NationStates Jolt Archive

This coming from the person who throws out the teachings of Paul because he is supposedly fallible even when possessed by the Holy Spirit :rolleyes:

Look everyone, Neo is lying again, despite having been corrected on this several times.

Really? So the word "religion" only applies to Christians?



Re-read his post. It was directed towards us.

Matthew 19:6 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate
Bible as proof in contract law is silly
The religous side has every right not to recognize the seperation

But we are talking about government

It is a contract
Nothing more

As if they didn't deserve it?
To be slaughtered in masse … men women and children … no
What sins did all the little kids that died in the flood commit?

And yet you believe that God somehow changed God's mind. In the OT, if you take it at face value, God condoned slavery, telling the ancient Israelites exactly how to obtain and treat their slaves. The law even stated that it was perfectly acceptable to kill your slave, as long as he survived his injuries for a least a day, as he was your property.

Then, you say that God does not condone slavery.

The only explanation anyone has ever given me for this is "God couldn't tell the ancient people that slavery was wrong. It wasn't their society." In other words "God's will changes with the times."




He tolerated slavery but did he tell them to go make slaves? He merely gave them a process for doing it if they decided to.


Matthew 19:8 is enough proof that he tolerated things because of a culture's inability to accept some things.

To be slaughtered in masse … men women and children … no
What sins did all the little kids that died in the flood commit?




If they were sinless, then they went to heaven. Quite desirable, no?

Simple: God preserves nations as long as they follow His will. When that stops, so does his protection.

Based off this logic I'm reasonablly willing to bet that all/if not most countries of the world no longer are protected by the G man.

I believe that The apostles, in their teachings....and for the last time, WERE infallible! By my personal view, It is implied, lest you call the Holy Spirit and Christ fallible.

Corrections in bold.

I have never claimed that the Holy Spirit or that Christ are fallible. However, the apostles being infallible (despite their own claims to the contrary which you choose to ignore) does not follow from that. Anyone can pray for the guidance of the holy spirit. Does that mean we all become infallible? Of course not!? Because even when asking for guidance, we are seeing that guidance through our own experiences and biases.

By your logic, every ordained minister must be infallible. After all, the apostles were infallible, and they ordained priests - and they must have picked infallible ones according to your logic. Then those priests (who, by your logic, were infallible) ordained more priests. And so on and so on until we reach today

If they were sinless, then they went to heaven. Quite desirable, no?
After a full life yes
Not because some vengeful god felt like he had to wipe out the earth and start over but did not take the time to preserve my life

Re-read his post. It was directed towards us.

No, it is directed towards you, and anyone else who advocates making their own religious beliefs into law. If you can make your religious beliefs into law, then a Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu, Buddhist, etc,etc person can do the same.

Look everyone, Neo is lying again, despite having been corrected on this several times.



Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that, hmm......you're wrong? Your statement contradicts Biblical and apostolic authority, mine does not. Your statement, in the eyes of God, is therefore invalidated. You do not have the right to criticize God, Christ, or the apostles. Or perhaps you haven't read what God had to say to Job about questioning him?

He tolerated slavery but did he tell them to go make slaves? He merely gave them a process for doing it if they decided to.

Yes, the law did tell them to go makes slaves. It was encoded into the law, and was thus mandated.

Meanwhile, this is exactly like saying. "God tolerated murder, but did he tell them to go commit murder? He merely gave them a process for doing it if they decided to." or "God tolerated rape, but did he tell them to go commit rape? He merely gave them a process for doing it if they decided to."

If God gives you a process for doing something, and God is an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect being, then God condones that action.

You really know nothing about the Bible do you? He chose the apostles to spread His will...and they were infallible in their teachigns when possessed by the Holy Spirit, you know that. If Christ had an issue with anything they said (which would not be possible in the first place, since they had a perfect Being in them which would not permit imperfect things to be taught) then he would have removed their capacity to perform miracles.

Where in the Bible does it explicitly state that being filled with the Holy Spirit means that you are infalliable?

Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that, hmm......you're wrong?

I am wrong that you believe these things? And here I thought you stated them yourself. *shrug*

In all seriousness, yes, I have considered the fact that I might be wrong. Have you considered the fact that you might be wrong?

I believe that Your statement contradicts Biblical and apostolic authority, and I believe that mine does not. I believe that Your statement, in the eyes of God, is therefore invalidated. You do not have the right to criticize God, Christ, or the apostles. Or perhaps you haven't read what God had to say to Job about questioning him?

Corrections in bold yet again.

Tell me, how exactly does your statement not contradict Paul? Paul stated that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And yet you claim that Paul was infallible, as well as the other apostles.

Meanwhile, recognizing that human beings are flawed does not contradict, question, or criticize God in any way at all. It simply follows the teachings of God.

It isn't my fault that you feel more comfortable placing your faith in men than in God.

Oi, I enjoyed that quite a bit. Go Canada, third country to leagalise it, and yet Stephen Harper is still trying to fight it. God I don't want him running our country.

God does not change, he is from age to age the same. Adapting one's teachings to the whims of modern society is anything but holy.

Well then, if God doesn't change his mind then we are ALL fucked

Well seeing how this is a thread on gay marriage what are your thougths on Canada's recent legalization of it. I say good job, and hope that one day America will follow suit.

God does not change, he is from age to age the same. Adapting one's teachings to the whims of modern society is anything but holy.

Matthew 19:8 is enough proof that he tolerated things because of a culture's inability to accept some things.


Either you have just stated that God is "anything but holy," or you have made two completely incompatible statements.

:headbang:

Trying to understand god is like doing this. We should do nothing but question our own beliefs, for that is the only way we may be open to receiving others'. Then there is nothing left to fear.

Well seeing how this is a thread on gay marriage what are your thougths on Canada's recent legalization of it. I say good job, and hope that one day America will follow suit.
Absolutely agree

Well seeing how this is a thread on gay marriage what are your thougths on Canada's recent legalization of it. I say good job, and hope that one day America will follow suit.

Yup, 200 years ago, who would've thought that Canada would one day be leading the US in human rights and equal treatment?

Yup, 200 years ago, who would've thought that Canada would one day be leading the US in human rights and equal treatment?
At least them and a few others are doing the right thing

At least them and a few others are doing the right thing

Yea, too bad they lost the protection of God doing it though. :rolleyes:

After a full life yes
Not because some vengeful god felt like he had to wipe out the earth and start over but did not take the time to preserve my life



If you were to live a full life in such a corrupt world as the pre-flood one, you would have an astronomically slim chance of following God. He actually did the children a favor. At least they were able to go to heaven instead of being allowed to live their lives in sin and burning in hell. I would take death right now with the guarantee of heaven in a heartbeat.

Based off this logic I'm reasonablly willing to bet that all/if not most countries of the world no longer are protected by the G man.



You're correct, many nations face the possibility of imminent collapse as we speak, and America is certainly heading in that direction, if it isn't already there.

Yea, too bad they lost the protection of God doing it though. :rolleyes:
Lol you know cause no non-Christian based country could possibly last lol

Corrections in bold.

I have never claimed that the Holy Spirit or that Christ are fallible. However, the apostles being infallible (despite their own claims to the contrary which you choose to ignore) does not follow from that. Anyone can pray for the guidance of the holy spirit. Does that mean we all become infallible? Of course not!? Because even when asking for guidance, we are seeing that guidance through our own experiences and biases.

By your logic, every ordained minister must be infallible. After all, the apostles were infallible, and they ordained priests - and they must have picked infallible ones according to your logic. Then those priests (who, by your logic, were infallible) ordained more priests. And so on and so on until we reach today



The apostles, in actions, were fallible. But, as I've said, in teachings...no. Whatever they preached was the will of Christ, or else he would have stopped them. After all, would you want one of your major apostles messing up your religion from the start? Logic please.

You're correct, many nations face the possibility of imminent collapse as we speak, and America is certainly heading in that direction, if it isn't already there.
And some like Japan have been going for millennia :p

Yes, the law did tell them to go makes slaves. It was encoded into the law, and was thus mandated.

Meanwhile, this is exactly like saying. "God tolerated murder, but did he tell them to go commit murder? He merely gave them a process for doing it if they decided to." or "God tolerated rape, but did he tell them to go commit rape? He merely gave them a process for doing it if they decided to."

If God gives you a process for doing something, and God is an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect being, then God condones that action.



That is untrue, unless you are calling Jesus a liar. You undermine your own case by stating that.

Lol you know cause no non-Christian based country could possibly last lol

Yep, not to mention how much good the christian countries did for all those non chrisitan ones too rofl.

Where in the Bible does it explicitly state that being filled with the Holy Spirit means that you are infalliable?



Simple: if you were possessed by a perfect being, and that being spoke through you, your teachings would be perfect.

If you were to live a full life in such a corrupt world as the pre-flood one, you would have an astronomically slim chance of following God. He actually did the children a favor. At least they were able to go to heaven instead of being allowed to live their lives in sin and burning in hell. I would take death right now with the guarantee of heaven in a heartbeat.

That's true, but I've realized something...

I don't think gay marriage would change much of society, as it's already corrupt and immoral enough as it is. Basically, there's no way to stop homosexuality, banning their oppurtunity to marry certainly won't stop them from putting their privates where they don't belong.

Not that I support the legalization of Gay marriage...If they want to reject God, then who's to stop them?

I am wrong that you believe these things? And here I thought you stated them yourself. *shrug*

In all seriousness, yes, I have considered the fact that I might be wrong. Have you considered the fact that you might be wrong?



Corrections in bold yet again.

Tell me, how exactly does your statement not contradict Paul? Paul stated that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And yet you claim that Paul was infallible, as well as the other apostles.

Meanwhile, recognizing that human beings are flawed does not contradict, question, or criticize God in any way at all. It simply follows the teachings of God.

It isn't my fault that you feel more comfortable placing your faith in men than in God.



If what I state is supported by the Scriptures, then I cannot be wrong. If what I say is not supported by the Scriptures, then it can be wrong.

The apostles, in actions, were fallible. But, as I've said, in teachings...no.

Teaching is an action. And part of teaching is ordaining those who will come after you.

Whatever they preached was the will of Christ, or else he would have stopped them. After all, would you want one of your major apostles messing up your religion from the start? Logic please.

Yes, yes, anything that isn't exactly what you think is obviously illogical, eh?

Why exactly do you claim to know the mind of God? Perhaps God didn't want to mess with free will, even of the apostles.

And the apostles disagreed, even in their teachings. How is that consistent with all of them being infallible in their teachings? Most of the apostles taught that Mosaic law had to be followed. Paul came in and said he had a vision and didn't think so, convincing most (but not all) of the apostles and their followers of his view. If they were all infallible, this disagreement would have been impossible.

Meanwhile, even a cursory study of the early church would tell you that they didn't all agree on everything. By your logic, they would have had to, as every accepted church in the early days was directly begun by an apostle.

I am wrong that you believe these things? And here I thought you stated them yourself. *shrug*

In all seriousness, yes, I have considered the fact that I might be wrong. Have you considered the fact that you might be wrong?



Corrections in bold yet again.

Tell me, how exactly does your statement not contradict Paul? Paul stated that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And yet you claim that Paul was infallible, as well as the other apostles.

Meanwhile, recognizing that human beings are flawed does not contradict, question, or criticize God in any way at all. It simply follows the teachings of God.

It isn't my fault that you feel more comfortable placing your faith in men than in God.



Of course Paul sinned, as was evident prior to his conversion. However, upon being ordained with Christ's authority, his teachings were to be followed.

That is untrue, unless you are calling Jesus a liar. You undermine your own case by stating that.

You really are completely illogical, aren't you?

I am not calling Jesus a liar. It is you who are doing so. You are claiming that an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God is swayed by the culture of the time. I am claiming the exact opposite.

I am pointing out that human beings sometimes get the message wrong. The ancient Israelites truly believed that God wanted slavery, that it was endorsed by God, and that all laws the priests came up with came directly from God. Thus, in their Scripture, they wrote that the laws came from God.

If what I state is supported by the Scriptures, then I cannot be wrong. If what I say is not supported by the Scriptures, then it can be wrong.

And if what you state is supported by Scripture, but another opinion is equally supported by Scripture? What then? You are automatically right?

Either you have just stated that God is "anything but holy," or you have made two completely incompatible statements.



God tolerates sin in this life, yet, come the Judgement, sin will be removed.

Simple: if you were possessed by a perfect being, and that being spoke through you, your teachings would be perfect.

Of course, this only works if you believe that the holy spirit coming upon someone means "The holy spirit took over their bodies and minds completely, controlling everything they said from that point until their deaths." Of course, this completely flies in the face of the free will they were talking about, but I suppose logic isn't necessary here.

Of course Paul sinned, as was evident prior to his conversion. However, upon being ordained with Christ's authority, his teachings were to be followed.

Again, we end up with the idea that every priest then must be completely followed. An apostle was ordained with Christ's authority. That apostle, who had Christ's authority, then ordained a priest with that authority. The priest passed it on to the next priest. And so on and so on.

You can't have your cake and eat it to you. You either agree with apostolic succession, or you don't.

And some like Japan have been going for millennia :p



For most of their history, they hadn't even heard of God, so it would be quite impossible for them to reject Him. Also, lacking God's protection =/= instant destruction. It means that the capability exists.

God tolerates sin in this life, yet, come the Judgement, sin will be removed.

That isn't what you said. According to you, God will not onlly tolerate sin, but tell you exactly how to do it, because society isn't ready to get past that sin.

For most of their history, they hadn't even heard of my version of God, so it would be quite impossible for them to reject my religion. Also, lacking God's protection =/= instant destruction. It means that the capability exists.

Corrections in bold.

The concept of a God is nothing new to Japan.

Teaching is an action. And part of teaching is ordaining those who will come after you.



Yes, yes, anything that isn't exactly what you think is obviously illogical, eh?

Why exactly do you claim to know the mind of God? Perhaps God didn't want to mess with free will, even of the apostles.

And the apostles disagreed, even in their teachings. How is that consistent with all of them being infallible in their teachings? Most of the apostles taught that Mosaic law had to be followed. Paul came in and said he had a vision and didn't think so, convincing most (but not all) of the apostles and their followers of his view. If they were all infallible, this disagreement would have been impossible.

Meanwhile, even a cursory study of the early church would tell you that they didn't all agree on everything. By your logic, they would have had to, as every accepted church in the early days was directly begun by an apostle.



Yes, they were corrected but were Paul's teachings ever corrected by another apostle? If not, then we are to follow them.

Corrections in bold.

The concept of a God is nothing new to Japan.



Surely if you were a Christian as you claim to be, then you would know that God is the true god and there are no others besides Him.

For most of their history, they hadn't even heard of God, so it would be quite impossible for them to reject Him. Also, lacking God's protection =/= instant destruction. It means that the capability exists.

Plenty of countries that have rejected the chrisitan god's way of living are still around. Just look at Canada.

That isn't what you said. According to you, God will not onlly tolerate sin, but tell you exactly how to do it, because society isn't ready to get past that sin.



There were three sins tolerated: Slavery, Divorce for a cause other than adultery, and polygamy. These are no longer tolerated. Paul commands slaves to obey their masters and not rebel, but does he ever command masters to retain their slaves? No, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is more than enough for any Christian slaveowner to realize he should not mistreat slaves at all.

Plenty of countries that have rejected the chrisitan god's way of living are still around. Just look at Canada.


Read the last two sentences.

Yes, they were corrected but were Paul's teachings ever corrected by another apostle? If not, then we are to follow them.

So you've changed your mind then? The other apostles were fallible, but Paul alone - the one apostle who never heard Jesus preach and never knew Jesus in life - was infallible?

Surely if you were a Christian as you claim to be, then you would know that God is the true god and there are no others besides Him.

Which is irrelevant to your statement.

So you've changed your mind then? The other apostles were fallible, but Paul alone - the one apostle who never heard Jesus preach and never knew Jesus in life - was infallible?



If he was ever wrong about a doctrine, then he would have been corrected. He was not, therefore his doctrines are to be followed.

Which is irrelevant to your statement.


No, it is entirely relevant. Did I ever sayi a god? No, I said the God.

There were three sins tolerated: Slavery, Divorce for a cause other than adultery, and polygamy. These are no longer tolerated.

In other words, "God changed with the times." This is a direct contradiction of your earlier statemetn.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is more than enough for any Christian slaveowner to realize he should not mistreat slaves at all.

Actually, it should be enough for any Christian to realize that slavery itself is wrong, unless you would like to claim that most people want to be slaves.

Read the last two sentences.

I did, surly though if rejecting your God's views meant eventual destruction would not most of the middle east have collapsed by now?

If he was ever wrong about a doctrine, then he would have been corrected. He was not, therefore his doctrines are to be followed.

That is an awfully hefty claim to make - and one that could only be made by one who completely knows the mind of God. Do you claim that ability?

No, it is entirely relevant. Did I ever sayi a god? No, I said the God.

And the Japanese may well have know the God, just as the ancient Israelites did. They simply may have seen God differently.

In other words, "God changed with the times." This is a direct contradiction of your earlier statemetn.



Actually, it should be enough for any Christian to realize that slavery itself is wrong, unless you would like to claim that most people want to be slaves.



No, His plan was for them to be sinful. His plan did not come to fruition instantaneously, as mankind would not have had the capacity to perform the events leading up to Christ. God's plan from the beginning was that it should be wrong. He never changed, he just allowed mankind to adjust to his plan at a pace they could. He, therefore, changes not.

That is an awfully hefty claim to make - and one that could only be made by one who completely knows the mind of God. Do you claim that ability?



And the Japanese may well have know the God, just as the ancient Israelites did. They simply may have seen God differently.



That is in direct contrast to the very claim of Christ:

John 14:6 6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.


The true God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the God of Jews and Gentiles. He is the God stated in the Bible.

No, His plan was for them to be sinful. His plan did not come to fruition instantaneously, as mankind would not have had the capacity to perform the events leading up to Christ. God's plan from the beginning was that it should be wrong. He never changed, he just allowed mankind to adjust to his plan at a pace they could. He, therefore, changes not.

Wait a minute, if it was wrong from the start why the hell wouldn't he just say it's wrong??? I mean it's not like he wasted any time on how homosexuality is wrong for you guys/girls.

No, His plan was for them to be sinful. His plan did not come to fruition instantaneously, as mankind would not have had the capacity to perform the events leading up to Christ. God's plan from the beginning was that it should be wrong. He never changed, he just allowed mankind to adjust to his plan at a pace they could. He, therefore, changes not.

I'm glad that telling someone, "No, don't do the evil thing that way, do it this way!" is consistent with being all-good. Let's all throw logic to the wind.

So it would be perfectly and completely good if I told someone, "No, don't kill her with a gun, do it with a knife!" so long as I thought that murder was wrong all along?

What if you thought that God said it instead?

Edit: Meanwhile, if God's plan was for sin to exist (which you have just stated), and God is all-good (as I believe), then sin is good. Surely you don't believe that sin is good?

That is in direct contrast to the very claim of Christ:

John 14:6 6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

The true God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the God of Jews and Gentiles. He is the God stated in the Bible.

Neo, I know that reading comprehension is difficult, but you really should at least put in an effort.

I didn't say that another God was the true God. I didn't say that the ancient Japanese views were correct. I said that the early Japanese might have seen God in a different way. Did you forget our earlier conversation about how fallible human beings can get the message wrong?

I'm glad that telling someone, "No, don't do the evil thing that way, do it this way!" is consistent with being all-good. Let's all throw logic to the wind.

So it would be perfectly and completely good if I told someone, "No, don't kill her with a gun, do it with a knife!" so long as I thought that murder was wrong all along?

What if you thought that God said it instead?



....you're really incorrigible, you know that?

He gave them a method through which their sins would have the least negative impact upon the victim. That is unless you'd rather them torture their slaves too? Regardless, to argue against God's methods would be to argue against God himself. You cannot do that.

....you're really incorrigible, you know that?

He gave them a method through which their sins would have the least negative impact upon the victim. That is unless you'd rather them torture their slaves too? Regardless, to argue against God's methods would be to argue against God himself. You cannot do that.

Yea because we all know that being a slave was freaking awesome. I mean being paid absolutely nothing to do work for a person who owns you must have been the best life ever. :rolleyes:

....you're really incorrigible, you know that?

I could say the same of you.

He gave them a method through which their sins would have the least negative impact upon the victim. That is unless you'd rather them torture their slaves too? Regardless, to argue against God's methods would be to argue against God himself. You cannot do that.

I am not arguing against God's methods. I am arguing against humankind's methods. I am arguing against your methods of trying to rationalize evil behavior as condoned by God "because they weren't ready." You specifically stated that changing the teachings because of the way society views things is unholy. Then you stated that God does this. Sounds to me like it is you arguing against what you believe to be God's methods.

Edit: Meanwhile, what you have done with your statements is to make God subordinate to human whims. "Oh, human beings have gotten to the point where they don't like slavery?!! Ok, I guess God can actually condemn it now."

I could say the same of you.



I am not arguing against God's methods. I am arguing against humankind's methods. I am arguing against your methods of trying to rationalize evil behavior as condoned by God "because they weren't ready." You specifically stated that changing the teachings because of the way society views things is unholy. Then you stated that God does this. Sounds to me like it is you arguing against what you believe to be God's methods.

Edit: Meanwhile, what you have done with your statements is to make God subordinate to human whims. "Oh, human beings have gotten to the point where they don't like slavery?!! Ok, I guess God can actually condemn it now."




I am not stating what I believe to be the correct method of doing things, I am stating what Christ himself said on the issue.

I am not stating what I believe to be the correct method of doing things, I am stating what Christ himself said on the issue.
No you are stating what a fallible book that was in no way written by the man you claim to be taking the direct words of says about it with no ability to verify the authenticit nor accuracy of thus forestated book

No you are stating what a fallible book that was in no way written by the man you claim to be taking the direct words of says about it with no ability to verify the authenticit nor accuracy of thus forestated book



Funny, many historians would disagree. The early church is well documented.

Funny, many historians would disagree. The early church is well documented.
The church is … not the words you claim the man himself said

Funny, many historians would disagree. The early church is well documented.

So are a lot of things, that doesn't automatically make them correct though does it?

The church is … not the words you claim the man himself said



Josephus for one. Also, 4 gospels and the recently discovered gospel of Thomas corroborate my claims.

Josephus for one. Also, 4 gospels and the recently discovered gospel of Thomas corroborate my claims.
Ohhh so the book yall have been following was incomplete … who knows what you are still missing

Ohhh so the book yall have been following was incomplete … who knows what you are still missing

My guess is the disclaimer that says to not take it so seriously.

My guess is the disclaimer that says to not take it so seriously.
Lol that or an explicit content parental warning lol

I am not stating what I believe to be the correct method of doing things, I am stating what Christ himself said on the issue.

No, you aren't. There is no place in Scripture where Christ said "God changes what is taught based on the whim of the people." There is no place in Scripture where Christ says "This is how you get slaves." There is no place in Scripture that Christ says "Everyone bow down to Paul. He is just as infallible as I am. By the way, those other apostles, only listen to them if they don't disagree with Paul."

These are things that you are saying because they are the way that you interpret Christ's teachings.

No you are stating what a fallible book that was in no way written by the man you claim to be taking the direct words of says about it with no ability to verify the authenticit nor accuracy of thus forestated book

Actually, most of what Neo is saying is not explicitly stated in the Bible. She has extrapolated it out of what is there.

Actually, most of what Neo is saying is not explicitly stated in the Bible. She has extrapolated it out of what is there.
Fair enough
So this would be closer to correct

“
No you are stating what you interpret from a fallible book that was in no way written by the man you claim to be taking the direct words of says about it with no ability to verify the authenticity nor accuracy of thus fore stated book
“

No, you aren't. There is no place in Scripture where Christ said "God changes what is taught based on the whim of the people." There is no place in Scripture where Christ says "This is how you get slaves." There is no place in Scripture that Christ says "Everyone bow down to Paul. He is just as infallible as I am. By the way, those other apostles, only listen to them if they don't disagree with Paul."

These are things that you are saying because they are the way that you interpret Christ's teachings.



Matthew 19:8 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

You see? God did permit things because the people were not ready to handle going without them.


Also, Christ, the infallible, gives Paul the authority to teach in His name. If Paul is teaching in the name of Christ the Infallible, then it is Christ's will Paul teaches. There's no way around it.

Ok this is gonna be a bit long. This thing's grown by about 1000 posts since I last checked in.


Marriage in the US, by default, is religious. Personally, I liked the idea of making civil unions the standard and allowing churches to make certain civil unions a marriage. That way, at least the government isn't slapping God in the face.

See? you start off making perfect sense.


Apparently, the government feels it has the right to speak for God by giving marriage to homosexuals. The ideal government would follow God's will, regardless of what the majority or minority wanted.

But then out of the blue, you say something completely silly, that I know you don't even believe yourself.
The previous quote shows you already recognise you live in a secular country. One where government speaks for and to humans, and one where God (PBUH) isn't involved in any way.
Churches are already marrying homosexuals. The government just doesn't recognise it. Besides, the government already allows people to form fully legal secular marriages.
And as you already know, the government has no more right to refuse the homo/bi minority's rights, than it has to refuse your church's rights. Both are protected from such oppression by your constitution ;)


This is the US, there is a reason why a priest is necessary to to legalize a marriage.

Over there in the USA, 100% secular marriages are performed every day. Your government has no more right to deny Atheists legal rights than it has to outlaw your church preaching descrimination.

But you have no problem with a hetero couple getting MARRIED by a Justice of the Peace?

WTF???
No, because it's actually marriage in that situation.

(inserted your explanation here)

It's only the definition on dictionary.com. And on webster's. So I'd assume it's the correct one. Gay Marriage would be contradictary, since a partnership between two homosexuals would not be marriage, as defined by the dictionary. It would be just that, a partnership.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

So when I quote the same dictionary, does that make you utterly and hopelessly wrong, or does it just say something about cherry picking sources that suits your cause?

Btw, you quoted American Heritage's explanation, Not Websters.


n.
1.
A) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
B) The state of being married; wedlock.
C) A common-law marriage.
D) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2.
A wedding.

The point is that it's not marriage. I've got no problem with Gay civil unions with all the rights that are in a marriage.

Honestly, the government should get out of marriage, allow legal unions for those who don't want to be married religiously, and leave marriage to religion.

Given both historical (see previous backup of that in this thread) and current (see above) definitions of what marriage is, I can't but disagree. That said, I would love to agree with you. If I ever marry, I'll consider it a stain upon my life, my integrity and my beloved to be mislabled as a religious person. Their institutions breed nothing but arrogance and intolerance. My own words on the matter should be ample proof.
Still, there's plenty of religious institutions that will perform same-sex weddings. Since your government recognises these institutions, why don't you?

Flamey-flamey and a bit o' bait
I saw a "Don't feed the troll" sign somewhere. I'm fairly certain it applies to allthe trolls. Not just ones haunting the sticky.

Marriage (for the US) is held in a religious tone. that's why the majority of weddings are held in church (sure a large number is held elsewhere but the majority of weddings are held in a Religous place and is santified by a religous person ie. priest/rabbi/cleric)

now Civil Unions is another thing entirely. I have no objections for civil unions (and they can be given every leagal status as marriage through the law) and I have no objections to that. but to force religions who are against same sex marriage is the same as religions forcing their definitions on Atheists. would an Atheist calmly let a church hold services in their home? If you want seperation of church and state, then allow same sex unions and have the government ensure the same rights/responsibilities to same sex unions.

I hate to say this, but your statement has no bearing on same-sex marriages. Some churches in America does perform same-sex marriages. I should think it their right to do so in a country with freedom of religion.
Personally I agree that secular marriages should be called something else, but I doubt many see it our way. Besides, most people would still refer to it as marriage in everyday speech.
I would support different definitions for church and civil weddings if there was a point in doing it. For example, if it makes it easier for fundies to treat people equally, I'm all for it. If it means people who thinks religious people suffer from mental disorders, get to distance themselves from religious institutions, I'm even more for it.

Marriage is religious. It should be kept as such. The government should allow legal unions for those not wanting to be together religiously. That way, everyone gets their rights and no one is discriminated against.

Simple solution, really.
Yups. Dead simple. Alas, people insist on complicating it, because some religions doesn't recognise other religions right to marry homo's/bi's.
It's sort of rediculous. "My church doesn't tolerate homo's, so homo's shouldn't get to use the word marriage! Nevermind other churches performs the exact ceremonies we do, and also performs them for homo's. They're clearly wrong, and church weddings for gays should be called civil unions". Nonsensical doesn't even begin to describe it, does it?

It's possible that I'm incorrect, but if I am incorrect then the Bible is incorrect. In that case, we all have no hope.
Funny, eh? If I were a praying sort, I'd be praying you're wrong. Call me a pessimist, but I sure don't see much hope for humanity if that book is right. And I don't exactly see a lot of hope for us if God exists.
The diversity of humankind is flabbergasting, ain't it luv?


1. Civil unions do not grant the same rights as marriage, as has been explained to you before.
2. Even if they did, ever heard of the ruling in Brown v Board of Education? Seperate but equal institutions are illegal.
Yes, they do, if all the rights included unions were equal to those of a marriage.

Again, you're forgetting seperation of church and state.
Haloman I hope you're right, as it would remove all possible obstacles for same-sex marriages. How sure about it are you?


So what happens when they are not getting married with a religious ceremony. What if gays get married with the local justice of the peace? People are not saying that churches have to marry gay couples. They are stating that the government must give gay couples the same rights afforded to their heterosexual counterparts. The government isnt forcing you to do anything.

Obviously the Troll imagines that is a violation of his religious freedom. Much as I'd claim his existence was a violation of my religious freedom is I was an American, I suppose.

More suprising, Neo Rogolia have previously stated she has no problem with what you describe. But she's not gonna vote for it. I guess she's only for equal rights in theory... It makes me wonder if she's ever heard the one about the neighbour being hauled off?
Anyway, it's more interesting to consider what people would think if a homo couple were wed in a church that isn't opposed to it. Her church isn't the only one that performs weddings after all. So is it ok to infringe on one church's rights, but not on anothers? I suppose religions have no more need for equal rights than humans do...

Your brother does not speak for all Christians, and you should not try to claim that he does. None of the true Christians I know are bigots, nor do they hate anyone.
Haloman, meet Neo Rogolia & Eskertania. Eskertania & Neo Rogolia, meet Haloman. Tehee :)
It's wonderful how you like to reduce the significance of an act by calling it "expressing their love for one another". How about we call it for what it is? SODOMY. Is it not possible to love a person without having intercourse? Of course, you obviously don't believe in the concept of self-control. Why do I even bother?
Why you bother? No clue...
I bet you think you'll provoke someone with that SODOMY thing. Know what? You only managed to convince me you're frigid. Only fundies like yourself consider a normal sexlife sodomy. Besides, what business is it of yours (or anyone elses') what consenting adults do in private?
...And Sodomy, assuming you mean anal sex, blowjobs etc. Is common practice between hetero married couples everywhere. Stick that in you mouth and... Sorry.


*Offers peace smores (sorry, don't smoke so no peace pipe)*
Sometimes, the solution can be so simple as changing a name of a thing.

But why do gays have to be lumped in a different category for something when it is the same thing as the other side?
They wouldn't be. The religious ones would still get married in whatever church they have (because homo friendly churches exists). The Atheist ones would have a civil ceremony, just like any other Atheist. Simple as hell really.

I still haven't figured out why this would present a problem for anyone.

Sure...but those who were wedded by the Justice of the Peace are still considered to be (drumroll, please) M-A-R-R-I-E-D!!!!!

Point is, they wouldn't be if haloman, JuNii and myself had our way. Only people having a religious ceremony would be called married. And they'd be married, snarfled, flarried or whatever their religion would call it, regardless of their genders.

Yes! Yes there is!

I would submit that the law that was unwritten that you are speaking of was probably MUCH closer to a RELIGION and not a government if you were to compare their structures.

Ok I'm gonna toss the Troll a bone.

Almost every time you make a claim, you say it is a FACT. I'm pretty sure you're only posting to piss people off, but just in case you're serious, here's a taste of your own medicine: The sun is a triangle. That is a FACT.
Should you disprove my outragous claim, I will simply refer to the FACT I just provided, and thus prove you instantly and utterly wrong.

In relation to the quote tho, I would submit there's no such thing as God. All the religious laws of all the religions humankind know of - including ones thousands of years both older and younger than your Christianity - are so similar one can only come to the conclusion that ethics are build into the human being. It's quite logical and even supported when you look at social structures amongst other species. They have social rules, which they enforce, just like humans do. Granted they're less complex, but the basics are the same. Theft, murder, etc.
Since seemingly all humans at all times have lived by similar rules, but in vastly different religious societies, and since social animals have similar rules and have no religions what so ever, I submit religion is nothing more than a few clever, pursuasive, and probably quite insane, leaders who have forged a fantastic reason for their societies to abide by some rules that ensures a complex social structure doesn't disentegrate.
Since we all, at all times, have been able to come up with and abide by such rules, and since even animals are capable of doing the same, I would say it's time to dismantle religions altogether. And perhaps it's time to mercy-kill the followers. After all, the followers myst be defect and unable to function without guidance since they need religion. And that just isn't very cost efficient in a capitalist society. You'd be nothing but a bunch of leeches.
I say all this because you make the claim that religious doctrines - moral laws if you will - are the only reason current laws exists. My assertion that religion was and is nothing more than a tool for enforcing build in social instincts and common sense - And whatever useful tools for oppression and whatever prejudice the inventor held - is every bit as reasonable. Most people agree that we as a species is moving forwards. Religion must then be a step backwards.

Please stop pissing on everyone participating in the debate. Thanks in advance. Don't expect any further comments from me. You're the most obnoxious and provoking person I've yet had the displeasure of comming across on a messageboard. I do hope you have the IQ of a rock, but I suspect you just get your kicks bu taking a piss at other people. [/Troll fodder]

No, the statistics prove that both are happening. There isn't necessarily a causal relationship OF ANY KIND.

Let's have an example...
Say you have one graph, that shows the number of left-handed people in a community. And then say you have another graph, that shows the number of UFO sightings. They are strikingly similar. You conclude that either lefties are all aliens, or somehow lefties are connected to UFOs. However, there is obviously no actual connection. The lefty population going up and the number of UFO sightings going up have a common cause: an across-the-board rise in population. More people means more people that see flying saucers. It also means more lefties, as they tend to make up a certain percentage of a given population.
In Scandinavia, there is growing tolerance. This leads both to gay marriage being allowed, as well as people not feeling forced to get married.
There is no proof, or even evidence, that the gay marriage lessened the straight marriage.
And yes, I have taken a course in Logic, so I know what I'm talking about as far as this is concerned.

While you're as right as can be, I just wanted to point out I refuted the POS earlier, with factual evidence. I think it was around p.70.


Now here's what I've learned so far:

People against same-sex marriages think it's icky.

Reason? While you lot claim otherwise, it all comes down to equal rights. Arguing religious reasons doesn't change that it won't affect your particular brand of religion, but that it will effect other peoples religions. If you think your fundie christian rights are important, the very best thing you can do to ensure you'll have them in the future, is to make sure other peoples religions and some peoples lack of religion, is treated equal to your own. It's a nobrainer ;)

The only motivation for being against same-sex marriages that isn't logic defying, is the Icky reason. Because that reason isn't based on logic at all. It's just that gut feeling some homosexuals get when they spot hetero's kissing in poblic, that makes them feel like puking where they stand, or scratch their eyes out.

Go ahead and prove me wrong.

Matthew 19:8 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

You see? God did permit things because the people were not ready to handle going without them.

Ok, look at that quote again. It clearly says "Moses permitted it." In other words, the law came from Moses.

It doesn't say "God permitted it."

Meanwhile, the second sentence says exactly what you have been saying all along, "God's will is controlled by the society of the time."

Also, Christ, the infallible, gives Paul the authority to teach in His name. If Paul is teaching in the name of Christ the Infallible, then it is Christ's will Paul teaches. There's no way around it.

Nothing in there says "Paul is infallible." It says, "Paul teaches Christ's will."

Well, I've had a lot of teachers. And they have all taught me their understanding of their subject. But none of them were infallible in that subject - not even my theology prof.

It's just that gut feeling some homosexuals get when they spot hetero's kissing in poblic, that makes them feel like puking where they stand, or scratch their eyes out.

Actually, I usually kiss my boyfriend, and then the breeders run away.

Michigan passes ban on gay driver’s licenses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penny Lane had the following to say:

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

John Lane added:

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

If this isn't sarcasm/parody (which I'm guessing it is) I do believe my theory that humanity is all fucking bonkers just got some more proof.

*roflmao

That's just great!

If this isn't sarcasm/parody (which I'm guessing it is) I do believe my theory that humanity is all fucking bonkers just got some more proof.

Of course it is. LOL.

This is something my boyfriend and I wrote a while back when many of the state governments were institutionalizing discriminatory practice.

Of course it is. LOL.

This is something my boyfriend and I wrote a while back when many of the state governments were institutionalizing discriminatory practice.

Good, just a bit skeptical since I could see someone trying to pull this today.

Since you apparently don't care that you have been asked by several people in the other thread to stay on topic, I'll be the polite person who moves this discussion.



My opinion correlates with Scripture just as closely as yours. However, in your arrogance, you refuse to even admit that possibility.

Meanwhile, I have yet to condemn you. You are the only one supplying condemnation around here.

The first sentence is false, as I demonstrated in the other thread many times...

No, you haven't demonstrated any such thing. You have pulled things out of context and claimed that you believe they demonstrate that I am wrong. There is a difference between demonstrating something objectively and saying "No you are wrong, because you disagree with me!" The latter is all you have done.

also, you condemned me several times in the other thread. At least, it was either you or Lyric who condemned me several times for supposedly "judging" others.....and that is judgement of me is it not?

Cute. "Hey, you condemned me, or maybe it was Lyric, but you did it!"

No, I have not accused you of judging others. All I have done is point out the inconsistencies in what you say.

<Snip>
:D :D :D

You slay me!

, I usually kiss my boyfriend, and then the breeders run away.

Hehe, I've done that too a couple of times

:D :D :D

You slay me!



Hehe, I've done that too a couple of times
Me as well its great fun!

Faith requires speculation without enough evidence to form a conclusion. I can read where it says in Leviticus that "man shall not lie with man as he would with a woman. It is an abomination." That does not require faith, that requires eyesight and literacy.

First off, you have read a translation of a translation of a scribe of a scribe of a scribe of a scribe of a.......................of a scribe of the text. As has been demonstrated to you before, there is just as much objective reason to believe that it is actually a prohibition against sleeping in the bed of a woman who is menstruating. We are not the ancient Hebrew, at least last time I checked.

Thus, you have faith that every scribe was correct. You have faith that every translator was correct. And you have faith that the people who first devised the laws were doing God's will in the first place. All of these are things that you have no evidence for - simply a belief.

First off, you have read a translation of a translation of a scribe of a scribe of a scribe of a scribe of a.......................of a scribe of the text. As has been demonstrated to you before, there is just as much objective reason to believe that it is actually a prohibition against sleeping in the bed of a woman who is menstruating. We are not the ancient Hebrew, at least last time I checked.

Thus, you have faith that every scribe was correct. You have faith that every translator was correct. And you have faith that the people who first devised the laws were doing God's will in the first place. All of these are things that you have no evidence for - simply a belief.




The prohibition of sleeping in the bed of a woman who is menstruating is mentioned seperately. In the original texts even, it is quite clear. Also, of course I have faith in the scribes. If I did not, as I demonstrated earlier, then we could not possibly be sure what God's will was and all we did would be based upon speculation. It would only be logical as a Christian to assume that God guided the process of scribes recording these things, if He truly cared about our souls.

Michigan passes ban on gay driver’s licenses

That's awesome! :p

Neo, please reply to my thread directed at you here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427522&page=148&pp=15).

Hehe, I've done that too a couple of times

You should see how shocked my mother looked! Tee-hee

The prohibition of sleeping in the bed of a woman who is menstruating is mentioned seperately.

So? It wouldn't be the only thing mentioned more than once.

In the original texts even, it is quite clear.

You have personally read them?

Also, of course I have faith in the scribes. If I did not, as I demonstrated earlier, then we could not possibly be sure what God's will was and all we did would be based upon speculation.

We still can't possibly be absolutely sure what God's will. All we can do is pray that we get guidance and get it right.

Meanwhile, your way requires having an awful lot of faith in humankind.

All mine requires is faith in God.

It would only be logical as a Christian to assume that God guided the process of scribes recording these things, if He truly cared about our souls.

You aren't assuming that God guided the scribes. You are assuming that God imbued the scribes with infallibility. Meanwhile, even that doesn't follow unless you don't believe in a personal relationship with God. Many of us do.

So? It wouldn't be the only thing mentioned more than once.



You have personally read them?



We still can't possibly be absolutely sure what God's will. All we can do is pray that we get guidance and get it right.

Meanwhile, your way requires having an awful lot of faith in humankind.

All mine requires is faith in God.



You aren't assuming that God guided the scribes. You are assuming that God imbued the scribes with infallibility. Meanwhile, even that doesn't follow unless you don't believe in a personal relationship with God. Many of us do.



I'm not claiming to have read the Hebrew text itself (I'm learning Hebrew right now), but I have read many articles in English on the etymology of the texts, and so far the differences aren't severe enough to warrant a change in translation. The scribes wrote as accurately as possible with God's guidance, therefore I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in not thinking they were trying to add their own interpretation to the Scriptures

I'm not claiming to have read the Hebrew text itself

Then you cannot state that you have read the original text.

The scribes wrote as accurately as possible with God's guidance, therefore I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in not thinking they were trying to add their own interpretation to the Scriptures

Who said anything about actively trying to add their own interpretation? Human beings make mistakes. Trying isn't necessary.

How can you call me a bigot, when I've said nothing to deem me as such?

That, in itself, is bigotry.
If you are not for us, then you are against us.

If you are against us, you have no good, logical, sound reason based in law to be against us, as no one has demonstrated one. thus, your only reason to be against us is more of the same "because God said so" or "because I said so" or "because it makes me feel icky" all of which boils down to bigotry.

I'd have a lot more respect for bigots if they'd come out and openly admit their bigotry instead of hiding it behind the Bible.

Bottom line, if you are not for us, then you are a bigot. Because there is, demonstrably, no good reason to be against us.

You see, I've been argueing that point for ages now. When I quote other commands from the OT, I get the "things changed" argument. Funny how everything changed, but the bit about homosexuality remained. Nobody could yet explain that to me, Jesus never said a word against homosexuality.

Instead, they quote Paul. The sam Paul who said "Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was the woman, not Adam, who was deceived by Satan, and sin was the result. But women will be saved through childbearing and by continuing to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty." (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

So, stricly speaking, Neo Rogolia is not allowed to instruct any of us on Christian doctrine, since she is a woman....
I just hate how some people will hide behind the bible in order to discriminate others, but happily omit passages if they concern themselves....


Oh, but they do it all the time...as I have been at pains to point out.

They only keep the parts that incovenience others, and allow them to hold on to their oh-so-comfortable bigotries and prejudices...and they discard anything that would cause them to change, or would inconvenience them...or cause them to maybe THINK about changing their point of view.

As I said minutes ago...I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for the bigots if they would just be up-front about their bigotry, rather than hiding behind the Bible.

I'd still hate them for being bigots, but I'd respect them a lot more for having the balls to admit that they are bigots...instead of using the Bible as a way of excusing their bigotry.

i don't get it...marrying someone is done trough a religious process. that religious process says "male and his female are joined in holy marriage".

how about the "you may now kiss the bride"

how about "i now proclaim you husband and wife"


how do you convert that to gay unions. more importantly, why would you encourage something so abnormal. britney's 55 hours marriage is the reason? one wrong justifies another? the concept of progress states that perfection is the main objective of society and individuals. gay marriages is 180 degrees from perfection.

Like it's really THAT hard to change a few words?

More likely it is hard for YOU to wrap your brain around the concept that two same-ghender people might love each other in the way you might love an opposite-ghender person. And if that is your reason to oppose THEM doing what makes them happy, then you, sir, are a bigot.

If he was ever wrong about a doctrine, then he would have been corrected. He was not, therefore his doctrines are to be followed.

Do you think that Paul was the only one to write letters?

If yes, then how do you know that what he wrote is what the others preached?

If no, then where are the letters of the other apostles?

Simple: if you were possessed by a perfect being, and that being spoke through you, your teachings would be perfect.

Where does it say that being "filled with the Holy Spirit" equates to being possessed by God or Jesus? Unless it states such explicitly there is room for interpretation.

Simple: God preserves nations as long as they follow His will. When that stops, so does his protection.

Ah, so I suppose YOU'D like to take a whack at blaming the homosexuals, the feminists, the ACLU, and The People For The American Way, for 9/11 like Pat Robertson did?

Lesson number 1 for a fundamentalist: When in doubt, blame all of society's ills on enemies of your own choosing. Rinse and repeat. :rolleyes:

He was, at the time, fulfilling His plan. Remember, plans coming to fruition does not equate to a change in character. He was preparing the world for the coming of Christ. Christ has come and perished for our sins, now God has a hands-off policy until the Judgement Day.

Well, shit. Sure wish his so-called FOLLOWERS followed His example, and had a hands-off policy until Judgement Day, too!

If you are not for us, then you are against us.

If you are against us, you have no good, logical, sound reason based in law to be against us, as no one has demonstrated one. thus, your only reason to be against us is more of the same "because God said so" or "because I said so" or "because it makes me feel icky" all of which boils down to bigotry.

I'd have a lot more respect for bigots if they'd come out and openly admit their bigotry instead of hiding it behind the Bible.

Bottom line, if you are not for us, then you are a bigot. Because there is, demonstrably, no good reason to be against us.



For someone who dislikes Bush, you certainly love to integrate his quotes into your speech :p I think I'm going to start ignoring you, your points are more annoying than valid.

Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that, hmm......you're wrong?
Hmmm...I believe, Neo, that the only person here who has NEVER stopped to consider that they might be worng is YOU!!! Which is why you are pissing everyone here off!
Your goddamn holier-than-thou, I'm-better-than-you attitude!!

If what I state is supported by the Scriptures, then I cannot be wrong. If what I say is not supported by the Scriptures, then it can be wrong.

let me try again...

THE SCRIPTURES HAVE NO FUCKING BEARING ON UNITED STATES CIVIL LAW!!

Nor should they. It is Un-constitutional, and Un-American.

For someone who dislikes Bush, you certainly love to integrate his quotes into your speech :p I think I'm going to start ignoring you, your points are more annoying than valid.

Neo, you've already lost the argument on baning gay marriage.

If you are not for us, then you are against us.

Just to be pedantic, one could be neutral. One could say "I don't care what you guys decide. It doesn't affect me one way or the other."

Now, I wouldn't have much more respect for that view than I would for someone who said "I hate teh gays!", but it is a possible viewpoint.

So you've changed your mind then? The other apostles were fallible, but Paul alone - the one apostle who never heard Jesus preach and never knew Jesus in life - was infallible?

Apparently that is the case. I suppose this is because Paul says everything Neo wants to hear, and supports Neo's already pre-determined views on things.

For someone who dislikes Bush, you certainly love to integrate his quotes into your speech :p I think I'm going to start ignoring you, your points are more annoying than valid.

Ah, so you picked up on it, did you? Good. You were supposed to.

Now you know how fucking annoying your side's arguments are! You don't fucking like it when YOUR SIDE'S arguments are used AGAINST you, do you?

You completely missed the point I was trying to make.

I am using the arguments of people on the opposite side of me...AGAINST them...and they don't like it.

Man, this is priceless!!

I'm not claiming to have read the Hebrew text itself (I'm learning Hebrew right now), but I have read many articles in English on the etymology of the texts, and so far the differences aren't severe enough to warrant a change in translation. The scribes wrote as accurately as possible with God's guidance, therefore I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in not thinking they were trying to add their own interpretation to the Scriptures

So you'll give some people the benefit of the doubt when they are interpreting text but when it contradicts your point of view its automatically wrong?

This is why translated texts can NEVER be treated as though they say the same things as the original. I have written a short paragraph in English, and translated it into various languages, and then translating it back into English. This is what I came up with:

Hello, my name is Illimek. Don't drink water from the river over there. It is bad for you.
English to Italian

Ciao, il mio nome è Illimek. Non beva l'acqua dal fiume là. È difettoso per voi.
Italian to French
Salut, mon nom est Illimek. Il ne boive pas l'eau du fleuve là. Il est défectueux pour vous.
French to Portegeuse
Salvação, o meu nome é Illimek. Não beba a água do rio lá. É defeituoso para vocês.
Portegeuse to English
Salvation, my name is Illimek. It does not drink the water of the river Is defective there for vocês.
English to German
Rettung, mein Name ist Illimek. Sie trinkt nicht das Wasser des Flusses ist defekt dort für vocês.
German back to English
Rescue, my name is Illimek. Defectively there she does not drink the water of the river is for vocês.

Hmmm....Seems like there is a bit of a difference. Just think if even one 'not' was not included or was included where it should not have been. Think of how much the world would be different(at least the Christian section of it.)

AND STOP THINKING CHRISTIAN DOGMA HAS ANY AFFECT ON UNITED STATES LAW!

[edit included English to German and back to English]

So you'll give some people the benefit of the doubt when they are interpreting text but when it contradicts your point of view its automatically wrong?

How is this even relevant?

If NR had an interest in perserving her perverse religious intstitution, she'd be fighting for equal rights. Because that might just make equal rights advocates return the favour the day her faith needs it.

As it is, it's purely the Icky factor she's arguing. Her religion is just a smokescreen. It's not in her own best interest, as a religious extremist, to deny other minorities their rights. But she just can't get over how vomit inducing she feels it is. Nevermind that homosexual acts will continue undiminished all around her. It's purely a pathetic attempt at lashing out against something she thinks is Icky...

Hypocrites... Don't you love 'em?

And now Spain is the 4th country in the world to legalize gay marriages! Good job Spain. Hopefully, some of us across the pond will get our heads out of our asses and legalize it as well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050630.wspain0630/BNStory/International/

And now Spain is the 4th country in the world to legalize gay marriages! Good job Spain. Hopefully, some of us across the pond will get our heads out of our asses and legalize it as well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050630.wspain0630/BNStory/International/

Well, ONE of us across the pond has got their heads outta their asses and legalized it, since Canada is the THIRD country in the world to legalize gay marriages.

Previously, it was legal in 10 of 13 Canadian Provinces...now, it is legal coast-to-coast in Canada...and this happened just within the week.

And now Spain. Hooray for Spain! I wonder, though, how many countries will do it (and not get bombed by fire and brimstone from God) before, finally, the United States will pull it's collective head out of it's ass and relize the government has no place in our bedrooms, or our personal relationships.

Again, no one here is asking, or advocating, that any church be forced to perform any ceremony it finds objectionable. We seek equality only in the eyes of the law. There are plenty of friendly churches which we'd rather belong to, anyway, and who WILL sanctify our marriages. Anyone gay who would want anything to do with a church that does not recognize them as a whole human being, quite frankly needs their head examined.

So, there's nothing to stop the bigot churches from going right on and being bigot churches...nothing to stop those who practice in bigot churches to go right on practicing in bigot churches. We don't care if people who attend bigot churches acknowledge, or approve of, our equal relationships. We never asked for their approval, anyway. We just want them to stay the fuck out of our lives.

And, again, I say...to those "offended" by seeing a gay couple kiss or walk down the street holding hands...well, your God gave you a neck that swivels for a reason. No one in this country has a Constitutional right to never be offended...or to never have their sensibilities challenged or offended. Too bad.

I feel tempted to add: "And while your necks don't swivel 360 degrees, there's no reason you shouldn't try forcing it".

It's funny how it's always the people against gay marriage are always the ones to stop posting first...

It's like they can't come up with any valid arguments, or something. :p

It's because they always lose allowing us to get the last word like they claimed they wouldn't.

It's funny how it's always the people against gay marriage are always the ones to stop posting first...

It's like they can't come up with any valid arguments, or something. :p
The tactic of the anti-rights brigade is to simple repeat the same tired falacies over and over. Whenever intelligent and informed people point out their errors, they run away, only to make the exact same points somewhere else. They clearly assume we are all so stupid that we will start believing them if they repeat their lies often enough.

The tactic of the anti-rights brigade is to simple repeat the same tired falacies over and over. Whenever intelligent and informed people point out their errors, they run away, only to make the exact same points somewhere else. They clearly assume we are all so stupid that we will start believing them if they repeat their lies often enough.

Sometimes I wonder why I even keep debating this. Perhaps some small measure of hope that someday one of them will make a point I hadn't considered yet?

Tolerance.

Not Acceptance

Tolerance.

Not Acceptance

So that means I should be able to tolerate Christians but not accept them? or blacks, women, ect.

So that means I should be able to tolerate Christians but not accept them? or blacks, women, ect.
I think the point is:

Tolerance = Live and let live (allow gays/Christians to do whatever they want, as long as you're not being forced into something)
Acceptance = Changing your opinion about the issue (which nobody has to do; it's not illegal to dislike Christians, gays, or other races)

I think the point is:

Tolerance = Live and let live (allow gays/Christians to do whatever they want, as long as you're not being forced into something)
Acceptance = Changing your opinion about the issue (which nobody has to do; it's not illegal to dislike Christians, gays, or other races)
I get the impression that it means that gays should be allowed to exist but only as second-class citizens.

I get the impression that it means that gays should be allowed to exist but only as second-class citizens.
No, this is what it means:

The government needs to recognize the equal rights of gays (i.e. the right to marry whom they choose). In the eyes of the law, gays are accepted, though we need that final step in order to make them fully accepted.

But that's not who we're referring to. We're talking about the Christians who, because of their religion, feel that it's "wrong" to be homosexual.

They claim that by allowing gay marriages, the rest of us are forcing them to "okay" something that they think is a "sin." However, due to the freedom of religion, they don't have to accept homosexuality in the context of their religion.

Their churches will never have to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to, and they don't have to allow gays to attend services if they don't want to, either.

I'm not saying that that's nice to do, but it's the freedom of religion, which is completely separate from the government recognizing the rights of gays.

And on a side note, that's why the separation of church and state is so, so important.

P.S. Also, causing gays to live as second-class citizens would not fall under "live and let live;" it would be discrimination.

No, this is what it means:

The government needs to recognize the equal rights of gays (i.e. the right to marry whom they choose). In the eyes of the law, gays are accepted, though we need that final step in order to make them fully accepted.

But that's not who we're referring to. We're talking about the Christians who, because of their religion, feel that it's "wrong" to be homosexual.

They claim that by allowing gay marriages, the rest of us are forcing them to "okay" something that they think is a "sin." However, due to the freedom of religion, they don't have to accept homosexuality in the context of their religion.

Their churches will never have to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to, and they don't have to allow gays to attend services if they don't want to, either.

I'm not saying that that's nice to do, but it's the freedom of religion, which is completely separate from the government recognizing the rights of gays.

And on a side note, that's why the separation of church and state is so, so important.

P.S. Also, causing gays to live as second-class citizens would not fall under "live and let live;" it would be discrimination.
Well, that's your take on what was said by another poster. I have my own.

Well, that's your take on what was said by another poster. I have my own.
Okay, that's fine. But what I said is how most of the people for gay marriage feel. :)

Okay, that's fine. But what I said is how most of the people for gay marriage feel. :)
But East Nations was against gay marriage!

But East Nations was against gay marriage!
:headbang: Well, I obviously haven't been paying attention! :p

That's kind of funny, though. His/her argument against gay marriage can be interpreted as a reason why we can all co-exist with gay marriage.

At least, that's how I see it. I don't know what point he/she was trying to make, then. I guess that "toleration" is "allowing" gays to exist, and "acceptance" is allowing them to marry?

:headbang: Well, I obviously haven't been paying attention! :p

That's kind of funny, though. His/her argument against gay marriage can be interpreted as a reason why we can all co-exist with gay marriage.

At least, that's how I see it. I don't know what point he/she was trying to make, then. I guess that "toleration" is "allowing" gays to exist, and "acceptance" is allowing them to marry?
Beats me. But it was a point he/she seemed obligated to repeat over and over and over again.

Haven't read all of the thread, blah blah, sorry for repeats, etc. etc.

Intolerant has such a negative connotation with it... would you allow a poisonous spider to crawl up your arm untouched? You'd flick it away, wouldn't you? Would you be called intolerant for that? It WOULD be a type of intolerance, yes. There are times where intolerance is perfectly acceptable, and indeed, the more intelligent choice. Were we 'tolerant' of Nazi soldiers slaughtering Jews? No, I don't believe we were. Should all who fought back then be known as "intolerant Christians"? I am not intolerant in general, but like everybody, I do have intolerances for something completely rediculous and harmful for society. Unfortunately due to my religion this is blown up all out of proportion, and like gay 'marriage' itself, that fact sickens me.
Yes, I would swat away the spider, after thoroughly soiling my shorts. However, that spider would have posed a threat to me, and wasn't human. Self-defense, you see. Nazis killing Jews? They were killing people, for no reason other than the fact that they were Jewish. Although it's not why anybody entered the war (the full horrors of the Holocaust didn't come out until quite a while later) it would have been justification enough. However, gays don't harm you in any way. Gay marriage would not harm you, beyond possibly making you lose your appetite. It would not undermine your religion, because your religion would not be required to recognize the marriage. However, not all religions are against gay marriage, and those religions would recognize the marriage. And how is gay marriage harmful to society? I know you've mentioned it before, but you had no evidence that wasn't refuted, so I'd like to know.


Nothing I can do about it, but luckily ones who agree with me are in power. Therefore, i'm sorry you're not comfortable with THAT. But, thankfully, there's nothing you can do about it.
Oh, that's real mature. "Might makes Right" is not a valid argument.


Yes, I read through your nice little passage and nothing seems relevant but the last paragraph. In that, I see "Gay marriage is rare in history" and I remind myself that it should be kept that way. Nothing more to say about that at all.
See your retreat? Before, you said that marriage had been strictly between men and women since Creation. Also, you were making rediculous claims about how this nation works. Now, you have backed off a little, merely claiming that gay marriage was "rare" and that the constitutional protections which were part of why we broke off from Britain are "kinda dumb and irrelevant". The fact that gay marriages happened at all means that, even in ancient times, there were people who recognized that marriage was not just for heterosexual couples. So your "it's always been that way and I resist change with the AK-47 I keep in my closet" approach doesn't exactly work.


Yes, it does. It insults my religion, and my freedom to practice my religion without this sort of blatant public defiance toward certain aspects of it. I don't have a right not to be insulted, but I believe there is some "stuff" in there about me being able to choose my faith without having to worry about the basic principles of it, and it's leaders being infringed upon by the law. If and when the government makes any law that is directly against what my religion believes than it is going against many, many rights of free religion. Not to mention we are the majority, and it is especially rediculous to see the majority's rights INFRINGED upon by a minority.
LOL!
Perhaps you receive it as an insult to your religion. But how could that be? How could it possibly be more of an insult to your religion than, say, a temple to a "false god"? Your religion doesn't have to recognize the unions, and it in no way keeps you from following your religion. What part of Christianity, that you normally do, would would no longer be able to do if gays got married? Seriously. And no, freedom of religion does not mean that your religion gets to dictate law. Notice the difference:
1. Laws that your religion disagrees with: Constitutionally OK
2. Laws that prevent you from following your religion: Unconstitutional
3. Look on your face when #1 happens: Priceless

Anyway, before you start talking about how some "stuff" says things, you might want to actually read the document(s). Don't argue about stuff when you have only a tenuous grasp of what it means.
And how, exactly, are your rights being infringed upon by "the minorities"? The only "rights" that are being taken away are your "rights" to oppress them. Kindly stop thinking that anyone who isn't as powerful as you and disagrees with you should go suck an egg.


Again with the slavery comparison. GAYS ARE NOT BEING BEATEN, ENSLAVED, TORTURED, FORCED TO WORK, OR CAPTURED BY ANYBODY. This arguement is flawed and apparently you aren't smart enough to see that. The day a gay is "lynched" by a mob and the police do nothing, this point will be valid, until then, I would submit that it is not relevant whatsoever.
Have you read what other people have posted? The means of oppression are different. You don't fully understand the concept of an analogy. Either that or you're lying.


Does it infringe on your rights of free religion? No? Good. That's all.
*sigh* there are other rights besides freedom of religion...


Blacks and women are not even comparable to gays. They are biologically ineffecient and are nature's way of thinning the population. THAT is fact. >straight< Blacks and >straight< women can reproduce, raise their children, teach them what they know, do good for the genepool. My religious arguement aside, biologically there is no reason for any of this. Science AND Religion both back this up, and that's hard to come by. Yet you would pull reasons from society. Society changes, values change... 300 years ago to have this discussion would be laughable on your part. However, 300 years ago it was still unnacceptable by the Church AND by Science to even imagine it. You do see what I mean, don't you? There is a constant in my side of the arguement where yours just happened to come up in the past 10 years. Gays can attend school, they can get jobs, they can do everything that I can do do, but like anybody else, they cannot infringe on my religious freedoms.
Gays are still people. So what's your point? Gays can adopt unwanted babies, raise them, teach them what they know, and do good for the genepool. Hey, look! It's the same thing, just with fewer abandoned children...
Biologically, there's no reason for a condom. But condoms aren't illegal, except in the Catholic church (and even some parishes are loosening up on this). Your point is moot. Also, again with "infringing on religious freedoms"... no.


And yet they worked for thousands of years?
Define "worked". Religious regimes have been some of the nastiest in history.

Perhaps there was an exploited minority at times, but we have gotten past that already. Blacks are equal, other religions we have tolerance for, witches aren't burned, women have rights... we have come a long way. Indeed, we are finished.
:gasp: Who told you that??? If you think that we have full gender and racial equality in this country, then you live in a very thick-skinned bubble indeed. Note that this is not insulting you: meerly bemoaning your lack of information.

The only problem now lies in minorities waiting to upset the order that was working for about half a century. All humans already have equal natural rights, blacks, asians, whites, women, men... they have them. Homosexuals, however, are not going to be infringing on my rights anytime soon with this disgusting practice.
"Disgusting" is subjective and not everyone thinks that homosexuality is disgusting. Once again, gay marriage wouldn't infringe on your rights one bit.


I'm saying that the government, and society for that matter has always been the "final sayso" on any matter. When women were inferior, the government changed it's policy and so did society's interpretation of the bible. When blacks were inferior, same thing. These were good moves. However... as long as the government maintains it's current position on things society will come to believe as I do. If a a few generations grow up under these current laws it will just be a matter of time before my 'side' vastly outnumbers your side, because of the way society works. This, I am saying, is a good thing.
So, you're saying that if we accept gay marriage the Bible will support it? Wow, I never knew that the Word of God was so flexible... the words on the page just changing like that...


Sarcasm. Great.
Glad you like it, so do I :D


I believe i've already shown you how it 'affects my life' in that it violates certain religious freedoms, in my opinion. If we outlawed "leaving the house on sundays", there would be some angry christians... likewise, we have this situation. Unfortunately for you, and for all of your side, we are the, I say again, majority. We are the ones who appoint our representatives, and therefore it is my side that decides the laws.
Ah yes. However, forbidding you to go to church is an infringement on your rights. Gay marriage doesn't do anything to your "religious freedoms". I repeat: you have the freedom to practice your religion. So does everyone else. There are some churches (the UU church, for one) which believe that all people are equal, and are disgusted and insulted when they are not treated as such. So why should your religion have the right to stop anything they don't like, even at the expense of other religions? Answer: it doesn't. And, by the way, our representatives have to make laws that are Constitutional.

I don't believe it's been 'tore apart' yet, but I applaud you for trying. Fine then, let's say they're ten. The point wasn't to get technical and whine about how it would be damaging to engage in sexual activity, the point is to say that, you like all who aren't lying, don't think they should be able to get into a legal commitment. And there you have my point, if gays can have a 'marriage' than why can't they? You would cry about me discriminating and yet you would discriminate yourself based on age. It's because 'intolerance' CAN be used with a good reason at times, isn't it? Oh, why yes, it is. In both the 5 / 79 year old case and in the gay 'marriage' case, it is.
IIRC two 10-year-olds could get married with the permission of their parents/guardians. They just couldn't have sex. Why? Because it has been shown to be mentally and physically harmful for children to have sex. Thus age-of-consent laws. Also, they will eventually be allowed to have sex with each other, unlike gays.


I'd rather not read about gay penguins, but that's just me. Yes, nature is doing what it can to control the out-of-control population spike that is occurring, now isn't it? Gays are biologically inefficient, some by choice, some by nature. Either way, it still stands that they don't perform the entire PURPOSE of life, that is, to reproduce. Completely biologically speaking, people are born to have sex, to pass on their genes, to increase the genepool, to better the chances of survival for the species. Do they do this? No.
Heh, more backpeddaling. There is no dangerous population spike among penguins :-P however, there is among humans.


Yes they will still do it for awhile, but the outlawing of the gay marriage will be a huge victory for my side of things, and perhaps start us down a road that we should have been on in the first place. History would prove you wrong on your second point. My "out-dated" views were the things that kept peace for hundreds of years in numerous situations, social order was established by these "out-dated" views, and you woud mess with them purely to serve your own selfish WANTS, not needs, WANTS. It is things like gay 'marriage' that contribute to the decay of society, and you need to GET OVER the fact that some of us aren't willing to let this happen. Things do change, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. Sometimes we must change with it (black / women's rights) sometimes we must remain firm on where we stand because we see that without CONSTANTS in society, we are just a bunch of aimless liberals changing to every whim of every individual.
Yes, selfish wants, like being at the deathbed of your partner for 50 years.


I've dealt with both your claim that I have nothing but religion to back up my arguement, and the rest of that garbage up above. As for what is wrong in the world... haha. Celebraties sexually abusing small boys, terrorist preying on convoys of female soldiers, three dead boys being found in a trunk of a car in New Jersey, Kidnappings with dead bodies being found a week later in Florida, ... The list goes on. The fact is, if you DIDN'T see anything wrong in the world than you are the confused one.
Yes, bad things happen. This has always been the case. This is nothing new. It used to be the kings and nobles who would go around raping people. Anyway, there's even one thing on your list that I think is misplaced: the part about terrorists preying on "convoys of female soldiers".
First of all, they're soldiers. That makes them legitimate targets, vagina or no. Do I like it when women are blown up? No, of course not. I don't like it when men get blown up either. Do I have an extra pang when it's a woman? Sure. It's probably genetic, that men tend to think that women should be protected. However, it was the women themselves who chose to be there. They wanted equality, they wanted to be allowed in the service. Although it would be a killer secret weapon if we had soldiers whom the enemy wasn't allowed to kill...
Secondly, the convoy was mostly men. There were also a few women in it. Not exactly "targeting females".


Oh... perhaps that example was too deep for you. My apologies. Sometimes things are just plain OBVIOUS, like when men shouldn't walk into women's restrooms, that's what I was intending to say. Sorry you couldn't understand that... i'll simplify by comparisons in the future.
Actually, your comparison was flawed. You assumed that gay marriage was "obviously wrong", like a man going into a women's bathroom. Clearly, the people debating you disagree. So then the fact that they have nothing to do with each other and are not similar in any way except for the fact that it involves what sex someone is kinda comes back to bite you in the arse.

Sterile people at least have a certain correctness about them that gay people do not have. A sterile man marries a fertile woman, it is a tragic situation, however at least they are joined as nature, and as God intended it to be. A gay couple, again, is against both of these.
Please explain this, and this time try to make sense while doing it.

In the forum, perhaps, I am the minority. However I do enjoy a good... discussion with anybody, and especially on something I believe so passionately about. However, my logic applies to society in general not neccessarily to a forum... and I would have assumed that you figured that out, but apparently not. So let's just have this little paragraph to clear that up, hm?
And I believe the response from our side was "majority doesn't mean you're right". Because otherwise you'd be right and wrong at the same time, because you're a majority in the country but a minority on these fora.

eyeglasses and other TOOLS are natural. Animals in the wild use TOOLS to help them survive. Animals in the wild are not naturally gay.
Read. Thread. Gay. Penguins.

Read. Thread. Gay. Penguins.
Not to mention gay and lesbian seagulls, dolphins, dogs, etc.

Oppressed? Hardly. You aren't confined to your house on weekdays, limited to choices in clothing... you apparently like to overuse the word "oppress"

Is it "oppressive" that it's not socially acceptable for a man to wear a dress? No, it isn't. That's what society says, likewise, it's not socially acceptable for gays to 'marry'.

You aren't oppressed, it's simply how society works, with majority's influencing it more than minorities.
It's not illegal for a man to wear a dress. The fact that it is (usually) not socially acceptible is completely arbitrary. It used to not be socially acceptible for a woman to wear pants. Now it is.
Also, don't forget kilts. They're not dresses, but in some ways they are similar, and they were the norm and are now used for ceremonial occasions (or when my friend wants to scare the Freshmen).
As for "oppression"... the point was that making them live under Christian law would be like making you live under Sharia (traditional Muslim) law. It would be forcing a religion upon you, and would be illegal under the Constitution. The Sharia reference was an attempt to get you to think about being on the other side, but apparently any attempt to get you to think fails miserably.

People can change from gay to straight. I've heard of many people that have made this change. There was some kind of therapy and counseling. But to those of you who say it's genetic and they can't help it...well...they can.
Nope, try again.

At "best", they have been convinced to pretend to change.

Let me put it this way: Who you are attracted to is not a choice. Gay people can't purposely turn straight any more than straight people can purposely turn gay. Who you go out with/have sex with is a behavioral choice. Behavioral choices can be changed (unless you can't get it up with a woman), and it is hard if not impossible to "prove" that their attractions have really changed.

It's sad that all of you don't realize you're doing the same thing I am.

You're telling me that i'm "wrong", and then you never stop talking about how apparently it's a morale insult for me to do the same thing.

As for me arguing with Christians, fine, perhaps I am arguing with SOME christians, but i'd say the ones bothering me the most are not the Christians... because at the very least they TRY to understand what I am saying rather than act in the manner some of these people are and just instantly label me a bigot and a homophobe.
The difference is that you say that we're wrong based on the Bible.
We say that you're wrong based on the Constitution.

When debating law, guess which wins?

The only problem with that website is that for 11 of those 12 reasons, the responses are full of fallacies, usually providing examples that either aren't relevant or are unique and atypical cases not suitable for application to a general rule.

Incorrect, directly after my first post I was instantly UNDER ATTACK because of my belief, and I have since defended myself and put some of my attackers under attack.

I have given all the respect that is deserved to those that have shown me that same respect.
Your first post was an attack.
Stop it with the Christian Persecution Syndrome already.
Ruled. Western. World. Since. Constantine. Stop. Being. Paranoid. Please.

I've heard many talk of homosexual "oppression"; is this really the right term to apply to this situation? Yes, homosexuals are being denied the right to legal unions. However, they retain all of their basic constitutional rights, including the right to vote, own property, as well as having the legal ability tobe gay and engage in homosexual activity. If homosexuals faced true oppression, the only right denied to them would not be that of the ability to obtain legal unions. I know many see the legal treatment of homosexuals in relation to unions as unfair and unjust -- however, when compared with the sufferings of racial minorities, women, and the genocide faced by many other groups in history, the current troubles homosexuals face is incomparable to oppression. Oppression, in my opinion, is a term too loosely applied in this case.
Observe, this is what a reasonable argument looks like that I disagree with.

While I will agree that it is not nearly as severe as, say, the oppression of blacks during slavery and jim crow, it is still unconstitutional to deny gays the right to something with the same rights as marriage. Changing civil unions such that they provided the same benefits, and then granting gays the right to a civil union and a church wedding with the permission of the church would be fine by me.
Denying the rights associated with marriage creates a second-class group of citizens. All citizens are supposed to be equal under the law, and all citizens are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness.

But does that dog make a lifetime commitment to the dog its humping? Even if it does, can you prove that the animal is biologically homosexual?
You don't need to make a lifelong commitment to be homosexual. In fact, can you prove that dogs make lifetime commitments at all? Because if they don't (and many animals don't, monogamous pairs are the exception to the rule) then you could use your logic to demonstrate that no dogs are straight. Thus it's unnatural.
Anyway, the point is that just because gay/bi dogs don't "marry" (mate for life) doesn't mean that they aren't gay/bi.

Honestly, I expected better from you... you seem to be the only well-reasoned person on "the other side".

Seriously, I posted that article because I found it interesting, but it has pretty much led me to one major conclusion:

Animals cannot be used to justify anything in human society (and I include this in cases both for and against homosexuality).
THANK YOU.
While I may be biased in this, I believe that it is a perfectly good refutation of the claim that "homosexuality isn't natural". However, that's only because the original claim is flawed. It should be "homosexuality isn't natural in humans" which would be very difficult to prove, and I personally believe (and have evidence but not conclusive) that they would be wrong.

Even orphanages would be preferrable to a family that indoctrinates their adopted children with unscriptural platitudes.
1. Gay parents ≠ gay kids. (btw, if it comes out, isn't ≠ way cooler than =! ?)
2. Indoctrinates their aopted kids with unscriptural platitudes? Oh, so atheists shouldn't be able to adopt either? Well, ain't that just a bit unconstitutional?!

If he commands it in scripture, we can pretty much assume it's His will...
This assumes that the scriptures accurately portray God and His will, and the argument quickly becomes circular.
Why is gay marriage wrong?
Because it condones homosexual behavior.
Well, then, why is that a bad thing?
Because, the Bible says so.
How do you know that the Bible is true?
Because, the Bible is the word of God.
How do you know that?
Because it says so in the Bible.

See how this goes? At some point, you need blind faith in the Bible and the people who wrote it (and edited it... many many books were destroyed because they didn't fit the "image" that the early Christian leaders wanted).

Yes, some knowledge of the world is conducive to faith, however, raising children in a Christian household that lives by the standards it teaches will most likely result in children who do not stray from God's will...as opposed to their antithesis secular family.
Teen pregnancy rates are higher in Christian areas that teach abstinence-only in schools, because the kids bang each other just as much and they don't know about condoms :-\

That is good news. However i'm SURE that the amount of sympathy those children of gay parents have for gay people is in much greater supply...

...and that would be what I was trying to get at.
Oh, yes, and sympathy is such a horrible trait............

Pacific I don't see any problem with what you propose. It's how it's done in most countries where Gay Marriage is allowed.

The adoption question isn't actually a part of this thread. Gay marriages doesn't equate with the right to adopt.

That said, the hypocracy of allowing everyone but gays to have children is staggering. Short of drug addicts, no parent would worry me more than a right wing fundamentalist christian. Yet there's no limitations on their reproductive ability or their rights to adopt. Since that's the case, I don't see any valid arguement for not letting gays have the same rights.

Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no arguement against same-sex marriages apart from the "It's Icky" thing. I challenge all to prove me wrong.

I don't think anyone should get married. It's too complex of an issue, with too many people putting so much value on one word. Marriage should be outlawed, gay or straight.

Fundamentalists like Neo Rogolia make me want to break things. That is all.

I don't think anyone should get married. It's too complex of an issue, with too many people putting so much value on one word. Marriage should be outlawed, gay or straight.
Yes. Monogamy is a stupid idea anyway. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Yes. Monogamy is a stupid idea anyway. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:


agreed - who came up with that load of bull? :P

Fundamentalists like Neo Rogolia make me want to break things. That is all.

With the way she acts it almost seems like its deliberate trolling and she's not really an anti gay christian. But then again its the internet so I guess we will never really know.

Are you SURE you want people to start talking about scientific facts on the subject? Aren't you afraid that someone is going to start throwing statistics that show chemically imbalanced persons who suffer from physical depression are more likely than other people to both attempt self-medication via narcotic drugs and try homosexuality lifestyles? In fact, couldn't the argument be made that suicidally depressed people are more likely to be Gay than the non-suicidal population? How many wouldn’t have tried homosexuality in the first place if they were never chemically proned to depression to begin with?
If you were a scientist, or, say, trained in the rudiments of logic, you would know that the above does not do anything to prove causality. You say that people are gay because they're depressed. But there's no proof that they aren't depressed because they're gay and either 1) they're homophobic themselves (often leading to suicide) or 2) the people around them are so intolerant that they become depressed.
It can't be proven either way. So please stop acting like it proves that homosexuality is something made up by people who are on drugs. There are plenty of happy, healthy homosexuals who are clean and... well, I'd say "straight", but what with the double-meaning...


Sure you can say society's oppression of them causes the depression, but you can't prove that they're depression didn't itself cause the desire to try homosexual behaviors in an all out bid to TRY and find comfort in a world they perceive as cold and hard and they are afraid continuing in suicidal depression without trying anything and everything before killing oneself.
There is a difference between trying a homosexual lifestyle and being a homosexual. You can control your actions. You can't control your attractions. Depression can't "turn you gay", because it isn't something that can be changed on a fundamental level.

Who 'chooses' to use narcotic drugs, and sniffs paint and live a life of a street bum searching endlessly for their next 'fix' except those that also suffer from manic depression, or other clinically verifiable schizophrenia?
Point?

What percentage of the non-homosexual population regularly uses illicit drugs for recreational or self medication purposes? What percentage of the homosexual community does it? What percentage of the so-called 'normal’ population stops using illegal drugs at middle age or sooner ~ what percentage of the homosexual community does it as well? These are scientific questions you might not want answered, eh?

Just food for thought... Or logs for the fire, your choice :D
The whole gays-are-all-druggies thing is a myth. It was somewhat true in previous decades, kind of like how hippies were druggies in the 60's and 70's, but it wasn't a "permanent" thing.

With the way she acts it almost seems like its deliberate trolling and she's not really an anti gay christian. But then again its the internet so I guess we will never really know.

agreed

God said it's wrong, pal. Not me.
1. Proof?
2. Irrelevant.

Also, is the word you're looking for "TANTAMOUNT" by any chance,
Most likely. I'm sure you've heard of typos.
or have we created a new "on-line" language since yesterday?
More like the past 10 or 15 years.

Two pieces of advice, and you can take it or leave it:
1. Read the thread before you make unsupported, uninformed, sweeping claims.
2. Grow up or shut up.

Originally posted by:
Cabra West
The rule about killing adulterers is in that same book.

And if you'll remember there is a story in the Gospels where Jesus saves an adulterer from a stoning.

So did Jesus follow all the purity rules? Doesn't sound like it. The point we're all trying to make is that Leviticus was an older book for older times.
By that logic, the entire Bible is out by now :D

Yay, I can covet my neighbor's wife!!!

homo sexauls are a fuck up in the human evolutions in the mind it has no point period to exist just wasting space on this planet and wtf is up with you bible beaters out there we humans made the whole jesus christ and god thing up to be more mentally secure thats the whole purpose of the role of a god and or gods in the minds of us primitive sentient lifeforms i mean it too we humans better get our act together soon or its bye bye to everyone and everything which wouldnt be so bad my genius ass will be smoking pot the entire time the earth goes down the inevitibal void known as humans for we are truely the worst lot of lifeforms to exist on this planet
if you are going to rant without providing any facts or using any punctuation while flaming and flamebaiting everone here then in my opinion you should not join this thread in the first place because you are just spouting random junk and even though i agree with you on some things i don't think you're putting it forward in a good way and i think you give everyone who tries to have a reasoned debate a bad name and why do you have to constantly swear at everyone while making your own posts hard to read by lack of punctuation and spelling?

But we have already said "Because God said so" is NOT an adequate reason.

You can't even PROVE that this putative God even exists...much less that you have interpreted the words ascribed to him accurately.

ON EDIT: Let me try this a bit more gently. "Because God said so" may be adequate reason for YOU to feel as you do...but it is NOT adequate reason to deny other people their basic human rights, dignity, civil rights, and pursuit of happiness.

I'm sorry, Neo, if we who lead different lifestyles make YOU feel "icky." Sorry about that. But, you know, in our civil law and constitution...ther is no guarantee against being offended or feeling "icky" or having your sensibilities challenged or offended.

On the other hand it IS in our civil law and constitution that all should have equal standing in the eyes of the law.

Yet, you would deny us that equal standing, all because we make YOU feel "icky" and because YOUR putative God (whom you cannot prove even exists) said so.

We have already stated that that is NOT an adequate reason to deny others rights, freedoms and happiness that you take for granted.

What is the vested state interest in preventing gay marriage? What is the vested national interest in preventing this? The vested HUMAN interest in preventing this?

How does it, in any way, harm you or affect your ability...to believe as you do, feel as you do, and worship as you do...if John and Steve were allowed to get married?

How does it affect your church's ability to continue to preach as it does...to continue to refuse membership to anyone it desires...to refuse to perform ceremonies it considers objectionable...if John and Steve are allowed to get married...and have FULL LEGAL STANDING, as a couple, in the eyes of the civil law of the United States of America...with all rights and responsibities that go along with marriage?

Answer: It doesn't.

If you can make some reasoned, rational arguments and base them on the questions I have posed in this ON EDIT section, perhaps then you might actually get some respect and people listening to you, and not just dismissing you as a bigot or homophobe out of hand.

What we are asking you to do is to JUSTIFY your stance...and do it on something other than..."Because God says so" or "because it makes me uncomfortable" or..."because it makes me feel icky."

So far, you and your ilk have utterly failed to give any good reason.

And do not go on about survival of the human species! There are more than 6 billion of us on this planet right now...which is more than all the people who have been born and died since the time Christ walked the earth, combined!

We CURRENTLY have 6 billion plus humans walking around. The species is in no danger of extinction...with or without gay marriage.

so come up with a RATIONAL...REASONED argument...and do not insult others in your post. Then you might be taken a bit more seriously.

I doubt you can make such an argument, though. I doubt you have ever really even thought the issue through. You just have a knee-jerk reaction, your mind does an Ernest P. Worrell...EEEEEWWWWWWWW!!! and that is good enough for you to oppose us.

We have already told you that such an approach is not going to win you friends, allies, or respect...and it will not change the hearts and minds of anyone to your cause...except for other knee-jerk radical dominionist zealots like yourself.
I agree, until the last sentence. Didn't you just admonish her against insulting people???

The very fact that we and this universe exists is strong evidence of some extrinsic entity.
Maybe, but it is nowhere near proof, and there is absolutely nothing to say that, even if there is such a being, that it has the powers ascribed to God, let alone that it is the Christian God of Abraham.

The fact that we are here would obviously state that events led up to us being here...and, as there is no effect without a cause, how do you explain the origin of matter necessary for the Big Bang? Hmm?
Ok, then who made God?

Ok, then what if the matter has always been there, just as your "God" has?

There's really nothing that's clarified or simplified by your view. You don't solve any of the "problems" with the Big Bang theory in your intelligent design theory.

Why on earth are you continuing this thread Pacific Northwesteria? No one really is interested in arguing this point, and you have been the only poster for about a page. Maybe it is the time to let this thread die.

Why on earth are you continuing this thread Pacific Northwesteria? No one really is interested in arguing this point, and you have been the only poster for about a page. Maybe it is the time to let this thread die.
I think someone *points to PN* is obsessed with getting the last word in... over and over again.

Isn't funny how they support one man one woman marriages yet churches like the Mormon church support the marriage of one man to multiple women?

Well the mormon church is an example of a powerful american cult.(partially joking) Only extremists in the mormon church a polygamists and honestly the mormons are accepted because of their longevity more than anything, really to most people they do seem to be a cult due to their history and their founder.

Another thing, PN, you must really want to get your point across. You've posted in here like 20 million times. Your crazy. In a good way.

What are you talking about, you already said you dismissed the book as wrong, that you don't trust it, that your 'spirit' tells you whats right or wrong, and THEN you go and tell people that their translations are wrong.

I think you have some issues to work out my dear... You're stumbling around saying everyone else is arrogant, including the scripture, but you and your spirit have some sort of insider information.

Perhaps it's time to go ask your 'guiding' spirit why it doesn't want you to read the scripture, and when you do, why it wants you to change it...
Next time, try actually reading someone's posts before you condescend to them.
The person you are taunting prays for guidance on things that she feels are unclear in the scriptures, because no translation can be perfect, and admits that her answers may be wrong. She is not claiming absolute truth, not claiming that the guidance everyone else receives is wrong... merely that translations can't be 100% accurate.

There are many reasons why i don't believe that gay marriage is right, but primarly because it destroys a few thousand year old HUMAN tradition of which will crush the immage of the family and turn it into something that insted of producing children, our future world. It has a chance of creating nice friendly things like AIDS, or HIVs. Thats one reason, another to is because i feel that marriage will become to the point of commercialization where people will be able to marry what ever they please wheather it be there pet cat or there computer. I mean, 30 years ago no one around here would of thought about 2 gays getting married, and right now no one would think about a guy and a dog getting married. This kind of blows the idea of "if they love eachother, why shouldent they get married?!" out of the water. The slippery slope effect chances are WILL occur, and if we don't stop it now, why know what kind screwed up stuff us humans "and maybe even animals" may be doing with each other.
Thank you for being civil, but you are rather misinformed here.

You are perfectly welcome to disapprove of gay marriage, but here are a few errors in what you posted:
1. It wouldn't destroy the concept of "marriage". It wouldn't affect it in the slightest. Everyone else would be able to just go about their lives. Churches that don't want to recognize it don't have to.
2. Anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior there is. That puts gay men at the highest risk. However, the best way to protect against STDs is to be in a monogamous relationship. So gay marriage would actually serve to lessen the spread of HIV.
3. Cats and computers aren't people. They can't sign a marriage license, and they are not sentient, so they can not consent to the union. This is a faulty comparison made out of fear.

Please try again, this time with true "facts".

couldn't pass this one up...


As for what is wrong in the world... haha. Celebraties sexually abusing small boys, terrorist preying on convoys of female soldiers, three dead boys being found in a trunk of a car in New Jersey, Kidnappings with dead bodies being found a week later in Florida, ... The list goes on. The fact is, if you DIDN'T see anything wrong in the world than you are the confused one.

Ah, but I suppose you have no problem with a young 19 year old transsexual found dead in a southeast Austin ditch, in 1999...who was stabbed over 60 times, completely mutilated, one of the stab wounds was a nine-inch gash that left poor Lauryn Paige nearly decapitated!

And her accused killer? He admitted his guilt in an open courtroom, in Texas, when the Texecutioner was still hanging in as Gubnor. What do you think Gamliel Coria's punishment for his crime was?

Think he got the death penalty? He would've, I'm sure....had Lauryn been a GENETIC woman. But because Lauryn was a transsexual woman...Gamliel coria got 40 years in prison, eligible for parole in 20. This while The Texecutioner was still Gubnor of Texas.

I suppose you've no problem with this....or the message it sends...that the lives of my sisters and brothers who are transgender are somehow worth less than other people's lives, and other crime victims.

Or how about Matt Sheperd? Suppose you're okay with HIM getting nailed to a fence in Wyoming beaten to within an inch of his life, and left to die.

I suppose you got no problem with it when folks like US are the victims of violent crime....do ya?

With the way she acts it almost seems like its deliberate trolling and she's not really an anti gay christian. But then again its the internet so I guess we will never really know.
Well, you don't have to worry about her showing up in this thread anymore, since we all kicked her butt.

(Figuratively speaking, of course. :))

Well, you don't have to worry about her showing up in this thread anymore, since we all kicked her butt.

(Figuratively speaking, of course. :))
Thou really thinkest she's a goner?

Oops! Please forgive me Ponies, for I have sinned :p

And thus has good sense won a victory

Seperation of Church and state amounts to us not being able to establish our religion as the state religion. That does not mean, however, that we are prohibited from pushing our agenda through congress. We have every right to do that, much as you obviously have every right to push a secular agenda.
It does, however, prevent you from doing it if you have only religious reasons, OR if it goes against the Constitution, OR if it interferes with the religious freedoms of others.

Thou really thinkest she's a goner?

Oops! Please forgive me Ponies, for I have sinned :p
Luckily, I am a forgiving Goddess. Just try not to do it again. :p

I explicitly stated I was talking about Civil Unions that do convey the exact same rights as marriage. I know that's not at all the case in America, which is why I also said "Where they work", because in for example Denmark, Sweden and Norway, same-sex marriage are called different things, things that loosely translates to Civil Union.

I am not fighting for homo's & bi's right to be partners. I'm fighting for such partnerships to be equal with marriages in regards to the law. Also, I don't give a toss about what such unions are called or where they're performed. While I think religions are pointless, I recognise people's right to disagree with me, and do whatever they like in their institutions. My actions should no more affect theirs than their actions should affect mine. The use of the word "marriage" is deeply offensive to many religious people, not just Christions by the way, hence I can and will respect such people's whish that same-sex marriages shouldn't involve the word marriage.

I suggested "The Way To Be Gay Every Day" earlier as a good alternative, but either noone got it or noone read it. When we call it Civil Union, at least most people will have a clue what we're on about

Ok, sorry about the misunderstanding... whenever I go into threads like these, I have to brace myself for ignorance, and so I interpreted your wording (paraphrase), "I would support civil unions which convey rights equal to those of marriage" as "I would support civil unions, and civil unions convey rights equal to those of marriage" instead of "I would support civil unions as long as they convey rights equal to those of marriage".
I must say that I agree :D

1. I'm not Catholic nor am I Protestant. I am a New Testament Christian.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that means "Fundamentalist who focuses on the NT", right?

2. Seperation of Church and state only applies to official adoption of a religion. Never do they refer to restricting the morals of their own citizens. Seperation of Church and state is also not a justification for endorsing a purely secular system which infringes upon the religious doctrines of individuals of a particular religion. If this occurs, then it is the duty of those who embrace said religion to oppose the attempts to infringe their religion with their rights as a citizen to vote, petition, and/or otherwise resist secular persecution.
Our nation is designed to be at very least mostly secular. The government cannot legally (notice I didn't say "can't", just "can't legally") outlaw gay marriage based on nothing but the Bible. To use the Bible as evidence requires accepting it as fact, and when the government does that then they are endorsing Christianity and saying that other religions with different holy books are therefore wrong (because the Bible says so).
This is, however, a much better argument than the "well we're stronger than you so f*ck off" argument that I read several times. For this argument, I actually had to think a little before responding!

3. Paul, having been granted authority by Christ and having been gifted with divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit, retains absolute authority in any commandments he gives, as they are of Christ. Whether we perceive them as contrary to our changing social standards of tolerance are regardless. Christianity is a religion of submission, be you man, woman, Jew, Gentile, Slave, Free, Young, Old, or any categories I've excluded. We are to accept our place in life on earth, so that we may enjoy an afterlife of eternal happiness, bliss, and true equality.
Then explain how enterpretations of the Bible change to fit what people want it to say, often using obscure references to try to make points.

4. I'm not qualified to argue on behalf of the Petros/Petra subject, but it is my conclusion that Christ built his church upon Peter's confession and not Peter himself.
IMHO, that's doing the same thing you (I think it was you, don't bite my head off if it wasn't) admonished Lyric for doing... changing the wording of the Scripture to be what you think it should be through loose interpretation.
I'm not a biblical scholar, prove me wrong if I am please so that I may learn.

They do in fact practise polygyny, women are not allowed to marry more than one man.
Someone may have corrected this already, but this is a popular myth...

The Mormons outlawed polygamy (or polygyny or whatever) somewhere around 100 years ago.

As I'm sure you're aware, we all have the right to pursue happiness (there's more about that in the actual post). I'm not going to follow your religion, I like speaking archaically…
… the question is whether marriage in itself is a right or whether that only extends to the traditional definition of marriage.
It's not a religion... it's the Declaration of Independence (as well as most if not all State Constitutions, making it law).

Frankly, I think the perfect solution to the problem would be (as has been stated a number of times in previous threads) to remove the word "marriage" from law entirely. If the religous people want to keep the word "marriage" for themselves, let them have it. Make "Civil Unions" or whatever you want to call them legal standard across the board, for both same-sex couples of opposite-sex couples. For the legal aspect, a couple of either variety goes to the courthouse (or whereever) and signs a Civil Union contract, then goes to whatever religous ceremony they want and gets "married" (or handfasted, or bonded or whatever) there.

Of course, most will still likely call themselves "married" no matter what the actual legal term is, but people can piss and moan about that as much as they like and there's nothing they can do about it. Someone can call their toilet Jesus Christ if they like, and they're within their rights to do that.

Of course, there are going to be people who object to having to share the legal term with same-sex couples anyway (ewww, their icky!!!!), whatever the term itself is, but I don't see how this can be a realistic reason not to implement such a solution.

This is basically what the Dutch do. It's very smart, and it's working very well. We could take a couple of things out of their book...

Hup Holland Hup!

Not to reign on your parade, but military spending and separation of church and state are as related as apples and helicopter. To wit: none at all.
1. I was proving the point that religion is not necessarily the best basis of government.
2. Separation of church and state creates an atmosphere of tolerance, and helped to make this country the cliché "melting pot". This brought great minds from across the planet, which led to our technological/military superiority.

I'm not saying that it made us a superpower, but it sure helped. The former USSR is proof that you don't need religious tolerance to become a superpower, but, as I say, it was a factor.

Someone may have corrected this already, but this is a popular myth...

The Mormons outlawed polygamy (or polygyny or whatever) somewhere around 100 years ago.
Actually, there are still Mormons practicing polygomy, though they have been "dis-owned" by the rest of the church.

There was a story about such a Mormon community on the news here in Colorado not too long ago, incidentally.

Actually, that story was on CNN or some national news...

Actually, that story was on CNN or some national news...
Are you talking about the polygamy story, or something else?

'Cause I know it was on our channel 9 local news, though it could have been aired nationally, as well. :)

I don't care if we win or lose, I don't want to waste my time trying to change their minds when I see truth, and if they cannot see truth I will not make them, I have better things to do, I'm not afraid to fight, I just don't care about the fight and I think it's a waste of time, better to love as you can before the love is no longer there and you are dead, but others do not have the sense to see it because they are guided by a need for acceptance, I have been outcast nearly my whole life and have lost nothing that beibng accepted would have given me, and acceptance would have lost me something dearer to me than my life, for I would have lost my pride in myself and my individuality.
I think they're looking for legal rights, not "acceptance"... though that would be nice too.

There are over a thousand rights associated with marriage. Gays want to have those rights when they enter into a life-long relationship (civil union, civil marriage, religious marriage in an open church, etc.).

Are you talking about the polygamy story, or something else?

'Cause I know it was on our channel 9 local news, though it could have been aired nationally, as well. :)
I was flipping through channels and saw a bit about polygamist Mormons in Utah. I live in Arkansas...

Apparently not, as you all keep screaming about how I'm "a hater and a bigot". The point is, I do not believe my view is better than anyone else's, nor am I opposed to homosexuals having equal rights as I think they deserve them...but do NOT pretend those marriages are sanctified by the Lord. The only One who truly has a say in anything is God. He condemns homosexuality, and our government trying to legitimize calling their unions "marriage" when the marriage standard is clearly specified in the Bible....is just WRONG.
Wow... so the point comes out.

This wouldn't have to be sanctified by your God. No church would be forced to recognize gay marriage. Also, marriage isn't just a Christian thing, nor is it just a religious thing. Therefore, just because they use the word "marriage" doesn't mean that it's claiming the blessings of the Lord any more than it's claiming the blessing of Buddha or Magical Ponies ;)

Why do you refuse them the word, when it is only one sliver of its meaning that has anything to do at all with the Christian church, let alone your particular branch of it?
You could just sit back and ignore it. Why be so vehemently against it?

The Christian God sanctifies the marriage of non-Christian heterosexuals, but not the marriage of Christian homosexuals?

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
<snip>
Pretty clear to me.

What I'm seeing is that God made people gay... so...

Yes, and I disagree with him on several points. However, the religion which has the most amount of verifiable evidence and whose supposed "contradictions" can all be easily explained would be the one to follow. Especially when it has very specific prophecies that are always fulfilled, and miracles performed that had witnesses.
Link me to a separate thread where you try to make your case for this. I would love the opportunity to show you that belief in Christianity is based on pure faith, it's that simple. There is no "evidence", really, and the fact that you claim it to be a "sure thing" because of facts is rather unusual.

I await your attempt.

And do you think God would have allowed them to distort the only source of His will? Do you really underestimate God in such a manner? It would only be logical to assume He guided the process, or else we're all damned with no hope for salvation.
Either that or He doesn't exist.
That would explain quite well all of the stuff that's going on.

I'm agnostic myself, so I'm not claiming anything (I have what I believe to be the only logically sound position: we do not, and can not, have such precise knowledge about God or a lack thereof). However, you made that assumption based on your PREVIOUS assumption that the Bible is the unadulterated Word of God. If you assume that which you are trying to prove, you don't really prove anything...

I was flipping through channels and saw a bit about polygamist Mormons in Utah. I live in Arkansas...

Oh, okay; we're talking about different stories. There was one a few weeks ago (or longer; I'm not good with estimating time lapses) about Mormons who were "secretly" buying land in the Denver area, presumably to hide the their founder guy, or whatever he is, since he's apparently wanted by the law.

It may be the same story, I just remember Utah (aka Mormon-ville) and polygamy being mentioned.

Then let us see you perform a miracle. God, Christ, and the apostles were capable of performing miracles, which justifies their claim :)
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't... but I'm certain that they didn't do them on command.

Also, isn't there something about how true faith does not need proof, and how anyone who needs to see a miracle to belief does not truly have faith? :-P

Besides, he's a god, he can't possibly be wrong...

Read back a few (or a trillion, it's hard to remember with this thread ballooning at such a rate) pages, and you will see I really have no problem with equal rights for homosexuals, just having the government say that their union is sanctified by God.
They are not claiming such a thing... calling it "marriage" does not claim a heavenly blessing. Atheists get married all the time. People who have never heard of your God get married all the time. Marriage was arround long before Christ, or even Abraham, and so you cannot say that calling something "marriage" means that we are claiming that it is sanctified by your particular god, or any god, for that matter.

christian conservatives are gay...

not in a homosexual way, obviously.

Yes, the Bible is fallible but Wikipedia is infallible :rolleyes:


This is the US, there is a reason why a priest is necessary to to legalize a marriage.
Actually, no... any justice of the peace can legalize the marriage (this includes most religious figures, but also secular legal figures). Do you think Jews get up in front of a priest? Heck no! You have some serious fact-finding to do, my friend...

Let's try our best at picturing this from God's point of view: You condemned homosexuality. One of the nations of your creation is attempting to allow homosexual marriage. Are you pleased?
1. Completely irrelevant, legally speaking.
2. I'm not God.
3. You can't prove that there even IS a God, or that it is the God of which you speak, or that the Bible is an accurate account of what God thinks.
4. There are many things condemned in the Bible that are legal. It's call a "secular nation".
5. There are many other faiths in this world. You would have us make them all illegal, because people praying to a different God displeases Him?

Your argument is very odd, and using it to try to prevent same-sex marriage would be like trying to use a slice of swiss cheese to stop a rainbow.

Umm...logic would dictate that only one interpretation could be correct. If I regarded mine and hers as correct, then there would be a contradiction.
Yes, but Logic has no way of determining which is correct. Therefore, you're dealing with belief.
Your interpretation may be the correct one.
Your interpretation may be the wrong one.
We will never know, and ultimately it doesn't matter, because it's comletely irrelevant to any legal discussion.

you're right. so the government can define marrage in a legal sense to mean a union between man and woman.

and as for marriages being santified by God? I guess you're right there too. so reguardless of the fact that over 90% of all marriages take place in a religious place, God has nothing to do with it. Nevermind it takes place in a place of worship, religion has nothing to do with it. Even tho the person performing the ritural is reading from a Holy Text, as you say GOD has nothing to do with it.

You want religion out of your marrage, don't get married in a church. simple.
Ummm, yes, the whole thing that we're arguing about would be the RIGHT to get married somewhere that wasn't a church.
Sheesh.

Apparently, the government feels it has the right to speak for God by giving marriage to homosexuals. The ideal government would follow God's will, regardless of what the majority or minority wanted.
Neo, do you ever listen to anybody?

The US government doesn't speak for God. They weren't speaking for God when they granted opposite-sex marriages, and they aren't now.

Marriage is not unique to religion at all, let alone any one religion. You refuse to read all of the proof on that. You continue to cling to the belief that anything and everything having to do with the word "marriage" means that the Lord is personally involved.

A couple, gay or straight, getting married by a Justice of the Peace has nothing to do with religion, whether you want to admit it or not.

You seem to have broken down into flailing accusations, completely unsupported claims, and drudging up old arguments that have already been proven faulty. You've lost, not that that means you can't continue to believe what you do. That's your right, even though you'd like to see that particular right taken away.

christian conservatives are gay...

not in a homosexual way, obviously.

What? Happy? :p

What? Happy? :p

I don't think so. If they were happy, they would leave others alone. As it is, I think they are just trying to make the rest of the world just as miserable as they themselves are... ;)

I don't think so. If they were happy, they would leave others alone. As it is, I think they are just trying to make the rest of the world just as miserable as they themselves are... ;)

Kinda like The Grinch then?

Kinda like The Grinch then?

"Why the Grinch stole the Gay Marriage"... hey, I like the sound of that :D

Not just passing your own genetic material on but also crossing genes through sexual reproduction with a member of the same species NOT directly related to you. That's why we are not naturally attracted to our family members. Therefore, as i'm sure i'll say many times when i'm finished dismantling the next few posts, you are wrong.
How does this disprove that your nieces and nephews are still your bloodline?


And? Does that mean they are gay? Perhaps they remain in their parents' "nest" but do they stay forever? And again, are they gay? Also, i'd like some examples of this... i'm curious what these "risks" you speak of are.
They are not necessarily gay. What the heck does that matter? You seem to misunderstand every other post that you read and respond to (and I'm being generous in that estimate). The point was not that they were gay. The point was that they were functional members of the society, and helped to rear young, without reproducing themselves, thus shattering the myth that gay people are pointless because they don't get themselves or anyone else pregnant (usually).
Oh, and some of the risks would be high population, or competition from rival species, low amounts of food, etc. In nature it's not always beneficial to have offspring in large numbers, because you can't support them.


So you're saying humans are unique only in the way a pig is unique to a bird. Perhaps you should understand a concept "humanity" before you try and say that sort of thing.
We also happen to be sentient, but yes, physically speaking we are about as different from other species as a pig is to a bird. Actually, pigs and birds are very different. Pigs are closer to humans than they are to birds, because we are both mammals.
We have more complex and advanced brains, and opposable thumbs (as do a select few other species). That's all that makes us different: any other peceived difference is a direct or indirect result of those two differences.

Oh, and just wondering, what exactly gives you the idea that you're somehow an authority on this? "Perhaps you should understand a concept 'humanity' before you try and say that sort of thing"??? Seriously, if you're going to condescend to people, at least know something about the subject first :rolleyes:

christian conservatives are gay...

not in a homosexual way, obviously.

Well, some of them probably are.

Studies have shown that many homophobes are hiding homosexual tendencies themselves.

Well, some of them probably are.

Studies have shown that many homophobes are hiding homosexual tendencies themselves.
Hehehe! Now I can't help suspecting Eskertania & Neo Rogolia are homo's! :D

OooOh. You're trying to insult me. Clever clever. However saying you have knowledge on this subject, judging from your obvious misguided view, would be a little bit of a lie, hm?
Obviously, you still haven't read the Constitution. Posting things that are factually wrong is one thing, but making fun of people who correct you on it and even cite the source? Please. Make a specific point about what I have said, instead of saying that I was "misguided". I am prepared to defend my position.


[QUOT]The electoral system is set up such that the majority decides what is best for everyone, within the bounds of the Constitution. Even if every elected official in the nation thought that Christianity should be mandatory, EVERY SINGLE ONE, they couldn't write that into law. Why? Because of the Constitution. They'd have to get an amendment passed, and since the Constitution protects everyone, they're not likely to do that. It would be like killing the filibuster... since it protects whoever isn't in power, and power goes back and forth, nobody can do without it.
Yes...? I fail to see your point. Having no gay 'marriage' is not going against the constitution at all. So the rest of that paragraph, much like the entire post in general, is garbage.[/QUOTE]
Oh my god. Do you ever read my posts before you quote them? I was saying that you can't make laws based on Christian (or any other religious) beliefs. That's in the Constitution. The only real arguments here against gay marriage are religious in nature.
Incidentally, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that outlawing gay marriage was against the state constitution. Huh, imagine that :-P


Why yes, everybody does have civil rights. I must keep repeating myself and even i'm getting tired of saying it... Do you see gays being publically hung? You don't? It's almost as if ... they have some sort of "right to life"... in fact... my god... it appears they have all sorts of civil rights! Hold on! They have all of them!
Except for the right to marry the one they love. Seriously, pointing out individual ones that they do have doesn't mean that they have all of them. If you had read the thread, you would see the supreme court opinion in which it was stated that marriage is part of "pursuit of happiness", which means that it's a constitutional civil right.

And yet, if that were true, you 'people' might be winning the battle on capital hill. But alas, you are not. A TRUE pity, hm?
It is true, and we're not winning.

Obviously your assumption was wrong.

How can you claim that it's not true? I cited my source. And that source is literally, THE authority on law in the United States. So, by definition, I'm right. I honestly don't get how you think.

If one more idiot compares black oppression to the homosexual "SITUATION" (notice I did not use the word oppression... this is because it would be incorrect in this context)... That's all I have to say about this. I've shot this "little point" down more than once.
That won't be a problem, seeing as how no idiots have made that comparison, only people with sound arguments to validate that analogy.

And you have not shot any point in your entire time on this thread, because you have no concept of either reading someone's post before you either make an irrelevant comment or say something that's just plain incorrect, OR any sort of grasp of the rules of logic. You might think you're using "logic", but you're not. I would know, as I've taken a course in logic. Logic doesn't mean "something that makes sense to me" or "a word to use when I want to fluff up my post". It's an actual set of rules. Please be careful with the use of that word.

Or better yet, if you want to offend me, maybe you should start a colony of people like you... far away, where you can offend me all you want.
You have no right to not be offended. I have a right to stay here. You can leave if it is your choice, and I have the right to offend you.
If that was a comeback, I honestly pity you on your skill with "zings".

etc etc etc... Oh sorry. Were you trying to make a point again?
Yes, and I did. And you never listen, because you have no idea of how to construct an argument, and you never listen to anybody.

Well I had better deal with that right away. If the state "marries" gays, than it is infringing on my religion.
No, it's not. Earlier in the thread people have contradicted this many many many many times. You have the right to practice your religion, but not the right to force your religion on others. Your church would not be forced to marry gays, and you would not be prevented from doing things your way, and so it would not be infringing on your religious freedom.

Marriage, "civil union", is a religious ceremony.
No, it's not. Not everyone has a white wedding, with flowing dresses and a priest. You can get married in front of a justice of the peace if you want to, and make no mention of God or of Religion. So, in short, you're completely wrong.

Why don't we care as much as atheistic marriages? Because the bible teaches us to give those people our pity and compassion despite their belief. For gays, however... it is not such a way.
In the Bible, being, say, a Hindu would be breaking a Commandment, but being gay does not. How is it that "the bible teaches us to give those people our pity and compassion despite their belief" but "For gays, however... it is not such a way"??? You are making no sense, inserting your personal disgust and claiming the source to be the Bible.
For gays, however... it is not such a way.
Haha. Again you resort to insults. You are more like the "bigot" and the "hater" than you would like to believe. I'm glad I don't have your pity. I don't appreciate having anybody's pity because that shows they have gone from a state where the possibility of accepting my view is possible to a state of complete impossibility. On that note, you have my pity.[/QUOTE]
I only insult people when it is duly earned, whereas you insult people because your argument does have a leg on which to stand.

It is a defect... a sad defect in nature and a tragic pestilence on humans. Also, again, where is this "research that has proven repeatedly homosexual behavior exists... blah blah blah" ? I would doubt the amount of confidence in it until I read this "research" myself.
Maybe because you refuse to read it when real evidence is posted? Like when I reference the Constitution, and then you come back with something that makes absolutely no sense?
Homosexual behavior exists in animals as well as humans. Care to give any scientific evidence that it's a "defect"?


Yes. Yes it is a defect. And since you supplied no "scientific facts" on the subject in this paragraph, and instead just decided to say something "just 'cause"... that's really all I have to say in response.
You haven't either. Ever. That's because this is a debate forum, and when things are ACCEPTED KNOWLEDGE, people usually don't see it fit to post evidence.
Incidentally, you never do anything but say something "just cause".

I've dealt with this already. At least care about your image enough not to make yourself look so... Oh I dont' need to say anymore.
Yes, you responded to it before. And everything you said was refuted. So you are being asked to say something that is actually true, as opposed to what you said before.
I would have though that this was obvious.

See smug remark above.
If by "smug", you mean "asking a question in response to an unsupported sweeping claim by you", then yeah.

Religious nuts? Haha... I hardly consider myself a religious nut. I just see things... well... correctly.
Luckily I wasn't drinking anything, I would have snarfed it. Nobody can claim to "see things correctly", especially someone like you who makes claims that are not just unsupported, but factually wrong, such as your claims about how this country runs.

Even without the religious arguement of homosexuality being a sin, it still stands that it is a sorry mental disorder.
Actually, it hasn't been classified as a mental illness of any kind since the '70s, which you would have known if you had read the thread. Again, with the factual incorrectness...

Jack the Ripper. That's one for you. BTK killer. Theres one for me. Let's go back and forth naming famous serial killers and social problems from them and now... I can assure you i'll go on long after you're done.
They didn't have TV. News was local, except for really huge things, like Jack the Ripper.

Crime has been constant throughout human history. A hundred years ago, employees were being shot for (peacefully) demanding higher wages. It just wasn't publicized, because it was the people who were in power (the big monopolies) who were doing it. So much for your "good old days". You know, back when blacks were being lynched, and it wasn't reported as a crime. How is that for a social problem? My God... we've corrected much in the past 100 years, but some things just don't go away.
Unless you take away peoples' guns, but that's against the Constitution (plus the NRA would never let it happen) and so alas, we still have a huge crime rate.

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.

Maybe people would think more seriously if marriage were actually a life long commitment

perhaps it would not be treated lightly and would be taken with the gravity tht it was originally intended.

Maybe people would think more seriously if marriage were actually a life long commitment

perhaps it would not be treated lightly and would be taken with the gravity tht it was originally intended.
What exactly does that mean?

That the wife should be traded to the husband as one would trade a a horse?

That the husband can have as many wives and extramarital affairs as he pleases, yet the wife/wives should be killed if they were unfaithful or didn't do their chores right?

That marriages should only be performed for money and sex, not love?

Because that's pretty much what it originally was intended as.... Good luck reviving that dead horse. I'm never getting married anyway.

Ok. You have complained that I said that you apparently don't know everything. Well, count the factual mistakes that you make in this one post alone!.



There are apparently two possibilities:
1. You fell asleep in History class during the section on Civics.
2. You didn't, and they actually were teaching this stuff.

I'm not sure which is a scarier concept.

Aww. Sarcasm instead of actually supplying factual information. I love all of your arguements. The pure... nature of them proves my point for me.
1. I could say that gay marriage should be allowed because the Moon is made of green cheese, and that wouldn't prove your point for you. Just because someone makes a horrible argument, as says stuff that is wrong, doesn't mean that their conclusion is wrong, meerly that the argument shouldn't sway your current thinking.
This fact is a lucky one for the anti-gay-marriage side, because otherwise they would have lost already because of you.
2. No facts? Obviously, because I was making a comment, not an argument.


Ummm... how do you mean? How can the US exist because of a religion? Such, Christianity was important in its creation. However, the Founders realized that religious freedom was important.

Religious freedom? Indeed. I argued that point on MY SIDE earlier on. Perhaps you should do us all a favor and go... oh, make an EFFORT. Or maybe that's asking too much.
You mean you misused it on your side earlier. You have the right to practice your religion, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Oh, and I am making an effort. Making an effort to continue stating true, relevant information, despite your slander and buffoonery.
3. Religious freedom is a two way street: the government can't force you to change your religion or stop practicing it, and you can't impose your religious doctrines upon the government. You were "using" it to say that you had the right to impose it on the government, which is the exact opposite.


Civil law wouldn't exist without religion? Another unproven hypothesis. Most curious, in fact, considering that there were many civil codes in place before any kind of a religious code (not before religion itself, mind you... just before religion explained the rules by which you have to live your life).
Not only is this a flame, but it is a poorly constructed and unfocused flame. Oh, and by "obvious misguided kind" you must have meant "people who have heard of the Constitution".

Tee hee. Again you resort to some twisted form of sarcasm. And if religion was before ANY form of civil code, you cannot truly and without a doubt say that civil law is not based on religious code. The fact that religion had to exist before a civil code was written says my arguement quite nicely, thank you.
4. That isn't sarcasm. You were apparently unaware of the meaning of sarcasm. FYI, it is basically (meaning this is an explanation, not a comprehensive dictionary definition) saying something that you believe is false in a rediculous way to prove a point.
5. If you had read my post, you would have noticed that I said that religion came before legal code, but not religious code. The earliest religions did not have religious law that came with them. Also, just because something happened before something else does not mean that it caused it. That is the fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc", basically "after this therefore because of this". FYI, "fallacy" means "common mistake in logic", meaning that post hoc is FALSE.


Umm, NO! The first amendment is in place for exactly that reason. To prevent a theocracy. The majority cannot constitutionally impose religion on the minority. There are no true Democracies. The US is a constitutional republic.

Why yes it is. However republics work off of elected representatives... and they in turn represent who voted for them, and generally that would be the majority. Although because of the system there are occasional exceptions, I think you and everybody else that has brought this ... meaningless arguement up overdramatize exactly what you are saying. We aren't a "true" democracy, but like any fair government, the majority one way or another has the bigger say. And we aren't imposing religion, we are imposing religous values which have helped our civilization ... hell, have helped our civilization exist in the first place, thanks to your arguement above.
6. We live in a Constitutional republic, which means that the majority gets the bigger say, but not more civil rights, and their "bigger say" is restricted by the Constitution.
7. Your religious values contradict other religious values. Accepting them would mean endorsing your religion, which is unconstitutional. That is why it would be banned. Also, how is imposing religious values NOT imposing religion???

As an off note, you have no support for your claim that religious values are helpful to our society.


Support and/or apology? If you are going to spout unsupported claims that are offensive, especially when they are this broad, kindly do it in your imagination and not where other people might have to actually read it.

Err... You almost sound like me there. Sarcastic to a certain degree and yet more insulting than perhaps you intended. You have my applause for that.
You claim that I am like you, and then complain that I'm insulting you? I could think of almost no worse charge...

4 (again). Still not sarcasm. Try again. Actually, I'd really prefer it if you didn't.

I never insulted you. Offended you? Perhaps. But I didn't insult you, despite the fact that I would have been justified in doing so. I just made the observation that you had posted very broad, unsupported claims that were quite offensive, and then suggested that you refrain from doing so in the future.


Oh, I get it... so you think that insane people should go to prison, instead of getting treatment, when it has been legally defined (by the government of this little pet theocracy of yours) that they don't know right from wrong, and can't possibly be responsible for their actions?

If somebody does something wrong, they should be held responsible. Simple as that. I bring this up because it goes along with that "decay of society" I was going on about earlier that is being sped up by, again, disgusting suggestions like gay 'marriage'.
They shouldn't be held responsible if they are mentally incapable of having responsibility for anything. They should be taken off the street, so that they can't be a danger to anybody, and treated in a secure facility where they can't hurt anyone, even themselves. Note that I didn't number this one, as it was not a factual claim that you made, but rather a normative claim.
Also, another note, a "suggestion" cannot "speed up the decay of society". Gay marriage, the occurrance, not the idea, wouldn't harm society in the least. You're just paranoid (and I mean that in a common usage sense, not necessarily in a medical sense).


Holy... no, not going to soil the name. I hope that you have to live off welfare some day, just so that you'll understand exactly what it is you said. Welfare barely covers food, and maybe some shelter if you're lucky. These people aren't lazy, for the most part. They're out of luck and out of a job. You would condemn them to starve to death, for being downsized? And to think, we've supposedly made "progress"...

Starve to death? Haha. We spend billions of dollars in taxes into a system that in no way CHECKS to see if 'users' are abusing it.
8. Unless you're looking for a job, you can't get unemployment.

The fact is, anybody can go out and get a job somewhere, and if for some twisted reason they cannot find one they should move to one of those countries that we are apparently giving all the jobs to.
This is wrong on so many levels.
9. There aren't enough jobs for everyone. People get laid off, through no fault of their own. My uncle, for example, is a highly skilled photography technician. However, now that digital cameras are everywhere, that job isn't needed so much, and so he was not only out of a job, but out of a career. He has been looking for a job for quite a while now, CONSTANTLY (and keep in mind this is someone with no criminal record and a college education) and is barely on his feet. He's living off of credit cards which he can't pay off, just to keep a roof over his head. Last summer I tried to get a job, and couldn't, because there weren't enough. I find this comment by you personally insulting.

The economy isn't what it used to be. Who are you, that you don't know things like this? Are you a child, or did you inherit a large sum of money? I honestly don't know how it could possibly be that you don't know some of these basic facts about the world.

I'm condemning nobody to death, but the fact is this is the land of opportunity and yet we give handouts to all those that don't take advantage of it because of their own poor choices.
It's not that they're not trying to take advantage of it. It's not that they made poor choices. You have a seriously warped view of what life is like, my friend, and if you spent one month living on unimployment you would understand that nobody would choose to live like that, rather than get a job. It's not enough money to live, really, unless you sacrifice things like health care, full meals, and a healthy living area. So please, before you think that people are poor by choice or because they have made bad decisions, first cash the reality check that I gave you before. Take it. It was a free handout.


If by "accepted" you mean "ostracized by their friends, family, and communities", then yeah. Ironically, one of the things that is making teen pregnancy figures increase dramatically is "abstinence only" sex ed, which is sponsored by the Church. All too often, hormones > abstinence pledge, and since they've never heard of a condom, they don't use one.
Oh, and by the way, it's not "cool". It's "statutory rape", for which you can go to "prison" for a "long time".

Since they've never heard of a condom? Hahahaha... You can't honestly believe that. They CHOOSE not to use one. Free condoms are available left and right, sexual education is practically mandatory, and if all else fails TV sends out all of the messages it needs to.
9. I was talking about areas where they teach abstinence only. You would have known that, if you had read my post. In those cases, the kids didn't know what a condom was, or if they had heard of them, they couldn't buy them because someone at the store would recognize them. Even if they somehow could get their hands on them, they didn't know how to use them.
10. These areas don't have free condoms available.
11. Obviously TV doesn't send out the message well enough (you usually just see people kissing and then one falls over on top of the other on the bed) because the kids mostly weren't using condoms at all, and even those who did used them incorrectly and so they got pregnant anyway.


Maybe you should read the Constitution. You know, the thing that defines what America is? You'll see God in there plenty of times, if I'm not mistaken. Many of the people who had a say back then were devout Christians, and wouldn't have it any other way. And yet, miraculously, they had the foresight to realize that in order to be successful and free, there had to be religious freedom.

Amen to that brother. Religious freedom is a beautiful thing. It's the sort of thing that gives me the right to go outside and not see my religion being... discraced by practices like gay 'marriage.'

Actually, that's not what it says at all. It says that you can't be forced not to practice your religion.
Also, gay marriage has nothing at all to do with your religion or your religious rights. Your church wouldn't have to marry gay couples, and marriage is a civil institution that doesn't require the blessing of God. Also, many religions are OK with marrying gays, so that if they want a church wedding they can get it (provided it becomes legal, which is the issue here).
You seem to have religious freedom confused with something in your own mind that says that you can enforce your religion on others.
Your religion, or, rather, your particular sect, does not believe that gay marriage is right. But gay marriage in no way disgraces your religion, because gay marriage has nothing to do with your religion.
People have tried to make this point to you many times, and you never answer. Be a big boy, and respond properly this time, instead of brushing aside my arguments and then flinging more of your incorrect information and pure opinion and speculation.

By the way, it looks like your post reached an "11" on the BS-o-meter. You wanted "factual information"? Well, you've got it, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Ahh resorting to sarcasm again. Beautiful. I'm saying gay people are responsible for a part of that same overall 'decay of society' that all of those things are a result of. Take that how you will.
Then what of your claims that we let child killers off?
BTW, you have yet to claim said "decay of society".

"Why the Grinch stole the Gay Marriage"... hey, I like the sound of that :D
Hilarious. We can use Why the Grinch Stole Christmas references for every conversation! MWA-HA-HA!

Example:
"The Grinch is trying to steal all the presents from all the Whos down is Whosville again."
(The Church is trying to take away rights from all the gays down in [City, Country, etc.] again.) :p

Once again, you have completely missed the point.
The argument was not that Bush supporters are in the minority (which, recently, has been coming closer and closer to true... his support is dwindling). The argument was that in 2000, most of the voters chose Gore, and yet the electoral college chose Bush. This has happened before, but it is rare, and it is proof positive that this is not a Democracy. If it were a Democracy, Bush would have lost the 2000 election, and would have lost again in 2004 because he wouldn't have had the advantage of being the incumbent. Perhaps a Republican would have won... but not Bush.
Your statistic is completely irrelevant to this point.

And thus the original statistic was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, as I was trying to prove. Thank you.
How does it prove that? My point was that we are not a democracy. You don't need statistics from the latest election to prove that.


Actually, the laws regarding separation of church and state have been around since the beginning of this nation. Show me some evidence that "life was better" (a wholly subjective claim) and that, somehow, this was because of religious domination of the government that didn't exist.
Good luck!

If you need me to prove to you that there were less 'socially demented' inhumane acts 100 or 200 years ago.... haha, let me put it this way. "Good luck" proving otherwise. Also, since when has denying gays the right to "marry" because of religious freedom principles qualified as "religious domination of the government"...? You do enjoy overdramatizing things.
Actually, you were the one who made the claim. You have to prove it. I don't have to prove otherwise. Otherwise I could make the claim that "500 years ago a man sang the entire score of Grease, backwards, in Yiddish" and then ask you to disprove it.
It is up to the person who makes a claim to prove it, not up to the opposition to disprove it.
AGAIN, religious freedom is the freedom to practice for yourself, not the freedom to make other people follow your beliefs. Thus, what you claim is "because of religious freedom principles" is nothing of the sort, because it goes completely against the definition of it. Thus, it is imposing religion on a government-controlled thing. Thus religious domination of the government. See? Not overdramatized. For an example of that, do you remember how you keep repeating "decay of society"?


How is that? Our very country is based on priciples that bar church and state from mingling. I think it's done fairly well, seeing as how it's the only superpower on Earth.
One hundred years ago, black people were lynched for looking at white women. This was tolerated by your nostalgic "religious society". Kindly cash this reality check.

Cashed. And dealt with. Many times. Again, and again, and again. READ.

You don't get it, do you? These basic principles our government works upon are BASED on religion.
Really? Then how come it was founded as a nation where it was explicitly written that religion could have no part in it?

They are based on the 'code of conduct' standard that the earliest religions set up so long ago. Murder is bad, steailng is bad... You think all of that just 'appeared' out of nowhere? The concept of government CAME from religion.
Actually, all of those things were in Hammurabi's code of laws... which predates even Jewish law. Do you think that before religious codes of law, people thought that murder was a good idea?

That is why I laugh every time I read a post like that, and read attempts to seperate church and state. Without the church, the state would not exist.
Ok... then how come we have said separation? The Supreme Court (which is, btw, mostly conservative) forced the removal of a statue of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse. Separation of Church and State. It exists, as does the government, thus it's not an "attempt".

Government, morale standards... LAW, all of it began with the original religion which stated everything in nature had a spirit. Animism, it was called. It gave people a conscience, a sense of "look out for your fellow man"... as religion became more complex, government went with it.
The first codified law was civil, not religious. Hammurabi's Code. Also, people would not have made religious laws unless they already had a sense of what was "right" and what was "wrong". How could they have come up with it otherwise?

Government without any religious 'interference' (as you would call it) is not simply unlikely, it's downright impossible.
In theory, the United States is one such country. However, in the early years, almost everyone was a Christian and so some Christian things worked their way into secular thought.

That would be SIR for future reference, and I do appreciate the fact that you recognize where respect should be used.

As for the post... I've dealt with this mocki-... er... responding to another one of your posts. It involves the fact that it is infringing on my own religious freedoms by making me live under a system that goes directly against my religion in giving blatant sinners the right to undergo a religious ceremony... and ALL of it's benefits.
1. It doesn't have to be a religious ceremony. Atheists can get married by a Justice of the Peace, without mentioning God. Also, different religions have religious marriages, some of which believe that gay marriage is OK.
2. In the religion of Islam, you are required to pray five times a day, facing Mecca. Do you have to do this? No. By your definition, that means that their religious rights are being infringed upon, because they have to live under a system where not praying is allowed. As I have mentioned many times, you comletely misunderstand the concept of "religious freedom". You think it means what you want it to mean, mainly that religion is free to do whatever it wants, which is not the case. Religion can't interfere with govenment, and govenment can't interfere with religion. Gay marriage would not hurt your religion at all, because your religion would not be required to conduct a gay wedding service or even let gays attend your churches.
You have no legal complaint.

Highly arrogant? Me? Never. (A real bright one on our hands...)
And this, from a person who admonishes my use of sarcasm (even though on my part it was only sarcasm some of the time that sarcasm was claimed).

Eskertania, it only serves to fuel the stereotypes of the religious southerners everytime you touch your keyboard. Every post seems to be some sort of bait, insult or straight out flame.

they are also referred to as God's House. they are places of worship and prayer. and if you note: I did not equate Religous Places with Christian God, but kept it as religous places.

Marriage (for the US) is held in a religious tone. that's why the majority of weddings are held in church (sure a large number is held elsewhere but the majority of weddings are held in a Religous place and is santified by a religous person ie. priest/rabbi/cleric)

now Civil Unions is another thing entirely. I have no objections for civil unions (and they can be given every leagal status as marriage through the law) and I have no objections to that. but to force religions who are against same sex marriage is the same as religions forcing their definitions on Atheists. would an Atheist calmly let a church hold services in their home? If you want seperation of church and state, then allow same sex unions and have the government ensure the same rights/responsibilities to same sex unions.

Thus churches can have Marry people in church by their religious leaders and Same sex unions can be held at City Hall through the Justice of the Peace. and let both sides cherish their victories behind their little walls of definitions.

Ok, you have a decent point here. Luckily, we BOTH win.

1. Nobody is suggesting that your church be forced to conduct gay wedding services. That would infringe on your rights (unlike other people conducting services).
2. Marriage is only religious if you want it to be. Atheists get married all the time, in a secular building and with a secular ceremony. Each individual religion would have the right to accept or deny gays who wish to be married, just as they can choose which straight couples to marry and which to reject.

See? So we can legalize gay marriage, and your church won't have to marry any gays, and they would only do it religiously if they went to a church whose religion accepted them.

Thank you for proving MY point on the matter of the roots of the word marriage. You are proving most useful.
No, if you had read it more carefully, you would have noticed that I disproved your point. The French took a secular Latin word and attached religious connotations. Therefore, the root (meaning as far back as you can go) is secular.


Second half of that, i've already shot down in another post. The law IS religious value, therefore to say religion has "NO" place in the government... it's not correct.
Not all law is religious. For example, the Communists outlaw religion. And yet they have laws. Next?

Again, you missed my point.

Marriage is religious. It should be kept as such. The government should allow legal unions for those not wanting to be together religiously. That way, everyone gets their rights and no one is discriminated against.

Simple solution, really.

Marriage is only religious if you want it to be. Atheists get married by Justices of the Peace. They have absolutely no religious meaning in their services whatsoever. Marriage is not a religious thing: religions simply have their own traditions that go along with marriage.

I'd like to add a little something to the constant "Government came from religion". It's bull. Religion is nothing but the belief in something greater than mankind, the belief in some form of god(s) that control our fate and the world. The "rules" of religion were only combined with religion because the fear that a god instills is a useful tool. Religion offers the possibility to control people, and that's not meant in a negative way. It allows non-religious rules to be set without fear of them being broken. However, the interhuman respect which makes rules such as "don't kill", "don't steal", "don't hurt anyone" have nothing to do with religion. Some brainchild just decided that "hey, if they're going to believe in gods, we might as well prevent utter chaos while we're at it."

Signs of social rules and social hierarchies existed long before any trace of religion touched this world, be it the "new" monotheistic or the older polytheistic religions.

You must also remember, many consider Athiesm to be a religion...

Simpler? Perhaps. Better? Definitely. Because of your lack of details, i'll return the favor and leave it at that.

Insanity i've dealt with already. Whew... you people like repeating yourself, don't you? All part of the 'decay', my friend. The decay that this matter only perpetuates.

That last part... Gragh. I've dealt with it ALREADY. You guys need new points, rather than simply restating your old ones... again... and again... and again... and again just to make sure I heard you.
Well, we certainly don't like to repeat our points, but we are forced to when we prove, undenyably, that yours are wrong and you keep repeating them and using them in your arguments. In short, you don't listen. When you say something that's wrong, I will correct you, even if you've said that same wrong thing 50 times before (which isn't that far-fetched).
Also, it's not like you don't repeat points... "decay of society"? "marriage is religious"? These are both claims that you make over and over, and have absolutely no support for either claim.

Yup that's EXACTLY what I said. [/SARCASM]
1. More sarcasm. Thought you didn't like it?
2. It was an analogy. Look it up.

A marriage doesn't have to be religious, as I've said a dozen times.
[QUOTE=Eskertania
The fact is, allowing gay 'marriage' insults my religion, and in doing so, infringes on my rights. THAT is true, and I would like to see YOU argue that (not anybody else, this... person that finds it necessary to quote everything I say... I want them to try).
You have no right not to be insulted. However, this doesn't even do that. They are either getting married by the State, or getting married by a different church which allows it. As for you personal comment... yes, I find you so offensive and ill-informed that I can't resist such trolling, purposeful or otherwise.

The other fact is that gays should not be given priority over a group that is not only LARGER than the entire gay population, because that would be a democratic value and SURELY we aren't democratic, and that is just what you would be doing by giving them the right to gay 'marriage.' Putting them in a priority over us.
Nope. You can still get married. You can still practice your religion. You can still refuse to marry gays.
The law puts the rights of one over the wishes of many.

You can read almost every single one of my posts to see why all of those reasons are wrong. But nice try.
Yes, we could, if it weren't for the fact that your "posts" are full of things that are false... :rolleyes:

It's possible that I'm incorrect, but if I am incorrect then the Bible is incorrect. In that case, we all have no hope.
Unless the Qur'an is correct, in which case Muslims are fine.
Unless the Messiah still hasn't come, but the Torah is correct, in which case Jews are fine.
Unless there is no God, in which case everyone's fine.

I never denied homosexual animals so I don't know what that was for.

Marriage IS religious, the benefits in the law and the religous aspects are both benefits OF a religious ceremony. Therefore it IS forcing it upon us.
Not all marriages include a religious ceremony. Justice. Of. Peace. Also, even if they do have a religious service, it wouldn't be your religion, so it's not forcing it on you.


Don't like it? Cut your hands off! Then you I won't have to read anything else from you!
Despicable.

PN, there is no need to continue Ignaius already ran away with his tail between his legs.

I never said they SAID it was flat...I said they BELIEVED it was flat.

Only until Chris columbus proved otherwise, EVERYONE believed the world was flat.

I wasn't making reference to the "four corners" thing, because that is a metaphor we STILL use, to this day, even though we know the Earth, being a sphere, has NO CORNERS!!!

Actually, the Ancient Greeks not only figured out that the Earth was round, but calculated to within a couple hundred miles the circumference of the Earth at the Equator.
Europeans during the Dark Ages were just ill informed. That's why they called them the "Dark Ages".

And Chris Columbus didn't invent the idea on his own, either... by that point anyone who was highly educated knew that the earth was round, but there was quite a bit of squabbling as to the cirumference of the Earth, and also the distance across Eurasia. Columbus picked the most optomistic number, which was completely unrealistic, and that led him to believe that India was EAST of where the Indies actually are. Remember: the crew almost mutinied when they were late getting to INDIA.

Perhaps the aspect of this discussion I was speaking of was a little too advanced for you. Why don't you try ... hmm... Oh! That's right... thinking about what I was saying before you post on it.
Actually, they were making fun of your lack of a grasp on causal logic.

However, having gotten to know you a little bit over the course of this thread, I could understand why it would be over your head.

PN, there is no need to continue Ignaius already ran away with his tail between his legs.
PN likes to get the last word in... over and over and over again. :p

And Chris Columbus didn't invent the idea on his own, either... by that point anyone who was highly educated knew that the earth was round, but there was quite a bit of squabbling as to the cirumference of the Earth, and also the distance across Eurasia. Columbus picked the most optomistic number, which was completely unrealistic, and that led him to believe that India was EAST of where the Indies actually are. Remember: the crew almost mutinied when they were late getting to INDIA.


He underestimated earth's diameter, and he overestimated the width of Asia. He thought Japan lay only 2700 miles west of the Canary Islands. A correct calculation would've put it 10,000 miles away -- far beyond the reach of any 15th-century ship.

lol... I think i've explained what I meant by that already, you just don't want to listen. Government itself is based off of religious principles in the first place, so yes, I believe it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a complete seperation of Church and State.
We have proof right here. The United States. Legally, there's a complete separation of Church and State. But some people are trying to get around it... it's unconstitutional, but they sometimes get away with it.


Free speech? What? Since when does gay 'marriage' have anything to do with free speech?
It was an analogy. Again, look it up.

Religion does have EVERYTHING to do with Marriage. That's just a fact.
No, it's something that has been disproved. Repeatedly. As you are so fond of saying, READ.

PN likes to get the last word in... over and over and over again. :p

Understatement of the year. :rolleyes:

/me hands PN hammer & nails

He haven't been around for a week mate. The aggro is pointless ;)

You must also remember, many consider Athiesm to be a religion...

So? There aren't any laws that I know of based on atheism either.

Good luck reviving that dead horse.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15739502-13762,00.html?name=otherside

ok. :)

Here's a little horsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse)
And a nice little doggy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog)
See the difference? :p :p :p

Here's a little horsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse)
And a nice little doggy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog)
See the difference? :p :p :p

Ah, but horses are merely a few 3rd-world orphan test-subjects away. :)

You must also remember, many consider Athiesm to be a religion...
As the saying goes, calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

As the saying goes, calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
Lol thats been in my sig for almost a month lol

Ha! An unwritten morale code. Common sense would say that sounds more like a religion than a government... Oh... Oh i'm sorry. I forgot. Governments... LAW... have written documents that make sure there is no loose ends.

A religion is up to interpretation in many ways, but it does have many aspects of it that ensure a morale code. Native Americans, for example. Their 'law' was their religion. Pure and simple... they had a cheif, but he based all of his decisions on law.

Unwritten law and code is, unless you can give me an example of where it is not, known as religion.
First of all, the word is "moral", unless you're talking about how people feel about themselves :rolleyes:.
Secondly, you are basing all of your arguments on assumptions that you have made. Some examples.
1. You assume that all government comes from religion. Therefore, clearly, anything that led to government HAD to be religion, even if by any "real" definition it wasn't.
2. You assume that an unwritten law is called a religion. This is not the case, at least not in English that is in common usage. People did things so that the society would hold together, not because they thought God would kick their asses.
3. You seem to be confusing "religion" with "culture". Religion is only one aspect of a culture. Another aspect is Law. You are making the claim that Native American chiefs ruled based solely on religion... now back that up.

Well, i'm tired and there is a thunderstorm outside which helps me sleep anyway, so i'll be going. I WOULD leave the topic alone to die if it wasn't for people like you that keep going through quoting me just for the hell of it, even when what you are saying is either repeating yourself or others using facts I have already argued against.
Yes... "just for the hell of it"... because it's not like I wanted to refute every wrong thing you say or anything... [/sarcasm]
It's not my fault that you say something blatantly incorrect in every one of your posts. As for repeating points that you "argued against"? You haven't proven a single thing in this entire thread, except for your utter disregard of any and all evidence against your points.


Anyway. This line. Religion cannot create law. I enjoy that. Where do you think law came from?
Oh, I dunno... early tribal leaders?

Why is murder illegal?
Because, murder is harmful to the society. Atheists don't go around advocating murder, now, do they? At least not more so than the rest of the population. Murder has been "illegal" since before religions made specific "laws". Deal with it.

Why isn't that socially acceptable? Where did the general idea of what is and what is not "socially acceptable" come from?
Oh, I dunno... "society"? "Socially acceptable" means that people, as a whole, think it's OK. Not some God or spirit. If everyone happens to follow that religion, it may affect what is socially acceptable, but that is far from the case in the early days.


It came from the first religions.
Proof?

Religion can't create law. Haha... very, very uninformed statement, that is. I'll have to read through the flames when I get up in a few hours.
Religion can't legally create law in the United States. It's in the Constitution. How can you possibly argue this point? Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were morons, who didn't realize the obvious connection that you seem to see?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

To all on my / the right side, keep up the good fight! Especially Neo, for the record, you're great.
Neo is at least a bit more reasonable than you are.
Just curious, and I don't mean this to be a flame or insult or anything, I'm just curious, as I said... what kind of an education do you have, and what is it about you that makes you an authority on these subjects?

If what I state is supported by the Scriptures, then I cannot be wrong. If what I say is not supported by the Scriptures, then it can be wrong.
*sigh* This isn't the thread for this kind of a discussion, so please make it brief, but: this is assuming that the Scriptures are the Word of God.

You can't prove that God exists.

You can't prove that the Scriptures are God's Word.

You can't prove that it was translated properly (just think of all the idioms that wouldn't have made any sense by the time it was translated).

Anyway, as I said, this isn't the thread for that, but seriously, Christianity and theological views and opinions are completely irrelevant to this argument. According to US law, there is a separation of church and state, which means that legal arguments are irrelevant in religion, and religious arguments are irrelevant to law.

Yes, they were corrected but were Paul's teachings ever corrected by another apostle? If not, then we are to follow them.
What makes Paul better than the other apostles? You claim that they're all infallible, and then Paul corrects them? That negates your only argument for Paul's infallibility, because it obviously didn't work for the others! Besides, you said he had a "vision"... just like you said to various other people... how did he know that it was from "another source"?

Hey Pacific do me a favor when your done turn out the lights and lock the door on your way out. :rolleyes:

I never said they SAID it was flat...I said they BELIEVED it was flat.

Only until Chris columbus proved otherwise, EVERYONE believed the world was flat.

I wasn't making reference to the "four corners" thing, because that is a metaphor we STILL use, to this day, even though we know the Earth, being a sphere, has NO CORNERS!!!Actually, everyone knew that the world was round during those times. Christopher Columbus's obstacle was being able to prove that his ship could hold enough supplies to get to where he was going. It's a very common misconception that Columbus was THE ONE to prove that the Earth was round.

Funny, many historians would disagree. The early church is well documented.
Not really... the first Bible was compiled, what, 300 AD?

Michigan passes ban on gay driver’s licenses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penny Lane had the following to say:

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

John Lane added:

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

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

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

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

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

Heh, in the spirit of the original post :D I love it.

Read. Thread. Gay. Penguins.

Not to mention gay and lesbian seagulls, dolphins, dogs, etc.
Yeah, I know, I was just trying to be brief because I have some questions about the attention spans of some certain people....

Why on earth are you continuing this thread Pacific Northwesteria? No one really is interested in arguing this point, and you have been the only poster for about a page. Maybe it is the time to let this thread die.
Sorry... I have been reading the entire thread, posting as I go, unaware that the thread had moved on.

Another thing, PN, you must really want to get your point across. You've posted in here like 20 million times. Your crazy. In a good way.
Thank you... I think. As I said, I (am almost done) read the whole thread, replying to silly comments as I found them. As the silly arguments were repeated over and over, so were my refutations. Sorry for any of you peoples' time I may have wasted through repeats, I just try to word it slightly differently each time, trying to somehow get the point across (mostly to Eskertania).

Holy telephone poles, batman...

Sorry everyone, had no idea I was going so psycho... I decided to read the whole thread, and I didn't pay attention to the fact that it wasn't growing as rapidly anymore. I just responded to the ones that I... felt needed a response, and the result was 3 pages almost solid of my yelling at people who hadn't been there for pages and pages.
If anybody reads this (which is somewhat unlikely), just know that it was by accident.

::turns off lights, closes doors:: :D