the majority is only liberals, not people who will actually use it. And out of my bowing out statement you have pulled a tiny ammout of points. Can you concede that in the rest I am correct. IE there is no biblical support for homosexuality and that Christianity as a doctrine does not support the percesution of homosexuals and that denying homosexuals marriage is not a form of persecution as perescution is only when said persecuted group wants what is being denyed them

But they didn't ASK heterosexuals... they ONLY asked homosexuals... which IS the 5%.


The 0.3% is of the 100% of homosexuals they asked. That 100% of homosexuals only makes up 5% of the 100% of the population of the country. Ergo it is smaller than orignal.


How many people supposedly took part in your ".3%" study? Didn't I read somewhere that they only asked about a thousand people? Hardly representative in a city that had a standing population of about 9 million, in 1990.

No you didnt read that, the asked most of the British and French Gay community who were prepared to talk to them which was well into the millions

In response to the original question "Why is homosexuality a sin?" The answer is, because the people who decide what is a sin or not say it is.

So now what does that mean? Absolutely nothing. Nowhere (in the U.S.) is it a law that a person cannot sin. In fact our government commits sins everyday ("Thou shall not kill?") but is anything done about it, no. This brings forth an idea that many (including the current president) seem to forget the seperation of church and state.

The definition of marriage is a "legal union" of two people. It is not a "religiously defined" union. If a church (any church) does not want to accept a marriage so be it. The couple can have it done at a courthouse. Some churches don't accept people who have been divorced to get married, yet they can still have a civil union.

Somewhere along the line it was misconstrued that the entire world gives a damn about what the bible says. As a devout athiest sometimes I go out of my way to do the complete opposite. Does this make me a bad person, maybe, but by who's definition? I don't care if I'm a bad Christian (or Muslum, or Hebrew) I never claimed to be a good one. The only people who should care about what their "good book" says are the people that claim to follow it.

And to those people I have one thing to say.

Read everything the religion you so zealously follow has ever said to do or not to do then look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself "Have I followed all of that?"

The answer will probably be "It's not possible." Religious books are so full of contradictions and outdated rules that to live in modern society it is nearly impossible to follow every word of it.

In fact the only message I can really agree with is one that nearly all religions preach. Respect your fellow man and treat them how you wish to be treated.

If some of these people who claim to be religious leaders respected their one founding belief maybe the world would be a little more accepting of things they can't understand.

I thought people might just respect what I was saying and leave it be but aparntly this is not the case. The fact that you dismiss my intepretation as flawed is my problem. You will not even contemplate that I am right.

As I have said, the majority is only liberals, not people who will actually use it. And out of my bowing out statement you have pulled a tiny ammout of points. Can you concede that in the rest I am correct. IE there is no biblical support for homosexuality and that Christianity as a doctrine does not support the percesution of homosexuals and that denying homosexuals marriage is not a form of persecution as perescution is only when said persecuted group wants what is being denyed them

Feel free to leave at any time - but, as long as you leave with a flawed post, I will pick out the errors for those who come to it after you leave... I would hate for your mis-information to be spread by default, or due to my lack of diligence.

I dismiss your interpretation as wrong, because I have actually read the scripture in Hebrew, so I am more aware of the true meaning of it than you are. Nothing personal - but you lack knowledge that could deny my points.

I do not concede that any of your post was correct. Sorry. I just think you are pasting propoganda... which is your right, I am sure. But, although I will defend your right to post anything you choose, if you post erroneous information, it is my right to correct it.

The 0.3% is of the 100% of homosexuals they asked. That 100% of homosexuals only makes up 5% of the 100% of the population of the country. Ergo it is smaller than orignal.

No you didnt read that, the asked most of the British and French Gay community who were prepared to talk to them which was well into the millions

Well, if you are staying... I wonder if you would care to post the source... because from what I recall, we were discussing a poll taken in London in 1990...

Perhaps I am confusing two different studies.

1. Good Name. Shows your main "point".

2. Sin is defined by religion, and is often NOT based on fact.

3. FACT #1: Honest gays do not have children. (This is good. And they should not adopt, or want to, or be allowed to.)

4. FACT #2: Evolution will minimize gay genes. (Unless they cheat, which they obviously have.)

5. FACT #3: Major Civilizations have "wilted" because of homos. (Greece + Rome + HollyWeird + GreatWeirdVillage + Denmark + Holland + Thailand + etc.) Fortunately, you "guys" congregate (conjugate?) in your own targeted homo-slums. This minimizes our exposure, and speeds your demise.

OK first off, how is it a fact that an "honest gay" does not have children?

And fact #3 has got to be a joke. Hollywood, a major civilization? As soon as Russel Crowe commands a real army, I will recognize the nation of Hollywood.

Plus please explain to me how Denmark and Holland have, in your own words, "wilted?"

1. Good Name. Shows your main "point".

2. Sin is defined by religion, and is often NOT based on fact.

3. FACT #1: Honest gays do not have children. (This is good. And they should not adopt, or want to, or be allowed to.)

4. FACT #2: Evolution will minimize gay genes. (Unless they cheat, which they obviously have.)

5. FACT #3: Major Civilizations have "wilted" because of homos. (Greece + Rome + HollyWeird + GreatWeirdVillage + Denmark + Holland + Thailand + etc.) Fortunately, you "guys" congregate (conjugate?) in your own targeted homo-slums. This minimizes our exposure, and speeds your demise.

Maybe it's just me... but, where I come from, when you state FACT... you are supposed to follow it with a 'fact'. That's the special name they use for something that ISN'T just vitriol and prejudice.

I really would like to see you provide any evidence for your so-called 'facts'.

Thank you Grave for summing up my previous post. heh ;)

Thank you Grave for summing up my previous post. heh ;)

Sorry for stealing your thunder!

Of course, it just remains to see whether either post illicits a sensible response...

I'm not holding out too much hope...

:)

Sorry for stealing your thunder!

Of course, it just remains to see whether either post illicits a sensible response...

I'm not holding out too much hope...

:)
asdfdfadfadfafafaf <---response

Was that sensible :)

No offense taken.

But yeah, I wouldn't keep my hopes up. Your key word was sensible and judging by the last post...

asdfdfadfadfafafaf <---response

Was that sensible :)

Well, it's better than I was expecting!

:)

Well, it's better than I was expecting!

:)
Ohhh I see ... you were expecting something along the lines of

"all you fagots can just die ... you dont know what is best for you
just go back to your caves and fuck eachother"

(wow actualy typing that was harder then I thought ... really ... I couldent think up as collorfull insults as some of these people come up with)

Ohhh I see ... you were expecting something along the lines of

"all you fagots can just die ... you dont know what is best for you
just go back to your caves and fuck eachother"

(wow actualy typing that was harder then I thought ... really ... I couldent think up as collorfull insults as some of these people come up with)

I think you were lacking in real blind prejudice, and it shows in your work...

Never mind, though... it's only a matter of time till some of the real articles turn up, I'm sure.... they always do...

:)

In Hevan our spirts will become Christ like and so we will no longer commit sin as we are Christ and do not sin.

So in other words, I would lose my free will, and lose everything that makes me, me. Sounds like an ectoplasmic version of the Borg. No thanks.

As I have said, the majority is only liberals, not people who will actually use it.

I am neither female, nor black, nor jewish. Yet I support full and equal rights for these demographic groups. I guess my opinion matters not though, since I won't take advantage of any of the rights given to these people, hm?

4) The reasons that I believe that Gay marriage can be outlawed by the US government is that a very insignifent minority want it and will use it but a far more signifent majority do not want it and will have their religion directly offended by it.

I will forgive you for being utterly ignorant of the US Constitution since you are British, but you are *incredibly* wrong. If you aren't going to study up on our government, then don't try and state what can and cannot be done in *our* country. Stick to your own.

I do not concede that any of your post was correct. Sorry. I just think you are pasting propoganda... which is your right, I am sure. But, although I will defend your right to post anything you choose, if you post erroneous information, it is my right to correct it.

Ok now this is just getting silly. Ok get around this

1) Marriage is only defined between a man and a women in the Bible. No kind of same sex union was ever blessed by God in the Bible. Jesus himself said this in the new testement Mark 10:6-8 and Matthew 19:4-5.

2) Sex of any kind outside marriage is a sin.

3) Therefore homosexuals are never married in God's eyes therefore any sex they do have is a sin.

And just for some new evidence there is no sugestion that Jesus was "Silent" on homosexuality. Remember that this was a man who removed a great deal of Mosaic law, yet did not remove homosexual practice. And also Jesus regularly spoke out aginst "porneia" which litrally translated means "Sexual Imorality" but at the time it was well known to include same sex relations. Basicly "porneia" and the various Mosiac laws about sex outlawed anything that was not "Nautral" in Eden. See here for more info

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

Ok now this is just getting silly. Ok get around this

1) Marriage is only defined between a man and a women in the Bible. No kind of same sex union was ever blessed by God in the Bible. Jesus himself said this in the new testement Mark 10:6-8 and Matthew 19:4-5.

2) Sex of any kind outside marriage is a sin.

3) Therefore homosexuals are never married in God's eyes therefore any sex they do have is a sin.

And just for some new evidence there is no sugestion that Jesus was "Silent" on homosexuality. Remember that this was a man who removed a great deal of Mosaic law, yet did not remove homosexual practice. And also Jesus regularly spoke out aginst "porneia" which litrally translated means "Sexual Imorality" but at the time it was well known to include same sex relations. Basicly "porneia" and the various Mosiac laws about sex outlawed anything that was not "Nautral" in Eden. See here for more info

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf
But I got to ask ... how does the bible apply to me?

But I got to ask ... how does the bible apply to me?

What is the title "WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN". We are discussing why some Christians see homosexuality as a sin, and the justification in the Bible of it. If your not a Christian then the Bible does still apply to you in God's eyes (the Bible applies to all humans as far as God is concerned). Just becuase you are not a Christian does not mean that when you sin it is not a sin. But I can't force you to do anything. The Bible applies to ALL. Why, because God created ALL, he gave his word to ALL and he died for ALL. If your asking about my actions here, I can just point out my beliefs and where I get them from and defend them from those who seem to think they are stupid. I was going to sign off but people still seem to think that I am stupid and I wont stand for that.

What is the title "WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN". We are discussing why some Christians see homosexuality as a sin, and the justification in the Bible of it. If your not a Christian then the Bible does still apply to you in God's eyes (the Bible applies to all humans as far as God is concerned). Just becuase you are not a Christian does not mean that when you sin it is not a sin. But I can't force you to do anything. The Bible applies to ALL. Why, because God created ALL, he gave his word to ALL and he died for ALL. If your asking about my actions here, I can just point out my beliefs and where I get them from and defend them from those who seem to think they are stupid. I was going to sign off but people still seem to think that I am stupid and I wont stand for that.
I under stand that … but why are you restricting yourself to only the Christian religion and portraying it as the end all of morality.

Ok now this is just getting silly. Ok get around this

1) Marriage is only defined between a man and a women in the Bible. No kind of same sex union was ever blessed by God in the Bible. Jesus himself said this in the new testement Mark 10:6-8 and Matthew 19:4-5.

2) Sex of any kind outside marriage is a sin.

3) Therefore homosexuals are never married in God's eyes therefore any sex they do have is a sin.

And just for some new evidence there is no sugestion that Jesus was "Silent" on homosexuality. Remember that this was a man who removed a great deal of Mosaic law, yet did not remove homosexual practice. And also Jesus regularly spoke out aginst "porneia" which litrally translated means "Sexual Imorality" but at the time it was well known to include same sex relations. Basicly "porneia" and the various Mosiac laws about sex outlawed anything that was not "Nautral" in Eden. See here for more info

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf


Having just read through your latest web link I think that you are mistaking what Robert A J Gagnon said.
He quotes passages and then goes on to give his take on what he thinks they mean. He is giving a Christians *biased* view on what is actually written to back up a point.

Earlier on in this thread I asked *you* Neo, a question, one I wanted you to to answer by yourself without refferring to biblical texts or web links the question went along the lines of;

If the god you believe in in an omnipitent being and is *all good* then he *must* have known what would happen when he gave man free will, he must have known the pain and suffering he would have made them endure.
How can your God be looked upon as a good thing if he allowed this to happen.

Now don't give me the answer you gave before (3 links to an outragous christian argument) and don't tell me that because man has free will your god is absolved of blame at the persecution of not only homosexuals but blacks, ethnic minorities, jews etc because his [gods] omnipotence (sp?) should have forseen this and only a sadist would have allowed it to happen in the first place.
(Please remember that I believe man has free will because he is independant of any spiritual interferances)

What is the title "WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN". We are discussing why some Christians see homosexuality as a sin, and the justification in the Bible of it. If your not a Christian then the Bible does still apply to you in God's eyes (the Bible applies to all humans as far as God is concerned). Just becuase you are not a Christian does not mean that when you sin it is not a sin. But I can't force you to do anything. The Bible applies to ALL. Why, because God created ALL, he gave his word to ALL and he died for ALL. If your asking about my actions here, I can just point out my beliefs and where I get them from and defend them from those who seem to think they are stupid. I was going to sign off but people still seem to think that I am stupid and I wont stand for that.

Regardless of what the topic is, some of it has moved to what can and cannot be legislated. You have repeatedly stated that you think Christians should be able to legislate Christianity into the law simply because they happen to be in the majority. Therefore, you are trying to force your particular interpretation of the Bible on other people, rather than leaving them with the free will that God gave them.

Regardless of what the topic is, some of it has moved to what can and cannot be legislated. You have repeatedly stated that you think Christians should be able to legislate Christianity into the law simply because they happen to be in the majority. Therefore, you are trying to force your particular interpretation of the Bible on other people, rather than leaving them with the free will that God gave them.
Yup by that right any religion in majority anywhere should be able to legislate … cause obviously majority makes it right :P just wait till Muslims overtake Christianity … that wont be their tune then

Regardless of what the topic is, some of it has moved to what can and cannot be legislated. You have repeatedly stated that you think Christians should be able to legislate Christianity into the law simply because they happen to be in the majority. Therefore, you are trying to force your particular interpretation of the Bible on other people, rather than leaving them with the free will that God gave them.

No Christians are not legislating "CHRISTIANITY" into the law. They, like any other group, have the right to lobby the government about a current issue. In this case they believe that Gay marriage is wrong and thus they are lobbying for that. This is lobbying their view on this issue, not Christianity as a whole. If we were lobbying Christianity as a whole we would attempt to make it illegal for a Christian and a Non Chrisitian to marry and various other examples that I could sugest. This is just one view on one issue, not Christianity as a whole. If we were forcing in Christianity as a whole then I agree that your skepticism is justified, but this is one issue. If Christians are not allowed to lobby on that one issue becuase they are Christians and religous then I would firstly like to ask why and secondly should the same thing apply to animal rights acitivists. After all they oppose foxhunting just becuase they are animal rights activists.

I am neither female, nor black, nor jewish. Yet I support full and equal rights for these demographic groups. I guess my opinion matters not though, since I won't take advantage of any of the rights given to these people, hm?

You dont have to be part of a minority to be liberal. As I said, opression is only opression if the people suposedly being opressed want what is denyed them. In this case (homosexual marriage) a very small percentage of homosexuals actually would want homosexual marriage. Therefore it is not opression to deny it them.

No Christians are not legislating "CHRISTIANITY" into the law. They, like any other group, have the right to lobby the government about a current issue. In this case they believe that Gay marriage is wrong and thus they are lobbying for that. This is lobbying their view on this issue, not Christianity as a whole. If we were lobbying Christianity as a whole we would attempt to make it illegal for a Christian and a Non Chrisitian to marry and various other examples that I could sugest. This is just one view on one issue, not Christianity as a whole. If we were forcing in Christianity as a whole then I agree that your skepticism is justified, but this is one issue. If Christians are not allowed to lobby on that one issue becuase they are Christians and religous then I would firstly like to ask why and secondly should the same thing apply to animal rights acitivists. After all they oppose foxhunting just becuase they are animal rights activists.

It doesn't have to be "Christianity as a whole." If your *only* reason for something is "my religion says so," as it is here, then (in the US at least, where we have this crazy little thing called the 1st Amendment), it cannot be made into law, as that is restricting the rights of other people to freely practice their religion.

If the lobbyists could come up with a secular reason for banning it, they could attempt to legislate it all they want. Unfortunately for them, every secular reason they have made up has fallen short in the face of the actual facts.

By your logic, Muslims that want to legislate that all women wear a burqua are not legislating Islam into the law, they are simply legislating one point.

Are you avoiding my question Neo?

You dont have to be part of a minority to be liberal. As I said, opression is only opression if the people suposedly being opressed want what is denyed them. In this case (homosexual marriage) a very small percentage of homosexuals actually would want homosexual marriage. Therefore it is not opression to deny it them.
Um you just said essentially this
Oppression = people being denied something they want
Right? And you said there are some (though small … supposedly… portion want marriage)
Then you continue on to say because of that they are not oppressed?

Um if they are being denied something they want then they are being oppressed irregardless of how many they are

So essentially you confirmed that there are homosexuals being oppressed (though I am sure you were not intending that)

Or are you trying to say the amount of people matter for it to be considered oppression … if so what is the limit 1% … more?

... though they are a small percentage they are people too

You dont have to be part of a minority to be liberal. As I said, opression is only opression if the people suposedly being opressed want what is denyed them. In this case (homosexual marriage) a very small percentage of homosexuals actually would want homosexual marriage. Therefore it is not opression to deny it them.

You continue to repeat this outdated nonsense that only ever might have applied in your country anyways. Do remember that marriage protections in different countries are different. The overall demand for marriage licenses in many European countries is much lower than that in the US because the actual legalities behind it are very, very different.

I know many homosexuals, and out of all of the ones I have met, only *ONE* does not want to one day be married. *ONE*

Of course, your assertion that you can't oppress a minority if they are very small is the most idiotic and stupid thing anyone has ever said on these forums. ******YOU CAN OPPRESS ONE SINGLE PERSON AMONG A MILLION ****** and guess what? IT WOULD STILL BE OPPRESSION!!!!!!.

It doesn't have to be "Christianity as a whole." If your *only* reason for something is "my religion says so," as it is here, then (in the US at least, where we have this crazy little thing called the 1st Amendment), it cannot be made into law, as that is restricting the rights of other people to freely practice their religion.

If the lobbyists could come up with a secular reason for banning it, they could attempt to legislate it all they want. Unfortunately for them, every secular reason they have made up has fallen short in the face of the actual facts.


US Constitution ammendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Gay marriage does not fall under this. All this says is that there shall be no law respecting the establishment of a religion. Which means that no one religion shall become the countries religion and that no religion should recieve privilages. I see nothing in this which would not allow people to lobby the government on a religous ground. What this is basicly saying is that you should not make it illegal to practice one religon or make one religion legal but another not. It does not say that laws cannot be passed on the basis of religous morals. There is nothing against that.

though they are a small percentage they are people too

A tiny number of people. If say the Fudal Japanese society of battle renactment requested the right to bear blunted arms in public then it is likely the government would not make a law permiting it. This does not equate to opression. If all the Jedi (which is an offical religion) demanded that the govenrment funded research into the possibility of forced plasma beam technology (lightsabers) and the government refused is that repression? How do you define it. A tiny ammount of people demanding something does not equal repression and does not mean that the government should change its attitude completely just for them.

US Constitution ammendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Gay marriage does not fall under this. All this says is that there shall be no law respecting the establishment of a religion. Which means that no one religion shall become the countries religion and that no religion should recieve privilages. I see nothing in this which would not allow people to lobby the government on a religous ground. What this is basicly saying is that you should not make it illegal to practice one religon or make one religion legal but another not. It does not say that laws cannot be passed on the basis of religous morals. There is nothing against that.

If you base a law completely in your own religion and pass it, you have given that one religion precedence and privilege over all of the others - establishing that religion as the "preferred" state religion. According to many people in this country, homosexuality is not wrong. If we start legislating based on the idea that it is, we have established a particular religion as "correct."

If you base a law completely in your own religion and pass it, you have given that one religion precedence and privilege over all of the others - establishing that religion as the "preferred" state religion. According to many people in this country, homosexuality is not wrong. If we start legislating based on the idea that it is, we have established a particular religion as "correct."

You missed my point. The first ammenment is illegalising the possiblity of a ceritan faith being declared the nations faith. It does not say anything about the basis of law and the reasons behind why law should be passed. If you find an amendment saying "You should not allow religous beliefs affect the motivations behind legislation" then yes I agree but that is not what the first ammendment does. Supossing the government illegalised gay marriage on secular grounds (I know you claim there are not any but humour me), would that make it wrong. What if the law itself makes no mention of Christianity as the reason but just illegalises it. Is it then right. And if you base it on the people who say homosexuality is right for various reasons, are you not just doing the same thing to them, execpt yours is not a religion.

A tiny number of people. If say the Fudal Japanese society of battle renactment requested the right to bear blunted arms in public then it is likely the government would not make a law permiting it.

There is a vested safety interest here, and they don't allow *anyone* to carry such weapons, so it is not discriminatory.

This does not equate to opression. If all the Jedi (which is an offical religion) demanded that the govenrment funded research into the possibility of forced plasma beam technology (lightsabers) and the government refused is that repression?

The government equally will not fund other far-fetched ideas (unless Bush happens to like the idea), so it is not discriminatory.

How do you define it. A tiny ammount of people demanding something does not equal repression and does not mean that the government should change its attitude completely just for them.

The government would not be changing its attitude, it would simply be living up to it. In the US, if the government gives privileges and protections, it is required to do so equally. There is no vested interest in denying protections to homosexual couples that need them for the exact same reasons that heterosexual couples do, except "some of us think that they are sinning!!! waaa waaa waaaa!" As there is no secular reason to forbid them these protections, we cannot do it and keep with the intent of the US Constitution.

Ok now this is just getting silly. Ok get around this

1) Marriage is only defined between a man and a women in the Bible. No kind of same sex union was ever blessed by God in the Bible. Jesus himself said this in the new testement Mark 10:6-8 and Matthew 19:4-5.

Yes, in the BIBLE. But, there are two problems with that:

A) The Bible has been butchered, altered, and more or less perverted by man during its transition from Greek and Hebrew to Latin and English. Therefore, all a scribe had to do was put in his two cents (or dubloons, whatever they had back then) and POOF! The biased views of Christianity toward homosexuals is created!

B) The Bible, believe it or not, as this will come as a complete shock to you, is NOT the only source for morals and enlightenment humanity has ever used (gasp! But it's true!) Therefore, for the definition of marriage to be worthy of worldwide trust and dues, it would have to be the same for ALL cultures and religions. It is not, and therefore merely a supplement of the personal customs of Christianity.

2) Sex of any kind outside marriage is a sin.

Depends on how you look at it. Me, personally, I see sexual intercourse between human beings as an act of love (the reason I'm still a virgin :p ). While premarital sex may not be such a good idea (especially if your around age 13), it is still an expression of deep-seated emotion. Now, sex outside of marriage, when you are INside of marriage? For the most part, that's just wrong, wrong, wrong, and jerks like that need to be kicked in the head. There are exceptions to the rule, but not a whole lot, and any person who does engage in such activity is bound to get themselves into a great deal of trouble. However, calling it a sin is a little too strong.

3) Therefore homosexuals are never married in God's eyes therefore any sex they do have is a sin.

How in the hell do YOU know what any deity wants? Have ever even tried to open yourself and listen, or are you keeping your ears, heart, and mind closed lest you be tricked by Satan or something, and just using the Bible for your "enlightenment"? Whatever being is out there speaks to us all in his/her own way; all we have to do is listen. On the other hand, even you don't choose to listen, and just keep your eyes glued to a vastly unreliable text, you will see in there "evidence" that if God doesn't want homosexuals, he could just wipe them out, like he did Jericho(sp), the first born sons of every family in Egypt, and, at one time, practically the entire world. So ask yourself: if God hates, nay, despises the gay community as much as you declare he does, why does he not just send his angels down to destroy them all?

And just for some new evidence there is no sugestion that Jesus was "Silent" on homosexuality. Remember that this was a man who removed a great deal of Mosaic law, yet did not remove homosexual practice. And also Jesus regularly spoke out aginst "porneia" which litrally translated means "Sexual Imorality" but at the time it was well known to include same sex relations. Basicly "porneia" and the various Mosiac laws about sex outlawed anything that was not "Nautral" in Eden. See here for more info

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

"Sexual Immorality" (seen here in the correct spelling) could mean anything from adultery to rape to impregnating nine-year-olds. It does not specifically imply homosexual acts. And you forget, same-sex relations were NOT considered wrong at the time; it was actually an everyday occurance. Some historians believe Jesus (the man) to have engaged in such, though I can't find a link at the moment; I heard it on the Discovery Channel.

Your arguments are based on nothing more than opinion, and no matter how widespread it may be, it still is not scientific fact. Until it is, Love and let love, any way you choose with mutual consent.

You missed my point. The first ammenment is illegalising the possiblity of a ceritan faith being declared the nations faith. It does not say anything about the basis of law and the reasons behind why law should be passed. If you find an amendment saying "You should not allow religous beliefs affect the motivations behind legislation" then yes I agree but that is not what the first ammendment does.

You missed the point. I didn't say that religious beliefs could not *affect* the motivation, I said that they could not be the *sole* motivation. If they are the *sole* motivation, then enacting the law is sending a very clear statement that the particular religion lobbying *is* the correct, government sanctioned religion.

Supossing the government illegalised gay marriage on secular grounds (I know you claim there are not any but humour me), would that make it wrong.

If there was a compelling interest to refuse equal protection to any group, it could be enacted. It already happens. We have a compelling interest in not allowing, say, DUI offenders to have driver's licenses. We have a compelling interest in not allowing convicted felons to carry guns until they have completed their sentence and parole.

What if the law itself makes no mention of Christianity as the reason but just illegalises it. Is it then right.

The government has to provide a damn good reason for any discriminatory law to hold up in court if it is challenged. It has none but religion, therefore this is a silly question. Of course Christianity won't be directly mentioned in the law. However, when the law is challenged, it will become exceedingly clear that there is no compelling interest except "my religion says it's icky!"

The government would not be changing its attitude, it would simply be living up to it. In the US, if the government gives privileges and protections, it is required to do so equally. There is no vested interest in denying protections to homosexual couples that need them for the exact same reasons that heterosexual couples do, except "some of us think that they are sinning!!! waaa waaa waaaa!" As there is no secular reason to forbid them these protections, we cannot do it and keep with the intent of the US Constitution.

Your arguement falls down on these points

1) Marriage is not a right
2) Marriage is defined as a monogmous relationship between a man and women
3) The state is required to listen to the views of the majority over the minority, if the minortiy is insignificent, which in this case it is.

Your arguement falls down on these points

1) Marriage is not a right

I never said it was, but this is completely irrelevant. Are you sure that you are British? Because you seem to have *no* grasp of the English language. There is this little thing called *equal protection.*

A driver's license is not a right. However, since the government has elected to give driver's licenses, it is required to do so equally. Social welfare is not a right, but since the government has elected to provide it to those in need, it cannot do so in a discriminatory manner.

Likewise, the government has elected to give special protections to couples who have chosen to live as a single entity. As such, it must provide these protections equally to *all* couples unless it can provide a state interest in not doing so. It's only other option is to stop giving marriage protections at all.

2) Marriage is defined as a monogmous relationship between a man and women

According to you. Meanwhile, the *legal* definition of marriage is a couple that has chosen to live and be recognized as a single legal entity. The law currently states that this has to be a heterosexual couple. However, since homosexual couples need the same protections for the exact same reasons, it is clearly a discriminatory law. As a discriminatory law, the government is required to have a vested state interest in being discriminatory. They have none.

c) The state is required to listen to the views of the majority over the minority, if the minortiy is insignificent, which in this case it is.

Yeah, you know - those albinos are insignificant. I guess we can trample all over their rights.

Yeah, you know - people with rare genetic diseases are insignificant. I guess we can trample all over their rights.

I will repeat it again: OPPRESSION OF A SINGLE PERSON AMONG A MILLION IS STILL OPPRESSION. THE MAJORITY *****NEVER***** HAS THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MINORITY, HOWEVER SMALL, WITHOUT A VESTED STATE INTEREST. THERE IS NO SUCH INTEREST. IF THERE WERE ONLY A SINGLE GAY COUPLE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND THEY WANTED MARRIAGE PROTECTIONS IN THE US, THE 14TH AMENDMENT WOULD HOLD THAT THEY MUST BE GRANTED SAID PROTECTIONS

It really isn't that hard to understand.

A tiny number of people. If say the Fudal Japanese society of battle renactment requested the right to bear blunted arms in public then it is likely the government would not make a law permiting it. This does not equate to opression. If all the Jedi (which is an offical religion) demanded that the govenrment funded research into the possibility of forced plasma beam technology (lightsabers) and the government refused is that repression? How do you define it. A tiny ammount of people demanding something does not equal repression and does not mean that the government should change its attitude completely just for them.
Apples, meet oranges. :)

I will repeat it again: OPPRESSION OF A SINGLE PERSON AMONG A MILLION IS STILL OPPRESSION. THE MAJORITY *****NEVER***** HAS THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MINORITY, HOWEVER SMALL, WITHOUT A VESTED STATE INTEREST. THERE IS NO SUCH INTEREST. IF THERE WERE ONLY A SINGLE GAY COUPLE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND THEY WANTED MARRIAGE PROTECTIONS IN THE US, THE 14TH AMENDMENT WOULD HOLD THAT THEY MUST BE GRANTED SAID PROTECTIONS

It really isn't that hard to understand.
Seriously, I don't think speaking "louder" is going to help.

Yes, in the BIBLE. But, there are two problems with that:

A) The Bible has been butchered, altered, and more or less perverted by man during its transition from Greek and Hebrew to Latin and English. Therefore, all a scribe had to do was put in his two cents (or dubloons, whatever they had back then) and POOF! The biased views of Christianity toward homosexuals is created!

B) The Bible, believe it or not, as this will come as a complete shock to you, is NOT the only source for morals and enlightenment humanity has ever used (gasp! But it's true!) Therefore, for the definition of marriage to be worthy of worldwide trust and dues, it would have to be the same for ALL cultures and religions. It is not, and therefore merely a supplement of the personal customs of Christianity.


1) Provide proof
2) We are discussing Christianity, and wheter it is a sin acording to the Bible, so saying "The Bible is wrong" is a discussion for another time as for the moment we are trying to see if the Bible in its own right says that homosexuality is a sin or not
3) Again we are discussing Christianity here and the Bible is the only source of morality for a Chrisitian.


Depends on how you look at it. Me, personally, I see sexual intercourse between human beings as an act of love (the reason I'm still a virgin :p ). While premarital sex may not be such a good idea (especially if your around age 13), it is still an expression of deep-seated emotion. Now, sex outside of marriage, when you are INside of marriage? For the most part, that's just wrong, wrong, wrong, and jerks like that need to be kicked in the head. There are exceptions to the rule, but not a whole lot, and any person who does engage in such activity is bound to get themselves into a great deal of trouble. However, calling it a sin is a little too strong.


4) Again we are discussing Christianity and Christianity makes it quite clear that sex outside of marriage is a sin.


How in the hell do YOU know what any deity wants? Have ever even tried to open yourself and listen, or are you keeping your ears, heart, and mind closed lest you be tricked by Satan or something, and just using the Bible for your "enlightenment"? Whatever being is out there speaks to us all in his/her own way; all we have to do is listen. On the other hand, even you don't choose to listen, and just keep your eyes glued to a vastly unreliable text, you will see in there "evidence" that if God doesn't want homosexuals, he could just wipe them out, like he did Jericho(sp), the first born sons of every family in Egypt, and, at one time, practically the entire world. So ask yourself: if God hates, nay, despises the gay community as much as you declare he does, why does he not just send his angels down to destroy them all?


5) If God does speek to us in our own way, does that not mean God is compensating for us rather than us for him. Surely an all powerful God it should be the other way round, we should try to fit for him
6) The reason that he does not destroy all homosexuals now is the same reason he does not destroy all blasphemers/adulterers/liers/thieves/rapeists/murders etc. He sent his son to die so that these people (sinners, like everyone else) have a chance to remove their sin and come to him. He wants as many people to be with him as possible and thus will not kill them if they have sinned.


"Sexual Immorality" (seen here in the correct spelling) could mean anything from adultery to rape to impregnating nine-year-olds. It does not specifically imply homosexual acts. And you forget, same-sex relations were NOT considered wrong at the time; it was actually an everyday occurance. Some historians believe Jesus (the man) to have engaged in such, though I can't find a link at the moment; I heard it on the Discovery Channel.
[QUOTE=Kislet]

At the time the hebrew "Porneia" literaly translated now as sexual imorality was commonly known to mean homosexual sex.

[QUOTE=Kislet]
Your arguments are based on nothing more than opinion, and no matter how widespread it may be, it still is not scientific fact. Until it is, Love and let love, any way you choose with mutual consent.

I did not say it was scientific fact. I said it was the view of the Bible

Seriously, I don't think speaking "louder" is going to help.

You are right, I'm pretty sure that Neo is incapable of understanding the definition of oppression.

I just get sick of repeating myself over and over again while someone spouts the same idiocy that could only possibly be considered correct if you are incredibly bigotted.

I will repeat it again: OPPRESSION OF A SINGLE PERSON AMONG A MILLION IS STILL OPPRESSION. THE MAJORITY *****NEVER***** HAS THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MINORITY, HOWEVER SMALL, WITHOUT A VESTED STATE INTEREST. THERE IS NO SUCH INTEREST. IF THERE WERE ONLY A SINGLE GAY COUPLE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND THEY WANTED MARRIAGE PROTECTIONS IN THE US, THE 14TH AMENDMENT WOULD HOLD THAT THEY MUST BE GRANTED SAID PROTECTIONS


Intrest = The view of the majority

Well, if you will excuse me for jumping in late to this INSANELY long thread... I've been reading for a while, but found something today I thought I might like to post.

Speaker of the House recently said that the governmant's obligation to the country is the same as its obligation to the majority of the majority.
Makes sense, if America panders to all the sissy minority groups who babble on about what they see as their "rights," boy would we be in trouble! :(

Tom Ridge, a Republican from Illinois... here's a quote from another government man, a Republican from Illinois:
" A government by the people, of the people, for the people."
That was Abraham Lincoln, and...
hey! Wait a second!
A government by, for, and of the people CAN'T possibly cater ONLY to the majority of the majority!
:confused:
Look at it this way. A majority of 50 can have a majority of 26. a majority of 26 can have a majority of 14. A majority of 13 could have a majority of 8. A majority of 8 could have a majority of 5. A Majority of 5 could have a majority of 3, and a majority of 3 must have a minority of two.
Hold on. Now we have two people running America!


I am aware that none of YOU have made Ridge's argument, but you've come close. A majority of people's support IS NOT EQUAL to some sort of Divine Right. A majority of people supported Hitler in Germany.

At one point, a majority of people in America did not believe in Evolution (wonder who THEY voted for?) Now, pests that eat our crops have been bred to be resistant to poisons, and we can no longer kill them. They EVOLVED resistance against some of the very people who refuse to see that evoltution is occuring.

We don't need to change the world for every minority. But that doesn't mean their voice should be lost in the majority.

I can find both those quotes and sources, if you need them.
Next posts story: "Let's go back to the basics"
Til then, kiddos

2) We are discussing Christianity, and wheter it is a sin acording to the Bible, so saying "The Bible is wrong" is a discussion for another time as for the moment we are trying to see if the Bible in its own right says that homosexuality is a sin or not

In other words, "I already lost at this discussion, so now I'm going to say that it doesn't count."

3) Again we are discussing Christianity here and the Bible is the only source of morality for a Chrisitian.

Funny, I seem to remember something called the Holy Spirit...

I guess in your version of Christianity, it doesn't exist...

4) Again we are discussing Christianity and Christianity makes it quite clear that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Of course it does not define marriage as a "priest does some wonky stuff and declares you married." In the Bible, if you have sex with someone and are not already married, you are now married.

5) If God does speek to us in our own way, does that not mean God is compensating for us rather than us for him. Surely an all powerful God it should be the other way round, we should try to fit for him

And yet you have repeatedly argued that God has to fit to society, thus suggesting that society controls God.

I never said it was, but this is completely irrelevant. Are you sure that you are British? Because you seem to have *no* grasp of the English language. There is this little thing called *equal protection.*

A driver's license is not a right. However, since the government has elected to give driver's licenses, it is required to do so equally. Social welfare is not a right, but since the government has elected to provide it to those in need, it cannot do so in a discriminatory manner.


A drivers lisecnce is given to a driver. A marrigae liscene is given to a man and women.

Intrest = The view of the majority

In that case, blacks should still be sitting on the back of the bus.

"We want to deny people rights" is not a vested interest. If it were, then the 14th Amendment would be useless and we could go around denying rights to every minority.

If you want to be a fascist, go ahead, but rational human beings don't want a straight majority rule. After all, what happens when you aren't in the majority?

A drivers lisecnce is given to a driver. A marrigae liscene is given to a man and women.

Ah, circular logic. Once upon a time, there were privileges that were only given to white males. Of course, we have moved past that idiocy.

Suppose I wrote a law that said that driver's licenses were only given to white male drivers. Suddenly it would be ok to deny them to everyone else?

If you cannot provide a good reason (other than "this is the way I want it *whine whine whine*) for denying one couple who have chosen to live as a single entity the protections of marriage while giving those protections to another couple - you have no case.

Michigan passes ban on gay driver’s licenses

The people of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment today by a 70% majority vote. This amendment will prevent the state government from issuing driver’s licenses to homosexuals. In addition, Michigan will no longer recognize driver’s licenses from other states if they have been issued to homosexuals.

Bill Georges, a proponent of the bill, explained the reasoning behind it:

“Well, I don’t hate the gays or anything. I mean, I had a gay friend once, until he stopped talking to me when I told him that his lifestyle was dirty and vile. Anyways, this isn’t discrimination or anything, it’s really just natural. You see, Henry Ford invented cars, and he was against gays. So gays shouldn’t be allowed to drive them. It’s ok if they own cars and pretend like they are normal, straight drivers, as long as they keep the car in their own driveway and don’t drive it where we normal people can see.”

When faced with the fact that policy based completely on what Henry Ford may or may not have said may be unconstitutional, he had this to say:

“Well, I mean, the whole purpose of driving a car is to drive your kids around. And the gays can’t have kids, so why would they need a car? We can’t deny driver’s licenses to straight people who don’t have kids, because they can drive other people’s kids around and one day might have their own. But the gays can’t have kids and nobody wants to let them drive their kids around, right? And we know Henry Ford was against the blacks too, but they have kids so we have to let them drive.

“Then there’s the fact that they just aren’t safe drivers. I mean, they tend to drive other people’s cars more than their own. And I read a study somewhere once that said that they do more drugs and drink more before they drive. The gays are going to destroy the roadways if we let them drive!

“Plus, there is no right to drive a car, it’s a privilege that the government gives you and they can regulate it however they want. There is absolutely no reason why the gays should be able to drive cars legally.”

And to the question of whether or not homosexuals might lose their jobs, and then their homes and assets:

“Well, that’s all about money and it’s just greedy. Driving a car isn’t about money, it’s about the children. Henry Ford made the car and he didn’t like the gays. So they shouldn’t drive.”

Penny Lane had the following to say:

“If Henry Ford were here today, he’d slap all the gays that are driving cars! Gays have no place in cars!”

John Lane added:

“We have to protect the tradition of driving! Driving has a fine tradition in this country stretching all the way back to the frontier days when good, God fearing men drove their families all the way across the country in nothing more than a covered wagon. It’s bad enough we gave women and blacks the right to drive, but we will stand firm when we defend the tradition of driving and will keep gays off our roads! It’s their choice to be gay and if they’re going to make that choice, then not having a license is just a price they’re going to have to pay!”

Steven Doe acknowledged that while gays in other countries have the right to acquire license that,

“The US doesn’t bow to international pressure! Who cares that other countries have given gays licenses? We know better than all of them and we’re the ones that make the rules in our country. Things like civil rights, human rights, and social policies should not be influenced just because a bunch of other countries in the “Old World” and Canada have a different view. Why should we care what they think? The international community is full of a bunch of sissies anyway! This is America and in America, Americans make the laws! Not the freedom hating British, French, or those damn, druggie, hippie, commie-bastard Scandinavians. Where is Scandinavia anyway?! Is it even a country, I ask you?!”

Michigan lawmakers insist that this amendment will help to protect the roadways and ensure that the gays are kept in their proper place.

Meanwhile, some have proposed a new type of license known as the union license. This license would allow homosexuals to drive, but only on days with odd numbers and only in the right lane.

Michigan passes ban on gay driver’s licenses
Is that from The Onion?

Michigan passes ban on gay driver’s licenses

:) Bravo. I can't say I agree with ALL the logic on either side of this argument, but that little example was good. In fact, I'm fairly certain we can pick holes in any argument that hasn't been refined for a few hours, and very carefully thought over. Examples are risky, since they are not EXACTLY like a situation, people can always say its just not the same thing...
However, that was at the very least an amusing analogy


Oh, and, uh, !splotch Princess
Sorry. Couldn't resist. Some of you out there will get it. Maybe

Is that from The Onion?

No, it's something my boyfriend and I put together to parody a thread entitled "Missouri passes ban on gay marriage."

I pull it out every now and then when people continue to spout the same idiocy they always spout on these topics.

1) Provide proof
2) We are discussing Christianity, and wheter it is a sin acording to the Bible, so saying "The Bible is wrong" is a discussion for another time as for the moment we are trying to see if the Bible in its own right says that homosexuality is a sin or not
3) Again we are discussing Christianity here and the Bible is the only source of morality for a Chrisitian.



4) Again we are discussing Christianity and Christianity makes it quite clear that sex outside of marriage is a sin.



5) If God does speek to us in our own way, does that not mean God is compensating for us rather than us for him. Surely an all powerful God it should be the other way round, we should try to fit for him
6) The reason that he does not destroy all homosexuals now is the same reason he does not destroy all blasphemers/adulterers/liers/thieves/rapeists/murders etc. He sent his son to die so that these people (sinners, like everyone else) have a chance to remove their sin and come to him. He wants as many people to be with him as possible and thus will not kill them if they have sinned.



I did not say it was scientific fact. I said it was the view of the Bible

Okay, I'm going to do this the quick and easy way:

1) Why? You certainly haven't, and what you DO have is opinion-based and not backed by anything other than the ravings of oppressive bigots.

2) We are not discussing only Christianity; [i]we are discussing why homosexuality is a sin, and, unless you haven't been reading the bulk of this board, why it is shunned by society in addition to its sinfulness. [i]You are the one who can't come up with any other reason for disliking it other than it's in the Bible.

3) So, you choose to look to a book that condones the murder of children not those of the "chosen people," says that blood sacrifice is required for God's approval, and clearly states that the entire population of the Earth with the exception of a single family (and thus it also condones inbreeding) was eradicated by a flood as your source for morality???? Not to mention the fact that the worst crimes and atrocities in history have been carried out based on what the book declares "God's Will." You are shallow if you cannot tell the difference between right and wrong for yourself.

4) By whose definition of marriage? The Bible's? I think we can write off the Bible as a self-help manual. Plus, like Dempublicents said, if you have sex, you're married. So, after that first time, it doesn't count as sex outside of marriage.

5) I don't even understand that. Go back, redo your punctuation, proofread your grammar, and THEN I'll reply.

6) Why should he gives homosexuals a chance? He didn't give the firstborn sons of Egypt any chances, now did he?

In conclusion, come up with some facts, stop using circular logic, and for Pete's sake, learn to evolve.

The key in the debate is that homosexuality in and of itself is not wrong. The homosexual act of sex is wrong. It is not pro-creative, and therefore, not acceptable. I have nothing of problems with 'gay' individuals, but I do have a problem with gay marriage, and homosexual acts, as they go against what humanity is.

The key in the debate is that homosexuality in and of itself is not wrong. The homosexual act of sex is wrong. It is not pro-creative, and therefore, not acceptable. I have nothing of problems with 'gay' individuals, but I do have a problem with gay marriage, and homosexual acts, as they go against what humanity is.

So, you're saying that homosexual acts go against sentience, complex thought processes, and the act of human love?

Is that it?

The key in the debate is that homosexuality in and of itself is not wrong. The homosexual act of sex is wrong. It is not pro-creative, and therefore, not acceptable.

So you personally, despite all evidence to the contrary, believe that sex should only be used for procreation.

Fine - but only if you are willing to live up to it.

Oral sex should never occur, nor should masturbation or any type of manual stimulation. You should be lobbying to make such things illegal. Women should have their clitoris removed, as it has no purpose other than sexual pleasure. No form of birth control should every be created or used, as using it increases the chance of non procreative sex.

Once a woman goes through menopause, she should never have sex, as it would be non-procreative. Likewise, if a man is sterile for some reason, he should be banned from having sex. If a woman is currently pregnant, she should not be allowed to have sex, as she cannot get impregnated again.

I have nothing of problems with 'gay' individuals, but I do have a problem with gay marriage, and homosexual acts, as they go against what humanity is.

So being human goes against what humanity is. You have a funny defnition of humanity.

I think if two people love each other, be it man+woman or man+man/woman+woman, they should do whatever they want. If you say homosexuality is a sin, you might as well say being straight is a sin.

In other words, "I already lost at this discussion, so now I'm going to say that it doesn't count."


No, what i am saying is this. In order to determin what is and is not a sin acording to the Christianity you have to look to the Bible. Dismissing the Bible makes the debate pointless


Funny, I seem to remember something called the Holy Spirit...


Yes that is too a source of morallity, you are correct, I apologise.



Of course it does not define marriage as a "priest does some wonky stuff and declares you married." In the Bible, if you have sex with someone and are not already married, you are now married.


No, it defines marriage as between man and women and a long term relationship. I dont know about "How" they got married in the past but they did get married and the marriage comes with responsablities as layed down in the Bible.


And yet you have repeatedly argued that God has to fit to society, thus suggesting that society controls God.

I never said that, you implied it from what I said. Care to say where you implied it from.

No, guys, Neo is right, and it would be much better if we listened to the bible in these situations.

In fact, while we call homosexuality sinful, lets set a few other things straight (excuse the pun).
Any of you here masturbaters? Show of hands?
Yes, please leave camp for the night. You are unclean.

Ejaculate anyway? You're still unclean, but not so much.

Please stop touching that dead pig skin. You are unclean. I don't care WHAT excuses you have about this so called "football"*

Sex outside of marriage? We all know that's wrong.
Oh, you say you didn't do it, but you're parents did? I'm sorry, but you and your childrens' childrens' children are going to hell. No, there is nothing you can do about it.
Oh, and we're going to stone your mom.

May I clarify? I am christian. I am gay. I see no disparity between these parts to myself. I am not sexually active, but feel my relationship with God would not decrease if this were the case, so long as I did it with someone I truly love and want to spend the rest of my life with.
Its one reason I am for gay marriage spirituality, since that has more to do with the topic at hand.


*Yes, I am aware it is no longer made from pigskin. However, its how it started.

Skarto, you deserve a hug for being a decent, thinking human being.

. . . which is more than can be said for SOME people in this discussion . . .

Pigskin???

Skarto, you deserve a hug for being a decent, thinking human being.

. . . which is more than can be said for SOME people in this discussion . . .

Thank you! ^^

I never said that, you implied it from what I said. Care to say where you implied it from.

You have stated on more than one occasion that, in the OT, God regulated/condoned objectively immoral and evil acts because the society "was going to do them anyways" or "wouldn't have understood." According to you, God *had* to simply deal with said acts, because, in the society at the time, they were considered good. Thus, you very clearly stated that God's view on morality is altered by what the society currently happens to think.

Pigskin???

I think that particular "sin" derives from the Hebrew taboo on eating pork.

Women should have their clitoris removed, as it has no purpose other than sexual pleasure.

Sorry, I'm gonna need to call you on that one. I can see the counter argument already. Pleasure was made so the sexual act would be desirable and natural to humans, so they would get it. This was so humans could reproduce and populate the planet.
Most of the laws in the old testament were there for the same reason. The Jews risked extinction if they didn't spend a good deal of their time reproducing.

Only, thats not so much a problem any more.

Thank you! ^^

You're welcome! ^__^

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

So because God did that it becomes a sin? I'm sorry sir but that's the sort of logic we don't need. And what happens if someone reading this doesn't believe in your God? Perhaps then that city wasn't nuked, in their mind.

I think that particular "sin" derives from the Hebrew taboo on eating pork.

Oh. Right. Gotcha

Who are we to say that there should be no gay marriges? That's like treating people who are disabled or mentally ill, by locking them up or boaring holes in their skulls.

Sorry, I'm gonna need to call you on that one. I can see the counter argument already. Pleasure was made so the sexual act would be desirable and natural to humans, so they would get it. This was so humans could reproduce and populate the planet.
Most of the laws in the old testament were there for the same reason. The Jews risked extinction if they didn't spend a good deal of their time reproducing.

Only, thats not so much a problem any more.

Regular penis-vagina sex does not generally stimulate the clitoris. Therefore, although it is an organ with no other purpose than sexual pleasure - it was not really designed to be stimulated during the procreative sex act.

No, what i am saying is this. In order to determin what is and is not a sin acording to the Christianity you have to look to the Bible. Dismissing the Bible makes the debate pointless

Dismissing it completely would be pointless.

However, sometimes the Bible contradicts itself. Sometimes it contradicts what the Holy Spirit is saying. Sometimes it has been mistranslated and used in oppression. In these times, you must look to the Holy Spirit. The Bible is a good place to *start,* but must be read with a critical eye and an open heart and mind to hear the voice of God.

actually, I can't find what post this went to, but its the one about Nuking the city.

I'm sorta new to this post, so I'm not sure if this has been covered already.
Soddom and Gomorrah was never a story about sex between two consenting partners. It was a story of nonconsensual sex, rape, inhospitability. If the people had done the same thing to the guy's daughter (who was offered to them), would God have, as you so elloquently put it, "nuked" the city?

??? Sorry if I don't get most of this, I havn't read the Bibel.

Oh. Right. Gotcha

Who are we to say that there should be no gay marriges? That's like treating people who are disabled or mentally ill, by locking them up or boaring holes in their skulls.

We did. Lobotomies, brain stapling (may not be exact term) techniques, electro-shock, you name it, it's been done. Nowadays you hear a loud public outcry about the inhumanity of such "treatments."

See the comparison? ;)

Ah, circular logic. Once upon a time, there were privileges that were only given to white males. Of course, we have moved past that idiocy.

Suppose I wrote a law that said that driver's licenses were only given to white male drivers. Suddenly it would be ok to deny them to everyone else?

If you cannot provide a good reason (other than "this is the way I want it *whine whine whine*) for denying one couple who have chosen to live as a single entity the protections of marriage while giving those protections to another couple - you have no case.

Diffrence between race & sexual orientation, one you are conclusively born with, no question. The other is not been proven to be genetic

We did. Lobotomies, brain stapling (may not be exact term) techniques, electro-shock, you name it, it's been done. Nowadays you hear a loud public outcry about the inhumanity of such "treatments."

See the comparison? ;)

Yeah, I know we do. I'm just saying it's wrong to treat them differently.

Dismissing it completely would be pointless.

However, sometimes the Bible contradicts itself. Sometimes it contradicts what the Holy Spirit is saying. Sometimes it has been mistranslated and used in oppression. In these times, you must look to the Holy Spirit. The Bible is a good place to *start,* but must be read with a critical eye and an open heart and mind to hear the voice of God.

The Bible never contridicts itself in regard to homosexuality

Diffrence between race & sexual orientation, one you are conclusively born with, no question. The other is not been proven to be genetic

Ah, but with that kind of logic, I can be executed for not liking squash.

Trivial are your arguments.

Diffrence between race & sexual orientation, one you are conclusively born with, no question. The other is not been proven to be genetic

When was it proven to you genetically that you were straight? If not, when was it that you first realized that you exclusively liked members of the opposite sex? Do you think people might have manipulated you into thinking this way?
Are you straight because of your upbringing?

Just wondering

Yeah, I know we do. I'm just saying it's wrong to treat them differently.

Exactly. And hopefully, pretty soon we'll be hearing that exact same outcry for oppressed homosexuals.

Diffrence between race & sexual orientation, one you are conclusively born with, no question. The other is not been proven to be genetic

Doesn't matter.

Your statement was that the rule of the majority is always a compelling state interest, and that if the law is discriminatory - it is ok. Therefore, genetic or not, discrimination against the minority is ok if the majority wants it. At least, that's what *you* said when you said that a majority opinion was a good enough state interest.

The Bible never contridicts itself in regard to homosexuality

But then again, are we saying the Bibel is right?

The Bible never contridicts itself in regard to homosexuality
Its wonderful to know that the few passages selected for the bible at the council of Nicea do not contradict themselves in this regard. Which is good, because the priests presiding over the council didn't like it in the first place.

Diffrence between race & sexual orientation, one you are conclusively born with, no question. The other is not been proven to be genetic

Yea right. L;ook at Michael Jackson: he went from a black man to a whie alien. SO don't tell me that race is conclusively born with. If a person wants to, they're gonna have their skin color changed if they wish to.

So find a new argument.

But then again, are we saying the Bibel is right?

Neo Cannen is, apparently.

The Bible never contridicts itself in regard to homosexuality

I'm sorry, I forgot that you don't understand the idea of proper sources.

If there are flaws in a source, *everything* in that source necessitates critical review. Meanwhile, we have demonstrated possible mistranslations and misconceptions about the passages you love so much. On top of that, listening to the Holy Spirit, rather than the flawed words of men, has demonstrated to some of us that passages like those are inherently flawed. And, to any rational person, it is quite obvious that they are contradictory to Christ's message.

Look, simply because the Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't mean that we cannot make a bit of a progression. Many things have changed for the better since biblical times. Why can't we just look on homosexuality as a reality of our world and tolerate it? I see no reason to condemn someone for life simply because they choose to love someone of the same sex. I personally am friends with someone who is homosexual; I did not find out until recently, and I do not look on him as being any different. Would it really be so hard for you who are determined to live your lives by the Bible to see that he has done nothing wrong by being homosexual? And moreover, would it be so hard to see that for a religion that promotes such respect and dignity, all this is an example of hypocrisy and intolerancw which should, in reality, be judged as more of a sin than the homosexuality it condemns.

As a socialist, I see no reason for any particular person to be above any other because of what they are, whether they be gay, straight, bi, etc. If they're Catholic, Baptist, Jewish... I don't care, so long as they can find a way to coexist without shoving their beliefs down other people's throats. I feel that that is merely what those who are so avidly anti-gay are doing: they are homophobic and justify their actions and prejudices through the Bible. Not only that, but they try to force the rest of us to follow the same standards. I would personally prefer that these people keep their narrow-minded opinions to themselves; it is not, in my opinion, necessary for them to condemn those different from them simply because they are in fact different.

And finally, you don't see homosexuals condemning Catholics here do you? There is no "sacred text" that they use against those who persecute them. I bid all those who read this post, no matter what your opinion on this issue, to think about it for a while: Is equality so hard to achieve? Is it really necessary to maintain these sort of prejudices? Open your minds... you may find yourself surprised by what you find there.

Matthew Shepard is burining in hell right now

Matthew Shepard is burining in hell right now

Provided that hell exists.

Provided that hell exists.

Yeah . . . the music hall at my school between lunches.

Matthew Shepard is burining in hell right now
Emily Susan Brown, how awfully insightful of you!!!! :eek:
Where on earth did you get your sources? You haven't been chatting with Matt lately, have you?
Just out of curiosity, where do you think the people who killed him are going to go?
Also, is it possible for a homosexual to have a deathbed transition? In that case... how can you prove that didn't happen?

Matthew Shepard is burining in hell right now

No, he's louinging around in Heaven, drinking martinis all day long, with the one he was destined to be with.

You, on the other, are not gonna be so lucky in the afterlife.

No, he's louinging around in Heaven, drinking martinis all day long, with the one he was destined to be with.

You, on the other, are not gonna be so lucky in the afterlife.

Lol. Let it burn.

Ahhhh . . . message board entropy . . . gotta love a little chaos. :cool:

Doesn't matter.

Your statement was that the rule of the majority is always a compelling state interest, and that if the law is discriminatory - it is ok. Therefore, genetic or not, discrimination against the minority is ok if the majority wants it. At least, that's what *you* said when you said that a majority opinion was a good enough state interest.

Supreme majority. We are talking 60/50% vs 0.015%. Seriously?

I'm sorta new to this post, so I'm not sure if this has been covered already.
Soddom and Gomorrah was never a story about sex between two consenting partners. It was a story of nonconsensual sex, rape, inhospitability. If the people had done the same thing to the guy's daughter (who was offered to them), would God have, as you so elloquently put it, "nuked" the city?

Possibly. As long as she screamed loud enough for others to hear...otherwise, she'd just get "nuked" along with all those awful people. Homosexuality was not the only reason God "nuked" Soddom and Gomorrah--all sorts of lying, cheating, stealing, and just general not-niceities were going on--homosexuality was not the focus of the mob trying to rape the two angels: most likely, if we look at other texts of the time, beautiful young men and women were often sold into slavery all over Mesopotamia to pay off their family's debts, and it was common practice for the slave owners to "break in" new properties (moving into a new house, a new fleet of servants) with merry-making and parties--this practice was borrowed from the Greeks and Romans and their predecessors. Essentially, the S&G'ers felt that Lot "wasn't sharing"--they went about it in all the wrong way, though, threatening and acting against the man of the house, simply because he was "rude."

So much has been ommitted over the years, in context and in vernacular, that many parables (in the New Testament, though arguably some theologists believe most of Abraham's stories were embellished parables, and not part of set belief) and historical accounts found in the Old Testament have lost most of their weight over the millennia. It makes total sense--unlike the US Constitution, the Bible is not "a living document"--in the last section of Revelations, it even says that anyone who edits, ommits, or tampers with the text within the Biblical text (beyond direct translation, of course) will go straight to Hell, it doesn't mention any sort of Purgatory or any such thing--you're going straight down, yo. Thus, there is a problem--direct translation is allowed--of what? Prior to the King James version (and arguably, this version itself, as James was notoriously self-serving and conniving, even for a Protestant English king), the Holy Bible had undergone hundreds of revisions by lazy monks who didn't want to rewrite the whole thing. Paraphrase (there's even a version devoted to it!) became the norm. How do we trust a document that cannot be changed, cannot even be verified?

Faith. That's what it all is--if you want to believe, go right ahead--I can't judge you. If you question power, I applaud you. But if you simply have faith--even if you don't agree whole-heartedly with what you are taught, but you have faith that in the end, everything will work itself out. I commend you. I raise you up on a pedastal. That is what this discussion is about, in essence--can you turn the other cheek, and allow others to be happy, even if you don't agree? or can't you?

Ahhhh . . . message board entropy . . . gotta love a little chaos. :cool:
I can remember when we had meaningful discussions... I think. Emily Susan Brown's argument was so compelling, I can't quite remember... i'm in a haze... help me Emily Susan Brown...

Faith. That's what it all is--if you want to believe, go right ahead--I can't judge you. If you question power, I applaud you. But if you simply have faith--even if you don't agree whole-heartedly with what you are taught, but you have faith that in the end, everything will work itself out. I commend you. I raise you up on a pedastal. That is what this discussion is about, in essence--can you turn the other cheek, and allow others to be happy, even if you don't agree? or can't you?

This discussion is actually not about gay marriage (Though I am quite happy to let it continue in that vain) but if a homosexual couple "Need" a marriage certificate to be happy, I would submit that they are extremely sad and unstable.

Go into the light, Flea; go into the light.

Supreme majority. We are talking 60/50% vs 0.015%. Seriously?

And as I have said, the numbers don't matter. If it were the entire country wanting to remove equal protections from a single citizen - it still wouldn't be a vested state interest.

This discussion is actually not about gay marriage (Though I am quite happy to let it continue in that vain) but if a homosexual couple "Need" a marriage certificate to be happy, I would submit that they are extremely sad and unstable.

Really? I thought the discussion was about homosexuality being wrong in the eyes of God and man.

This discussion is actually not about gay marriage (Though I am quite happy to let it continue in that vain) but if a homosexual couple "Need" a marriage certificate to be happy, I would submit that they are extremely sad and unstable.

If a heterosexual souple "Need" to restrict marriage to themselves, I would submit that they are extremely sad and unstable

Look, simply because the Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't mean that we cannot make a bit of a progression. Many things have changed for the better since biblical times. Why can't we just look on homosexuality as a reality of our world and tolerate it? I see no reason to condemn someone for life simply because they choose to love someone of the same sex. I personally am friends with someone who is homosexual; I did not find out until recently, and I do not look on him as being any different. Would it really be so hard for you who are determined to live your lives by the Bible to see that he has done nothing wrong by being homosexual? And moreover, would it be so hard to see that for a religion that promotes such respect and dignity, all this is an example of hypocrisy and intolerancw which should, in reality, be judged as more of a sin than the homosexuality it condemns.

As a socialist, I see no reason for any particular person to be above any other because of what they are, whether they be gay, straight, bi, etc. If they're Catholic, Baptist, Jewish... I don't care, so long as they can find a way to coexist without shoving their beliefs down other people's throats. I feel that that is merely what those who are so avidly anti-gay are doing: they are homophobic and justify their actions and prejudices through the Bible. Not only that, but they try to force the rest of us to follow the same standards. I would personally prefer that these people keep their narrow-minded opinions to themselves; it is not, in my opinion, necessary for them to condemn those different from them simply because they are in fact different.

And finally, you don't see homosexuals condemning Catholics here do you? There is no "sacred text" that they use against those who persecute them. I bid all those who read this post, no matter what your opinion on this issue, to think about it for a while: Is equality so hard to achieve? Is it really necessary to maintain these sort of prejudices? Open your minds... you may find yourself surprised by what you find there.

Christians do not persecute Homosexuals. Love sinner, hate sin

This discussion is actually not about gay marriage (Though I am quite happy to let it continue in that vain) but if a homosexual couple "Need" a marriage certificate to be happy, I would submit that they are extremely sad and unstable.

Yeah, after all, they aren't real people entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else.

Homosexuals should just lose their children and property if their partner dies. Medical decisions should be made by a family member who kicked them out years ago, instead of their loving partner. Homosexuals should be punished for being homosexual - and thus should not recieve equal protection under the law.

If a heterosexual souple "Need" to restrict marriage to themselves, I would submit that they are extremely sad and unstable

Agreed, I dont think anyone "needs" marriage as a government instiution. It was a religous one first. It needs to exist as a religious institution because the Bible says it does but nothing else, not a state one certianly.

And as I have said, the numbers don't matter. If it were the entire country wanting to remove equal protections from a single citizen - it still wouldn't be a vested state interest.

If every tiny suposedly "opressed" group demanded reworking of the law the government would have chaos on its hands.

Christians do not persecute Homosexuals. Love sinner, hate sin

The hell they don't! Telling someone they're going to hell, condemning their lives and beliefs, mob activities, assaults, and most of all telling your children and trying to convince the world that homosexuals are dirty, evil, nonhuman creatures . . . how is the NOT persecution?!

Agreed, I dont think anyone "needs" marriage as a government instiution. It was a religous one first.
Agreed... wow... Can't believe it, but agreed.
How do people feel about all government institutions [EDIT: of marriage] being civil unions? I'm for that.

The hell they don't! Telling someone they're going to hell, condemning their lives and beliefs, mob activities, assaults, and most of all telling your children and trying to convince the world that homosexuals are dirty, evil, nonhuman creatures . . . how is the NOT persecution?!

These examples can be found of any faith. But find a Bible verse that tells Christians to go out and do anything to those people. These peoples actions are not sacntioned by the Bible. God never says to persecute any sinner.

If every tiny suposedly "opressed" group demanded reworking of the law the government would have chaos on its hands.

How is it a reworking to allow same-gender marriages? There's nothing in the Constitution that condemns it in the first place! We just need an amendment that will get rid of the discrimination.

The hell they don't! Telling someone they're going to hell, condemning their lives and beliefs, mob activities, assaults, and most of all telling your children and trying to convince the world that homosexuals are dirty, evil, nonhuman creatures . . . how is the NOT persecution?!

I would go so far as to say these people are not Truly Christian. If you don't live the values of a Christian- and these are never true values of a Christian - you are not really a Christian.

Agreed... wow... Can't believe it, but agreed.
How do people feel about all government institutions being civil unions? I'm for that.

Marriage is part of the Bible and it is supported in the Bible (note as a man and women). Marriage should only be a religious insitution, not a governmental one.

These examples can be found of any faith. But find a Bible verse that tells Christians to go out and do anything to those people. These peoples actions are not sacntioned by the Bible. God never says to persecute any sinner.

Yeah, and He never said to persecute the Jews, either. But, oops! Look what happened at Belsen and Aushwitz!

No offense to any of German descent.

How is it a reworking to allow same-gender marriages? There's nothing in the Constitution that condemns it in the first place! We just need an amendment that will get rid of the discrimination.

Amending is reworking is it not? And you havent answered my question, if every tiny "opressed" group demanded an amendment would or would not the government be in chaos.

Marriage is part of the Bible and it is supported in the Bible (note as a man and women). Marriage should only be a religious insitution, not a governmental one.

So, all Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus are living in mortal sin.

God, I love bigotry.

Marriage is part of the Bible and it is supported in the Bible (note as a man and women). Marriage should only be a religious insitution, not a governmental one.
Yes agreed. I think most of this discussion of gay marriage has not focused too much on religion. However, its something that fundamentalist Christians like Dubya are denying us on a legal level. Thats not right.

As far as arguing abuot the Bible and homosexuality, I think that's become its own separate subject.

Amending is reworking is it not? And you havent answered my question, if every tiny "opressed" group demanded an amendment would or would not the government be in chaos.

First of all, the number is not "tiny". You're looking at statistics taken from a tiny group a decade ago. There are millions of homosexuals out there, each one with just as much right to live as anyone else. And no, the government would NOT be in chaos, because the main job of the governement is to provide for the people, and if that means listening to the claims of all these so-called "tiny" groups, so be it.

And no, an amendment is not necessarily a reworking; more often than not, it is merely an addition to the document that lays down the rights of the people.

Amending is reworking is it not? And you havent answered my question, if every tiny "opressed" group demanded an amendment would or would not the government be in chaos.
Ok, I'm sorry. You know why the constitution has ammendments in the first place. Right?
Because they needed a solution to the Articles of Confederation, under which the government was in Chaos. Only, just about half of the Country loved those rules. Anti-federalists would only accept the consitution if it could be ammended, so they could change it if they needed. As they has a small, small majority, this power fitted them.

What the Federalists realized was that a country cannot be run with half the nation set against itself... sadly, thats happening now.

Ammendments were set, as any in depth history book will tell you (again, those foreing are excused from not taking AP American History), to keep the Nation together.
Now ammendments are tearing it apart.

Christians do not persecute Homosexuals. Love sinner, hate sin

If their way of life is a sin, and you hate the sin, then you hate their life. So, you are saying to gay people, "I love you as long as you are not you and don't live your life the way you have been living. Be like us, and then we'll care about you."
Would you like it if people went around saying, "love the Christian but hate their religion?" :confused: I doubt it.

The Bible also says that it is a sin against God to believe in any other God. So, marriage that is not Christian is sinful. Should there be constitutional amendments against Muslim and Hindu marriage? It is sinful and wrong, isn't it?

Yeah, after all, they aren't real people entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else.

Homosexuals should just lose their children and property if their partner dies. Medical decisions should be made by a family member who kicked them out years ago, instead of their loving partner. Homosexuals should be punished for being homosexual - and thus should not recieve equal protection under the law.

If I was to give a liscene to drive a tank to someone who could barely ride a bike dont you think that would be stupid. Thats not what a tank drivers liscene is for. Similarly, a marrigae should not be given to a gay couple because they are not man and women. They are man and man/women and women. If its equal protection you are talking about then I can think of thosands of other people in similar situations to homosexuals that need the kind of protection just as badly

- A Child with a dependent disabled parent who live togther
- Two old men/women who live together for mutual financial benefit (sharing same heating bill/food etc) who may or may not be related (sisters, brothers etc)

Acording to the 2001 census there are 4.6 million such housesharing couples that need the kind of protection that marriage laws give but only 600,000 cohabiting homosexual couples in Britain. Surely the 4.6 million need the protection two.

So, all Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus are living in mortal sin.

God, I love bigotry.

:D Isn't it wonderful

So, all Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus are living in mortal sin.

God, I love bigotry.

I said religoius, I didnt say which religion. Marriage is also part of all said religons, I did'nt say it should be withheld from them.

"love the Christian but hate their religion?"

More like love the Religion, hate those who use it for hate.

No, but you DID say that marriage is part of and supported by the Bible, which just so happens to be the Christian book of morality.

"MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

"MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

EMILY SUSAN BROWN scheduled her eternity in Hell November 29, 2004, in defiance of the commandment, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Acording to the 2001 census there are 4.6 million such housesharing couples that need the kind of protection that marriage laws give but only 600,000 cohabiting homosexual couples in Britain. Surely the 4.6 million need the protection two.

Interesting, and this certainly needs to be adressed. Why does the government award benefits to people who are married?
But thats a slightly different subject.
those homosexual couples see themselves equal to heterosexual ones, regardless of what some percieve the bible to say. They only want that, a relationship they consider equal BY LAW, to be recognised by law.

America is a democracy is it not? And as a democracy if more people want one thing than another group then you must bow to the larger group. Its no good saying on election day "Ah but 43% voted for the person not in government, so the other guy should get in". If a majority dont want something and a minority do then the majority must be listend to. Its only trynnay if its a significent degridation of human rights and it isnt. It is not a right to be married.

AHHHH Post 4666! Devil post!!!

The scripture tells an individual to do MANY things that are now considered immoral and illegal in most countries of the world.


S t H

Care to name a few?


Or if you are Christian, and not close-minded or sheep-like, it's all good! Dude, I know you were just using that expression, but we are the sheep. That's described in scripture. So if you stray from the shepherd...The Shepherd is Christ!

AHHHH Post 4666! Devil post!!!

Ohmagawd!

Ruuuuuuuuuun!!!!!!!

*eeeek!*

Interesting, and this certainly needs to be adressed. Why does the government award benefits to people who are married?
But thats a slightly different subject.
those homosexual couples see themselves equal to heterosexual ones, regardless of what some percieve the bible to say. They only want that, a relationship they consider equal BY LAW, to be recognised by law.

Irrelevant. You claim homosexuals "Need" these rights but there are others with a far greater "Need" for these rights who are not getting it. Homosexuals do not "Need" these rights, they can right inheritiance and such into their wills but they are in no way in "Need" of the legal protections given by marriage. The other people I sugested are.

"MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

Oh my God! Emily Susan Brown, we thought you had left us!!!
That was wonderful detective work, simply fabulous!!!!!!!

However, since homosexuality is obviously a choice, do you feel that if he repented, even at death, he would have gone to heaven?
If so, how do you know he did not repent?

Irrelevant. You claim homosexuals "Need" these rights but there are others with a far greater "Need" for these rights who are not getting it. Homosexuals do not "Need" these rights, they can right inheritiance and such into their wills but they are in no way in "Need" of the legal protections given by marriage. The other people I sugested are.

Everyone is entitled to those protections, Neo Cannen. Everyone.

Irrelevant. You claim homosexuals "Need" these rights but there are others with a far greater "Need" for these rights who are not getting it. Homosexuals do not "Need" these rights, they can right inheritiance and such into their wills but they are in no way in "Need" of the legal protections given by marriage. The other people I sugested are.

Fine. And if heterosexual couples will give up this "need", we can have things equal. Either way, the system right now is NOT equal, even to those brothers and sisters. We percieve our union equal, if not before God, before our country.
There is a disparity, however. Whatever benefits are offered, the true point is that a system where inequality is so blantantly allowed is flawed.

Oops, I'm reading the responses to my messages. I was just trying to stir things up by posting quotes from the Rev Fred Phelps.

I have no problem with homosexuality and am opposed to the hatred dissed out by such people as the Rev Fred Phelps (the previous messages are quotes of his).

I am a Christian but I believe God gave us all free choice so it is none of my business what others believe and prectice as long as their actions don't harm others.

Thus, we do have laws against murder because others are harmed.

If two men or woman wish to get married no one is harmed (just like no one is harmed if a man and woman get married) so there should be no law against it.

As a Christian I reserve the right to think it is morally wrong but I do not have the right to push my religious beliefs on a secular society. I don't want a muslim or hindu telling me what to believe so I won't try to legislat my beliefs on others.

As for Mr Shepard being in hell who knows. God says he judge that and I have enough sin in my own life I think I concentrate on cleaning up my own act and not condem others.

"MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

insipid twit, you sure know how to love the sinner. :headbang:

"you don't agree with me or my judaic laws, so you'll brun in hell forever!"

:fluffle: <GAY PEOPLE KISSING!

Care to name a few?


Tagdra, please direct your attention to my previous quote.

No, guys, Neo is right, and it would be much better if we listened to the bible in these situations.

In fact, while we call homosexuality sinful, lets set a few other things straight (excuse the pun).
Any of you here masturbaters? Show of hands?
Yes, please leave camp for the night. You are unclean.

Ejaculate anyway? You're still unclean, but not so much.

Please stop touching that dead pig skin. You are unclean. I don't care WHAT excuses you have about this so called "football"*

Sex outside of marriage? We all know that's wrong.
Oh, you say you didn't do it, but you're parents did? I'm sorry, but you and your childrens' childrens' children are going to hell. No, there is nothing you can do about it.
Oh, and we're going to stone your mom.

May I clarify? I am christian. I am gay. I see no disparity between these parts to myself. I am not sexually active, but feel my relationship with God would not decrease if this were the case, so long as I did it with someone I truly love and want to spend the rest of my life with.
Its one reason I am for gay marriage spirituality, since that has more to do with the topic at hand.


*Yes, I am aware it is no longer made from pigskin. However, its how it started.

Oops, I'm reading the responses to my messages. I was just trying to stir things up by posting quotes from the Rev Fred Phelps.

I have no problem with homosexuality and am opposed to the hatred dissed out by such people as the Rev Fred Phelps (the previous messages are quotes of his).

I am a Christian but I believe God gave us all free choice so it is none of my business what others believe and prectice as long as their actions don't harm others.

Thus, we do have laws against murder because others are harmed.

If two men or woman wish to get married no one is harmed (just like no one is harmed if a man and woman get married) so there should be no law against it.

As a Christian I reserve the right to think it is morally wrong but I do not have the right to push my religious beliefs on a secular society. I don't want a muslim or hindu telling me what to believe so I won't try to legislat my beliefs on others.

As for Mr Shepard being in hell who knows. God says he judge that and I have enough sin in my own life I think I concentrate on cleaning up my own act and not condem others.

Ooooooooh . . . in that case I withdraw my statement.

Um, before I jump in this thread again (I was here before,right?). I wanna know, would a religious view of marriage that supports gay marriage be appreciated to the argument? Or would it just get flamed from both sides?

Everyone is entitled to those protections, Neo Cannen. Everyone.

If you were doing this out of the homosexuals need for this protection that marriage law gives you would be marching for those who also needed it.

This discussion is actually not about gay marriage (Though I am quite happy to let it continue in that vain) but if a homosexual couple "Need" a marriage certificate to be happy, I would submit that they are extremely sad and unstable.

Don't behave as if I am not aware of what is being discussed--I just feel that the fact that people have anything other than what comes out of their mouth held against them is ridiculous. Unless the other person spouting insultive or annoying rubbish, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't like someone else. Here, I no longer look at you, alone, Neo, but everyone I see who continues to be bigoted on this issue: Everyone is equal, everyone deserves the same opportunities to succeed, everyone deserves the same respect, if they are doing their best with what they have. If you believe that a piece of paper saying "woo! we're married!" is all gay couples want, you haven't looked at the issue. Married couples, especially those with children, are greatly favored in current govt. Even those who are civily wed, in a courthouse, may not always get the same benefits--this can be argued, but religious unions are always favored, especially if those are Christian; those of Hindu, Muslim, ect. origin may be discriminated against.

If a straight person's girlfriend/boyfriend were dying in the hospital, you probably won't be allowed to visit them without being accompanied by a very close family member with an ID. Now, if you are gay, you can't even be guaranteed information on their state of health. They could be flatlining, and you could be screaming at the nurse that you're their only loved one within any stretch of distance--you're still stuck waiting. They may even escort you from the hospital, if you're in a bigoted area. But this isn't just about hospitals or licenses, it's about child care, from previous straight marriages, adoption, or artificial birth--this is about tax breaks and educational benefits and property deeds and banking systems. Two gay people can barely share ANYTHING but their love in today's legal and government society.

If marriage was merely legal sex and a license to prove that the priest/judge did some stuff to make that sex legal, you wouldn't see widow/ers making fortunes on their deceased spouse's holdings, you wouldn't see golddiggers or certain types of identity theft. If all marriage is is the affirmation that you can stand each other enough to have sex and live in the same house, then you don't understand the issue at all. Gay couples cannot take care of each other or any children, wards, or legal matters properly, or at least to the extent that straight married couples can, the way the system is currently. What business is it of anyone else's what consenting adult humans do behind closed doors? Notice I did not put a cap on the number of participants, only that there must be consent, and they must be adults (and human). If these people (I assume there would only be two in this case) want to get married, why does it shake the very foundation of all that is sane? It's their own business--unless they involve illegal substances, then, perhaps, the State should get involved :)

If these consenting, married individuals of the same gender provide a loving, clean, safe home--hey, let them take care of kids, too! So many suffer in orphanages and halfway homes, and simply unfit homes. I know plenty of straight couples who make the worst parents I've ever seen, yet somehow, these kids, and those children under the care of the uncaring, passive State, can't be in a nurturing environment because some people have a problem with letting two adults of the same gender raise a child, fearing that how you were raised and by whom automatically determines EVERYTHING about your personality. Look at most gay or transgendered people in general--they come from average, white-bread, religiously-conservative homes, where homosexuality certainly isn't always accepted. Did their morally-conservative and generally decent, loving parents screw up in raising them? Did they "allow" them to become gay? Were their otherwise obviously straight parents somehow "latently" gay? Hell no. Most gay people are born gay--exposure to certain events and attitudes when they were growing up triggered a dominant expression of this homosexuality, or transgendered desire, and they decided to express their desires to the rest of the known world.

But I digress. Moot point. So if you look at the mounting evidence (and believe me, scientific evidence is more believable than some evangelists squeals any day), gay people, even if it IS a sin, even if Christians will never like them--they don't harm society. Don't even pin AIDS on them anymore--the highest growing demographic of AIDS in the US is black straight women under 35, the elderly as an age group is a close second, and the poor as a social class are somewhere in third place for most AIDS cases. Homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a choice, and besides one little passage in a holy book, nothing shows any reason why the people who are gay are bad at all. Preference is but one facet of someone's personality--find something better to judge.

Whew. I probably made a big butt of myself, but that felt good to say. Carry on.

Oops, I'm reading the responses to my messages. I was just trying to stir things up by posting quotes from the Rev Fred Phelps.

Oops! Well, glad to see you aren't quite what we made you out to be. Welcome to the party, Emily!

If you were doing this out of the homosexuals need for this protection that marriage law gives you would be marching for those who also needed it.

I march for anybody who requires help. Gay, straight, black, white, rich, poor, I don't care. I don't make a issue out of the trivial.

If you were doing this out of the homosexuals need for this protection that marriage law gives you would be marching for those who also needed it.
Who's to say we're not?
In any case, fighting discrimination runs the risk of being too broad. Would not protesters whose message is simply "Equality" Not be marching for all of those?
We pick our battles, and try to bring about the change we wish to see in the world.

I march for anybody who requires help. Gay, straight, black, white, rich, poor, I don't care. I don't make a issue out of the trivial.

Big hug for Kislet! :hug:

Oops, I'm reading the responses to my messages. I was just trying to stir things up by posting quotes from the Rev Fred Phelps.

:eek: Sorry, Emily. Please make notation of sarcasm. :D

Big hug for Kislet! :hug:

I feel happy . . . :)

Provide proof that homosexuals "Need" this equality. You say that it cant be made illegal for religous grounds fine. So who says it can be made legal on ideological grounds of "Equality". If you claim I need to provide logical reasons for it being illegal, you need to do the same for it being legal. And arguements beyond "They need equality". If I am not allowed to use my moral arguements then your not allowed to either. By saying your morals are better than mine, that is simpley discrimination in another form.

Um, before I jump in this thread again (I was here before,right?). I wanna know, would a religious view of marriage that supports gay marriage be appreciated to the argument? Or would it just get flamed from both sides?


No, I tried that before... They (Literalist Christians) will just ignore you or call you a false prophet or something. Thank you for the effort though.

Peace.

Provide proof that homosexuals "Need" this equality. You say that it cant be made illegal for religous grounds fine. So who says it can be made legal on ideological grounds of "Equality". If you claim I need to provide logical reasons for it being illegal, you need to do the same for it being legal. And arguements beyond "They need equality"

You're right, Neo Cannen; they don't.

In that case, then blacks don't need decent schools. Asians don't need to own cars; they can just ride bikes to get from place to place. Slightly overweight people don't need to own cats; dogs should be more than enough. Women don't need to vote . . .

See where I'm going with this, Neo? Nobody really needs these things to survive. However, life would be a little bit more unbearable if we do not have equal rights to all of these, and many more. Homosexuals deserve, as it states in the Preamble, "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness". Do you really want to deny them of their happiness? Do you have that, shall we say, "right?" Because if you don't have the right, then you can't do it, or so you imply.

why the hell is this thread so long?

why the hell is this thread so long?

It's a flaming, all-out debate. Jump in!

No, I tried that before... They (Literalist Christians) will just ignore you or call you a false prophet or something. Thank you for the effort though.

Peace.

Lol, I didn't say it was a Christian view. It's merely a religious one. And unless those Literalist Christians you talk about wish to blatantly say "I'm a bigot!" by bashing what my religious beliefs say, then it shouldn't get that kind of treatment.
I'm worried about bigoted treatment from both sides.

You're right, Neo Cannen; they don't.

In that case, then blacks don't need decent schools. Asians don't need to own cars; they can just ride bikes to get from place to place. Slightly overweight people don't need to own cats; dogs should be more than enough. Women don't need to vote . . .

See where I'm going with this, Neo? Nobody really needs these things to survive. However, life would be a little bit more unbearable if we do not have equal rights to all of these, and many more. Homosexuals deserve, as it states in the Preamble, "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Do you really want to deny them of their happiness? Do you have that, shall we say, "right?" Because if you don't have the right, then you can't do it, or so you imply.

You miss my point. Your arguemnts come from morals as much as mine do. Liberal morals. Yet you claim that my morals are no basis for a law and yours are. So I have asked you to answer these questions

1) Are your morals better than mine?
2) If so how is that idea not discrimintory to me? How can you say "My ideals are better than yours because" and it not be discrimination?
3) Why can a law be based on liberal thinking but not religon?

It's a flaming, all-out debate. Jump in!


i'd love to, but do i have to read ALL the previous posts before i do?-LOL

Lol, I didn't say it was a Christian view. It's merely a religious one. And unless those Literalist Christians you talk about wish to blatantly say "I'm a bigot!" by bashing what my religious beliefs say, then it shouldn't get that kind of treatment.
I'm worried about bigoted treatment from both sides.

Lol, don't worry about negativity from me. My only bigotry is hating bigots (I'm at war with myself, arghhhh!). You will not be attacked for your views.

Least not by us decent folk, ya'll. (bad southern accent, spits some tabaccy)

You miss my point. Your arguemnts come from morals as much as mine do. Liberal morals. Yet you claim that my morals are no basis for a law and yours are. So I have asked you to answer these questions

1) Are your morals better than mine?
2) If so how is that idea not discrimintory to me? How can you say "My ideals are better than yours because" and it not be discrimination?
3) Why can a law be based on liberal thinking but not religon?

Oooooh, you have crossed the line. How in the hell am I a liberal? Where else have I spouted my views on government policies? So I happen to be a freedom-loving non-hateful person, and this makes me a LIBERAL? You, sir, have proven yourself to be not only thick-headed and narrow minded, but hasty in your judgments as well. Did you use that kind of deep, logical thinking when you came to the conclusion that homosexuals are bad? You know very little about me, other than what I have posted on this board, and yet because I advocate equality, you immeadiately assume I must be liberal. You have proven yourself unworthy of argument. You may go and screw yourself, because I can't think of why any girl would want you, other than one you paid for, and that's a sin, now isn't it?

"Amendment XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privleges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -Constitution of the United States of America.

Freedom of religion is a liberty, therefore the government cannot ban gay marriage without repealing the 17th amendment in the Constitution.

Lol, don't worry about negativity from me. My only bigotry is hating bigots (I'm at war with myself, arghhhh!). You will not be attacked for your views.

Least not by us decent folk, ya'll. (bad southern accent, spits some tabaccy)

Lol, all I wanted to hear.
So, religion actually siding with the pro-gay marriage side.

Well, here's how I see it religiously.
The Great goddess Inanna, goddess of love (And war, but that doesn't count here). As well as ruler and founder of the Sacred Marriage rite, was Bisexual.
She was, to put it blatantly, a whore, and in many of the tales of her wanderings, she has sex with both men and women, and sometines at the same time.
The Sacred Marriage Rite is defined as a union of two, blessed by the Anuannaki, performed in the ceremony laid down by Inanna and her Consort Dumuzi.

Now that is a religious view, and no where do I see "Man and woman". Wo why not make that religious view law? It makes as much sense as making Christian, Muslim, or the Atheist view law.
And the fact that in many stories of Inanna, she sleeps with other women, simply proves there is no anti-gay part to the goddess presiding over marriage in itself.

"Amendment XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privleges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -Constitution of the United States of America.

Freedom of religion is a liberty, therefore the government cannot ban gay marriage without repealing the 17th amendment in the Constitution.

Ah, if only Dubya hadn't slept in all his government classes . . .

You miss my point. Your arguemnts come from morals as much as mine do. Liberal morals. Yet you claim that my morals are no basis for a law and yours are. So I have asked you to answer these questions

1) Are your morals better than mine?
2) If so how is that idea not discrimintory to me? How can you say "My ideals are better than yours because" and it not be discrimination?
3) Why can a law be based on liberal thinking but not religon?


These are the morals of our contry, and had origins in the morals of the French Revolution: Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite: Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood. We founded our country on these morals, good or bad. That is why they are basis for law; to undermine these morals would be to undermine the basis of all our laws. Laws in our country often find a way to be based on religion, though ideally this should not be the case. Evolution, for example, has been banned over Creationist values.
The morals we chose to form a basis with form structure for us. I cannot say these morals are the perfect ones to form a government with. But its what we have to work with.
What we do with those, how we interpret them; that is up to debate.

So I happen to be a freedom-loving non-hateful person, and this makes me a LIBERAL?
D'uh. That and a desire to fight on the side of the underdog regardless of its cause. ;)

liberal: 1. Free by birth; 2. Bestowing in a large and noble way, as a freeman; 3. Bestowed in a large way; 4. Not strict or rigorous; not confined or restricted to the literal sense; free; 5. Not narrow or contracted in mind; 6. Free to excess; regardless of law or moral restraint; etc.

Freedom being the operative term. ;)

Lol, all I wanted to hear.
So, religion actually siding with the pro-gay marriage side.

Well, here's how I see it religiously.
The Great goddess Inanna, goddess of love (And war, but that doesn't count here). As well as ruler and founder of the Sacred Marriage rite, was Bisexual.
She was, to put it blatantly, a whore, and in many of the tales of her wanderings, she has sex with both men and women, and sometines at the same time.
The Sacred Marriage Rite is defined as a union of two, blessed by the Anuannaki, performed in the ceremony laid down by Inanna and her Consort Dumuzi.

Now that is a religious view, and no where do I see "Man and woman". Wo why not make that religious view law? It makes as much sense as making Christian, Muslim, or the Atheist view law.
And the fact that in many stories of Inanna, she sleeps with other women, simply proves there is no anti-gay part to the goddess presiding over marriage in itself.

Oooo, you better watch out . . . NC is about to flog you with his denunciations of "Evil heathenistic Pagan customs," jsut like he has everything else that hasn't met his approval.

But whoot to you, my man. You found proof that it IS okay!

If every tiny suposedly "opressed" group demanded reworking of the law the government would have chaos on its hands.

There is no reworking of the law necessary. Equal protection does not require a reworking of the law, simply an equal application of it. In fact, the marriage laws in this country honestly had nothing at all to restrict it to man and woman until very recently. The additions were put in specifically to be discriminatory, and are thus unconstitutional.

Marriage is part of the Bible and it is supported in the Bible (note as a man and women). Marriage should only be a religious insitution, not a governmental one.

Irrelevant. The government provides protections to couples who live as if they are married. Therefore it must do so equally.

D'uh. That and a desire to fight on the side of the underdog regardless of its cause. ;)

liberal: 1. Free by birth; 2. Bestowing in a large and noble way, as a freeman; 3. Bestowed in a large way; 4. Not strict or rigorous; not confined or restricted to the literal sense; free; 5. Not narrow or contracted in mind; 6. Free to excess; regardless of law or moral restraint; etc.

Freedom being the operative term. ;)

If only that's what it meant in terms of politics . . . here it just defines a bunch of saps who spend their time crying about murdering trash bags and whatnot.

Then again, the common ideal for a conservative isn't too pleasent, either . . .

These are the morals of our contry, and had origins in the morals of the French Revolution: Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite: Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood. We founded our country on these morals, good or bad. That is why they are basis for law; to undermine these morals would be to undermine the basis of all our laws. Laws in our country often find a way to be based on religion, though ideally this should not be the case. Evolution, for example, has been banned over Creationist values.
The morals we chose to form a basis with form structure for us. I cannot say these morals are the perfect ones to form a government with. But its what we have to work with.
What we do with those, how we interpret them; that is up to debate.

You havent answered the question. Why are your morals of freedom and equality any better than mine, the Christian religon. And if you believe they are, arn't you guilty of discrimination too. Telling a group of people they cannot lobby the government on an issue because of what they believe or saying that a law cannot have the backing of a religion. Why exactly do you think you are any better than me? You call me stone headed and narrow minded but I could easyly say the same of you. In that your narrow mindset calls everyone who doesnt come into your line of thinking as a bigot.

Lol, all I wanted to hear.
So, religion actually siding with the pro-gay marriage side.

Well, here's how I see it religiously.
The Great goddess Inanna, goddess of love (And war, but that doesn't count here). As well as ruler and founder of the Sacred Marriage rite, was Bisexual.
She was, to put it blatantly, a whore, and in many of the tales of her wanderings, she has sex with both men and women, and sometines at the same time.
The Sacred Marriage Rite is defined as a union of two, blessed by the Anuannaki, performed in the ceremony laid down by Inanna and her Consort Dumuzi.

Now that is a religious view, and no where do I see "Man and woman". Wo why not make that religious view law? It makes as much sense as making Christian, Muslim, or the Atheist view law.
And the fact that in many stories of Inanna, she sleeps with other women, simply proves there is no anti-gay part to the goddess presiding over marriage in itself.
This religious statement has, in my mind, as much relevence as any other religious statement concerning politics in the US. That is, absolutely none. No offense, I think it's a rather interesting and insightful religious belief, but I don't think any religion has a place in the government. Which means, of course, that there is absolutely no reason to prohibit gay marriages.

You havent answered the question. Why are your morals of freedom and equality any better than mine, the Christian religon. And if you believe they are, arn't you guilty of discrimination too. Telling a group of people they cannot lobby the government on an issue because of what they believe or saying that a law cannot have the backing of a religion. Why exactly do you think you are any better than me?

Because the group with which we lobby didn't execute hundreds and possibly thousands of innocent people in the name of God during a paranoia outbreak. That's why.

You havent answered the question. Why are your morals of freedom and equality any better than mine, the Christian religon. And if you believe they are, arn't you guilty of discrimination too. Telling a group of people they cannot lobby the government on an issue because of what they believe or saying that a law cannot have the backing of a religion. Why exactly do you think you are any better than me?
We are better than you because we have the Constitution behind us. If you have a chance, please read the 1st Amendment. It will explain to you exactly why Christian morals have no more place in politics than any other religion's morals, or atheistic morals.

This religious statement has, in my mind, as much relevence as any other religious statement concerning politics in the US. That is, absolutely none. No offense, I think it's a rather interesting and insightful religious belief, but I don't think any religion has a place in the government. Which means, of course, that there is absolutely no reason to prohibit gay marriages.

What about "The majority dont want it". Regardless of the cause should the majority not be listend to? Espically if they are the overwhelming majority.

What about "The majority dont want it". Regardless of the cause should the majority not be listend to? Espically if they are the overwhelming majority.
I have said before, and will probably say to you many, many times again, the government protects the will of the Minority, not the Majority. The Majority doesn't need protecting; the Minority does.

What about "The majority dont want it". Regardless of the cause should the majority not be listend to? Espically if they are the overwhelming majority.

No, because in this case the majority is just speaking from its collective ass and using their religion as an excuse to be narrow-minded, domineering assholes.

We are better than you because we have the Constitution behind us. If you have a chance, please read the 1st Amendment. It will explain to you exactly why Christian morals have no more place in politics than any other religion's morals, or atheistic morals.

The first amendemnt does not say "You shall not make a law with the motive of religion". It does say "You shall not favour/restrict any religion" basicly meaning that you cannot give money etc to one religion over another. That is not what this is. Christians are not trying to write Christianity into the law, this is just one issue.

If I was to give a liscene to drive a tank to someone who could barely ride a bike dont you think that would be stupid.

And there would be a vested state interest in not doing so - as allowing that person to drive a tank would be dangerous to the populace.

Similarly, a marrigae should not be given to a gay couple because they are not man and women. They are man and man/women and women.

This is a completely stupid statement. Just why do you think that the government gives marriage licenses - just because people want a little piece of paper? The government gives marriage protections because people who choose to live as a single entity are in a unique situation which requires certain protections. These protections are needed whether the couple is gay or straight.

If its equal protection you are talking about then I can think of thosands of other people in similar situations to homosexuals that need the kind of protection just as badly

- A Child with a dependent disabled parent who live togther
- Two old men/women who live together for mutual financial benefit (sharing same heating bill/food etc) who may or may not be related (sisters, brothers etc)

Neither of these are the same as a marriage. The child is not going to co-own a home or need joint custody of itself, nor are the two living as if they are a single person. Sharing a heating bill and food is in no way affected by marriage protections, nor do two people who share a home simply for financial benefit live as a single legal entity.. So neither example is even close to

Acording to the 2001 census there are 4.6 million such housesharing couples that need the kind of protection that marriage laws give but only 600,000 cohabiting homosexual couples in Britain. Surely the 4.6 million need the protection two.

I don't know what marriage protections do in Britain, but *neither* of these would really be helped by marriage protections in the US.

America is a democracy is it not?

No. America is a representative republic.

And as a democracy if more people want one thing than another group then you must bow to the larger group.

Not when it comes to equal protection under the law, which is clearly stated in the Constitution to apply to *EVERYONE*.

Its no good saying on election day "Ah but 43% voted for the person not in government, so the other guy should get in". If a majority dont want something and a minority do then the majority must be listend to. Its only trynnay if its a significent degridation of human rights and it isnt. It is not a right to be married.

The right is the right to equal protection. If the government stopped granting marriage licenses altogether, that would be equal protection. Otherwise, they must be granted to all couples who choose to live as a single entity unless a state interest (and no, "lots of people want it!" does not count - as those people's rights end where the couple's begin) is cited. There is no such interest.

The first amendemnt does not say "You shall not make a law with the motive of religion". It does say "You shall not favour/restrict any religion" basicly meaning that you cannot give money etc to one religion over another. That is not what this is. Christians are not trying to write Christianity into the law, this is just one issue.
Your last statement is incorrect. By trying to ban gay marriage (for strictly religious reasons, no less), Fundamentalist Christians are trying to force their religion into politics. Thus, it comes against the establishment clause.

Also, I am a Christian. Do not try to force your bigoted, fundamentalist beliefs on the rest of us.

Because the group with which we lobby didn't execute hundreds and possibly thousands of innocent people in the name of God during a paranoia outbreak. That's why.

In the past everyone has there crimes. You are avoiding the issue. How, by calling everyone who does not agree with you, a bigot are you any less narrow minded than you suposedly call me.

What about "The majority dont want it". Regardless of the cause should the majority not be listend to? Espically if they are the overwhelming majority.

So you claim, that because I hold polythestic, non-Christian beliefs I should be outlawed?
Great idea there, I'm so gladI live in Canada now, so I'm safe from that belief.
Just as long as I don't go to any Muslim country, or Communist country, or most "Democratic" countries... Actually, I think the EU and Canada are the only places safe for me now.


Side note: My belief on why gay's should be allowedto mary is simple, they're people too, and marriage should be a governmental thing. I gave my religions example to make a point, that religion really has no point in the debate. If it does, you can debate legalising prostitution, because I worship one.

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?
Well, I'm not a fundamentalist, but I hope you can gain some sort of insite into my mind, and the minds of others like me this way. I feel the best option for this subject IS NOT debate, but open discussion, and I've not read the posts, but I doubt this has stayed a respectful discussion, as is typical here. If we started discussing common ground, instead of trying to be right, then I think this issue wouldn't seem quite so big, and everyone would be happy to still have thier opinions, and understand and respect diversity.

You're probably seeing many different answers here, but as for me, my answer is: I'm not sure. My belief is that one isn't born gay, but it's not entirely a choice either. Through a series or circumstances, one becomes gay. It's a process of sorts, not an improvement, not deterioration, just a process.

As for acting on the inclinations of homosexuality, that's acting in passion out of the sanctity of Biblical marrige, and (in my eyes, though you'll find MANY good, God loving people who disagree) a sin.


Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?
Is going to a gay rally a sin? I would doubt it. For example: I'm completely for civil unions in America, and would be willing to rally for that. I don't think that it would be sinful of me. Going to a rally to support gay marrige isn't a sin either. (A quick note on my stance on homosexual marrige. I feel that everybody in America, and around the world, deserves protection for thier relationship with another consenting adult. Marrige, however, has always, since time began, been between a man and a woman. I don't see why this should change. Different things need different licences. I can't drive a semi with my regular drivers licence, nor can I chauffer. Different circumstances require differences. I feel civil unions should be every bit equal to marrige, and I think that many people feel the same way, inthat thier problem is with the word marrige.)

I addressed the love, and making love thing above, so just look up there if you missed it.

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?
I'm not sure what you're referring to with not following the other parts of the Bible. Condeming a person for violating one part, and violating it or another part ourselves makes us not only sinners but hypocrytes. One though would be that, though I'm not perfect, I try to help out others in improving thier lives, and pointing out thier mistakes if I don't feel they notice them. Also: it's easier to condemn someone for doing what some consider a "major sin," rather than to honestly look at oneself to see what's going wrong.

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

Well, I hope my answers helped you out some.

Perhaps if everyone looks to discussions rather than debates, we'll be able to all get along and improve our real problems.

On that note, I diclose that I am strait, and my answers have a bias to them, but bias is ok, because everyone has bias.

In the past everyone has there crimes. You are avoiding the issue. How, by calling everyone who does not agree with you, a bigot are you any less narrow minded than you suposedly call me.

I'm not calling everyone else who doesn't agree with me a bigot. Just you, sweetie, and only you. You don't see me going after Northern Trombonium just because he's Christian, do you?

Can anyone here give a better arguemnt for gay marriage other than "They need equality"? That arguement is ideological the same as mine. So untill you find a practical benefit saying "Your forcing your religion into politcs" can be countored by "Your forcing your ideology into politics". And by saying your allowed to do one and not the other, you are being discriminative. You are basicly saying "Its ok for X, Y and Z to influence govenmental decisons but not A becuase he is nasty"

So you claim, that because I hold polythestic, non-Christian beliefs I should be outlawed?


No, that goes against human rights. Outlawing marriage for gay's does not.

Can anyone here give a better arguemnt for gay marriage other than "They need equality"? That arguement is ideological the same as mine. So untill you find a practical benefit saying "Your forcing your religion into politcs" can be countored by "Your forcing your ideology into politics". And by saying your allowed to do one and not the other, you are being discriminative. You are basicly saying "Its ok for X, Y and Z to influence govenmental decisons but not A becuase he is nasty"
No, the argument is not ideologically the same. You are trying to force your beliefs into the political system. We are trying to uphold the fundamental rights given to Americans that make our country free. BIG difference.

Can anyone here give a better arguemnt for gay marriage other than "They need equality"? That arguement is ideological the same as mine. So untill you find a practical benefit saying "Your forcing your religion into politcs" can be countored by "Your forcing your ideology into politics". And by saying your allowed to do one and not the other, you are being discriminative. You are basicly saying "Its ok for X, Y and Z to influence govenmental decisons but not A becuase he is nasty"

Okay, how about this:

Because times are changing, society is changing, and we need to be ready to change with it before we become obsolete. I doubt this makes sense to a Bible-thumper such as yourself, but natural selection states, "ya snooze, ya lose." And you don't want to be caught asleep in the bushes when the wolves come, do you, guys?

No, that goes against human rights. Outlawing marriage for gay's does not.

How? Short answer, no debate, no references. I just want to know how it's different.

Irrelevant. You claim homosexuals "Need" these rights but there are others with a far greater "Need" for these rights who are not getting it. Homosexuals do not "Need" these rights, they can right inheritiance and such into their wills but they are in no way in "Need" of the legal protections given by marriage. The other people I sugested are.

Are you really idiotic enough to think that inheritance is the only protection afforded by marriage.

And are you unaware that, in some countries (like the US), there is this thing called inheritance tax? Only married couples are immune to it. Would you like to know why? Because they are seen as a single legal entity with the same property and debts.

Therefore, if a married man dies - the home that he and his wife paid for automatically goes to the wife - tax free. Any children are automatically left with her, as she already had custody of them. Even if the children were the husband's from a previous marriage, she would have had the chance to adopt them legally, making her an equal legal guardian. Even before he dies, if his wife has a job that provides health insurance and he does not, she can extend that health insurance to the children.

If a lesbian in a partnership dies - the home that she and her partner paid for may get left to her partner in a will, but the partner has to pay inheritance tax, and thus will probably have to sell the house anyways in order to pay it. Any children of the woman who died get taken away and given to either her next-of-kin, or the state - ripped away from their other parent that they may have known all their lives. Even if she leaves the children to her partner, the next-of-kin can challenge that decision, resulting in a lengthy court battle in which the children could still be ripped away from their only remaining parent. Even before the biological parent dies, if her partner has a job that provides health insurance and she does not, the partner *Cannot* extend that health insurance to the children. Thus, if they are not a wealthy couple, these children are likely to have inadequate access to health care.

These are just a select few problems that homosexual couples face.

No, that goes against human rights. Outlawing marriage for gay's does not.
:confused: :confused: :confused: Explain to me HOW you can even pretend that outlawing any type of marriage does not deny a person their Constitutional Rights and Priveleges?

Can anyone here give a better arguemnt for gay marriage other than "They need equality"? That arguement is ideological the same as mine. So untill you find a practical benefit saying "Your forcing your religion into politcs" can be countored by "Your forcing your ideology into politics". And by saying your allowed to do one and not the other, you are being discriminative. You are basicly saying "Its ok for X, Y and Z to influence govenmental decisons but not A becuase he is nasty"

Well, if I read your posts correctly, you're opposed to gay marriage because it is not between a man and a woman, as laid out in the Bible, correct?

Well, to counter that, I'll reiterate. The Great goddess Inanna didn't say either way, and she is bisexual. Since she rules the sanctity of the marriage rite, then it is her reasoning that counts. So, based on that Bisexual thing, she says it's ok!

There, countered, nd in the same fashion you use.

And to cut it off at the pass, Last time I checked my religious beliefs outdated the Bible by some 4000 years... so don't try that card please, it's just going to annoy me. (I say this because others in person have used it, and I just don't want that stuff getting into here, it's pure ignorance for history).

Provide proof that homosexuals "Need" this equality. You say that it cant be made illegal for religous grounds fine. So who says it can be made legal on ideological grounds of "Equality". If you claim I need to provide logical reasons for it being illegal, you need to do the same for it being legal.

If you are going to continue to make idiotic statements like this, I think you should study up on political science before you reenter the debate.

The US Constitution states that denying equality *requires* a reason. So no, the only person with the burden of proof here is the bigot who wants to deny equal protection - namely, you.

No, that goes against human rights. Outlawing marriage for gay's does not.

So if someone wishes to be legally wed to the person they love and can't do it because other people think it's wrong, that doesn't go against their rights as a human being? Love is love. Gender should not be an issue, regardless of what it says in the Bible. Not all people follow the Bible and the only arguement I've seen against gay marriage so far is 'God said it's wrong.' Who cares? Not everyone believes in your God. Stop trying to oppress the rights of a minority because it disagrees with your personal morals. It's selfish.

How? Short answer, no debate, no references. I just want to know how it's different.
Unfortunately, he is correct. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16 regarding marriage is carefully worded so that the right is subservient to the concept of marriage, however that is legally defined. Hence the whole need for these debates.

Unfortunately, he is correct. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16 regarding marriage is carefully worded so that the right is subservient to the concept of marriage, however that is legally defined. Hence the whole need for these debates.

Ugh . . . damn politicians. But I still don't see, even if Artical 16 says so, why it doesn't count as human rights? This is a bit more pressing than just telling people to sit at the back of the bus, if you get my drift.

You havent answered the question. Why are your morals of freedom and equality any better than mine, the Christian religon.

ERROR ALERT> I have warned you before Neo, you are not personally the entire Christian religion and *MANY* of us disagree with your interpretations. So don't purport to speak for the entire Chrstian religion.

Meanwhile, Christianity is *based* in the idea of equality. So you lose already.

On top of that, our entire government (in the US) is based in the ideals of freedom and equality. Thus, we (the people) made it that way - and it is bound by those ideals.

And if you believe they are, arn't you guilty of discrimination too. Telling a group of people they cannot lobby the government on an issue because of what they believe or saying that a law cannot have the backing of a religion.

No one has said they can't lobby all they want. Just like the KKK can lobby all they want for the right to burn crosses on the lawns of blacks and Jews. However, a law based entirely in religion is unconstitutional on its face, because our founder realized that allowing church and state to mix does nothing but oppress people and corrupt *both*.

Why exactly do you think you are any better than me? You call me stone headed and narrow minded but I could easyly say the same of you. In that your narrow mindset calls everyone who doesnt come into your line of thinking as a bigot.

We aren't the ones trying to have the government only provide protection to the people we like.

The first amendemnt does not say "You shall not make a law with the motive of religion". It does say "You shall not favour/restrict any religion" basicly meaning that you cannot give money etc to one religion over another. That is not what this is. Christians are not trying to write Christianity into the law, this is just one issue.

So, suppose the following happened:

The Christians lobbied to have oral sex banned, because non-procreative sex is against their religion.
Those who follow the Kama Sutra lobbied against this ban, since their religion glorifies oral sex as one of the positions that is good and holy.

Suppose the government bans oral sex, despite the fact that the Christians are not harmed in any way, shape, or form by allowing non-Christians to have oral sex.

Are you really going to seriously state that doing so would not be favoring Christianity and restricting other religions? Are you really that incapable of logical thought?

So, suppose the following happened:

The Christians lobbied to have oral sex banned, because non-procreative sex is against their religion.
Those who follow the Kama Sutra lobbied against this ban, since their religion glorifies oral sex as one of the positions that is good and holy.

Suppose the government bans oral sex, despite the fact that the Christians are not harmed in any way, shape, or form by allowing non-Christians to have oral sex.

Are you really going to seriously state that doing so would not be favoring Christianity and restricting other religions? Are you really that incapable of logical thought?

I vote YES

(but mainly because I'm mad at him ~_^)

Can anyone here give a better arguemnt for gay marriage other than "They need equality"? That arguement is ideological the same as mine. So untill you find a practical benefit saying "Your forcing your religion into politcs" can be countored by "Your forcing your ideology into politics". And by saying your allowed to do one and not the other, you are being discriminative. You are basicly saying "Its ok for X, Y and Z to influence govenmental decisons but not A becuase he is nasty"

Equality is a fundamental part of our government system, as is separation of church and state. If you don't like equality, then you should move to a third world/fundamentalist country. Perhaps you should move to Saudi Arabia, or mabe Rwanda. You won't have equality forced upon you in either of those places. If you don't like separation of church and state, I would suggest Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, or maybe Pakistan.

On top of that, we have *consistently* argued that *NOBODY* can restrict the rights and legal protections of others without providing a valid reason for why not doing so would endanger them. This is not discriminatory, as *NOBODY* can do it.

Wow. This is really a mess. A quagmire of arguments, counter-arguments, counter-to-the-counter-arguments, and so on. I think the way I try to view it is by looking at smoking and related ideas.
Smoking is not illegal, or at least as long as you smoke the right stuff. But inhibitions have been placed on the usage of Tobacco. Namely are those which limit the locations where one may smoke. This has come about because of the discovery of how serious second-hand smoke could be. So now smokers are limited in the areas where they may smoke, and that is a good thing for me, because I dont want to be around it.
But do the Smokers cry about having rules and regulations regarding their dirty habit? Not to my ear, at the very least. I personally think that homesexuality has a dirty and degrading quality about it. Much like the filthy layers of tar often accumulated from habitual smoking. I also believe that this filth can be rubbed off on those around the "gay" couple.
So personally, I have nothing against smoking or homosexuality. I think that they are both filthy and vile things, which result in serious consequences, the former here on earth, and the latter in the next life. And as much as I hate people do dumb things, I really dont want it to happen around me. So smoke in your car on your way to work, and stay in your closet with your "partner" for all of our sakes, because I for one really don't want to, or need to see it.
And there are some of my own personal ramblings. I hope you enjoyed it at the very least. Thanks.

Can anyone here give a better arguemnt for gay marriage other than "They need equality"?


Is that not a good enough argument?
I don't see any reasonable counters to it.

Incidentally, the highest level of increase in HIV at least in the UK, is currently occurring among heterosexual women. I'm not sure if that's worldwide stats or national, I just managed to catch a TV interview with a lady promoting HIV awareness. I guess now's a good time to make the switch, girls.


That arguement is ideological the same as mine.


It is a little different.
You are basing your arguments on "because God says so".

That cannot be proved or disproved, and matters only to a section of a section of people who believe that there is a God to say so. In any case, it is way too easy to invoke God to use a baton to whack people. You'd almost think He likes it.

To use God as a reason to deny people life and liberty, or any form of legal right, is sectarian oppression. That's never been a good thing.


So untill you find a practical benefit saying "Your forcing your religion into politcs" can be countored by "Your forcing your ideology into politics". And by saying your allowed to do one and not the other, you are being discriminative.


Oh you can say what you like. I just hope nobody's taking it seriously.


You are basicly saying "Its ok for X, Y and Z to influence govenmental decisons but not A becuase he is nasty"

Tell me, would you support the BNP?

Perhaps the KKK?

Why not?

I'm just wondering why we all are talking about this anyway ("all of us" implied as "all the stupid, idiotic, etc., politicians"). We supposedly have a free society, so why should I care that the person that lives next door to me marries the other person next door to me, no matter the gender of the pair? I may just be too young for the world of political bs, but the reasons escape me, short of those who apparently believe that we haven't a separation of church and state.
Andrew, The First Pickle
"If I can see it, it needs more power:
If I can hear it, it's wasting power and needs re-engineering."

Wow. This is really a mess. A quagmire of arguments, counter-arguments, counter-to-the-counter-arguments, and so on. I think the way I try to view it is by looking at smoking and related ideas.
Smoking is not illegal, or at least as long as you smoke the right stuff. But inhibitions have been placed on the usage of Tobacco. Namely are those which limit the locations where one may smoke. This has come about because of the discovery of how serious second-hand smoke could be. So now smokers are limited in the areas where they may smoke, and that is a good thing for me, because I dont want to be around it.
But do the Smokers cry about having rules and regulations regarding their dirty habit? Not to my ear, at the very least. I personally think that homesexuality has a dirty and degrading quality about it. Much like the filthy layers of tar often accumulated from habitual smoking. I also believe that this filth can be rubbed off on those around the "gay" couple.
So personally, I have nothing against smoking or homosexuality. I think that they are both filthy and vile things, which result in serious consequences, the former here on earth, and the latter in the next life. And as much as I hate people do dumb things, I really dont want it to happen around me. So smoke in your car on your way to work, and stay in your closet with your "partner" for all of our sakes, because I for one really don't want to, or need to see it.
And there are some of my own personal ramblings. I hope you enjoyed it at the very least. Thanks.
I see a very big difference here. Second-hand smoke has serious effects on nearby people. However, there is no "second-hand homosexuality." You don't accrue any negative effects of homosexuality merely by being around a gay person who is, for lack of a better way to put this, being gay. If you are sitting next to a gay couple in a restaurant and they kiss, there are no more negative effects to you than if they were a straight couple.

And, btw, there are actually very few laws against "dumb things," so banning gay marriage won't stop people from being dumb around you. (I don't see how gay marriage is dumb, but that's another argument)

I personally think that homesexuality has a dirty and degrading quality about it. Much like the filthy layers of tar often accumulated from habitual smoking. I also believe that this filth can be rubbed off on those around the "gay" couple.

I personally think that bigotry has a dirty and degrading quality about it. Much like the filthy layers of tar often accumulated from habitual smoking. I also believe that this filth can be rubbed off on those around the bigot.

So personally, I have nothing against smoking or homosexuality. I think that they are both filthy and vile things, which result in serious consequences, the former here on earth, and the latter in the next life. And as much as I hate people do dumb things, I really dont want it to happen around me. So smoke in your car on your way to work, and stay in your closet with your "partner" for all of our sakes, because I for one really don't want to, or need to see it.

I have nothing against bigotry. I think that it is a filthy and vile thing, which results in serious consequences, the former here on earth, and the latter in the next life. And as much as I hate people who do dumb things, I really don't want it to happen around me. So please be a bigot in your own home, and don't pollute the internet with your filth, for all our sakes, because I for one really don't want to, or need to see it.

And there are some of my own personal ramblings. I hope you enjoyed it at the very least. Thanks.

See how it can *very* easily, be turned around on you. Maybe you need to keep your ramblings to yourself unless they make some sort of logical sense - in the real world, not just in your little imaginary world.

I just had to throw this out to stir up some controversy..

To use God as a reason to deny people life and liberty, or any form of legal right, is sectarian oppression. That's never been a good thing.

And what is it if God supports the life and liberty? Does that make it any different in point that it is a religious belief making a political statement and trying to get rules as law?

Tell me, would you support the BNP?

Perhaps the KKK?

Why not?

I can answer this. Neo would support them, as long as they were in the majority and he agreed with them. Then, they would be allowed to make whatever laws they wanted.

And what is it if God supports the life and liberty? Does that make it any different in point that it is a religious belief making a political statement and trying to get rules as law?

God is not the only reason to support life and liberty.

Now, if it is a particular person's only reason, that is *extremely* sad, but their own perogative.

Ok, so let me start this off by saying, I am bisexual and wiccan. Therefore I can piss off just about anyone at anytime by stating my religion or sexual orientation. Many gays don't like me 'cause being bi "isn't the same" I can choose who I love, well NO I CAN'T. Just like everyone else, I can't just make myself fall out of love, my life would be a lot easier if I could. Like I would still be welcome at Thanksgiving and Christmas at my family home. The straights want to send me to hell, which I don't believe in just because I happen to date, and sleep with, and LOVE women. I make these generalizations knowing that not every person in these groups feel the way I said...

To answer the original question. The act of being gay is the sin. Have any sort of intercourse that cannot lead to reproduction is a sin. Hence, no birthcontrol, materbation, anal or oral sex. I do not remember what verses tells Christians this, but thats the gist of the Holy Sex Talk.

My problem is that my best friend is not allowed to marry the person she has been dating for 10 YEARS! She is not allowed to visit said significant other in the hospital, which has happened many times, she lives with her S.O., but does not recieve that same federal benefits a man and a women can recieve through "common law" marriages in many states. This is complete bullshit! The reason gay marriage laws cannot pass is fundy Christians will not keep THEIR religion out of OUR governement. They think that their way is the only way and fuck everyone doesn't agree, or don't fuck them, it could be a sin!

There's my rant for the day! Thanks for listening.

I just had to throw this out to stir up some controversy..



And what is it if God supports the life and liberty? Does that make it any different in point that it is a religious belief making a political statement and trying to get rules as law?
Normally if a law supports life and/or liberty, there are more compelling reasons than just religion. It's not bad if you can find religious morals in a law, so long as there are other reasons for the law than just the religious ones.

I am bisexual and wiccan. Therefore I can piss off just about anyone at anytime by stating my religion or sexual orientation.

Beat ya' to it here, go back a few pages. I'm a polytheist, and quite blatantly explains how my religion (In particular one of the goddesses, the one who controls such stuff) is all for Gay Marriage. (And I'm bi to if any of you really give a damn, not like it makes any difference, I'm with a girl now and have been the past 2.5 years).
So yea.. you're a little late with the shock factor.

Unfortunatly, now this is getting confusing. All reasoning can be tied to a religious belief of some sort (Atheism is considered a religion for this).

Wow. This is really a mess. A quagmire of arguments, counter-arguments, counter-to-the-counter-arguments, and so on. I think the way I try to view it is by looking at smoking and related ideas.
Smoking is not illegal, or at least as long as you smoke the right stuff. But inhibitions have been placed on the usage of Tobacco. Namely are those which limit the locations where one may smoke. This has come about because of the discovery of how serious second-hand smoke could be. So now smokers are limited in the areas where they may smoke, and that is a good thing for me, because I dont want to be around it.
But do the Smokers cry about having rules and regulations regarding their dirty habit? Not to my ear, at the very least. I personally think that homesexuality has a dirty and degrading quality about it. Much like the filthy layers of tar often accumulated from habitual smoking. I also believe that this filth can be rubbed off on those around the "gay" couple.
So personally, I have nothing against smoking or homosexuality. I think that they are both filthy and vile things, which result in serious consequences, the former here on earth, and the latter in the next life. And as much as I hate people do dumb things, I really dont want it to happen around me. So smoke in your car on your way to work, and stay in your closet with your "partner" for all of our sakes, because I for one really don't want to, or need to see it.
And there are some of my own personal ramblings. I hope you enjoyed it at the very least. Thanks.

Nice troll. You've elicited at least one point from getting a response at all. However, your reasoning is fatally flawed in one place, and I'll respond because some people actually think like this. See, it's your belief that you can "catch the gay" or somesuch. Basically your opinion. As a decider on whether to deny a group of people the same rights as the rest of society, opinion doesn't mean much. Am I going to be breathing second hand gay from the guy next to me? Will I start lisping after prolonged exposure to poofterness? Will I catch terminal fashion sense at 40?

Since homosexuality is not infectious (unless you're that way inclined), and since homosexuality doesn't harm anyone anyway, you have no recourse for denying gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples. You don't have the right to not be offended, otherwise half of you would be up against the wall for pissing me off.

Have fun.

Many gays don't like me 'cause being bi "isn't the same"

o.O

That happens?

I guess that's a bit like a black racist. You'd think people would learn.

Personally speaking though, I tend to term "gay" as anything that isn't heterosexual, and use "bisexual" or "homosexual" to be more precise. Probably bad habit, but there you go. I hope I won't get kicked out of any gay bars for it.

Why isn't a "legal union" enough for gay couples? So long as it protects the same rights? At least it would not infringe upon the issue of "marriage" which is, for most, a religious issue?

For me, marriage is not only about love, companionship and rights, though all of those are important aspects of it. For me, marriage is about rearing children and raising a family. For me and many others, marriage is a sacred covenant, not a secular one. For me and many others, the re-definition of "marriage" infringes upon our religion in the same manner that being forced to accept gay priests would. For me and many others, the further "humanism" of our society is detrimental to the moral values that we hold dear, and re-defining marriage to mean a "legal partnership between two people" is a direct attack on those values. For me and many others, we believe that children (which are an integral aspect of marriage) have a right to be raised by both a mother and a father, for they both contribute in different ways to the growth and development of that child.

I am all for equal legal protections, and I would support the legal union of homosexual couples. But why must you insist on re-defining something that is sacred to us, the religious people? Can't you see how important this concept of traditional family is to us, and how hard we are willing to fight for these values?

I have said it before, if the majority people vote to legalize gay marriage, I will support the majority will. I will not hold picket signs in front of courthouses, or demonstrate at gay pride parade. Until then, I will continue to express my value that marriage is a sacred, not secular, institution...that it is a religious covenant between man, woman and God, and that it's primary function is for the rearing of children.

I have a right to this view, just as much as you have a right to yours. And I will not try to silence your right. I may debate you, but I honor your right to speak out your values whether I agree with them or not. But I will tell you this much, if it was a civil union you were seeking, you'd have my vote in a second...it's more than semantics, it's symbolism...and the symbolism of marriage is so much more than companionship and legal rights.

Why isn't a "legal union" enough for gay couples? So long as it protects the same rights? At least it would not infringe upon the issue of "marriage" which is, for most, a religious issue?

For me, marriage is not only about love, companionship and rights, though all of those are important aspects of it. For me, marriage is about rearing children and raising a family. For me and many others, marriage is a sacred covenant, not a secular one. For me and many others, the re-definition of "marriage" infringes upon our religion in the same manner that being forced to accept gay priests would. For me and many others, the further "humanism" of our society is detrimental to the moral values that we hold dear, and re-defining marriage to mean a "legal partnership between two people" is a direct attack on those values. For me and many others, we believe that children (which are an integral aspect of marriage) have a right to be raised by both a mother and a father, for they both contribute in different ways to the growth and development of that child.

I am all for equal legal protections, and I would support the legal union of homosexual couples. But why must you insist on re-defining something that is sacred to us, the religious people? Can't you see how important this concept of traditional is to us, and how hard we are willing to fight for these values?

I have said it before, if the majority people vote to legalize gay marriage, I will support the majority will. I will not hold picket signs in front of courthouses, or demonstrate at gay pride parade. Until then, I will continue to express my value that marriage is a sacred, not secular, institution...that it is a religious covenant between man, woman and God, and that it's primary function is for the rearing of children.

I have a right to this view, just as much as you have a right to yours. And I will not try to silence your right. I may debate you, but I honor your right to speak out your values whether I agree with them or not. But I will tell you this much, if it was a civil union you were seeking, you'd have my vote in a second...it's more than semantics, it's symbolism...and the symbolism of marriage is so much more than companionship and legal rights.


So, by not supporting marriage for gay people,under the instance that your morales dictate otherwise, as does your religion. Where does my right to pracrise my religion, and to marry two people of the same sex, under the legal definition of marriage, since my religion does not descriminate upon the gender of the two parties.
I say there, is not your vey plea against descrimination of your beliefs, an act of descrimination of my beliefs?

Why isn't a "legal union" enough for gay couples? So long as it protects the same rights? At least it would not infringe upon the issue of "marriage" which is, for most, a religious issue?

That is all they are asking for. The legal institution of marriage is wholey separate from the religious institution. If you are bothered by the idea of a legal institution of marriage, then by all means lobby to have it called "legal union" or "civil union" or whatever. However, whatever protections the government provides must be provided equally. This is true whether the government calls it marriage, civil unions, or bumblespiffers.

For me, marriage is not only about love, companionship and rights, though all of those are important aspects of it. For me, marriage is about rearing children and raising a family. For me and many others, marriage is a sacred covenant, not a secular one.

Which has not changed with the *fact* that secular marriage is an institution in this country, nor should it. Your view of marriage is just that, your view of marriage.

For me and many others, the re-definition of "marriage" infringes upon our religion in the same manner that being forced to accept gay priests would.

No, it doesn't. At all. It would only infringe upon your religion if your religion were forced to recognize it as marriage. However, your religion is not being forced to recognize it as marriage, any more than you are being forced to accept gay priests, or gay members, or members who think that the sky is orange.

For me and many others, the further "humanism" of our society is detrimental to the moral values that we hold dear, and re-defining marriage to mean a "legal partnership between two people" is a direct attack on those values.

You ignore the fact that legal marriage already is a "legal partnership between two people." No one is trying to "redefine" your *religious* idea of marriage.

For me and many others, we believe that children (which are an integral aspect of marriage) have a right to be raised by both a mother and a father, for they both contribute in different ways to the growth and development of that child.

And you should raise your children in this manner.

However, many of us think that a single male and a single female role model are *never* enough to completely raise a child. A single parent or two same-gender parents can provide role models of *both* genders to the child. And *any* loving home is better for a child than being shipped between orphanages or foster homes.

I am all for equal legal protections, and I would support the legal union of homosexual couples. But why must you insist on re-defining something that is sacred to us, the religious people? Can't you see how important this concept of traditional is to us, and how hard we are willing to fight for these values?

If you support the legal union of homosexual couples, then you support exactly what they are asking for.

No one is trying to redefine anything that is sacred to you, as your view of marriage (and your church's definition) would not be changed in the least.

I have said it before, if the majority people vote to legalize gay marriage, I will support the majority will.

Tyranny of the majority. What if the majority voted to ban Mormonism, would you support that as well? I think not.

Until then, I will continue to express my value that marriage is a sacred, not secular, institution...

If marriage is only a sacred, and not a secular institution to you - Then why do you care how the secular institution defined by civil marriage is handled?

that it is a religious covenant between man, woman and God, and that it's primary function is for the rearing of children.

Again, no one is trying to change this definition.

I have a right to this view, just as much as you have a right to yours.

Of course you do, although you seem to have confused civil marriage, which is completely separate from any church, with religious marriage. It is only civil marriage which must be granted equally. Any church can refuse religious marriage to someone on the grounds that they do not see it as marriage.

And I will not try to silence your right. I may debate you, but I honor your right to speak out your values whether I agree with them or not. But I will tell you this much, if it was a civil union you were seeking, you'd have my vote in a second...it's more than semantics, it's symbolism...and the symbolism of marriage is so much more than companionship and legal rights.

If you truly have a problem with a secular institution being called marriage, then you should be lobbying for the government to stop using the word marriage and only grant civil unions. The government only grants civil marriage - and does not perform your religious marriage or the symbolism that you wish to uphold. If your problem truly is with the idea of a secular institution calling itself marriage - then you should be against *ALL* secular institutions using that name.

Right...*takes deep breath*

First Point....

Neo-C, I asked you some questions on previous posts which you have thus far declined to answer. You'll find them on page 296 (4430) and page 301 (4513). I would appreciate answers to the questions I raised and I look forward to reading them later.

Second Point....

So, majority rules huh? If you're in a minority you should have no protection because of what reason exactly? I'm GAY, I'm also a human being, does that not mean I have a right to be treated just the same as everybody else? Oh no, I forgot MAJORITY rule.... in that case, well, you may as well take me out and shoot me now because not only am I in a minority, but I'm in the minority OF a minority. Not only am I gay, but I have a disability as well. Does that mean that other gay people can oppress me, because they are a majority?

My goodness, I feel sorry for the Black, Lesbian, Disabled, Welsh, Wiccan, Single Parent - Everybody must be in the majority over the poor dear lady (No offence intended to any of the aforementioned groups).

Tell you what, why don't we just scrap all those laws that protect us minorities. You know the ones, the ones that say you can't discriminate on grounds of Race, Gender, Religion, Disability, Sexual Orientation and so on. That way the company which fired me last week because of my disability would be fine, because they are the majority, rather than having to go through all that messy business of industrial tribunals and court cases.

I repeat, Neo-C, I'm a human being - just the same as you are "If you prick me, do I not bleed?" (Stop sniggering at the back, you know what I mean :p ). In fact, you know what, I better than you at some things and worse at others. You want to put it to the test? I have an IQ of around 145-150, I read and write music/lyrics/poetry and I play around 9 musical instruments. Saying that, I can't draw for toffee and can break virtually anything with more than one moving part. What do you do?

I have no partner at the moment, never have (looks for sympathy..doesn't get it :( ), but I do have a few very close friends. Most of them straight but a couple are Bi. These people mean the world to me, I love them dearly and would die for any of them if the need arose. All of them know how I feel about them, including the fact that in some cases I fancy the pants of them, and all of them (including the straight ones who know that) still like me, care about me and are friends with me. Do YOU have any friends like that??

Third Point....

Apologies made on behalf of any UK types here to any US types there for mangling, misreading, misinterpreting, misunderstanding and otherwise misconstruing the Constitution of the USA. I know how important it is to some (all?) of you guys and gals. I don't claim to know it or understand it, nor should anybody else unless they REALLY know what they are talking about.

Fourth (and final) Point....

*Throws down the gauntlet to Neo-C*
Right matey, I have a challenge for you. You say you have no problem with gay people, just with the sex act itself. Ok, prove it....I'll take you out to a Gay Nightclub in England.....

In return you can call me for anything deemed of equal value. To judge what that should be, well, I believe the good people on this forum are eminently capable of helping. Of course, my 'return favour' to you should be chosen by yourself and not them, but they can decide if its an equal trade.

Deal?

*realises how long post is....looks highly embarrassed....shuts up quickly*