NationStates Jolt Archive

This (http://www.12reasons.com) list basically takes each Republican attack on Gay marriage and individually strikes them down.

You have to scroll down a little bit.

(Sarcasm Alert)

But who would be 'mummy'?
Would they take turns?

But who would be 'mummy'?
Would they take turns?

I'm not even going to bother...

That's great! So stupid and so funny! I love sarcasm!

That's great! So stupid and so funny! I love sarcasm!
Yeah sarcasm is great

The tall people one could set off idiots

try
"being around gay people will make you gay, like hanging around schizophrenic people makes you schizophrenic"

Wow, that's great!

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

Heh. :D

This is the only true ant-gay "marriage" website:
http://www.defenseofmarriagecoalition.org/

Not a good "republican" view on gay "marriage".

This is the real republican view on gay "marriage":
http://www.defenseofmarriagecoalition.org/
Surely the best way to defend marriage would be to ban divorce?

Surely the best way to defend marriage would be to ban divorce?

and what would happen then? i doubt it will make people think it over any more, as people generally dont get married if they expect to divorce. it will probably just create a lot more unhappy marriages and affairs.

heheheheh

good points can be made with sarcasm

Six Reich- instead of a link, please tell us why gay marriage = bad

I can think of a far greater threat to marriage than allowing same sex couples to take advantage of them: Having the government recognise civil unions, both same- and opposite-sex as the legally binding structure with benefits and responsibilities.

And I've heard of "real" Republicans who are in favour of gay marriage and rights in general, so to say any particular point of view is the "real Republican" one is a bit of a reach.

And I've heard of "real" Republicans who are in favour of gay marriage and rights in general, so to say any particular point of view is the "real Republican" one is a bit of a reach.


Plus that site claims to be bi-partisan

heheheheh

good points can be made with sarcasm

Six Reich- instead of a link, please tell us why gay marriage = bad



Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Most of the people I know opposed to gay marriage are opposed to it for religious reasons, citing that the sanctity of marriage as described biblically depends on the participants being a man and a woman.

The easy solution, in my (completely unoriginal) opinion, would be to simply seperate the terms "marriage" and "union," making "marriage" a purely religious term with no legal implications whatsoever, and "union" (civil or otherwise, or whatever you want to call it) a term to describe the legal/financial implications of marrying someone. Everyone gets to maintain their rights under the constitution, and the only people who really lose are the Christian homosexuals, who have to continue to struggle to find a balance between their sexuality and their faith.

(I don't mean to imply that all Christians are against gay marriage, but many are, and the attitude tends to be enforced by church authority)

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
No I didn't.

Yeah sarcasm is great
as is enthusiasm, daria

Much thanks for posting that-- I hadn't read it yet. Sadly, I've had to argue with a few of those stupid reasons before. Maybe I'll just hand out a copy of the list next time I hear anyone say something that stupid.

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.


So, if yer being serious, that means that all people in the US should abide by Christian beliefs? Why? What if they don't believe in God? Or your personal idea of God that is.

Why should you have the right to force your religious beliefs on those who do not believe in them?

So, if yer being serious, that means that all people in the US should abide by Christian beliefs? Why? What if they don't believe in God? Or your personal idea of God that is.

Why should you have the right to force your religious beliefs on those who do not believe in them?

Exactly.

I don't normally respond to anything in here, as it seems to be leaning way too far to the liberal side for me, but let me tell you where most of the Republican ideas come from when it comes to gay marriage.

Christianity...

Plain and simple. Christianity says not to have sex with the same gender. Republicans come up with excuses for it because they don't want to admit the true reason, which is that the Bible says it's wrong. It's not because of marriage benefits, or a child's psychology being impacted, it's just the fact that Republicans believe in Christianity, and don't think it's right.

That being said, I don't see why most of them support Christianity. As many of them (All politicians for that matter.) have broken many of the Ten Commandments. It certainly saddens (And shames) me to see conservative politicians fight so hard for one thing, yet go back and do things many homosexuals would never think of doing.

Just my two cents. So everyone stop coming up with these stupid ideas of how the conservative minds think. Conservatives aren't Nazi's, they aren't bent on world domination or anything like that. When liberals go off and yell names at Republicans, it really makes them sound stupid themselves. I know they're smarter than conservatives, they have to be. Unfortunately it seems as though most of them would rather lower themselves to a narrow-mindset, than to think about the big picture, and put such trivial name-calling aside.

Now, if you don't agree with anything I've said here, then there should be a wall nearby, it'd probably give you more attention...

Name-calling? *looks around* :confused:

I don't normally respond to anything in here, as it seems to be leaning way too far to the liberal side for me, but let me tell you where most of the Republican ideas come from when it comes to gay marriage.

Christianity...

Plain and simple. Christianity says not to have sex with the same gender. Republicans come up with excuses for it because they don't want to admit the true reason, which is that the Bible says it's wrong. It's not because of marriage benefits, or a child's psychology being impacted, it's just the fact that Republicans believe in Christianity, and don't think it's right.

That being said, I don't see why most of them support Christianity. As many of them (All politicians for that matter.) have broken many of the Ten Commandments. It certainly saddens (And shames) me to see conservative politicians fight so hard for one thing, yet go back and do things many homosexuals would never think of doing.

Not all Christians/Conservatives are Republicans, and vice-versa. For the most part, I suspect the Republican party capitalized on the gay marriage issue to polarize the Christian vote: by highlighting ethical issues like gay marriage and stem cell research, they effectively drew attention away from the economic disaster that was Bush's first term, allowing him to get re-elected.

I was wondering about that too

Sarcasm sucks, damnit! And you can all go to hell!

Not a good "republican" view on gay "marriage".

This is the real republican view on gay "marriage":
http://www.defenseofmarriagecoalition.org/
Twits.
That is not a "good" anything view on it. BTW, there are republicans that have no problem with gay marraige.

Sarcasm sucks, damnit! And you can all go to hell!

I'm sorry I upset you. :rolleyes:

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

That "argument" would only be valid in a theocracy.

I don't believe in God, but if I did, somehow I wouldn't picture him as a bigot...

I don't believe in God, but if I did, somehow I wouldn't picture him as a bigot...

I've wondered that too. It does seem a little odd, hmm?

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

prove it

Note : this is coming from a catholic

Sarcasm sucks, damnit! And you can all go to hell!

aww does someone not agree?

prove it

Note : this is coming from a catholic

It always warms my heart to see Christians that understand that not everybody else is Christian.

hanging...gay...hanging...tall, blah blah blah

I can see that if someone hangs out with a tall person it will make them envious to be tall, so i can see the analogy(sp).

It always warms my heart to see Christians that understand that not everybody else is Christian.


Not to mention understanding, for example, that recorded history includes many instances the institution of marriage in cultures that did not have the concept of the Christian God. Case in point, the Roman and Greek Empires both document marriages, and frankly neither had sweet fuck-all to do with the judaic notion of a single creator.


God "created" marriage? Frankly, at best all that happened was that some Pope at some point got a bright fucking idea and ran down to ye olde patente office to tke out some specious fucking copyright on a concept every other culture just took for granted. Shit like that still happens to other people's discoveries.

As to his "sanctifying" it, well that only relates to the religious definition of marriage, which has sweet fuck-all to do with the civil or legal definitions thereof.

I've wondered that too. It does seem a little odd, hmm?

No.

The Holy Empire of Seagrove does not look kindly upon faggots attempting illegitimate "marriage". Actually, people who are found out to be AIDSmongerers are quarantined and executed so they can't spread disease and rape children.

Christianity says not to have sex with the same gender. Republicans come up with excuses for it because they don't want to admit the true reason, which is that the Bible says it's wrong.

The best bit about that is that, if you have a bit of a look at where that rule is, it only applies to Judaism - like the bit against shellfish, or wearing clothes made of more than one fibre.

The Holy Empire of Seagrove does not look kindly upon faggots attempting illegitimate "marriage". Actually, people who are found out to be AIDSmongerers are quarantined and executed so they can't spread disease and rape children.

Luckily the remaining straights will do that for you. And since there's more straights than gays, you're set.

The Holy Empire of Seagrove does not look kindly upon faggots attempting illegitimate "marriage". Actually, people who are found out to be AIDSmongerers are quarantined and executed so they can't spread disease and rape children.

I like you. You're silly. :)

This rocks! So funny, and so true too. The arguments against gay marrage are so dumb.

It always warms my heart to see Christians that understand that not everybody else is Christian.

I'm glad i came warm someones heart :)
My point is christian ethics should not affect law

God "created" marriage? Frankly, at best all that happened was that some Pope at some point got a bright fucking idea and ran down to ye olde patente office to tke out some specious fucking copyright on a concept every other culture just took for granted. Shit like that still happens to other people's discoveries.

Kinda. The church gained control over marriage because most other folk couldn't read or write; that's why early medieval historians are pretty much all christian, too. Even so, the Carolingians issued two different rounds of non-religious marriage laws.

Luckily the remaining straights will do that for you. And since there's more straights than gays, you're set.

You cease to exist as a person. You're an unperson!

Don't shut the world out. Let it in. Let it all in.

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

he's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules. you live by them and leave the rest of us in peace. america and the UK are not theocracys thank god/ goddess/ deity/ anthropomorphic personification/ goodness (delete as appropriate hee hee) and therefore why should we have to live by the rules of another persons religion. Youd object damn fast if you had to live by islamic, jewish, buddhist or pagan law.

I want to be able to marry my girlfriend at some point because I love her.

Don't shut the world out. Let it in. Let it all in.

Live and let live

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone had equal rights in this country rather than always trying to fight for them. Why is it that law makers seem to practice exclusion rather than inclusion. Haven't we learned anything from our past history. Blacks, other people of color, women...now gays. People of prejudice please do the rest of this great nation a favor and seek therapy for your problem.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone had equal rights in this country rather than always trying to fight for them. Why is it that law makers seem to practice exclusion rather than inclusion. Haven't we learned anything from our past history. Blacks, other people of color, women...now gays. People of prejudice please do the rest of this great nation a favor and seek therapy for your problem.


Being black and being female do not violate any biblical teachings, whereas homosexuality (in practice that is) does. Try to find a better comparison.

Ha *prints a copy off* I'm gonna stick this up on the school notice board and see what happens.

Being black and being female do not violate any biblical teachings, whereas homosexuality (in practice that is) does. Try to find a better comparison.

Actually if you're unmarried or havent had children yet, you are in fact violating biblical teachings and thusly will most likely be stoned to death

Actually if you're unmarried or havent had children yet, you are in fact violating biblical teachings and thusly will most likely be stoned to death

How much drugs will that take? :confused:

Being black and being female do not violate any biblical teachings, whereas homosexuality (in practice that is) does. Try to find a better comparison.

in point of fact the catholic church at one point taught that people who aren't white (people of colour is a daft term the only people with no colour are albino's and they come from all races) have no soul and due to the fact that pope's are infallible no one has ever taken this back... they just stopped teaching it. therefore the comparison is a perfectly valid one.

Being black and being female do not violate any biblical teachings, whereas homosexuality (in practice that is) does. Try to find a better comparison.

The statement is that marriage has stayed the same,"Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal."

who said it was a biblical teaching

Is "Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural." cited in the Bible?

in point of fact the catholic church at one point taught that people who aren't white (people of colour is a daft term the only people with no colour are albino's and they come from all races) have no soul and due to the fact that pope's are infallible no one has ever taken this back... they just stopped teaching it. therefore the comparison is a perfectly valid one.

I'm sorry but why are we even talking about the Bible?

Being black and being female do not violate any biblical teachings, whereas homosexuality (in practice that is) does. Try to find a better comparison.
According to the Bible, being black means you have no rights at all, because you should be a slave. Being female is sinful, dirty, and makes you unworthy of individual rights of your own. The Bible spends more time talking about how women shouldn't get rights than it does talking about how gay people are icky...particularly since the word "homosexual" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible.

Being black and being female do not violate any biblical teachings, whereas homosexuality (in practice that is) does. Try to find a better comparison.

Giving black people and women institutional rights is no less "sinful" than giving them to gay people. The book of Leviticus advocates slavery of foreign races while Peter was notorious for his misogyny.

Any road, I was under the impression that in a modern democracy, we had this thing called seperation of church and state so lets put your pseudo-theological non-arguments to one side. It is clear that the roots of your convictions lie in intolerance, hatred and prejudice towards a minority of people. You my friend are no better than any racist.

Not all Catholics are anti gay marriage, just thought I'd mention that.

And the Bible shouldn't be taken word for word. I mean it was written 2000 years ago for people 2000 years ago. I'm not saying its obsolete I'm saying that we live in a different world now and we need to adapt but the Bible can still teach us things.

People want to ignor the fact that God said, Man shall not lay with his own kind. Meaning it is of Satan and just plain repulsive. Most of the gay people I've ever met were perverts to the extreme!

My nation will not allow homosexuality and all who are found out will be asked to leave the Island immediately!

Child molesters will be beheaded immediately, why waste money on their sorry butts in prison

How much drugs will that take? :confused:

I take it you haven't read the Bible then? Stoned in biblical context means having a group of men surround you and throw rocks at you until you are dead. A very common punishment in the Old Testament

I take it you haven't read the Bible then? Stoned in biblical context means having a group of men surround you and throw rocks at you until you are dead. A very common punishment in the Old Testament

Wouldn't it make more sense to get one strong guy with a good arm(kind of an ancient Roger Clemens) to kill you with one good well aimed rock than getting the local rabble all riled up throwing rocks?

Hmm, even if homosexuality is along the same lines of drinking, smoking and adultery, these things are legal.

Originally posted by WhoyousayIam:
My nation will not allow homosexuality and all who are found out will be asked to the Island immediately!
However, if you are truly a Bible-abiding person (as your post implies), you understand that by doing so, you are violating the law of the Lord: a human has no right to pass judgement on anyone -- only the Lord can do so.

As for those aruging that religious beliefs cannot be a basis for law and order -- I disagree entirely. Although I consider myself a "researching" agnostic, I believe that a person's religion is a very common source of morals for that individual -- we all develop our beliefs and morals in different ways, and religion has been arguably the greatest shaper of moral guidelines in human history. To say that one cannot use religious beliefs as one's basis for a stance on an issue is ludicrous -- it is what they believe to be right. When one uses their beliefs and morals to an extreme, however, such as violating their own religious codes by judging homosexuals and calling them "disgusting", they have over-stepped their boundaries.

Originally posted by Jalfura:
Not all Christians/Conservatives are Republicans, and vice-versa. For the most part, I suspect the Republican party capitalized on the gay marriage issue to polarize the Christian vote: by highlighting ethical issues like gay marriage and stem cell research, they effectively drew attention away from the economic disaster that was Bush's first term, allowing him to get re-elected.
Amen (no pun intended).

The best bit about that is that, if you have a bit of a look at where that rule is, it only applies to Judaism - like the bit against shellfish, or wearing clothes made of more than one fibre.

Actually, I think the best bit is that, if you actually look at the Hebrew, there's a damn good chance that the passage is actually a prohibition against sleeping with a woman on her period.

Wouldn't it make more sense to get one strong guy with a good arm(kind of an ancient Roger Clemens) to kill you with one good well aimed rock than getting the local rabble all riled up throwing rocks?

First off you are talking about the Old Testament of the Bible here so there is only a limited amount of sense allowed. Further, what if they don't haveone really strong guy and besides there wasn't much to do back in those days so what sortof man wouldn't want to get together with a bunch of his friends and legally kill people?

First off you are talking about the Old Testament of the Bible here so there is only a limited amount of sense allowed. Further, what if they don't haveone really strong guy and besides there wasn't much to do back in those days so what sortof man wouldn't want to get together with a bunch of his friends and legally kill people?

Christians. :)

Not all Catholics are anti gay marriage, just thought I'd mention that.

And the Bible shouldn't be taken word for word. I mean it was written 2000 years ago for people 2000 years ago. I'm not saying its obsolete I'm saying that we live in a different world now and we need to adapt but the Bible can still teach us things.


time to start a thread where everyone can write their own new age bible passages

Being black and being female do not violate any biblical teachings, whereas homosexuality (in practice that is) does. Try to find a better comparison.

And yet the Bible was misused to justify discriminating against both blacks and women.... just as it is currently being misused to justify this discrimination.

You would think that people would learn not to misuse scripture. *shrug*

Christians. :)

Christians didn't exist in the Old Testament

Is "Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural." cited in the Bible?

Of course, even that statement doesn't make sense. Homosexuality occurs in other aspects of nature - in other creatures. Eyeglasses, polyester (at least synthetic types), and birth control (at least medicinally) are all uniquely human (as far as we know).

Six Reich- instead of a link, please tell us why gay marriage = bad

Another link:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

Another link:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01


poor reading comprehension?

Christians didn't exist in the Old Testament

Then what's all the arguing about? :confused:

(P.S. I'm playing dumb. Well, dumber than usual. :p)

Unless Christ said, "By the way, the old testament was right about gays. They're going to hell." Or told a gay person, "You're fucked." Or some other variant of this, then why should Christians care what the Old Testament said about homosexuality? They seem to have disregarded the rest of it. :p

Heres a good essay for Same-Sex Marriage:
Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives (http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm)

Then what's all the arguing about? :confused:

(P.S. I'm playing dumb. Well, dumber than usual. :p)

Unless Christ said, "By the way, the old testament was right about gays. They're going to hell." Or told a gay person, "You're fucked." Or some other variant of this, then why should Christians care what the Old Testament said about homosexuality? They seem to have disregarded the rest of it. :p

I didn't even know we were arguing.

However there are supposedly two passages in the New Testament that say being gay is bad, but, surprisingly enough, neither of them have anything to do with Jesus. One of them has to do with one of his followers in a letter and I don't know about the other one. But, yeah,for the most part those Christians against gay marriage just have their heads up their asses.

I didn't even know we were arguing.

However there are supposedly two passages in the New Testament that say being gay is bad, but, surprisingly enough, neither of them have anything to do with Jesus. One of them has to do with one of his followers in a letter and I don't know about the other one. But, yeah,for the most part those Christians against gay marriage just have their heads up their asses.

And at least one of them that is quoted all the time was very likely not referring to homosexuality in general, but to a common Roman practice in which men took young boys as prostitutes.

I didn't even know we were arguing.

However there are supposedly two passages in the New Testament that say being gay is bad, but, surprisingly enough, neither of them have anything to do with Jesus. One of them has to do with one of his followers in a letter and I don't know about the other one. But, yeah,for the most part those Christians against gay marriage just have their heads up their asses.

Oh, not us. I wasn't trying to infer that WE were arguing. Just the gay marriage argument in general.

And at least one of them that is quoted all the time was very likely not referring to homosexuality in general, but to a common Roman practice in which men took young boys as prostitutes.

I think that the reference was specifically to pederasty, which was very common especially in Greece (the word comes from Greek) and is obviously different from homosexuality.

Actually, I think the best bit is that, if you actually look at the Hebrew, there's a damn good chance that the passage is actually a prohibition against sleeping with a woman on her period.
To be perfectly accurate, it's a prohibition against sleeping on the same bed a menstruating woman is sleeping or has slept on. That's why Leviticus doesn't condemn homosexuality.

In the story of Sodom, the word "know" is not used as a euphemism. It literally means "know". Homosexuality isn't condemned there.

In Corinthians, the word commonly translated as "homosexuals", arsenkotai, is a word invented by Paul. Roughly translated, it means "male temple prostitutes". Some much for homosexuality being condemned by the Bible.

However, homosexuality does appear once in the Bible. The love between Jonathan and David is that instance, and it is represented in a positive light.

So, if yer being serious, that means that all people in the US should abide by Christian beliefs? Why? What if they don't believe in God? Or your personal idea of God that is.

Why should you have the right to force your religious beliefs on those who do not believe in them?


The question was asked about "gay" "marriage". You don't have to accept my answer.

I can think of a far greater threat to marriage than allowing same sex couples to take advantage of them: Having the government recognise civil unions, both same- and opposite-sex as the legally binding structure with benefits and responsibilities.

And I've heard of "real" Republicans who are in favour of gay marriage and rights in general, so to say any particular point of view is the "real Republican" one is a bit of a reach.


and how is it that these homosexual people are taking advantage of marraige? How is anothers bond going to affect yours? how can you judge people you dont know? how can you judge a concept you obviosly know very little of? answer me this; you seem to act very knowledgeable on this topic.

That "argument" would only be valid in a theocracy.

I don't believe in God, but if I did, somehow I wouldn't picture him as a bigot...


The "argument" is valid in God's creation, regardless of whether governments operate as a theocracy.

You may not care for the idea, but calling God a bigot doesn't seem like much of a debating strategy.

prove it

Note : this is coming from a catholic


A "catholic"? What does that mean?

The "argument" is valid in God's creation, regardless of whether governments operate as a theocracy.

You may not care for the idea, but calling God a bigot doesn't seem like much of a debating strategy.

Well, if God is a bigot, why worship Him?

Not to mention understanding, for example, that recorded history includes many instances the institution of marriage in cultures that did not have the concept of the Christian God. Case in point, the Roman and Greek Empires both document marriages, and frankly neither had sweet fuck-all to do with the judaic notion of a single creator.


God "created" marriage? Frankly, at best all that happened was that some Pope at some point got a bright fucking idea and ran down to ye olde patente office to tke out some specious fucking copyright on a concept every other culture just took for granted. Shit like that still happens to other people's discoveries.

As to his "sanctifying" it, well that only relates to the religious definition of marriage, which has sweet fuck-all to do with the civil or legal definitions thereof.


I've always found it interesting that non-believers tend to get angry and vulgar when the topic of Christianity has a bearing on the discussion in a thread.

I'm glad i came warm someones heart :)
My point is christian ethics should not affect law


Ahhhh, Grasshopper...so, whose ethics should affect law? If not a Christioan's, then whose? And, if not a Chritian's, then upon what basis rests the ethic?

Kinda. The church gained control over marriage because most other folk couldn't read or write; that's why early medieval historians are pretty much all christian, too. Even so, the Carolingians issued two different rounds of non-religious marriage laws.


The "church" is the body of believers (ie: the bride of Christ).

"Marriage" existed long before the resurrection of Christ.

he's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules. you live by them and leave the rest of us in peace. america and the UK are not theocracys thank god/ goddess/ deity/ anthropomorphic personification/ goodness (delete as appropriate hee hee) and therefore why should we have to live by the rules of another persons religion. Youd object damn fast if you had to live by islamic, jewish, buddhist or pagan law.

I want to be able to marry my girlfriend at some point because I love her.


I gave the thread author the benefit of the doubt as to whether he was trolling. So, I simply answered the question. Chill, and discuss.

Notice the responses -- sarcastic, vulgar, or angry. Not nice.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone had equal rights in this country rather than always trying to fight for them. Why is it that law makers seem to practice exclusion rather than inclusion. Haven't we learned anything from our past history. Blacks, other people of color, women...now gays. People of prejudice please do the rest of this great nation a favor and seek therapy for your problem.


Just because people who have a standard-based ethic concerning absolute right and wrong means that they need therapy for a "problem"?

Actually if you're unmarried or havent had children yet, you are in fact violating biblical teachings and thusly will most likely be stoned to death


huh?

in point of fact the catholic church at one point taught that people who aren't white (people of colour is a daft term the only people with no colour are albino's and they come from all races) have no soul and due to the fact that pope's are infallible no one has ever taken this back... they just stopped teaching it. therefore the comparison is a perfectly valid one.


You equate Roman Catholic tenets and practices to God's law clearly expressed in the Bible?

According to the Bible, being black means you have no rights at all, because you should be a slave. Being female is sinful, dirty, and makes you unworthy of individual rights of your own. The Bible spends more time talking about how women shouldn't get rights than it does talking about how gay people are icky...particularly since the word "homosexual" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible.


Just what Bible are you getting all this "stuff" from?

Christians didn't exist in the Old Testament


People of faith existed.

I didn't even know we were arguing.

However there are supposedly two passages in the New Testament that say being gay is bad, but, surprisingly enough, neither of them have anything to do with Jesus. One of them has to do with one of his followers in a letter and I don't know about the other one. But, yeah,for the most part those Christians against gay marriage just have their heads up their asses.


Christ's first miracle was at a wedding. Ya think it was two homosexuals getting hitched?

Well, if God is a bigot, why worship Him?


"If God"? If you accept that God exists, but you think He is a bigot, then aren't you on shakey ground?

"If God"? If you accept that God exists, but you think He is a bigot, then aren't you on shakey ground?
"If" God exists, but "if" he's a bigot, where's the sense in worshipping a bigot? A bigot isn't much of a Supremely Perfect Being, is he?

Christ's first miracle was at a wedding. Ya think it was two homosexuals getting hitched?
Two homosexuals probably would've been stoned. As would a man and woman of different race or religion. Lots of things were illegal/unacceptable back then that are perfectly accepted now. Like, say, having one's own religious beliefs, even if they differed from the popular religion/state religion.

and how is it that these homosexual people are taking advantage of marraige? How is anothers bond going to affect yours? how can you judge people you dont know? how can you judge a concept you obviosly know very little of? answer me this; you seem to act very knowledgeable on this topic.


I don't have to have committed murder to know that murder is wrong. I don't have to be a child molester to know that child molestationis wrong. I don't have to be a bigamist to know that bigamy is wrong. I don't have to be an arsonist to know that arson is wrong. And, I don't have to have spent an significant amount of time studying them to know that they are wrong.

It's quite simple -- either you believe in absolute right and wrong, based on the Bilbe, or you don't. Just because some people do doesn't mean that they are "judging" anyone. Conduct that doesn't meet the standard is wrong, not because I said so but because it doesn't meet the standard.

"If" God exists, but "if" he's a bigot, where's the sense in worshipping a bigot? A bigot isn't much of a Supremely Perfect Being, is he?


If God has standards that you don't accept, does that make God a bigot or does that make you, uhhh, in deep trouble?

"If God"? If you accept that God exists, but you think He is a bigot, then aren't you on shakey ground?

Not in the slightest. I accept God exists. But I think the only bigots are the ones running the churches.

If God has standards that you don't accept, does that make God a bigot or does that make you, uhhh, in deep trouble?
No, no, not at all. If God's standards are patently absurd, then I am not in any "deep trouble" by disagreeing with the equivalent of a petulant child or a bigot.

Not in the slightest. I accept God exists. But I think the only bigots are the ones running the churches.



I guess the question comes down to this: if a person (who claims to be born-again Christian) believes that the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman and teaches that homosexuality is a sexual sin, is that person a "bigot" according to your definition?

No, no, not at all. If God's standards are patently absurd, then I am not in any "deep trouble" by disagreeing with the equivalent of a petulant child or a bigot.


Ahh, well, once you declare that God's standards are absurd, then there isn't much I can say that you would consider persuasive.

I don't have to have committed murder to know that murder is wrong. I don't have to be a child molester to know that child molestationis wrong. I don't have to be a bigamist to know that bigamy is wrong. I don't have to be an arsonist to know that arson is wrong. And, I don't have to have spent an significant amount of time studying them to know that they are wrong.

It's quite simple -- either you believe in absolute right and wrong, based on the Bilbe, or you don't. Just because some people do doesn't mean that they are "judging" anyone. Conduct that doesn't meet the standard is wrong, not because I said so but because it doesn't meet the standard.

you know what all of those other crimes are. you dont know what homosexuality is. admit it, all you know is gay sex. you dont know about the relationship. thats all they/we want. i am straight, and proudly support gay marraige! you may call gay people perverted, but all that they are trying to do is live a happy life and be able to make ends meet just as easily as the next couple. that doesnt effect you. anyone being simply against gay-sex...mad about what they do behind closed doors. that sounds pretty perverted to me.

now lets actually talk about cherry picking. you say that the bible says that its wrong. if that is so, then why arent you fighting against divorce? what about people who have been raped marrying their rapers? how about, you recognize that gay-marraige doesnt effect you. you arent going to be hurt. right now, fighting against that is admitting that you believe not all people are equal...how unchristain of you?!?!?!?

God dont make junk.

I don't have to have committed murder to know that murder is wrong. I don't have to be a child molester to know that child molestationis wrong. I don't have to be a bigamist to know that bigamy is wrong. I don't have to be an arsonist to know that arson is wrong. And, I don't have to have spent an significant amount of time studying them to know that they are wrong.

It's quite simple -- either you believe in absolute right and wrong, based on the Bilbe, or you don't. Just because some people do doesn't mean that they are "judging" anyone. Conduct that doesn't meet the standard is wrong, not because I said so but because it doesn't meet the standard.
Let's accept your last paragraph, then, and talk about it in the greater context of the thread. What's the justification for applying it to a political context? Why is it alright for one person's religion to dictate the actions of other individuals? It's difficult to oppose the Taliban's treatment of women and be against political gay marriage (as it's an entirely different thing in your church than in the state).

Allowing gays to get marriage licenses doesn't infringe on the practice of your religion. Banning gay marriage with these criteria in mind violates the establishment clause of the first amendment (I won't even get into equal protection at this point).

Just what Bible are you getting all this "stuff" from?
The Bible condones and accepts slavery: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

The Bible supports stoning for practicing different religions, adultery, cursing the King, goring animals, and touching Mount Sinai:
http://www.free-minds.org/bible.htm

The Bible supports rape of conquered women: Judges 21: 10-24

The list goes on. Even though I believe in God, I recognize that the Bible was written at least in part by fallible humans guilty of some of the time's prejudices and horrific practices. It's time to stop taking it literally.

you know what all of those other crimes are. you dont know what homosexuality is. admit it, all you know is gay sex. you dont know about the relationship. thats all they/we want. i am straight, and proudly support gay marraige! you may call gay people perverted, but all that they are trying to do is live a happy life and be able to make ends meet just as easily as the next couple. that doesnt effect you. anyone being simply against gay-sex...mad about what they do behind closed doors. that sounds pretty perverted to me.

now lets actually talk about cherry picking. you say that the bible says that its wrong. if that is so, then why arent you fighting against divorce? what about people who have been raped marrying their rapers? how about, you recognize that gay-marraige doesnt effect you. you arent going to be hurt. right now, fighting against that is admitting that you believe not all people are equal...how unchristain of you?!?!?!?

God dont make junk.

The thread wasn't "Hey, what do you think about divorce?" It was about gay marriage. I gave my answer.

But, since you asked about divorce, I'll give my answer to that also: the Bible teaches that it is wrong to divorce, except for adultery. The marrying rapers question is just strange.

I think you misunderstand the issue: "sin" is about a breach in the relationship with God. Whether you believe that somebody's act is going to affect you is irrelevant to the issue of whether it violates God's law and is sin.

Not all conduct is "good". Defining the gay marriage issue in terminology that has an equal rights sound to it may very well convince some fok that opposing gay marriage is intolerant, but God simply doesn't tolerate sin.

You're not arguing against my standards, you're arguing against God's.

Originally posted by Deleuze: Allowing gays to get marriage licenses doesn't infringe on the practice of your religion. Banning gay marriage with these criteria in mind violates the establishment clause of the first amendment (I won't even get into equal protection at this point).

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

I disagree with your point, Deleuze. Religion has been the greatest influence on human morality throughout history -- millions, if not billions, of people gain their morals from their religious beliefs. Not allowing marriage for homosexuals is not dictating anyone's religion upon anyone else; rather, it is dictating other people's morals on others. To say that making laws influenced by religious morals is a violation of the first amendment is, in my opinion, a misintrepretation of it purpose. A better argument would be to say that one cannot impose his or her morals on other people, but that is an entirely different point.

The thread wasn't "Hey, what do you think about divorce?" It was about gay marriage. I gave my answer.

But, since you asked about divorce, I'll give my answer to that also: the Bible teaches that it is wrong to divorce, except for adultery. The marrying rapers question is just strange.

I think you misunderstand the issue: "sin" is about a breach in the relationship with God. Whether you believe that somebody's act is going to affect you is irrelevant to the issue of whether it violates God's law and is sin.

Not all conduct is "good". Defining the gay marriage issue in terminology that has an equal rights sound to it may very well convince some fok that opposing gay marriage is intolerant, but God simply doesn't tolerate sin.

You're not arguing against my standards, you're arguing against God's.

And of course YOU are the mouth of God! see this is what really pisses me off, Christians, or anyone else for that matter, putting words in God's mouth. You claim he says homosexuality is a sin when he created it. I say he called me just yesterday to say that people just as yourself should be tarred and feathered or stoned whichever they prefer. Neither of us can call God down to back up such a claim. However given that I doubt that God would say that something he made is s sin, I'm going to have to go with my visitation being more credible.

And of course YOU are the mouth of God! see this is what really pisses me off, Christians, or anyone else for that matter, putting words in God's mouth.
I have to agree with you, there. It annoys me that people would openly condemn others, acting like they are God themselves! Doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible about man not being able to pass judgement, but rather the Lord only having the righteous ability to do so...

The thread wasn't "Hey, what do you think about divorce?" It was about gay marriage. I gave my answer.

But, since you asked about divorce, I'll give my answer to that also: the Bible teaches that it is wrong to divorce, except for adultery. The marrying rapers question is just strange.

I think you misunderstand the issue: "sin" is about a breach in the relationship with God. Whether you believe that somebody's act is going to affect you is irrelevant to the issue of whether it violates God's law and is sin.

Not all conduct is "good". Defining the gay marriage issue in terminology that has an equal rights sound to it may very well convince some fok that opposing gay marriage is intolerant, but God simply doesn't tolerate sin.

You're not arguing against my standards, you're arguing against God's.


im am arguing against your standards. i am arguing the standards that you have interpreted from your God and am forcing upon myself.

by the way, i would just like to know a bit of who i am debating here. i am a teenaged guy, a student in a public high school. i would be interested in what your profession is, underemployed pirates, and a relatively close age range of yaself.

Let's accept your last paragraph, then, and talk about it in the greater context of the thread. What's the justification for applying it to a political context? Why is it alright for one person's religion to dictate the actions of other individuals? It's difficult to oppose the Taliban's treatment of women and be against political gay marriage (as it's an entirely different thing in your church than in the state).

Allowing gays to get marriage licenses doesn't infringe on the practice of your religion. Banning gay marriage with these criteria in mind violates the establishment clause of the first amendment (I won't even get into equal protection at this point).

I simply and succinctly answered the question posed in the thread. As is fairly typical in the NS forum, folk began responding with sarcasm, vulgarity, and anger. I will reply to questions people raise about why I think the way I do about the topic, but I'm not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I appreciate the toughtful tenor in your reply.

Do any of us have any sincerely held beliefs which we know to be false? Of course not. Do we think our standards of right and wrong would be adopted by society as a whole, most assuredly the vast majority of people would say "yes". So, it seems to me that we all can disagree yet have a rational discussion of the issues.

I believe that the founders could not possibly have foreseen that anyone would have pushed gay marriage as a constitutional right. If they were short-sighted in not foreseeing the perversion of society, then perhaps the Consitution should be amended to make it clear that gay marriage is repugnant to civilization as a whole.

The fad de jour of homosexuality being acceptable runs counter to millenia of civilizaitons. I'm not too worried about how long this fad will run its course, I'm just concerned about the consequences the sin will have on our culture (for what it is) and the lives of the people.

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

And what does your sky daddy have to do with the price of Nowegian fish in the winter?

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

I disagree with your point, Deleuze. Religion has been the greatest influence on human morality throughout history -- millions, if not billions, of people gain their morals from their religious beliefs. Not allowing marriage for homosexuals is not dictating anyone's religion upon anyone else; rather, it is dictating other people's morals on others. To say that making laws influenced by religious morals is a violation of the first amendment is, in my opinion, a misintrepretation of it purpose. A better argument would be to say that one cannot impose his or her morals on other people, but that is an entirely different point.
[QUOTE=Legal Information Institute at Cornell University: . The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state.[/QUOTE]
It's undeniable that some religions (and even many Christians) accept gay marriage as perfectly permissible. By passing a law banning gay marriage with religious justifications, a legislative body is preferring one religious interpretation to another, in addition to establishing a religious basis for government action. That pretty explicitly violates the establishment clause in its accepted interpretation.

Read the part I bolded carefully. Do you see where the fallacy is? For someone to accept those morals as correct, one has to accept the religion as being correct. Therefore, making laws based on religious morals presupposes the belief in that religion by the subjects of the laws - ignoring that people may not adhere to that belief while forcing them to live in a world dictated by it. That, to me, seems like forcing someone's religion on someone else.

To a degree, an imposition of moral belief is inevitable in government. What isn't inevitable is an imposition of religous morals - which is uniquely bad; all you need to do is look at fundamentalist states over history and see how dangerous and destructive they've been.

I simply and succinctly answered the question posed in the thread. As is fairly typical in the NS forum, folk began responding with sarcasm, vulgarity, and anger. I will reply to questions people raise about why I think the way I do about the topic, but I'm not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I appreciate the toughtful tenor in your reply.

Do any of us have any sincerely held beliefs which we know to be false? Of course not. Do we think our standards of right and wrong would be adopted by society as a whole, most assuredly the vast majority of people would say "yes". So, it seems to me that we all can disagree yet have a rational discussion of the issues.
Thanks. These forums, to me, are a way for people with different views to try to understand the other one better, and maybe even question their own viewpoint. Cursing the other person out probably doesn't help much with that.

I believe that the founders could not possibly have foreseen that anyone would have pushed gay marriage as a constitutional right. If they were short-sighted in not foreseeing the perversion of society, then perhaps the Consitution should be amended to make it clear that gay marriage is repugnant to civilization as a whole.
Founders' Intent is a ridiculous constitutional argument. You know why? Because the founders enshrined slavery into the Constitution. They didn't allow for women's suffrage. Founder's intent is an argument that basically says that society as it existed in 1787 should never change - what they thought then is always the best way a society should be run. If you're willing to defend slavery, then be my guest, and use a Founders' Intent argument.

The fad de jour of homosexuality being acceptable runs counter to millenia of civilizaitons. I'm not too worried about how long this fad will run its course, I'm just concerned about the consequences the sin will have on our culture (for what it is) and the lives of the people.
Pray tell how this "sin" will affect our culture. What quantifiable impact does homosexuality have on the way that everyone else wins?

You also dodged answering my point. Why is it justified to legislate your religious values onto other people? Futher, how can you ban gay marriage because "god abhors it" while at the same time condemning the Taliban for oppressing women? After all, they think they're carrying out God's will as well.

And of course YOU are the mouth of God! see this is what really pisses me off, Christians, or anyone else for that matter, putting words in God's mouth. You claim he says homosexuality is a sin when he created it. I say he called me just yesterday to say that people just as yourself should be tarred and feathered or stoned whichever they prefer. Neither of us can call God down to back up such a claim. However given that I doubt that God would say that something he made is s sin, I'm going to have to go with my visitation being more credible.


God didn't create sin. Sin is the result of man striving to do or to be outside of God's will, thus causing a breach in the relationship.

God wants us to live sanctified lives, to be holy, and to honor, worship, and golirify Him. Your declaration that God doesn't regard homosexuality as sin simply does not make it so.

*snip*

I believe that the founders could not possibly have foreseen that anyone would have pushed gay marriage as a constitutional right. If they were short-sighted in not foreseeing the perversion of society, then perhaps the Consitution should be amended to make it clear that gay marriage is repugnant to civilization as a whole.

The fad de jour of homosexuality being acceptable runs counter to millenia of civilizaitons. I'm not too worried about how long this fad will run its course, I'm just concerned about the consequences the sin will have on our culture (for what it is) and the lives of the people.

First off, don't you dare play the "Founding Fathers" card because that's bullshit, see SLAVERY. Secondly something that "runs counter to millenia of civilizaitons" like women's rights? Because that just speaks for itself

And what does your sky daddy have to do with the price of Nowegian fish in the winter?


Why do you believe that sarcasm will cause anyone to reconsider whether their belief is well-founded? I simply find it strange that NSers as a whole are so mean-spirited about the sincerely held beliefs of Christians, yet declare the Chrisitans to be the hypocrites and bigots...strange thinking indeed.

God didn't create sin. Sin is the result of man striving to do or to be outside of God's will, thus causing a breach in the relationship.

God wants us to live sanctified lives, to be holy, and to honor, worship, and golirify Him. Your declaration that God doesn't regard homosexuality as sin simply does not make it so.

Neither does you saying that he regards homosexuality as a sine mean that he regards it as such. Also, want proof that he created homosexuality? Look at the animals! (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm)

Why do you believe that sarcasm will cause anyone to reconsider whether their belief is well-founded? I simply find it strange that NSers as a whole are so mean-spirited about the sincerely held beliefs of Christians, yet declare the Chrisitans to be the hypocrites and bigots...strange thinking indeed.

This isn't mean-spirited sarcasm. It's humorous, and it makes a valid point.

*snip
Founders' Intent is a ridiculous constitutional argument. You know why? Because the founders enshrined slavery into the Constitution. They didn't allow for women's suffrage. Founder's intent is an argument that basically says that society as it existed in 1787 should never change - what they thought then is always the best way a society should be run. If you're willing to defend slavery, then be my guest, and use a Founders' Intent argument.


Pray tell how this "sin" will affect our culture. What quantifiable impact does homosexuality have on the way that everyone else wins?

You also dodged answering my point. Why is it justified to legislate your religious values onto other people? Futher, how can you ban gay marriage because "god abhors it" while at the same time condemning the Taliban for oppressing women? After all, they think they're carrying out God's will as well.

1. If you're having a discussion of the constitutionality of an issue, then the founders' intent certainly is "the" relevant issue and is not a ridiculous arguement. The "intent" of the drafter is precisely how cases are decided when the law is not absolutely clear in its text.

2. Why is it justified? Why not? If I can't legislate my values, why should you be able to legislate yours? Isn't that what legislation is -- the codification of values? Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but you still fight the fight.

3. I never said anything about the Taliban. Tell me what the issue is in clear and direct words (rather than in generalities), and I'll tell you what I think about it and how that squares with the BIble.

The Bible condones and accepts slavery: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

The Bible supports stoning for practicing different religions, adultery, cursing the King, goring animals, and touching Mount Sinai:
http://www.free-minds.org/bible.htm

The Bible supports rape of conquered women: Judges 21: 10-24

The list goes on. Even though I believe in God, I recognize that the Bible was written at least in part by fallible humans guilty of some of the time's prejudices and horrific practices. It's time to stop taking it literally.


So, you send me to links?

Judges 21 describes what the Israelites did -- it does not "support" the rape of conquered women.

Ok, so you don't want to take the Bible literally....what parts are you going to keep and why? Ar eyou only going to keep the parts that you like? Or, that make sense to you?

1. If you're having a discussion of the constitutionality of an issue, then the founders' intent certainly is "the" relevant issue and is not a ridiculous arguement. The "intent" of the drafter is precisely how cases are decided when the law is not absolutely clear in its text.

2. Why is it justified? Why not? If I can't legislate my values, why should you be able to legislate yours? Isn't that what legislation is -- the codification of values? Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but you still fight the fight.

3. I never said anything about the Taliban. Tell me what the issue is in clear and direct words (rather than in generalities), and I'll tell you what I think about it and how that squares with the BIble.

1.It is not the intent of the drafter, it is the interpretation of the reader which decides the meaning of a document. I'm really tired of people trying to blame their own bigoted ways on a group of people who lived a long time ago, most of whom were unsure as to the divinity of Jesus and who violated their own documens frequently. DoI->Slavery

2. Bigotry should never be legislated

3. You claim that God says homosexuality is a sin. The Taliban claims God says our way of life is a sin.

So, you send me to links?

Judges 21 describes what the Israelites did -- it does not "support" the rape of conquered women.

Ok, so you don't want to take the Bible literally....what parts are you going to keep and why? Ar eyou only going to keep the parts that you like? Or, that make sense to you?


what parts are you gonna throw out bud?


thank you to all of you fighting for gay-marraige, you are helping millions. you are helping mold a better tomarrow.

im am arguing against your standards. i am arguing the standards that you have interpreted from your God and am forcing upon myself.

by the way, i would just like to know a bit of who i am debating here. i am a teenaged guy, a student in a public high school. i would be interested in what your profession is, underemployed pirates, and a relatively close age range of yaself.


Once upon a time, I was a teenaged guy. I wasn't stupid then, just as you are not. The age range of persons discussing an issue is fairly irrelevant. In discussing ideas and trying to convince someone that they are not correct, I think what you should be considering is whether I have a basis for my beliefs and, if so, whether I'm misconstruing that source.

But, to answer your question: I am an attorney, and I am over 50 years of age.

So, you send me to links?

Judges 21 describes what the Israelites did -- it does not "support" the rape of conquered women.

Ok, so you don't want to take the Bible literally....what parts are you going to keep and why? Ar eyou only going to keep the parts that you like? Or, that make sense to you?

Shouldn't you be asking yourself these questions?

edit: spelling mistakes anger me

what parts are you gonna throw out bud?


thank you to all of you fighting for gay-marraige, you are helping millions. you are helping mold a better tomarrow.


huh?

1. If you're having a discussion of the constitutionality of an issue, then the founders' intent certainly is "the" relevant issue and is not a ridiculous arguement. The "intent" of the drafter is precisely how cases are decided when the law is not absolutely clear in its text.
Go back and read my argument again. If we go with exactly what people meant, rather than the spirit behind it, then we don't allow for any progress in society. None. Progress, as a whole, is good. Unless you want to defend slavery and oppression of women.

Further, the Framers intended that this country be one in which religion and politics were separate spheres. The Framers would not have liked laws justified solely by religion. Your intent argument probably goes more my way than yours.

2. Why is it justified? Why not? If I can't legislate my values, why should you be able to legislate yours? Isn't that what legislation is -- the codification of values? Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but you still fight the fight.
Not necessarily true. Allowing homosexual couples to get marriage licenses doesn't impose my values on you, because it doesn't affect you at all. It's not like I banned heterosexual marriage in the process. They get married, and leave you alone. I also am not forcing your church to allow gay people to get married. They still have a right to do that.

Additionally, religion is a uniquely bad justification, because it has no outside checks. Being able to assert things are God's will makes them infinitely more dangerous, particularly if you grant that there's only one correct religious viewpoint, because it's hard to argue with the orders of an all-powerful deity. You see how that can quickly lead to "divine right" monarchs.

3. I never said anything about the Taliban. Tell me what the issue is in clear and direct words (rather than in generalities), and I'll tell you what I think about it and how that squares with the BIble.
You propose banning homosexual marriage because you interpret the Bible to say it's a sin. The Taliban forced women to cover themselves up in public and made them second class citizens because they believed the Qu'ran told them to do that. You can't accept a religious justification for a political action as being just only for your religion. That's called hypocrisy.

According to the Bible, being black means you have no rights at all, because you should be a slave. Being female is sinful, dirty, and makes you unworthy of individual rights of your own. The Bible spends more time talking about how women shouldn't get rights than it does talking about how gay people are icky...particularly since the word "homosexual" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible.


It never says either of those things :rolleyes: . Try reading it then come back and talk.

and what would happen then? i doubt it will make people think it over any more, as people generally dont get married if they expect to divorce. it will probably just create a lot more unhappy marriages and affairs.


no not really.

if a person is considering divorce, then that marriage is bad already, and anyone willing to cheat on their partner, isnt into the union altogether anyway.

Giving black people and women institutional rights is no less "sinful" than giving them to gay people. The book of Leviticus advocates slavery of foreign races while Peter was notorious for his misogyny.

Any road, I was under the impression that in a modern democracy, we had this thing called seperation of church and state so lets put your pseudo-theological non-arguments to one side. It is clear that the roots of your convictions lie in intolerance, hatred and prejudice towards a minority of people. You my friend are no better than any racist.


I'm female and I have several black friends. Leviticus does not advocate slavery of other races, it does permit Israel to have slaves of other NATIONS (note, the word race does not mean nation) but they must treat them well...so well in fact, that they were pretty much just servants as opposed to slaves. The roots of my conviction lie in God's will, not in any of the things you mentioned...and you, my friend, are just an imbecile.

Go back and read my argument again. If we go with exactly what people meant, rather than the spirit behind it, then we don't allow for any progress in society. None. Progress, as a whole, is good. Unless you want to defend slavery and oppression of women.

Further, the Framers intended that this country be one in which religion and politics were separate spheres. The Framers would not have liked laws justified solely by religion. Your intent argument probably goes more my way than yours.


Not necessarily true. Allowing homosexual couples to get marriage licenses doesn't impose my values on you, because it doesn't affect you at all. It's not like I banned heterosexual marriage in the process. They get married, and leave you alone. I also am not forcing your church to allow gay people to get married. They still have a right to do that.

Additionally, religion is a uniquely bad justification, because it has no outside checks. Being able to assert things are God's will makes them infinitely more dangerous, particularly if you grant that there's only one correct religious viewpoint, because it's hard to argue with the orders of an all-powerful deity. You see how that can quickly lead to "divine right" monarchs.


You propose banning homosexual marriage because you interpret the Bible to say it's a sin. The Taliban forced women to cover themselves up in public and made them second class citizens because they believed the Qu'ran told them to do that. You can't accept a religious justification for a political action as being just only for your religion. That's called hypocrisy.


The quesition of intent dealt with the issue of the consitutionality of a ban on gay marriage. That's all.

Why is a religious basis for law wrong merely because it is based on religion? I think that's a bad arguement. If you can basis a law on what you think is "fair" and you don't agree thaqt what I think is "fair" because it is inapposite to what you think, then under your theory you would be hypocritical. That simply is bad reasoning.

Everything we legislate has a basis in something. We simply have competing belief systems.

Personally I dont care for either position in this debate.

First, if you cant find any other basis for your argument than the bible and its archaic perspective, then your not very convincing to the educated populace.

Second, I think that pushing for gay marriage when they did, the gay minority helped to give us 4 more years of Bush, and thats not good for anybody.

There are alot of important things happening in the world and I think gay marriage is a trivial concern at best. ;)

No I didn't.

LOL forgive us, Lord Mindset :cool:

So, you send me to links?
Yes. It'd be nice if you read them. They pretty clearly outline some of the bad stuff that the Bible condones. The slavery one is particularly nasty.

Judges 21 describes what the Israelites did -- it does not "support" the rape of conquered women.
I'm sorry, I got my rape cites wrong. Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Give those a read.

Ok, so you don't want to take the Bible literally....what parts are you going to keep and why? Ar eyou only going to keep the parts that you like? Or, that make sense to you?
Actually, I'm going to keep the whole Bible. I'll just interpret most passages differently than you do, and account for human error. Why? Because there are some things that just can't be squared with a just God? Do you really think God would condone rape? Or murder of innocents? Because in my religion, we think those things are bad. I presume the same is true of yours. Therefore, how can you possibly accept all of the Bible precisely as it is written?

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I simply answered the thread, and all kinds of attacks ensued.

I'm answering as many questions as I can from people who want to know how I can justify a particular point.

I disagree with you as to whether the Bible is archaic. And, the "educated populace" hasn't quite been statistically surveyed in this thread. And, frankly, the whims of the educated populace shift.

The statement is that marriage has stayed the same,"Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal."

who said it was a biblical teaching

Is "Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural." cited in the Bible?


Romans 1:18-32
Leviticus 18:22
1 Corinthians 6:9

The "church" is the body of believers (ie: the bride of Christ).

"Marriage" existed long before the resurrection of Christ.

It did indeed. Marriage as a social institution is, for example, well documented in Rome, where in the late republic virtually the only requirement for a valid marriage was that the couple live together.

My point is that during the early middle ages, the state's ability to pay attention to such things was greatly diminished; as, indeed, was the idea of the state. Since the clergy were literate, they came to take on the job of dealing with marriages (and histories and breweries and a few other things) because no-one else really could. Elements of religion crept in when the clergy decided that their God should take care of the married couple, and then over many, many years a high degree of association came to exist between the church and the institution of marriage, until now the fundies think that marriage was an invention of christians.

Marriage:

Which one? Legal or theological?

Simple.

If you want a religious service, and your church does not support gay marriage, FIND ANOTHER CHURCH!!!!!

If you want a civil service, then it's merely a contract. At which point, you simply do whatever the contract says and hold some little ceremony with family and friends involved.

My marriage, though a religious service for my exwife could be seen as nothing more than a civil commitment if you just looked at all the paperwork we went through.

My parents' remarriage was a civil service, but they had a pastor perform a ceremony for the sake of family and friends. Otherwise, it was just two people signing a contract with a few witnesses.

What's the difference? Nothing. Why does it matter? It doesn't. Remember, all marriages were first just a promise to each other. Nothing more.

And anyone who further comments on this subject, either for or against, is merely trying to cause grief.

Nuff said.

It's 12:30 am in Houston, and my bride of 34 years and I are flying out on vacation in 11 hours -- I need to pack and hit the sack.

But, if some of you are interested in the Biblical basis for any of my points, please send your concerns to me and I'll be sure to respond in about 12 days.

The quesition of intent dealt with the issue of the consitutionality of a ban on gay marriage. That's all.
Right. I'm challenging the use of that argument AT ALL. It's never a good argument - you've given zero reason why that argument could be applied in any other way than stopping all progress past 1787, ever. Further, you didn't respond to my counterinterpretation of intent - spirit rather than letter. The Founders never wrote about gay marriage. But they did write about religious toleration. They think it's good. This is an issue of tolerance. Thus, legalizing gay marriage is in keeping with the spirit of the Framers' Intent.

Why is a religious basis for law wrong merely because it is based on religion? I think that's a bad arguement. If you can basis a law on what you think is "fair" and you don't agree thaqt what I think is "fair" because it is inapposite to what you think, then under your theory you would be hypocritical. That simply is bad reasoning.
If you're belief had a justification outside religion, it would be fine. However, religion as a political factor is uniquely bad. Why? Let's study history - the Crusades, the Reformation Wars, the Pogroms, September 11th - these were all murderous political acts motivated by religion. Religion and politics just don't mix.

Religion also allows one to quash all dissent with a wave of one's finger. All you have to say is "You violate God's will, heretic!" and the Inquisition removes someone who dares to have a different opinion, and stones them to death. How is it possible to have a functioning democracy where the establishment has control over the ultimate justification which can't be checked by any outside sources?

Please, answer my Afghanistan analogy.

Everything we legislate has a basis in something. We simply have competing belief systems.
But there's no external basis for religion besides belief. Secular justifications are all backed up by facts.

I didn't even know we were arguing.

However there are supposedly two passages in the New Testament that say being gay is bad, but, surprisingly enough, neither of them have anything to do with Jesus. One of them has to do with one of his followers in a letter and I don't know about the other one. But, yeah,for the most part those Christians against gay marriage just have their heads up their asses.


Christ gave the apostles the authority to teach His will and, as they were possessed by the Holy Spirit, they were in a consistent state of divine inspiration. Thus, Peter and Paul have listed commandments which are to be followed.

Christ gave the apostles the authority to teach His will and, as they were possessed by the Holy Spirit, they were in a consistent state of divine inspiration. Thus, Peter and Paul have listed commandments which are to be followed.

But what if I don't believe in your invisible friend?
What if you were forced to live according to the rules I say mine laid down?

However, homosexuality does appear once in the Bible. The love between Jonathan and David is that instance, and it is represented in a positive light


No, their love for one another was platonic.

Christ gave the apostles the authority to teach His will and, as they were possessed by the Holy Spirit, they were in a consistent state of divine inspiration. Thus, Peter and Paul have listed commandments which are to be followed.

Where in the Bible does it say that they were in a "consistent state of divine inspiration"? And just what des that mean? Does hat mean they were gifted great wisdom by God? If so then see Solomon on how you can still mess up while being filled with God-imparted wisdom. Another thing, just because God trusts someone doesn't mean they will do the right thing, See Adam, Moses, etc.

Another thing, they believed that Christ's second coming would be very soon, whereas it wasn't.

"If" God exists, but "if" he's a bigot, where's the sense in worshipping a bigot? A bigot isn't much of a Supremely Perfect Being, is he?


God imposes rules on women. God imposes rules on men. Some of us don't like the rules and label God a bigot. Perhaps the Creator of the universe, possessing omniscience, is correct and we are the foolish ones? Quit imposing a human standard upon God. Our views of right and wrong have no bearing whatsoever. If you believe something is right when God states that it's wrong, then the problem is YOU. Learn submission to him and you will know one day know why he does things the way he does.


Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction

If you're belief had a justification outside religion, it would be fine. However, religion as a political factor is uniquely bad. Why? Let's study history - the Crusades, the Reformation Wars, the Pogroms, September 11th - these were all murderous political acts motivated by religion. Religion and politics just don't mix.

Actually, I would say that they were all murderous religous acts motivated by politics, but whatever.

Anything that makes it easier for gay couples to adopt and raise children is bad for society, period.

No, their love for one another was platonic.
WOAH! I don't think so.
http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/glbthistory/jonathan.htm
http://epistle.us/hbarticles/jondave1.html
http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/GayLove3.html
http://www.themillennialdispensation.org/kdajh.html


There are many more links, but that gets boring. Rather, I'll point you to the line where they imply that they have had sex:
This is 1 Samuel 17:41.
"Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever."
We all know that seed means two things in the Bible. Children and semen. I believe, in this passage, it's both, particularly because they have sworn in the name of the Lord, which could be interpreted as an early marriage covenant.

Anything that makes it easier for gay couples to adopt and raise children is bad for society, period.

Why?

*sigh*

Why do all you Bible-belters have to come to these threads and post arguments whose only support is a very old book that has been translated and interpreted various different ways throughout history while constantly having new material added by men claiming that it's the word of "god"?

Post a valid reason or get out. Not everyone shares the same beliefs as you so stop trying to present them as a simple matter of fact for us. If you want to do something good with your "knowledge" of the Bible, why don't you learn about the true history of your religion. Would it surprise you to know that the monotheistic religion from which all Christianity is derived was founded by an Egyptian man thousands of years ago who basically adapted it from his former polytheistic beliefs? How about the brutal history of the Vatican's murders of anyone opposing it's beliefs. Oh wait I know, the smear campaigns that the Vatican has launched against various groups throughout history causing our present day ideas of various words(such as Satan and Lucifer), symbols(like the pentagram), and people (homosexuals, women although not so present anymore) to be skewed from what the original meaning or importance of these things were to our sad views of them being evil and holding negative connotations.

Don't come to me quoting lines from one of man's greatest works of fiction. Come to me with facts.

Actually, I would say that they were all murderous religous acts motivated by politics, but whatever.
Even if I grant you that, they wouldn't be possible if it weren't for someone to mix religion and politics.

The Crusades: The Papacy wanted to drive away Muslim influence, and used a war to do so. Politics to accomplish a religious goal.

The Reformation Wars: European powers fought over what the correct interpretation of the Bible was, and whether Protestantism has a right to exist. This seems pretty clear cut.

The Pogroms: Jews were massacred because they were easy scapegoats. This probably goes more your way than mine, but it doesn't make much difference.

September 11th: An act of political violence undertaken because the Muslim faith was hijacked by a few extremists for their own twisted religious purposes.

Anything that makes it easier for gay couples to adopt and raise children is bad for society, period.
It'd be wonderful if you could give some reasons. Oh wait.

Why?

I'm going to go with because he is afraid of gay people and will therefore label them as either child molestors or unfit parents.

Where in the Bible does it say that they were in a "consistent state of divine inspiration"? And just what des that mean? Does hat mean they were gifted great wisdom by God? If so then see Solomon on how you can still mess up while being filled with God-imparted wisdom. Another thing, just because God trusts someone doesn't mean they will do the right thing, See Adam, Moses, etc.

Another thing, they believed that Christ's second coming would be very soon, whereas it wasn't.


God gave Solomon great wisdom, but Solomon was not touched by the Holy Spirit like the apostles. Also, Paul specifically dealt with the issue of Christ's second coming:


2 Timothy 3 1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

10But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

11Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

12Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I'm going to go with because he is afraid of gay people and will therefore label them as either child molestors or unfit parents.

I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, and hope he'll come up with an actual argument.
(unlike the dozen times I asked someone before)

God gave Solomon great wisdom, but Solomon was not touched by the Holy Spirit like the apostles. Also, Paul specifically dealt with the issue of Christ's second coming:


2 Timothy 3 1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

10But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

11Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

12Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

You know what I don't see on that list? Homosexuals

Edit: This disputes my assertion how?

The thread wasn't "Hey, what do you think about divorce?" It was about gay marriage. I gave my answer.

But, since you asked about divorce, I'll give my answer to that also: the Bible teaches that it is wrong to divorce, except for adultery. The marrying rapers question is just strange.

Incorrect; its a clear cut issue; no divorce, and if you seperate, and remarry, you are comitting adultery. Black and white.

Stop bringing in this Protestant, re-run of the bible, adjusted to suite certain monarchs who wanted to swap their wives more times than they changed the bed linen.

I think you misunderstand the issue: "sin" is about a breach in the relationship with God. Whether you believe that somebody's act is going to affect you is irrelevant to the issue of whether it violates God's law and is sin.

No, sin is choosing to do wrong knowing something IS wrong; if you are ignorant of whether something is right or wrong, it is there for not a sin.

Not all conduct is "good". Defining the gay marriage issue in terminology that has an equal rights sound to it may very well convince some fok that opposing gay marriage is intolerant, but God simply doesn't tolerate sin.

How is gay marriage going to affect YOU. Let the man without sin cast the first stone. Remove the plank from your eye before you remove your neighbours.

You're not arguing against my standards, you're arguing against God's.

They aren't "Gods' standards, you and your cult made them up; stop making up excuses and blaming a non-existant deity for decisions YOU and YOUR cult make.

The Bible condones and accepts slavery: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

The Bible supports stoning for practicing different religions, adultery, cursing the King, goring animals, and touching Mount Sinai:
http://www.free-minds.org/bible.htm

The Bible supports rape of conquered women: Judges 21: 10-24

The list goes on. Even though I believe in God, I recognize that the Bible was written at least in part by fallible humans guilty of some of the time's prejudices and horrific practices. It's time to stop taking it literally.



The bible accepts slavery but does not condone it. Slaves were to obey their masters and not rebel, because Christians do not seek vengeance; Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,"[a] says the Lord.





The Bible supports stoning for practicing different religions, adultery, cursing the King, goring animals, and touching Mount Sinai:
http://www.free-minds.org/bible.htm


The Bible records these things but where does it say that God approves of them? Hmm? You could use that argument to justify anything under the sun :rolleyes:


The Bible supports rape of conquered women: Judges 21: 10-24


As I said above, did the Lord approve of these things? Did they cite God as the source of these decisions? Notice how the chapter ends with 25In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.


All in all, cherrypicking certain things out of context with the rest of the chapters should be a crime IMO

You know what I don't see on that list? Homosexuals

Edit: This disputes my assertion how?


You said that they said that Christ's second coming would be soon. The Day of His Coming could be at any point in time, as 1 Thessalonians 5:2 states: 2For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.

The bible accepts slavery but does not condone it. Slaves were to obey their masters and not rebel, because Christians do not seek vengeance; Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,"[a] says the Lord.
Actually, there's a passage in Leviticus which makes an affirmative command saying that the people of conquered nations should be made into slaves by the conquerors.

The Bible records these things but where does it say that God approves of them? Hmm? You could use that argument to justify anything under the sun :rolleyes:
Some of the quotes do make that claim.

As I said above, did the Lord approve of these things? Did they cite God as the source of these decisions? Notice how the chapter ends with 25In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.


All in all, cherrypicking certain things out of context with the rest of the chapters should be a crime IMO
You're right, I picked the wrong quote on rape. Read my follow-up post. These other passages are undeniable.

The bible accepts slavery but does not condone it. Slaves were to obey their masters and not rebel, because Christians do not seek vengeance; Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,"[a] says the Lord.








The Bible records these things but where does it say that God approves of them? Hmm? You could use that argument to justify anything under the sun :rolleyes:





As I said above, did the Lord approve of these things? Did they cite God as the source of these decisions? Notice how the chapter ends with 25In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.


All in all, cherrypicking certain things out of context with the rest of the chapters should be a crime IMO

Numbers 15:32-36 While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him. And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Stoning a guy to death for picking up sticks, well so commandeth the lord.

You said that they said that Christ's second coming would be soon. The Day of His Coming could be at any point in time, as 1 Thessalonians 5:2 states: 2For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.

They were saying that Jesus could come back AT ANY TIME! He could be coming back as we speak!

2. Bigotry should never be legislated


You're confusing bigotry (hatred and/or prejudice towards someone different) with following God's will (loving the sinner but reproving them). If any Christian were to support that which God says is an abomination, that doesn't say much about them does it?

They were saying that Jesus could come back AT ANY TIME! He could be coming back as we speak!


When he comes back, it will be pretty obvious.

Numbers 15:32-36 While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him. And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses.


God clearly stated that working on the Sabbath was punishable by stoning, and you condemn him for carrying out his promise?

Actually, there's a passage in Leviticus which makes an affirmative command saying that the people of conquered nations should be made into slaves by the conquerors.


That was in the Old Testament and I'm sure being taken into slavery by a nation which practices ethical treatment of slaves would be preferable to death.

Incorrect; its a clear cut issue; no divorce, and if you seperate, and remarry, you are comitting adultery. Black and white.

Stop bringing in this Protestant, re-run of the bible, adjusted to suite certain monarchs who wanted to swap their wives more times than they changed the bed linen.


Umm....he said it was wrong....reread his post....

That was in the Old Testament and I'm sure being taken into slavery by a nation which practices ethical treatment of slaves would be preferable to death.

Or just not enslaving/killing them. That'd be cool.

They aren't "Gods' standards, you and your cult made them up; stop making up excuses and blaming a non-existant deity for decisions YOU and YOUR cult make.



A. God does exist

B. They clearly ARE God's standards

C. How wonderful. You consider all of Christianity a cult :rolleyes:

That was in the Old Testament and I'm sure being taken into slavery by a nation which practices ethical treatment of slaves would be preferable to death.
You do know that Christianity holds the Old Testament to be as much God's word as the New.

Anyway, you set up a false dilemma. Why couldn't God say that these people should be treated with dignity and respect? Why is it always some form of punishment? If the US turned every Iraqi into slaves, would you be happy? I doubt it.

When he comes back, it will be pretty obvious.

See below quote

2For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.

God clearly stated that working on the Sabbath was punishable by stoning, and you condemn him for carrying out his promise?

see below quote:

The Bible records these things but where does it say that God approves of them? Hmm? You could use that argument to justify anything under the sun

Or just not enslaving/killing them. That'd be cool.


The people Israel conquered were some of the worst people of their time. God had a reason for having Israel conquer them. It would be like letting all of the prisoners at Gitmo run free.

Why?


Because I dont think child developmental science knows enough at the moment to ensure that gay parents would not just unecessarlly complicate the already precarious well bieng of the child.

The people Israel conquered were some of the worst people of their time. God had a reason for having Israel conquer them. It would be like letting all of the prisoners at Gitmo run free.

By worse you mean different? Because it seems that his biggest beef was that they didn't worship him.

God clearly stated that working on the Sabbath was punishable by stoning, and you condemn him for carrying out his promise?

Maybe the man collected sticks for a hobby?

See below quote


It will come as a thief in the night as in nobody will know WHEN it will occur but when it does occur, it will be pretty evident (how could you not notice the clouds rolling back and Christ descending?).



see below quote:



God did NOT approve of the things you stated previously, but he did command those who worked on the Sabbath to be stoned. There's a major difference there.

Because I dont think child developmental science knows enough at the moment to ensure that gay parents would not just unecessarlly complicate the already precarious well bieng of the child.

Edit: So since science can't prove that it isn't harmful that means that it shouldn't happen? I have yet to see scientific proof that a child growing up with heterosexual parents is a good thing

Because I dont think child developmental science knows enough at the moment to ensure that gay parents would not just unecessarlly complicate the already precarious well bieng of the child.

How would they complicate it any more than having only one parent?

Maybe the man collected sticks for a hobby?


Then God wouldn't have had him stoned....regardless, the man knew the commandment and he violated it....

By worse you mean different? Because it seems that his biggest beef was that they didn't worship him.


By worse I mean they were just that: very very evil nations. Sacrificing their children to Molech, attacking the weak and sickly of Israel then fleeing, whoring themselves in religious rituals, etc.

Then God wouldn't have had him stoned....regardless, the man knew the commandment and he violated it....

How do you know he knewabout them? What if he was just some guy walking around picking up sticks and didn't know anything about the Sabbath?


God did NOT approve of the things you stated previously, but he did command those who worked on the Sabbath to be stoned. There's a major difference there.

How so?

It will come as a thief in the night as in nobody will know WHEN it will occur but when it does occur, it will be pretty evident (how could you not notice the clouds rolling back and Christ descending?).


Where does it say that it will be evident when Christ comes back?

You do know that Christianity holds the Old Testament to be as much God's word as the New.

Anyway, you set up a false dilemma. Why couldn't God say that these people should be treated with dignity and respect? Why is it always some form of punishment? If the US turned every Iraqi into slaves, would you be happy? I doubt it.


Because, as He stated several times, He didn't want them corrupting His nation. The Israelites spared them on many occasions and guess what? Those they spared led them into sin.

Because I dont think child developmental science knows enough at the moment to ensure that gay parents would not just unecessarlly complicate the already precarious well bieng of the child.

Child developmental science cannot ensure the effect of anything on any one particular child. All it can do is predict likelihoods. Having studied the subject somewhat, I can say that by far the most important factor a parent can contribute to the well-being of his/her children is simply being present and caring, which should present no greater difficulty for gay parents than for straight ones. I'm curious as to what specifically you feel might be a problem for a child of gay parents - could you elaborate?

Also, I happen to be acquainted with a lovely lesbian couple raising two children, a son and daughter, who are 10 and 6 respectively. I have never encountered two more healthy, happy, well-adjusted children. I can testify to the fact that it most certainly can work.

How do you know he knewabout them? What if he was just some guy walking around picking up sticks and didn't know anything about the Sabbath?


Because that law only pertained to the Israelites and, when Moses was teaching them the law, all of the Israelites were gathered. If it was someone of another nation, they wouldn't have thought twice about it. You can infer that he was an Israelite.

By worse I mean they were just that: very very evil nations. Sacrificing their children to Molech, attacking the weak and sickly of Israel then fleeing, whoring themselves in religious rituals, etc.

Because God never once asked for a child to be sacrificed to him! Wrong!

How would they attack the weak and sickly if the strong were there to protect them, also them's good tactics if you're just talking about hit-and-run strikes.

whoring themselves in religious rituals? As in having sex with more than one woman, because the Bible encourages polygamy and incest if need be.

well its not exactly a new thing for someone to grow up with one parent. And society doesnt exactly discriminate aganst single parents because of this. But Gay parents will cause a child alot of unecessary grief from society at the moment. So mabye the gay movement should wait to share their problems with children and let society work out the kinks first.

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Hold on I'm going to go ask god that.

Hold on I feel as if I got a busy signal while praying.

I think God said "That's none of my business"

well its not exactly a new thing for someone to grow up with one parent. And society doesnt exactly discriminate aganst single parents because of this. But Gay parents will cause a child alot of unecessary grief from society at the moment. So mabye the gay movement should wait to share their problems with children and let society work out the kinks first.

"Sorry, you can't have equal rights yet. We have to wait until everyone stops making a fuss about it."
Did it work like that with equal rights for black people? For women?

well its not exactly a new thing for someone to grow up with one parent. And society doesnt exactly discriminate aganst single parents because of this. But Gay parents will cause a child alot of unecessary grief from society at the moment. So mabye the gay movement should wait to share their problems with children and let society work out the kinks first.

Sounds to me the problem's with society not with homosexuals. Meaning that gay parents won't case unecessary grief idiots who persecute gay people will!

Because that law only pertained to the Israelites and, when Moses was teaching them the law, all of the Israelites were gathered. If it was someone of another nation, they wouldn't have thought twice about it. You can infer that he was an Israelite.

Because we know how much the Israelites just loved foreigners back then!

I can't beleive that they had to point out it was sarcastic.
True anti-gay people would never use facts as there are none to back up their arguments. Instead they say make-believe stuff like politics have no place in religion, despite the fact that marriage gives political benifits.

I can't beleive that they had to point out it was sarcastic.
True anti-gay people would never use facts as there are none to back up their arguments. Instead they say make-believe stuff like politics have no place in religion, despite the fact that marriage gives political benifits.

Don't forget the 'homosexuals eat babies' argument.

Because, as He stated several times, He didn't want them corrupting His nation. The Israelites spared them on many occasions and guess what? Those they spared led them into sin.

Led them into sin? It takes two t tango, the Israelites let themselves be "led"

Don't forget the 'homosexuals eat babies' argument.

I thought that was hippies and pot-heads

Because God never once asked for a child to be sacrificed to him! Wrong!


He told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. There are two responses to this:

1. God is incapable of sin. Thus, if he were to have Abraham sacrifice Isaac, you can be assuerd that Isaac would have a pretty decent afterlife.

2. He never had Abraham sacrifice Isaac, remember how he sent an angel to stop him at the last minute because he was only testing his faith?

Led them into sin? It takes two t tango, the Israelites let themselves be "led"


True, and they were punished for it. But God didn't want them to be exposed to it in the first place in this case, as the Israelites were obviously very impressionable.

He told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. There are two responses to this:

1. God is incapable of sin. Thus, if he were to have Abraham sacrifice Isaac, you can be assuerd that Isaac would have a pretty decent afterlife.

2. He never had Abraham sacrifice Isaac, remember how he sent an angel to stop him at the last minute because he was only testing his faith?

And if Abraham had faltered just what do you thinkwould have happened? Also you are completely neglecting the fact that Goddid in fact ask for a child sacrafice meaning that you can't pull that as a "they were evil" claim.

I thought that was hippies and pot-heads

Those too, and it is a constant, frenzied battle to see who can get the tastiest babies.

Those two, and it is a constant, frenzied battle to see who can get the tastiest babies.

Well I think the pot-heads don't really care about taste so much after a certain point...

well its not exactly a new thing for someone to grow up with one parent. And society doesnt exactly discriminate aganst single parents because of this. But Gay parents will cause a child alot of unecessary grief from society at the moment. So mabye the gay movement should wait to share their problems with children and let society work out the kinks first.

That's a more reasonable viewpoint than I'd predicted for your answer; I'm glad to see that. However, I'm forced to disagree for three major reasons:

(1) The "gay movement" doesn't have children. Individual people have children, and it's unfair to demand that individual people who want children should not have them for political reasons.
(2) Many things can cause a child grief. A very sick parent will cause a child a whole lot of grief; should people with a family history of cancer all decide not to procreate, then? A mentally retarded sibling would certainly provoke a lot of mean comments from outsiders; should parents who've had one child with Downs Syndrome therefore never have more children? (Heck, if we want to extend the argument to ridiculous lengths, what happens if the child with D.S. is not the eldest sibling? Should the parents abandon that baby to spare the other children grief from a cruel society?)
(3) How can anyone fight bigotry by giving in to it? How can homosexual couples prove to society that they make as good parents as their heterosexual counterparts without having kids and, well, being good parents? Simply accepting the status quo is no way to change minds. By that argument, black people should have stayed in the back of the bus 40 years ago until all the white people independently decided to share...

Because God never once asked for a child to be sacrificed to him! Wrong!

How would they attack the weak and sickly if the strong were there to protect them, also them's good tactics if you're just talking about hit-and-run strikes.

whoring themselves in religious rituals? As in having sex with more than one woman, because the Bible encourages polygamy and incest if need be.


They were harassing them before Israel even considered attacking. It wasn't an issue of "good tactics", they were doing it because it fit in with their nature. Also, God never really was pleased with marriage to multiple wives, and he outwardly condemns it in the New Testament...and the only instance of incest which God permitted was with the children of Adam and Eve because there was no alternative.

And if Abraham had faltered just what do you thinkwould have happened? Also you are completely neglecting the fact that Goddid in fact ask for a child sacrafice meaning that you can't pull that as a "they were evil" claim.


Love for God supercedes love for one's offspring...and loving God means following his commandments. If Abraham were to refuse, then it would have shown how he valued wordly things above spiritual things (which I can understand, being asked to sacrifice one's child is the most difficult thing one could do). Anyway, God never had him do it in the first place so why even cite this incident?

They were harassing them before Israel even considered attacking. It wasn't an issue of "good tactics", they were doing it because it fit in with their nature. Also, God never really was pleased with marriage to multiple wives, and he outwardly condemns it in the New Testament...and the only instance of incest which God permitted was with the children of Adam and Eve because there was no alternative.

First off, The Israelites after leaving Egypt attacked and seized and destroyed a number of cities and cultures before claiming the land as their own. They weren't non-aggressors. They siezed these peoples' neighbors land. What was to stop them from continuing with their conquest? So the other nations did a little preemptive strike on Israel like we did on Saddam.

Also there is the whole, aftermath of Sodom and Gommorah and the aftermath of the flood.

Love for God supercedes love for one's offspring...and loving God means following his commandments. If Abraham were to refuse, then it would have shown how he valued wordly things above spiritual things (which I can understand, being asked to sacrifice one's child is the most difficult thing one could do). Anyway, God never had him do it in the first place so why even cite this incident?

Because God asked for a child sacrafice which you stated as having been one of the reasons the other nations were evil.

Also there is the whole, aftermath of Sodom and Gommorah and the aftermath of the flood.


He never approved of Lot's daughters having incest with him and, after the flood, it was the only way to repopulate...like with Adam and Eve.

He never approved of Lot's daughters having incest with him and, after the flood, it was the only way to repopulate...like with Adam and Eve.

And whose fault was it that they were the only ones left?

He never approved of Lot's daughters having incest with him and, after the flood, it was the only way to repopulate...like with Adam and Eve.

Yet he saved Lot did he not? Also, you said that the only time God agreed with incest was In The Beggining.

Because God asked for a child sacrafice which you stated as having been one of the reasons the other nations were evil.


Ok, let's lay some groundwork here so you'll know where I'm coming from:

1. If God (note: not a god but the God) commands sacrifice, then it is to be done.

2. If he doesn't command it (as in the case of every other nation sacrificing) then it is not to be done.

Yet he saved Lot did he not? Also, you said that the only time God agreed with incest was In The Beggining.


I don't think in-laws really count as incest...

And whose fault was it that they were the only ones left?


Humanity's.....they were so corrupt as to make God wish he never created them. Thus, they brought the flood upon themselves.

Humanity's.....they were so corrupt as to make God wish he never created them. Thus, they brought the flood upon themselves.

Right, sure, whatever.
Nevermind that it was God who caused the flood. And that it was God who created man.
If He was so pissed at humanity becoming 'corrupt', why'd He not make us incorruptable?

Ok, let's lay some groundwork here so you'll know where I'm coming from:

1. If God (note: not a god but the God) commands sacrifice, then it is to be done.

2. If he doesn't command it (as in the case of every other nation sacrificing) then it is not to be done.

But God did command the sacrifice. However the God they followed didn't happen to be God and so it is therefore evil? That is hypocritical and also very much like terrorist thinkin. "It's allright God is with us!"

Ok I'm sorry to have to say this so rudely and ignorantly, but would you just stop debating the fucking Bible already!! It's a book of stories, fictional stories. That's it! It can't continue to be used as a weapon against equality so just shut the hell up already and try to find some sort of a vaild reason for a standpoint against the issue here, which happens to be homosexual marriage!!

Neo I've noticed that I've been causing you to ignore a rather large number of my statements due to their truthfullness, but I will give you a chance to try and think up ways to best me because I need sleep, badly. So I'll be back tommorow...err, today.

Neo I've noticed that I've been causing you to ignore a rather large number of my statements due to their truthfullness, but I will give you a chance to try and think up ways to best me because I need sleep, badly. So I'll be back tommorow...err, today.


Mainly because it's hard to keep up with your statements and everyone else's. I wish just one person would represent each side instead of it being me talking with about 3-4 people. I'm going to bed too.

That's a more reasonable viewpoint than I'd predicted for your answer; I'm glad to see that. However, I'm forced to disagree for three major reasons:

(1) The "gay movement" doesn't have children. Individual people have children, and it's unfair to demand that individual people who want children should not have them for political reasons.
(2) Many things can cause a child grief. A very sick parent will cause a child a whole lot of grief; should people with a family history of cancer all decide not to procreate, then? A mentally retarded sibling would certainly provoke a lot of mean comments from outsiders; should parents who've had one child with Downs Syndrome therefore never have more children? (Heck, if we want to extend the argument to ridiculous lengths, what happens if the child with D.S. is not the eldest sibling? Should the parents abandon that baby to spare the other children grief from a cruel society?)
(3) How can anyone fight bigotry by giving in to it? How can homosexual couples prove to society that they make as good parents as their heterosexual counterparts without having kids and, well, being good parents? Simply accepting the status quo is no way to change minds. By that argument, black people should have stayed in the back of the bus 40 years ago until all the white people independently decided to share...


Gay men are pushing all these issues to simply carry on a cherade to pretend their not gay. Gay men want to get married just like non-gays.
Gay men want to have children just like non-gays. Gay men want to be treated like real men or real women just like real men and women. I think alot of you guys are lying to yourselves and you want society to tell you that its alright. Well just dont drag children into your problems just to play pretend.

Oh and BTW I have no problems with lesibians as long as they are otherwise stable. I can understand why they would have nothing to do with males anymore considering so many of us are pigs. And Ive noticed that the gay community seems to attract some of the worst.

But God did command the sacrifice. However the God they followed didn't happen to be God and so it is therefore evil? That is hypocritical and also very much like terrorist thinkin. "It's allright God is with us!"


The God which performed actual miracles would be the one to listen to.

Forgive me, but doesn't the whole Christian thing assume that you believe in Christ? I mean, I don't believe in God, and if I was Gay (Which I am not, but if I was) and wanted to get married, then isn't the state restricting the freedoms of the people on the ground of religious laws? Y'know, like what a lot of people get at Iran and Saudi Arabia about doing? Kinda hypocritical, isn't it?

Bit of interesting information; Great Britain will become the tenth European Country to legalise Civil Unions when the Civil Partnership Act comes into force on the 5th of December this year.

If I see Satan banging on the door, I'll let the religious people know...

I'm just going to jump in and say SAVE US JEBUS! SAVE US FROM TEH EV!L GAYS AND TEHR EV!L SATANIC CHILD-REARING PRACTSES!!!

*Runs off giggling like a school girl*

Gay men are pushing all these issues to simply carry on a sherade to pretend their not gay. Gay men want to get married just like non-gays.

Are they? Why do you think that?

Gay men want to have children just like non-gays. Gay men want to be treated like real men or real women just like real men and women.

Are you saying they are not? Why are they not?

I think alot of you guys are lying to yourselves and you want society to tell you that its alright. Well just dont drag children into your problems just to play pretend.

What do you base this on?

Oh and BTW I have no problems with lesibians as long as they are otherwise stable. I can understand why they would have nothing to do with males anymore considering so many of us are pigs.

So why not extend this wonderful loving feeling of yours to gay men?

And Ive noticed that the gay community seems to attract some of the worst.

Unlike any other group of people? Or are you claiming gays are the worst?
If so, would you like to share your insights?

put it this way everyone, i have no problem with gay people having a legal union together with the same rights as a normal marriage but their relationship should not be called marriage as this is a religious term for the union of a man and a woman.
In a nutshell they should have all the same rights BUT not the same name.
dead easy end to this arguement, both the rest of the world and the republicans are happy ... (but still they will go on fighting about it even though they have been offered a sensible option) ... (...hehe ... americans!)

Just to be clear I dont care who you sleep with, its not the governments business and its not mine. But Im tired of having to hear about issues that wouldnt be issues if gays were just comfortable with themselves and accept that what you screw does not equal who you are. If you dont have an identity outside of being gay then you have'nt developed very far as a human being.

put it this way everyone, i have no problem with gay people having a legal union together with the same rights as a normal marriage but their relationship should not be called marriage as this is a religious term for the union of a man and a woman.
In a nutshell they should have all the same rights BUT not the same name.
dead easy end to this arguement, both the rest of the world and the republicans are happy ... (but still they will go on fighting about it even though they have been offered a sensible option) ... (...hehe ... americans!)

Put it this way, religious people should have the same rights as non-religious people, but should be called 'pig-smellies' instead of human, because humans excisted before religion, and 'human' is a non-religious term.

Oh, and instead of 'human rights', black people should have been happy with them being called 'negro rights', so as not to offend people who think they are lower lifeforms.

And women should have had something like voting, but called 'suggesting', so as not to offend people who think women are too dumb to do anything except give birth.

Just to be clear I dont care who you sleep with, its not the governments business and its not mine. But Im tired of having to hear about issues that wouldnt be issues if gays were just comfortable with themselves and accept that what you screw does not equal who you are. If you dont have an identity outside of being gay then you have'nt developed very far as a human being.

Funny, that's exactly the impression I'm getting from the people against same-sex marriages.

Just to be clear I dont care who you sleep with, its not the governments business and its not mine. But Im tired of having to hear about issues that wouldnt be issues if gays were just comfortable with themselves and accept that what you screw does not equal who you are. If you dont have an identity outside of being gay then you have'nt developed very far as a human being.

I thought the point of homosexuals wanting the Civil Unions (or whatever the hell you want to call them) is because of the rights and privaleges they are denied in a homosexual relationship that are allowed to a heterosexual couple?

I thought the point of homosexuals wanting the Civil Unions (or whatever the hell you want to call them) is because of the rights and privaleges they are denied in a homosexual relationship that are allowed to a heterosexual couple?

My understanding is that they do have civil unions, with which I have no objections.

My understanding is that they do have civil unions, with which I have no objections.

Well then, if that's exactly the same as marriage, than isn't this debate kinda pointless over the name of it?

Funny, that's exactly the impression I'm getting from the people against same-sex marriages.

What?

Gay men are pushing all these issues to simply carry on a sherade to pretend their not gay. Gay men want to get married just like non-gays.
Gay men want to have children just like non-gays. Gay men want to be treated like real men or real women just like real men and women. I think alot of you guys are lying to yourselves and you want society to tell you that its alright. Well just dont drag children into your problems just to play pretend.

Oh and BTW I have no problems with lesibians as long as they are otherwise stable. I can understand why they would have nothing to do with males anymore considering so many of us are pigs. And Ive noticed that the gay community seems to attract some of the worst.

Oh dear. I'm not sure why you believe that gay men are engaged in a "charade," but I'd have to say that I'm approximately 99.999% sure that at least the ones I know are not (which is about the same percentage of sureness I'd give to ideas like "if I drop this object, it will fall towards the earth"). My friend J. has been with his boyfriend for several years now, and except for both being male, they couldn't be a more stereotypical Perfect Cute Couple. If they're faking it, I'll eat my hat. I don't even have a hat here, but I'd go out and buy one just to eat it.

I certainly agree that many gay men want to get married, have children, and be treated like "real men" - after all, they are "real men," by any sensible definition of the world "real." I just don't happen to agree that that means they want to be heterosexual, marry women, or be treated as someone other than who they are. Why do you believe that they do, despite an awful lot of evidence to the contrary?

(Oh, and just so you know, I have yet to meet a lesbian who chose to date women as some sort of better alternative to men. So far, they all seem to want to date women because...they like women.)

What?

Just to be clear I dont care who you sleep with, its not the governments business and its not mine. But Im tired of having to hear about issues that wouldnt be issues if gays were just comfortable with themselves and accept that what you screw does not equal who you are. If you dont have an identity outside of being gay then you have'nt developed very far as a human being.

That.
The whole 'people getting obsessed with who sleeps with who and not being able to just settle down and care about their own business.' thing.

Well then, if that's exactly the same as marriage, than isn't this debate kinda pointless over the name of it?

They know that having "Marriage" will piss people off and help them to continue to play this unhealthy dress-up game. My objections are to their motivations.

They know that having "Marriage" will piss people off and help them to continue to play this unhealthy dress-up game. My objections are to their motivations.

What dress-up game?
And why do you assume we want the word 'marriage' just to piss you off?
Isn't that a tad paranoid?

What dress-up game?
And why do you assume we want the word 'marriage' just to piss you off?
Isn't that a tad paranoid?

It's incredibly paranoid, as it happens. :)

Well then, if that's exactly the same as marriage, than isn't this debate kinda pointless over the name of it?

First of all, civil unions are only available in a few states at present, so the fight is still very real.

Secondly, names do matter. The idea of "separate but equal" doesn't work. For the government to give one title to heterosexual couples and another title to gay couples is to make them somehow different in the eyes of the law, and they simply shouldn't be.

Of course, the sensible option is for the government to have no authority over "marriage," but merely grant any couple who wants it a civil union, and let religious establishments marry people. Thus "marriage" can continue to mean exactly the same thing within the beliefs of any given religion, and the goverment can keep its nose out of "sacred" matters, as the first amendment suggests it should.

First of all, civil unions are only available in a few states at present, so the fight is still very real.


Well, I wasn't saying that, because its a different fight as opposed to the name thing.

Secondly, you do have a fair point regarding the government keeping its nose out of religious matters.

I don't like gays as much as I don't like hetero's, frankly people piss me off. However, there's no reason why Homosexuals shouldn't get married. Most of the people I know had fucked up childhoods anyways...might as well let those few who really want kids to have them. Look around...there's more things than gay marriage to protest, the bible-thumpers could put their energy to more constructive avenues.

Oh dear. I'm not sure why you believe that gay men are engaged in a "charade," but I'd have to say that I'm approximately 99.999% sure that at least the ones I know are not (which is about the same percentage of sureness I'd give to ideas like "if I drop this object, it will fall towards the earth"). My friend J. has been with his boyfriend for several years now, and except for both being male, they couldn't be a more stereotypical Perfect Cute Couple. If they're faking it, I'll eat my hat. I don't even have a hat here, but I'd go out and buy one just to eat it.

I certainly agree that many gay men want to get married, have children, and be treated like "real men" - after all, they are "real men," by any sensible definition of the world "real." I just don't happen to agree that that means they want to be heterosexual, marry women, or be treated as someone other than who they are. Why do you believe that they do, despite an awful lot of evidence to the contrary?

(Oh, and just so you know, I have yet to meet a lesbian who chose to date women as some sort of better alternative to men. So far, they all seem to want to date women because...they like women.)


Look Im not bashing individuals for their choices in partners. I honestly believe that there are some ligitmate relationships between men. I am put out with the gay community as a whole. I live in San Francisco and almost every gay person I meet seems to spin the same mindless drone as to thier being gay and what that means and that they were born that way and some nonsense about Bis not being as good as fully queers. Anyways Im seeing the same mindless conformist/clique trends and attitudes that some of these right wing christians possess. Its almost as if every gay person I meet here came from some factory here in town.

What dress-up game?
And why do you assume we want the word 'marriage' just to piss you off?
Isn't that a tad paranoid?

You guys dont piss me off. ;)

Well, mmm.

Here I go, and a list of things I believe in.

1. Religion is the backbone and source of every moral code ever to have existed. Religious moral codes were the first, and preceeded civil codes. If you notice, most of the first societies were a type of Theocracy. Why? Because people didn't have several thousand years of the idea of rule by government, so the only way to impose a rule by law - was if the law was given by a higher power, God (Or the Gods). We say murder is illegal, and we all agree on it. But murder isn't illegal in the US because God says that is it illegal, it is illegal because our civil code says so.

We now have the thousands of years of background in rule by the lawmakers that since the idea of the Divine Right of Kings was thrown out, we really didn't need the idea of Rule by God. At least, Greco-Roman civilizations.

2. Religion has no place in Government in today's world. Why? Because today's Western nations are simply too diverse for a single religion - or interpretation of said religion - to have a major hold on the laws of that nation.

You can't make a law and say, "We are making this law, because God has decreed it!", because a very loud portion of the people will shout out and say, "WHICH GOD?" Therefore, you can't have a Rule by God. The only real exception to this is in a country that the vast huge majority share the exact same beliefs. I think France and Spain were the last two Western nations, and Spain really was reconquered by the Catholics anyhow, and France - their actions in the 30 Years War really explains their situation.

3. Ratha loves numbered posts.

4. I feel that religion still has a place in society. Why? Not enough people, in my mind, are capable of taking rules and use of authority from other men - my best example is traffic laws. Who really obeys them? People taking their DL tests, thats who. Oh, and when someone capable of enforcing said laws are around. But for the most part, people despise them and the enforcers (Police.)

So, enough people need some sort of authority figure they can't challenge, and the only one I can think of is God. Which, luckily for us in the US, is the same God in the religion that most of our civic morals come from.

5. Yes, civic morals come from God. What else? Christianity shaped Western civilization. Rome conquered Europe, and when they converted to Christianity, so did their holdings around the world (...mostly.) So, in addition to getting the heritage of Greek and Roman law (and civilizations prior to that, giving the idea that man, the government, rules the laws down here on Earth), we also got Chrisitanity, along with its moral code.

During the Dark Ages, there was, effectivly, little to no civlization in Europe because there wasn't enough of an elite 'leiusure' (SP) class to devote time to anything but working, and maybe ruling. There was little to no wealth generated, and literacy was at an all time low. Of course, the only unifying factor and source of stability is going to be - guess what? - the Catholic Church. Whose priests HAD to be literate to read the bible. This is where marriage becomes a provence soley of religion - and the various feudal lords gladly handed that over to the literate priest class.

So, rule by god influenced rule by law - to the point where the people who believe in what Christanity teaches are - since they are society - going to make the laws that society follows be pretty much the same.

Eventually, civilization returned to Europe and rule by law because of respect for the traditions of government and civil law, as opposed to because they're the same laws as God's laws, took hold.

It also lead, indirectly, to the Protestant Reformation and the 30 Years War. Oh, and the Anglican Church, there's a good example.

6. The bible also says that Christians cannot charge interest. I suggest all you bible-thumpers CHARGE YOUR CREDIT CARD COMPANIES AND THE BANKS AND PREACH THAT TO THEM. (Call me when you do, I need a laugh.)

7. As I said, Rule by God should not influence anything today. Just because someone says "God says that Gays Are Evil!" doesn't mean that I, my neighbor, or George Clooney believe in the same God. I know I don't. Therefore, any arguements for making a Law in today's society on the basis that "God says it is evil" is null, void, and irrelevant to the discussion.

8. Personally, I think God started the world, and then in the Garden of Eden gave Adam and Eve the greatest gift of all. In the Garden he told them not to eat from the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Someone else told them to eat. They had the choice - and God's gift was that he did not interfire. He gave us free will.

He has a plan, and I think we're following it. He will not interefire with us, he will not take action, he will not do anything because that would take back the gift of free will, the gift of self determination, the gift to look God in the eye, spit on him, and say FUCK YOU.

9. I'm Hebrew, I was raised Anti-Religion, and until College believed that the majority of people didn't really beleive in God except for the wacko nutjobs who told their kids they could no longer play with me because I took the lord's name in vain - and then accused me of witchcraft and putting a hex on a kid .... with my Magic: The Gathering cards. Thats my background, Religion is just Fucked Up.

Lesigh, sometimes it kills me, the irony.

Christ's first miracle was at a wedding. Ya think it was two homosexuals getting hitched?

Obviously not because they wouldn't want to get married as they already have wives. A man could have another male lover, look at the Romans or the Greeks

Eh, stupid Republicans. I can think up much better arguments than they can. :) (I've just ignored pages 2-15 and just looked at the article.)

And for the record, I do believe birth control is unnatural, because it obstructs nature. But eyeglasses and polyester improve it. :)

Eh, stupid Republicans. I can think up much better arguments than they can. :) (I've just ignored pages 2-15 and just looked at the article.)

And for the record, I do believe birth control is unnatural, because it obstructs nature. But eyeglasses and polyester improve it. :)

Polyester is unnatural on just... YEACH. Its not Kosher.

But eyeglasses... they distort the light that enters the eye! Its distorting GODS WORLD! IT ALTERS WHAT YOU SEE!

Therefore its Satanic and all good Christians must go to their nearest Lenscrafters to burn the place down.

Polyester is unnatural on just... YEACH. Its not Kosher.

But eyeglasses... they distort the light that enters the eye! Its distorting GODS WORLD! IT ALTERS WHAT YOU SEE!

Therefore its Satanic and all good Christians must go to their nearest Lenscrafters to burn the place down. Your eye itself distorts light. Therefore Paul was right about gouging out your eyes for your own good. ;)

It can be quite amusing when people say - "what, so you're against birth control, 'cos that's unnatural?" and I just reply "yes, I am."

Your eye itself distorts light. Therefore Paul was right about gouging out your eyes for your own good. ;)

It can be quite amusing when people say - "what, so you're against birth control, 'cos that's unnatural?" and I just reply "yes, I am."

I'm against puppies.

They're cute, yes. But thats just what SATAN WANTS YOU TO THINK.

~Petstore Employee

I'm against puppies.

They're cute, yes. But thats just what SATAN WANTS YOU TO THINK.

~Petstore Employee Sorry, I really have lost you here. What point are you laboriously trying to get across?

That its late and time for me to go to bed.

...to deal with the puppies. *shudder*

I saw this thread start a while ago and my first thought was “Not even going to go there.” However, my curiosity got the better of me and I started skimming the thread, and now I have decided to post my opinion for no real reason in particular.

I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.
I believe that the ‘traditional’ family is one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity.
I believe that as long as I am able to express the above views, gays should be allowed to express theirs.
I believe that as long as I am allowed to marry whom I want, others should be able to as well.
I believe that as long as I am allowed to adopt children, other responsible people should be able to as well.

A note on that last bit: Until very recently I was against homosexual couples adopting, but as I read this thread I began to think. Sure, I might think its effects are generally harmful to a child, but so are the effects of growing up with a single parent (generally not always) or with an abusive parent. Personally, I would prefer someone grow up with two moms, than a mom and an abusive father.

I saw this thread start a while ago and my first thought was “Not even going to go there.” However, my curiosity got the better of me and I started skimming the thread, and now I have decided to post my opinion for no real reason in particular.

I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.
I believe that the ‘traditional’ family is one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity.
I believe that as long as I am able to express the above views, gays should be allowed to express theirs.
I believe that as long as I am allowed to marry whom I want, others should be able to as well.
I believe that as long as I am allowed to adopt children, other responsible people should be able to as well.

A note on that last bit: Until very recently I was against homosexual couples adopting, but as I read this thread I began to think. Sure, I might think its effects are generally harmful to a child, but so are the effects of growing up with a single parent (generally not always) or with an abusive parent. Personally, I would prefer someone grow up with two moms, than a mom and an abusive father.

Thank god for a christian who compromises!!!!!!!! *throws you a short parade* So by traditional you mean wife husband father. Well I'm sure I could get my boyfriend to act feminine enough. But what you said at the end their is right about better to have two moms. My fathers (including step father) have been terrible male figures in my life lacking emotional foundation or mental stability, this traditional family seems so impossible to achieve these days.

And to add, humanity of the presence deserves no gift.

In my mind if the stories read "The Prince and the Prince were married" I wouldn't care as long as it ends with "and lived happily ever after"

My fathers (including step father) have been terrible male figures in my life lacking emotional foundation or mental stability, this traditional family seems so impossible to achieve these days.

It is not impossible, just difficult. My own parents have done it quite well, and I feel I am a better person for all the hard work they put into their marriage and raising me and my three brothers.

And to add, humanity of the presence deserves no gift.

Humanity never deserved anything. What we get can only be an indication of God’s love and mercy. Which must be great, considering He doesn’t wipe us out entirely.

It is not impossible, just difficult. My own parents have done it quite well, and I feel I am a better person for all the hard work they put into their marriage and raising me and my three brothers.



Humanity never deserved anything. What we get can only be an indication of God’s love and mercy. Which must be great, considering He doesn’t wipe us out entirely.

Well he did it once didn't he, I think we deserve a few more floods. But ya know, you must be pretty evil to be born with aids, and oh wait Asia was punished for there sins with the Great Clensing just recently.

I think I'm actually more of a success because of my parents ignorance, it works both ways i suppose.

*Yes America, that first part was sarcasm...Sorry if you understood if it was and are offended by this footnote by my god, you guys ruined The Office.

Funny, I always thought Jesus expected humans to love their next instead of becoming inquisitors of some middle-age-conception (like homosexuality seen as a sin, while it is a RIGHT)