NationStates Jolt Archive

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



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

At my current disposition I have no wish to wipe out humanity … does that mean my love and mercy is great as well?

And why does it take great love and mercy to not wipe out humanity


You have to see it from His point of view. He created humanity to love and worship Him. However, most of us don’t do that. Also, he gave us a set of laws that he expects us to live by to show that we love Him. We break those constantly. The emotional pain for Him is like that of a parent being told by their children that they hate them, only far worse, since it is constant.

This is from the humble view of a Christian, however. You will more than likely dismiss this as utter bs, and that is your right. I’m just trying to show where I am coming from.

But ya know, you must be pretty evil to be born with aids, and oh wait Asia was punished for there sins with the Great Clensing just recently

Any Christian who would say something like that is a self righteous fool. What they fail to realize is that their sins caused those problems just as much as the sins of those effected. Sin mares everything. I suggest to those who feel high and mighty enough to say things like that, be careful, lest the judgment of the Lord find its way to your life.

My church, a Southern Baptist one, was very quick to denounce those that claimed the Tsunami was God punishing those people.

You have to see it from His point of view. He created humanity to love and worship Him. However, most of us don’t do that. Also, he gave us a set of laws that he expects us to live by to show that we love Him. We break those constantly. The emotional pain for Him is like that of a parent being told by their children that they hate them, only far worse, since it is constant.

This is from the humble view of a Christian, however. You will more than likely dismiss this as utter bs, and that is your right. I’m just trying to show where I am coming from.



So he created us for the sole purpose of worshiping him … that is somehow very demeaning (sheesh atheists/agnostics get asked all the time how they can stand having no purpose to existence … I would rather have no meaning then have been created for the sole existence of groveling before a god)

Make a whole species only to pay homage to you … and then send the ones that don’t to suffer eternally … that somehow seems SO shallow and petty for what people proscribe to be the ultimate moral authority

And from the sound of it god aught to toughen up … he should have known it was coming when he created beings and gave them questionable and mixed signals and expect all of them to guess it right in this confusing world of ours

(Not to mention the OT god who just got pissy and decided to wipe everyone off the face of the planet rather then give us the free choice to live as we please)

"But ya know, you must be pretty evil to be born with aids, and oh wait Asia was punished for there sins with the Great Clensing just recently."

What a tremendous asshole.

Although I do not believe in a Hell, I would happily construct one, brick by brick, for the likes of you.

It was sarcasm.

"But ya know, you must be pretty evil to be born with aids, and oh wait Asia was punished for there sins with the Great Clensing just recently."

What a tremendous asshole.

Although I do not believe in a Hell, I would happily construct one, brick by brick, for the likes of you.
Psst he made a note that it was SARCASM

"But ya know, you must be pretty evil to be born with aids, and oh wait Asia was punished for there sins with the Great Clensing just recently."

What a tremendous asshole.

Although I do not believe in a Hell, I would happily construct one, brick by brick, for the likes of you.

Haha yay, "I think he was joking, what you gonna do bill."
"Oh god, I dunno, I guess I'll have to develop a sense of humour"

Thank you extra two posts this guy needs to read the S word.

Sarcasm, aye? Never heard of it. Frankly it sounds made up.

If he was being "sarcastic" than why don't I just say that I was being "floobuloid"?

If we just go around inventing words we could say anything we wanted. And did Jesus go around just saying whatever came into his head?

Yes, he did. And we all know what happened to him.

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.

Batchelor for life here! No girl is going to have a monopoly over my genatalia!

:fluffle: * 1000

Plus, I'll say it again: girls just wanna have funds!

Leviticus does not advocate slavery of other races, it does permit Israel to have slaves of other NATIONS (note, the word race does not mean nation)

That's pretty much what it meant back then. In truth, all the groups we call "races" are simply ethnic groups - which would have equated to nations back then.

but they must treat them well...so well in fact, that they were pretty much just servants as opposed to slaves.

So it is ok to own another person as long as you treat them well? Most of the people in the south treated their slaves very well - to not do so was to lose an investment. I guess that means slavery was okey-dokey with you, then?

And would you consider being able to kill your slave, so long as he survives for at least a day, good treatment? How about forcing your slave to marry you? How about letting your male slave go, if he chooses, but keeping his wife and children from him unless he pledges lifelong slavery?

Also note that, in the Bible, female slaves were treated very different from male ones. Male Hebrew slaves had to be allowed to leave after 7 years. All other slaves, including female Hebrews were for life or until you felt like letting them go (unless you married them - which wasn't that different from slavery back then).

That's pretty much what it meant back then. In truth, all the groups we call "races" are simply ethnic groups - which would have equated to nations back then.



So it is ok to own another person as long as you treat them well? Most of the people in the south treated their slaves very well - to not do so was to lose an investment. I guess that means slavery was okey-dokey with you, then?

And would you consider being able to kill your slave, so long as he survives for at least a day, good treatment? How about forcing your slave to marry you? How about letting your male slave go, if he chooses, but keeping his wife and children from him unless he pledges lifelong slavery?

Also note that, in the Bible, female slaves were treated very different from male ones. Male Hebrew slaves had to be allowed to leave after 7 years. All other slaves, including female Hebrews were for life or until you felt like letting them go (unless you married them - which wasn't that different from slavery back then).

Times have changed. We are not in the 10th Century BC. Get over it. There are a lot of things in the Bible which not only is reasonable, but honourable. Are you willing to talk about those instead?

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

So you think that a woman should be forced to marry her rapist?

You think that any woman raped in New York and not saved must have wanted it and thus should be punished along with the rapist?

You think that it is ok to own another human being, and you can even kill them - so long as they survive their injuries at least a day? However, if you poke out their eyes and they survive, you have to let them go?

You think genocide is a good thing?

Times have changed. We are not in the 10th Century BC. Get over it. There are a lot of things in the Bible which not only is reasonable, but honourable. Are you willing to talk about those instead?

Of course I am. Christ's teachings are in the Bible - that is reasonable and honorable enough for me.

Darling, it isn't me who is stuck in the 10th century BC - it is those who wish to argue that their own bigotry (which they claim is based in the Bible, just as the slave-owners and anti-civil rights people in the south did) should be legislated.

Of course I am. Christ's teachings are in the Bible - that is reasonable and honorable enough for me.

Darling, it isn't me who is stuck in the 10th century BC - it is those who wish to argue that their own bigotry (which they claim is based in the Bible, just as the slave-owners and anti-civil rights people in the south did) should be legislated.

Well. We have all moved on. In those days it was accepted that women are inferior - because of the society at the time. God was there to implement the baseline rules. Today these rules must have changed. God made man - AND he made women. What He made them with is not the focus; the focus is the He made them. We are all equal, see? Inequality has already been abolished by Jesus on the cross. EVERYBODY is welcome before His throne.

A. God does exist

B. They clearly ARE God's standards

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

Clearly, eh?

Good to know that you are so infallible that you personally speak for God. I guess I should stop praying to God for guidance and should just pray to you instead, eh?

Well. We have all moved on. In those days it was accepted that women are inferior - because of the society at the time. God was there to implement the baseline rules. Today these rules must have changed. God made man - AND he made women. What He made them with is not the focus; the focus is the He made them. We are all equal, see? Inequality has already been abolished by Jesus on the cross. EVERYBODY is welcome before His throne.

God cannot change God's mind if God is omniscient. If something was good to God 4000 years ago, it is also good today.

Now, perhaps what was really happening was that the society at the time was projecting their own prejudices onto God. Because they believed so firmly that women were inferior and that other peoples should be enslaved, they assumed these beliefs came from God. Maybe today we have moved on and realized that it wasn't so?

Well. We have all moved on. In those days it was accepted that women are inferior - because of the society at the time. God was there to implement the baseline rules. Today these rules must have changed. God made man - AND he made women. What He made them with is not the focus; the focus is the He made them. We are all equal, see? Inequality has already been abolished by Jesus on the cross. EVERYBODY is welcome before His throne.
That's nice up until you check out how misapplied Jesus' teachings have been in world history:
- Jewish and Muslim "infidels" were slaughtered during the Crusades in the name of Jesus
- Jews and Muslims were burned at the stake by the Inquisition for having different views
- Women in the American Colonies were burned at the stake for being "witches"
- Millions of Europeans died in religious wars between Catholics and Protestans, both claiming knowledge of God's true intentions
- Southern slaveowners claimed that blacks were "sons of Ham," and thus inherently inferior
- Modern bigots cite Old and New Testament passages to enforce the second class citizenship of homosexuals

And there are more examples. The text itself is in many ways a wonderful work. But people have perverted it to do horrible things. What one should do is take a stance against the people appropriating the Bible for their regressive, hateful agenda.

God cannot change God's mind if God is omniscient. If something was good to God 4000 years ago, it is also good today.

Now, perhaps what was really happening was that the society at the time was projecting their own prejudices onto God. Because they believed so firmly that women were inferior and that other peoples should be enslaved, they assumed these beliefs came from God. Maybe today we have moved on and realized that it wasn't so?

God can change God's mind. Read what happened to Nineveh in the Book of Job.

God was then accommodating for the inadequacies of human beings - who has been tainted by sin.

That's nice up until you check out how misapplied Jesus' teachings have been in world history:
- Jewish and Muslim "infidels" were slaughtered during the Crusades in the name of Jesus
- Jews and Muslims were burned at the stake by the Inquisition for having different views
- Women in the American Colonies were burned at the stake for being "witches"
- Millions of Europeans died in religious wars between Catholics and Protestans, both claiming knowledge of God's true intentions
- Southern slaveowners claimed that blacks were "sons of Ham," and thus inherently inferior
- Modern bigots cite Old and New Testament passages to enforce the second class citizenship of homosexuals

And there are more examples. The text itself is in many ways a wonderful work. But people have perverted it to do horrible things. What one should do is take a stance against the people appropriating the Bible for their regressive, hateful agenda.

You said it yourself. "PEOPLE HAVE PERVERTED IT TO DO HORRIBLE THINGS". So is it God's fault or our fault for our perversion of His words???

You said it yourself. "PEOPLE HAVE PERVERTED IT TO DO HORRIBLE THINGS". So is it God's fault or our fault for our perversion of His words???
No, it's your fault for having blind faith in religious authority and infrastructure. If one were to deviate from the line spoken by fundamentalist preachers who have hijacked the Christian religion, and read Jesus' teachings, you'd see that he'd probably be pro-gay marriage.

This is not supposed to be a personal attack. The you is indefinite, not referencing Dragons Bay. That's just the way I write.

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

That would be all of them - or at least so it seemed to the people at the time. In fact, the Bible is very clear that other gods performed miracles, they were simply said to be lesser miracles to the real God. Of course, most of these peoples would not have seen God's miracles, as they were saved for the Israelites at the time, so that would mean that they had only seen the lesser miracles...

I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Do you also believe that menstruating is morally wrong?

I believe that the ‘traditional’ family is one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity.

So you think that something that has really only been around for 50 years is God's greatest gift to humanity?

Or are you talking about he true traditional family, where a child would live with siblings, mother, father, aunt, uncle, grandma, grandpa, cousins, etc. all in the same house or at least on the same property?

I believe that as long as I am able to express the above views, gays should be allowed to express theirs.
I believe that as long as I am allowed to marry whom I want, others should be able to as well.
I believe that as long as I am allowed to adopt children, other responsible people should be able to as well.

YAY!

God can change God's mind. Read what happened to Nineveh in the Book of Job.

Then God is not omniscient. After all, changing ones's mind involves admitting one is wrong. I don't believe God can be wrong. *shrug*

God was then accommodating for the inadequacies of human beings - who has been tainted by sin.

So God's morals are determined by humanity? So God is not only not omniscient, but not omnipotent either - God is dependent on human beings to determine morals. Sorry, not my belief either. My God is both omniscient and omnibenevolent, and thus would not condone evil actions just because human beings are flawed.

It is like suggesting that a parent would condone their child stealing because they are too young to fully understand it is wrong. Last I checked, we punish children for stealing and try to demonstrate to them that it is wrong. Go figure.

Silly liberals and their lack of morals :rolleyes:

Silly liberals and their lack of morals :rolleyes:

Silly neo-conservatives and their lack of thinking :rolleyes:

You know if that list used ANY descent comparisons I might give it more credence. As it is, the list is a crock. It takes the true arguments against Gay "marriage" and simplifies them and then twists them and then riddicules the twisted mess.

You cannot point out individual points like that. The issue runs far too deep for such simplistic answers. Most of the effects of this phenomenon run under the radar screen. And most people don't realize how such things are interrelated.

Just because it is sarcastic and funny doesn't mean it is correct. Most of those couter arguments were some of the lamest defenses of "gay marriage" I've ever read, but because they were humorous they get publicized.

You know if that list used ANY descent comparisons I might give it more credence. As it is, the list is a crock. It takes the true arguments against Gay "marriage" and simplifies them and then twists them and then riddicules the twisted mess.

So what are these 'true' arguments then?

You know if that list used ANY descent comparisons I might give it more credence. As it is, the list is a crock. It takes the true arguments against Gay "marriage" and simplifies them and then twists them and then riddicules the twisted mess.

Actually, those are the exact arguments used by the anti-equality side in almost every instance.

You are correct, of course, that they are stupid arguments.

I agree with everything on that list. gay marriage is bad.

conservatism rules. just remember that, and i am not being sarcastic.

Actually, those are the exact arguments used by the anti-equality side in almost every instance.

You are correct, of course, that they are stupid arguments.


Perfect example of what I was talking about. You knew I meant the pro-gay arguments, but you twisted it to mean something else.

The very term "Anti-equality" is a very subversive term. It is chock full of bad connotations just as the popular "anti-choice" or "anti-life".

If people would stop trying to subvert entire masses of opinion, we might actually get somewhere in a debate.

The anti-gay-marriage agenda is based on logic and common sense. The pro movement is about blindly giving out "freedoms" to whatever complainer comes along.

Face it, if we came to the point of genetic choice (assuming you are correct and gayness is a gene) then that gene would be culled imediately. This would not be because of religion. This would be done by our future scientists interested in the progression of society.

Now I'm not saying I agree with this. Just saying based on all logic and species progression, that is the future. So fighting for this little "right" is just spurious.

Let gays do what they like, live together et al. But its all rather pointless.

ehem, I feel dumb now. Don't worry about my above post, I misunderstood somthing.

Perfect example of what I was talking about. You knew I meant the pro-gay arguments, but you twisted it to mean something else.

You specifically said that the anti- arguments were "twisted" into something that was stupid. I pointed out that they weren't twisted in the least - those are the exact arguments we get on a daily basis.

The very term "Anti-equality" is a very subversive term. It is chock full of bad connotations just as the popular "anti-choice" or "anti-life".

Anti-choice is also correct. Let's label the view as what it really is. People opposed to same sex marriage are opposed to giving equal rights to all of our citizens. Their reasons are irrelevant, as that is what they are truly about. People who favor making abortion illegal are not just anti-abortion (many pro-choicers are anti-abortion), they are opposed to the choice to have an abortion. Thus, it is a term actually describing the viewpoint.

If people would stop trying to subvert entire masses of opinion, we might actually get somewhere in a debate.

The anti-gay-marriage agenda is based on logic and common sense. The pro movement is about blindly giving out "freedoms" to whatever complainer comes along.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Nothing like twisting an actual viewpoint to make it sound stupid. Yes, you are correct. Pointing out that a homosexual union works in the same way as a heterosexual one and thus should get the same protections is all about blindly giving out freedoms.

Face it, if we came to the point of genetic choice (assuming you are correct and gayness is a gene)

Who said it was a gene? From a biology standpoint, it is likely that sexuality (which is far from an either/or trait) is influenced by genetic factors, hormone levels in the womb, environmental factors in early development. Howeve,r none of these things equates to choice.

then that gene would be culled imediately. This would not be because of religion. This would be done by our future scientists interested in the progression of society.

As a scientist, I can objectively claim bullshit. First off, it is highly unlikely that there is a single "gay gene". It is much more likely that, like other complex traits, sexuality is affected by a number of genes - all of which combine in other ways in other people. Thus, there would be nothing to "cull". Secondly, why on earth do you think the scientists of the future will be bigots and practice eugenics?

And finally, there is no reason to think that getting rid of homosexuality would in any way help the society progress. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. There isn't a single shred of evidence that the presence of homosexuality in any way harms a species.

I think Gay marriage should be banned. Does anyone realize that if we allowed gay marriage that we would be the first society to screw up the sancaty of marriage. Do you want people to look back on America years from now and see that we were the ones that allowed gay marriage. We would be the first society to allow it. Not only that but marriage is a way of bonding a woman, man and children. It's a way to bond families, and that is not what the gay marriage would use it for.

I think Gay marriage should be banned. Does anyone realize that if we allowed gay marriage that we would be the first society to screw up the sancaty of marriage. Do you want people to look back on America years from now and see that we were the ones that allowed gay marriage. We would be the first society to allow it. Not only that but marriage is a way of bonding a woman, man and children. It's a way to bond families, and that is not what the gay marriage would use it for.
I have two words for you: Britney Spears

I think Gay marriage should be banned. Does anyone realize that if we allowed gay marriage that we would be the first society to screw up the sancaty of marriage.

How does it screw up it up? What are they going to be doing while married that most couples don't already do?

Do you want people to look back on America years from now and see that we were the ones that allowed gay marriage. We would be the first society to allow it.

And this would be a bad thing how?

Not only that but marriage is a way of bonding a woman, man and children. It's a way to bond families, and that is not what the gay marriage would use it for.

Why prytell then would gay marriage use it for?

I think Gay marriage should be banned.

And I'm sure you have some sort of reasoning for this.

Does anyone realize that if we allowed gay marriage that we would be the first society to screw up the sancaty of marriage.

How exactly does allowing people who already form bonds in the same way as those allowed to get married "screw up the sanctity" of marriage? If anything, it demonstrates how very dearly we hold the institution, that we ensure that all who form that bond can be a part of it.

Do you want people to look back on America years from now and see that we were the ones that allowed gay marriage.
We would be the first society to allow it.

First off, we wouldn't be the first to allow it. There are already several countries that do. Secondly, yes, I would very much like America to be at the forefront of treating all human beings equally, despite the prejudices of a few bigots.

Not only that but marriage is a way of bonding a woman, man and children.

Really? Then why do we let the infertile marry? What about people who don't want children? The elderly? Couples who have not yet had children?

Methinks your definition of marriage needs a looksee.

It's a way to bond families, and that is not what the gay marriage would use it for.

Actually, that is exactly what gay marriage would be - a way to bond families. You have hit the nail on the head!

I think Gay marriage should be banned. Does anyone realize that if we allowed gay marriage that we would be the first society to screw up the sancaty of marriage.

Actually, gay marriage is already legal in other countries. And, throughout history and across cultures, domestic couplings between persons of the same gender have been recognized with a variety of legal arrangements.

Personally, I think Western culture has already irreparably damaged the very concept of marriage, by having centuries of "tradition" dictate that marriage is the process through which one male (usually a father) gives his property (a female, usually a daughter) to another male for the purposes of giving that male exclusive control over a female's reproductive system. We degrade marriage every time we submit to the idea that marriage is about inserting a penis into a vagina. We insult countless marriages and countless families by even suggesting that marriage must be about the production/rearing of biological children.


Do you want people to look back on America years from now and see that we were the ones that allowed gay marriage.

YES! Just as my parents are proud to have been the generation that saw anti-miscegenation laws finally struck down, I would be proud to be a part of the generation that puts another nail in the coffin of "traditional family values."


We would be the first society to allow it.

No, we wouldn't. Read a newspaper.


Not only that but marriage is a way of bonding a woman, man and children. It's a way to bond families, and that is not what the gay marriage would use it for.Support your statement, or apologize for it.

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

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

Ahem, if we're pushing this issues just to continue this so called "charade" of yours of pretending we're not gay, then why the hell did we come out of the closet and accept ourselves as gay in the first place!? This issue isn't just about gay men, it's about all homosexuals; and clearly you have no idea about why we want to be able to get married. The marriage bills are being pushed by out of the closet homosexuals, so I think you could say that they're well past the acceptance stage.

You say you think we're lying to ourselves wanting society to tell us it's alright, but you couldn't be more wrong. The only time we lie to ourselves is during the acceptance stage, telling ourselves, "I'm straight, it's just a phase". This marriage issue isn't so much about acceptance for us at it is equality. We know not everyone will accept us but that's not what matters. We just want equal treatment and the same rights as everyone else. Oh and by the way, I'll have you know that I don't want children, so your little generalization could not have been more off.

And as for your last sentence, why are you such a hypocrit? What makes it wrong for men to gay if it's ok for women to be lesbians?

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

We're not trying to make who we sleep with the gov'ts business. You clearly have no idea what it is to be gay. Are you telling me that the only thing there is to being straight is who you sleep with? I doubt it. Being gay is who we are and it defines us as people. Who we sleep with comes as a result of being gay, it's not what being gay is about. We have our identities figured out, and being gay just happens to be a very large part of that identity.

You know if that list used ANY descent comparisons I might give it more credence. As it is, the list is a crock. It takes the true arguments against Gay "marriage" and simplifies them and then twists them and then riddicules the twisted mess.

You cannot point out individual points like that. The issue runs far too deep for such simplistic answers. Most of the effects of this phenomenon run under the radar screen. And most people don't realize how such things are interrelated.

Just because it is sarcastic and funny doesn't mean it is correct. Most of those couter arguments were some of the lamest defenses of "gay marriage" I've ever read, but because they were humorous they get publicized.

Interesting, because everytime I hear an argument put up against homosexual marriage I can't help but laugh at it's sheer stupidity.

The anti-gay-marriage agenda is based on logic and common sense. The pro movement is about blindly giving out "freedoms" to whatever complainer comes along.


Oh you must mean the same logic and common sense the Church has been using to oppress minorities and suppress science for centuries.

We have freedom already, the pro-same-sex marriage movement is about equality and rights.

Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
Damn straight, all women are my licensed property, including myself!

And for the record, marriage IS just for making a family.
That is why it was created. It has since been expanded to include childless couples. But this is why infertile people Adopt.
To create a family.

And for the record, marriage IS just for making a family.
That is why it was created. It has since been expanded to include childless couples. But this is why infertile people Adopt.
To create a family.


Please source this fact. Oh you can't? Awwwwwwwwwwww

And for the record, marriage IS just for making a family.
That is why it was created. It has since been expanded to include childless couples. But this is why infertile people Adopt.
To create a family.
Okay then. I'll marry my boyfriend and then adopt. But wait, you'd oppose that too, wouldn't you?

And for the record, marriage IS just for making a family.
That is why it was created. It has since been expanded to include childless couples. But this is why infertile people Adopt.
To create a family.

And what about those gays who chose to adopt a child as well then? They are creating a family too, guess that puts them under the expanded part too eh.

Summery of thread:

Look at these 12 reasons why Gay Marriage is BAD!

Whahahaha!
Hahahah!
...hey, that's not right, Gays are evil!
How are gays evil
TEHY WANT TO DESTRYO MARRAGE!
...er, no they don't...
YES THEY DO!
...how the hell do they want to destroy marriage?
CAUSE GOD IS AGAINST IT!
God doesn't have a place in government (PWNED)
The Founding Fathers HATED GAYS and if they knew about it would have said something!
...you're just an idiot.
Hey, I don't like gays, and I personally think its wrong. I also think its none of my business.
HUZZAH! SOMEONE SANE!
Hey, those twelve points suck, they're not the 'real' arguements, those run MUCH DEEPER!
...okay, what are the real arguements?
(...silence.)

Pretty much, every point brought up by those who are against gay marriage has been shot down and been nulled.

I've seen many attempts to try to turn the issue around, and many attempts to waffle around it, and far too many arguements of 'It's God's law!" which doesn't hold any water in a modern Western society due to there's no single culture in those societies anymore.

We've been told that 'There are much deeper and truer arguements than those twelve that were twisted for humor," yet nobody has a had a single VALID arguement beyond those twelve.

Give me one good, non-bigoted, non-religous reason that Gay's shouldn't marry.

Don't say Sanctity of Marriage, in the USA that was thrown out a LONG time ago.

Wee!!! I wish this chair spun around!

The morphology of marriage is easily discovered and well documented, not only through various cultures but through various times. Still, marriage is the same as it has ever been and this change somehow constitutes a threat to it. Makes sense.

Look here, you might find the idea of gay marriage offensive, but that is not by any means a legal argument as to its censure. I find the idea of the elderly getting married a tad offensive. Old people screwing? All that loose skin batting around like flags in a stiff breeze? Yikes! And of course, the elderly can't have kids, presuming menopause.

The arguments against gay marriage are a house of cards, and worse still, with all the talk of the great providing strength and sanctity of marriage, those against homosexual marriage still paint it as a house of cards as well.

If marriage is such a flim-flam construct that a few gays and lesbians participating in it will bring the thing toppling like a badly cooked souflette, then it is a wonder it has made it this long.

The science of homosexuality is a nebulous one. Mostly because, as in anything of this sort of biological complexity, it is impossible to create controlled experiments. Still, common sense tells us that one does not choose who they are attracted to, God knows if it did most of our love-lives would be much easier.

Actually, I can think of a control experiment to test the validity of homosexuality as choice: have a straight person decide to turn gay. You can do it yourself: go out today and try to be attracted to people of your own gender (homosexuals, you can try the inverse if you'd like).

You straight men out there, see how long it takes you to decide that sucking a man's dick until he cums in your mouth is something you actually enjoy, and something that gets you off. It should be easy enough, because homosexuality is a choice, right?

I would also like to note that biblical evidence of homosexuality as sin is scanty at best. The two main examples sited are generally the Levitical passage and good old Soddam. Now, it doesn't take a clergyman to tell you that Soddam isn't about homosexuality, but I still was one once upon a time, so I'll say it all the same: Soddam wasn't about homosexuality, it was about the treatment of guests, about inhospitality to strangers. As for Ghommorah, well, it gets only the briefest of mentions without any speculation into motivation besides a general "wickedness".

Leviticus is a bit less cut and dry, but certainly not something to base ones bigotry upon. The text itself is rather suspect, as goes the authorship and authority. It is also a tad shoddy in that the turn of phrase now commonly translated "shall not lie" is far from the most coporeal one. We have just as good an idea of what this phrase actually meant as future civilizations would understand such cultural colloquialisms as "drop me a ring" or "bling-bling, I'm all about the Benjamins". Also, a bit of context is perhaps important. I say perhaps, but I really mean absolutely. Obviously most people will point out that the laws surrounding our famous anti 'mo missive are almost entirely composed of those that are now thought entirely vestigial and no longer honored. This should be enough to throw some shadows on the "gay=evil" thing, but the reason why does it even better. The section is part of a hygenic philosophy espoused by The Deuteronomists, who came to power when the strictness of their behavioral laws found favor amidst a nomadic culture that was struggling with plague.

Many historians consider The Deuteronomists one of the earliest and most important examples of The Judeo-Christian religions being manipulated beyond past resemblence.

Lastly, there is GOOD, rational, human reason to legalize gay marriage. That reasoning is simple: it would help a lot of people. I have a good friend who has lived with his partner for close to forty years now. He suffers from diabetes, COPD, heart murmurs and just about anything under the sun. His lover is equally poor off. Neither is able to work much, and they are forced to rely upon pooled income, social security and medicaid. Neither can make it on his own. When one dies, the other will die, because they cannot accept the others benefits as a straight, married couple would. Not only this, but when the time comes for one to find peace, he will likely do it alone, because non-family, non-spousal visits in hospitals are severely limited.

Grow up people. Your morality has nothing to do with the law. There is no law against dishonoring your parents, no law against graven images, no law against dishonoring the sabbath, no law against coveting wife, livestock or cattle, no law against adultery, no law against having gods before Yahweh, and so forth and so on. The great thing about this country is that people have, with some exceptions (regrettable exceptions, for the most part), the right to do what they will, so far as it does no harm to others.

What is most disconcerting about the blanket of religion being used to obfuscate peoples bigotries is that said blanket falls upon the business of good and innocent people who are just trying to make it through life as anyone else. A few paltry mentions of a general uneasiness regarding homosexuality and Bible bangers go nuts about it. But hundreds of passages about the blight of poverty barely get a insincere wave.

It is not God these people serve, but their own fears.
(btw, there is probably not a god anyway)

Summery of thread:

Look at these 12 reasons why Gay Marriage is BAD!

Whahahaha!
Hahahah!
...hey, that's not right, Gays are evil!
How are gays evil
TEHY WANT TO DESTRYO MARRAGE!
...er, no they don't...
YES THEY DO!
...how the hell do they want to destroy marriage?
CAUSE GOD IS AGAINST IT!
God doesn't have a place in government (PWNED)
The Founding Fathers HATED GAYS and if they knew about it would have said something!
...you're just an idiot.
Hey, I don't like gays, and I personally think its wrong. I also think its none of my business.
HUZZAH! SOMEONE SANE!
Hey, those twelve points suck, they're not the 'real' arguements, those run MUCH DEEPER!
...okay, what are the real arguements?
(...silence.)

Pretty much, every point brought up by those who are against gay marriage has been shot down and been nulled.

I've seen many attempts to try to turn the issue around, and many attempts to waffle around it, and far too many arguements of 'It's God's law!" which doesn't hold any water in a modern Western society due to there's no single culture in those societies anymore.

We've been told that 'There are much deeper and truer arguements than those twelve that were twisted for humor," yet nobody has a had a single VALID arguement beyond those twelve.

Give me one good, non-bigoted, non-religous reason that Gay's shouldn't marry.

Don't say Sanctity of Marriage, in the USA that was thrown out a LONG time ago.


I nominate you to watch every heated debate thread and when enough arguments are presented, you compose a thread summary. I really like this idea so you kinda have no choice. :p

I nominate you to watch every heated debate thread and when enough arguments are presented, you compose a thread summary. I really like this idea so you kinda have no choice. :p

This isn't even a proper summery... which would take way to fraxing long, as I do it post by post.

You guys are just too.... active for me to do it properly. And my humor... just can't describe the depths of depravity these discussions go.

But thanks for the nomination! :D

Wee!!! I wish this chair spun around!

The morphology of marriage is easily discovered and well documented, not only through various cultures but through various times. Still, marriage is the same as it has ever been and this change somehow constitutes a threat to it. Makes sense.

Look here, you might find the idea of gay marriage offensive, but that is not by any means a legal argument as to its censure. I find the idea of the elderly getting married a tad offensive. Old people screwing? All that loose skin batting around like flags in a stiff breeze? Yikes! And of course, the elderly can't have kids, presuming menopause.

The arguments against gay marriage are a house of cards, and worse still, with all the talk of the great providing strength and sanctity of marriage, those against homosexual marriage still paint it as a house of cards as well.

If marriage is such a flim-flam construct that a few gays and lesbians participating in it will bring the thing toppling like a badly cooked souflette, then it is a wonder it has made it this long.

The science of homosexuality is a nebulous one. Mostly because, as in anything of this sort of biological complexity, it is impossible to create controlled experiments. Still, common sense tells us that one does not choose who they are attracted to, God knows if it did most of our love-lives would be much easier.

Actually, I can think of a control experiment to test the validity of homosexuality as choice: have a straight person decide to turn gay. You can do it yourself: go out today and try to be attracted to people of your own gender (homosexuals, you can try the inverse if you'd like).

You straight men out there, see how long it takes you to decide that sucking a man's dick until he cums in your mouth is something you actually enjoy, and something that gets you off. It should be easy enough, because homosexuality is a choice, right?

I would also like to note that biblical evidence of homosexuality as sin is scanty at best. The two main examples sited are generally the Levitical passage and good old Soddam. Now, it doesn't take a clergyman to tell you that Soddam isn't about homosexuality, but I still was one once upon a time, so I'll say it all the same: Soddam wasn't about homosexuality, it was about the treatment of guests, about inhospitality to strangers. As for Ghommorah, well, it gets only the briefest of mentions without any speculation into motivation besides a general "wickedness".

Leviticus is a bit less cut and dry, but certainly not something to base ones bigotry upon. The text itself is rather suspect, as goes the authorship and authority. It is also a tad shoddy in that the turn of phrase now commonly translated "shall not lie" is far from the most coporeal one. We have just as good an idea of what this phrase actually meant as future civilizations would understand such cultural colloquialisms as "drop me a ring" or "bling-bling, I'm all about the Benjamins". Also, a bit of context is perhaps important. I say perhaps, but I really mean absolutely. Obviously most people will point out that the laws surrounding our famous anti 'mo missive are almost entirely composed of those that are now thought entirely vestigial and no longer honored. This should be enough to throw some shadows on the "gay=evil" thing, but the reason why does it even better. The section is part of a hygenic philosophy espoused by The Deuteronomists, who came to power when the strictness of their behavioral laws found favor amidst a nomadic culture that was struggling with plague.

Many historians consider The Deuteronomists one of the earliest and most important examples of The Judeo-Christian religions being manipulated beyond past resemblence.

Lastly, there is GOOD, rational, human reason to legalize gay marriage. That reasoning is simple: it would help a lot of people. I have a good friend who has lived with his partner for close to forty years now. He suffers from diabetes, COPD, heart murmurs and just about anything under the sun. His lover is equally poor off. Neither is able to work much, and they are forced to rely upon pooled income, social security and medicaid. Neither can make it on his own. When one dies, the other will die, because they cannot accept the others benefits as a straight, married couple would. Not only this, but when the time comes for one to find peace, he will likely do it alone, because non-family, non-spousal visits in hospitals are severely limited.

Grow up people. Your morality has nothing to do with the law. There is no law against dishonoring your parents, no law against graven images, no law against dishonoring the sabbath, no law against coveting wife, livestock or cattle, no law against adultery, no law against having gods before Yahweh, and so forth and so on. The great thing about this country is that people have, with some exceptions (regrettable exceptions, for the most part), the right to do what they will, so far as it does no harm to others.

What is most disconcerting about the blanket of religion being used to obfuscate peoples bigotries is that said blanket falls upon the business of good and innocent people who are just trying to make it through life as anyone else. A few paltry mentions of a general uneasiness regarding homosexuality and Bible bangers go nuts about it. But hundreds of passages about the blight of poverty barely get a insincere wave.

It is not God these people serve, but their own fears.
(btw, there is probably not a god anyway)

I love you. Can I have your babies?

(I'm a liberal wolf, they're tasty.)

ANYHOW.

I agree with everything but your last point. There is a God. Beyond that, who knows?

This isn't even a proper summery... which would take way to fraxing long, as I do it post by post.

You guys are just too.... active for me to do it properly. And my humor... just can't describe the depths of depravity these discussions go.

But thanks for the nomination! :D


But but... pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :D

Okay not every heated debate but just the ones that are interesting and proper summaries arent necessary, I think it's better if you so what you did here. Speak for the side you are for and rabble-rouse the side you are against. Great format.

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

And all this time, I didn't check this thread because I thought it was just another Fundamentalist Hate Jamboree.


I like that list. And yes, sarcasm is fun.

And all this time, I didn't check this thread because I thought it was just another Fundamentalist Hate Jamboree.


I like that list. And yes, sarcasm is fun.

Sarcasm? What sarcasm? Isn't this a sarcasm free zone? :rolleyes:

The Bible is irrelevant to law.


Yes but the Qur'an is its' founding document and now I will place a jihad against the homosexuals that wish to marry.

im not for gay marriages but people who say it is against the bible must also be aware that the bible also say that it is wrong to eat animals who chew their own cudd so no more hamburgers lol

Sarcasm? What sarcasm? Isn't this a sarcasm free zone? :rolleyes:

Didn't you get the memo?

No I didn't, Mr. Fox...

Ah, the good old "Sanctity of Marriage" argument? Haven't any of these anti-gay marriage people ever been to Las Vegas. America took a giant dump on the sanctity of marriage, lit it on fire, and pissed the fire out, then took another dump on the ashes.

I really cant figure out how 2 billion people believe in this god that there is no documented proof of.

(if someone points out the bible as documented proof i will throw a stone a very long way at you)

or if there is a god, i want to be the person who asends to heaven, meets God face to face, and punches him. Would be funny

Ah, the good old "Sanctity of Marriage" argument? Haven't any of these anti-gay marriage people ever been to Las Vegas. America took a giant dump on the sanctity of marriage, lit it on fire, and pissed the fire out, then took another dump on the ashes.

Whats interesting about Vegas is that it used to be the divorce capital of the world long before the marriage thing. Everyone came to Vegas to get divorced I think because it was legal here while illegal elsewhere.

No I didn't, Mr. Fox...

Then get out of my office. :mad:

Oh, there is a God. There's too much irony in the world for there not to be.

Of course, He's not going to do anything...

"I really cant figure out how 2 billion people believe in this god that there is no documented proof of."

if there were any proof of god, that would defy "faith" for if he proved himself there would be no faith, and he is all about faith. therefore he cant prove his existance without sacraficing his believers.

(i do not believe in god, but this is what i hear) if there really was a god though, would he not love and accept all people, homosexual or not? why would he hate so much one group that cannot make the decision? murderers chose to kill, rapists chose to rape. one does not chose to be gay.

Oh, there is a God. There's too much irony in the world for there not to be.

Of course, He's not going to do anything...

Well besides pointing and laughing.

on the first page of the thread.

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

I disagree with this premise for the following reasons.

Being tall is the result of a gene combination (genotype) being physically expressed (phenotype). If two tall people marry and were to have children those children would grow up to be tall (barring poor nutrition and or congenital defect),

I view homosexuality as a chosen behavior. Eventhough there has in the recent past been much controvery about a possible genetic component,whether true or not, I still believe there are behavior choices involved.

Behavior can be learned. If exposed to an evironment where a particular behavior is the norm the likelihood that the behavior will be emulated is increased. This is not to state that it will be emulated but that a greater chance of it occurring is to be expected.

Another link:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01
Holy crap this link scares me... some of it is downright backward-thinking...


The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.

Say what??? They wouldn't adopt a child or use in vitro unless they wanted one. This would be an argument against all adoption! How does this have to do with homosexuality?


9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would be more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and--more importantly--more social and cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage.

But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.
Welcome back to the '50s, everyone!
Women, get back in that kitchen and make me some pie!

on the first page of the thread.

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

I disagree with this premise for the following reasons.

Being tall is the result of a gene combination (genotype) being physically expressed (phenotype). If two tall people marry and were to have children those children would grow up to be tall (barring poor nutrition and or congenital defect),

I view homosexuality as a chosen behavior. Eventhough there has in the recent past been much controvery about a possible genetic component,whether true or not, I still believe there are behavior choices involved.

Behavior can be learned. If exposed to an evironment where a particular behavior is the norm the likelihood that the behavior will be emulated is increased. This is not to state that it will be emulated but that a greater chance of it occurring is to be expected.

It will encourage gay people to get married maybe, but there's nothing wrong with that. Even where it is legal, many gay people still shy away from getting married because it's fairly new and they don't want to make a spectacle of themselves.

Gay marriage being legalized won't turn straight people gay :rolleyes:

look, I'm not ONLY against gays getting married.

I'm against idiots ruining the name of marriage too.

The who ruination of marriage has been going on for a while and the fact that gays want in to is just icing on the cake.


The only reason I have not posted any "proof" or arguments, because frankly it is a waste of my time. I have done it before on other sites, given long answers to all those questions. You know what happens, they don't respond to my answers. They skirt the issue by saying it is a "right" and "na na na na I'm not listening".

I have gay friends. I get along with them fine. They know where I stand on this. And some EVEN AGREE WITH ME. That is right, there are some gays who are against gay marriage.

I do not find gays repulsive, nor are they any worse than any other group of people. I find what gays do, and what porno adicts do and what adulterers do, to be equally bad.

I'd explain more, but why bother, no one listens anyway.

on the first page of the thread.

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

I disagree with this premise for the following reasons.

Being tall is the result of a gene combination (genotype) being physically expressed (phenotype). If two tall people marry and were to have children those children would grow up to be tall (barring poor nutrition and or congenital defect),

I view homosexuality as a chosen behavior. Eventhough there has in the recent past been much controvery about a possible genetic component,whether true or not, I still believe there are behavior choices involved.

Behavior can be learned. If exposed to an evironment where a particular behavior is the norm the likelihood that the behavior will be emulated is increased. This is not to state that it will be emulated but that a greater chance of it occurring is to be expected.


Homosexual acts are a choice. Homosexuality is not. There is a difference in brain chemistry between (this study was just on men) straight and gay men, where the gay men's brains responded as a woman's brain would to male pheromones. That means that their natural sex drive is towards other men. I would expect a similar thing with lesbians, but I haven't seen a study on it.

Incidentally, they also did a study on homophobes and non-homophobes (all straight). They had a decent sample size, and separated all of the men. Then they showed each one homosexual pornography, and measured their... er... responses, downstairs. The homophobes were a rather large percent chance more likely to have gotten a hard-on. Just a fun fact :D

look, I'm not ONLY against gays getting married.

I'm against idiots ruining the name of marriage too.

The who ruination of marriage has been going on for a while and the fact that gays want in to is just icing on the cake.


The only reason I have not posted any "proof" or arguments, because frankly it is a waste of my time. I have done it before on other sites, given long answers to all those questions. You know what happens, they don't respond to my answers. They skirt the issue by saying it is a "right" and "na na na na I'm not listening".

I have gay friends. I get along with them fine. They know where I stand on this. And some EVEN AGREE WITH ME. That is right, there are some gays who are against gay marriage.

I do not find gays repulsive, nor are they any worse than any other group of people. I find what gays do, and what porno adicts do and what adulterers do, to be equally bad.

I'd explain more, but why bother, no one listens anyway.

I listen, and I respond. TG me if you want some reasoned debate on this. I may or may not continue to read this thread.

Personally, I find man-on-man sex kinda disgusting (I don't know what it is, maybe I'm the sterotypical guy, but lesbian sex is just hot*, I mean come on...). However, I don't think it's wrong. I think gay sex is disgusting kind of like I think fish is disgusting. I just don't like the taste of fish. I don't like the smell of fish. But I have no problem with other people eating fish, and I don't think that eating fish is wrong, and I don't think there's anything nutritionally wrong with the fish. It's a personal dislike, not a moral dislike.

And I have lots of gay friends (and even more bi friends) and while I can't quite understand that aspect of their lives, it's private anyway, so it never really gets in the way. And if they start talking about "this hot guy", I just tune out and wait for the girls in the group to unanimously agree.

*My personal theory is that women are just more attractive, in general, than men. This explains why many more women are bisexual than men, and it also explains why lots of guys consider lesbian sex just "double the fun". Some especially stupid ones try to join in.

look, I'm not ONLY against gays getting married.

I'm against idiots ruining the name of marriage too.

The who ruination of marriage has been going on for a while and the fact that gays want in to is just icing on the cake.


The only reason I have not posted any "proof" or arguments, because frankly it is a waste of my time. I have done it before on other sites, given long answers to all those questions. You know what happens, they don't respond to my answers. They skirt the issue by saying it is a "right" and "na na na na I'm not listening".

I have gay friends. I get along with them fine. They know where I stand on this. And some EVEN AGREE WITH ME. That is right, there are some gays who are against gay marriage.

I do not find gays repulsive, nor are they any worse than any other group of people. I find what gays do, and what porno adicts do and what adulterers do, to be equally bad.

I'd explain more, but why bother, no one listens anyway.


The Who is ruining marriage?


also that whole I'm not posting proof statement is a total cop out.

on the first page of the thread.

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

I disagree with this premise for the following reasons.

Being tall is the result of a gene combination (genotype) being physically expressed (phenotype). If two tall people marry and were to have children those children would grow up to be tall (barring poor nutrition and or congenital defect),

I view homosexuality as a chosen behavior. Eventhough there has in the recent past been much controvery about a possible genetic component,whether true or not, I still believe there are behavior choices involved.

Behavior can be learned. If exposed to an evironment where a particular behavior is the norm the likelihood that the behavior will be emulated is increased. This is not to state that it will be emulated but that a greater chance of it occurring is to be expected.


I disagree. I am gay myself and if I was given a choice - I'd be str8.

Why?

Do you think I enjoy hearing those 12 reasons from my family because I want to marry? If I was str8, there'd be less of a problem with me getting married, or in my case, even dating.

Do I enjoy hearing lectures about how I am going to hell and that God doesn't want me to express my opinions to others, etc. as I would be influence others to the Devil? Of course not!

I never chose to like men. But I do. And I stand by who and what I am until the day I die because I am not afraid of it.

It'd be much easier being a guy who loved and womanized women... But I don't. I love other men.

It wasn't something I wanted, chose or even think twice about. It's apart of who I am tho and I defend it because I love myself. I love who I am and I feel no shame.

I had a mom and a dad. I have younger brothers and one older brother. I grew up a fairly somewhat normal life... But I still am gay.

. *My personal theory is that women are just more attractive, in general, than men. This explains why many more women are bisexual than men, and it also explains why lots of guys consider lesbian sex just "double the fun". Some especially stupid ones try to join in.

No, I think women are more open regarding their sexuality around eachother than men are. I rarely hear stories of men practicing kissing with themselves as young boys before they try and kiss a girl. That is stuff some women do.

I think it also has to do with what society implements and what is viewed in moves (it does play some role, sorry). Lesbians are fairly allowed to express their love without as much disgust from others. Men, infact, get off on it. But men don't get off (usually) to other men having sex or something.

Yes but the Qur'an is its' founding document and now I will place a jihad against the homosexuals that wish to marry.

Religious Law and National Law are different things. Yes, depending upon what country was founded under what (major) religion does effect - such as some Middle-Eastern countries.

But I don't believe that just because a religious text states that it is bad - that is the end all of it. And I am sure that just because it is in the religious text that the behavior has yet to stop either.

In the Bible, one of the Ten Commandments states "Thou shalt not lie"... And who here has NEVER lied before? I bet 99% have even tho it's in there.

Religious Law and National Law are different things. Yes, depending upon what country was founded under what (major) religion does effect - such as some Middle-Eastern countries.

But I don't believe that just because a religious text states that it is bad - that is the end all of it. And I am sure that just because it is in the religious text that the behavior has yet to stop either.

In the Bible, one of the Ten Commandments states "Thou shalt not lie"... And who here has NEVER lied before? I bet 99% have even tho it's in there.

:p :fluffle:

I disagree. I am gay myself and if I was given a choice - I'd be str8.

Why?

Do you think I enjoy hearing those 12 reasons from my family because I want to marry? If I was str8, there'd be less of a problem with me getting married, or in my case, even dating.

Do I enjoy hearing lectures about how I am going to hell and that God doesn't want me to express my opinions to others, etc. as I would be influence others to the Devil? Of course not!

I never chose to like men. But I do. And I stand by who and what I am until the day I die because I am not afraid of it.

It'd be much easier being a guy who loved and womanized women... But I don't. I love other men.

It wasn't something I wanted, chose or even think twice about. It's apart of who I am tho and I defend it because I love myself. I love who I am and I feel no shame.

I had a mom and a dad. I have younger brothers and one older brother. I grew up a fairly somewhat normal life... But I still am gay.


I think...that maybe....for some it's a choice, and for others it isn't. I think the one's who get a choice are more bisexual then homosexual though. I didn't get a choice, not that I mind. I tried dating guys at first, not realizing I was attracted only to other girls....believe me...it didn't work out. So any "choice" I had in the matter was this: have a loveless relationship with a man who is frustrated because I'm not attracted to him, or have a wonderful, happy relationship with a woman.

... would God punish me for being how he made me? If he would....how can he be Good?

The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.



Yeah...this scares me too. I was adopted. And I can't imagine parents adopting a child just to abuse it. It's more likely that a hetero-pair with an accidental child would abuse it. Homosexuals would more often then not only get a child if they truly wanted it. Sure, it's hard sometimes having nothing in common with my family...but for crying out loud, how can that site play the adoption card against same sex couples? If anything we need MORE people to adopt to ease the burden on the government run orphanages....

My understanding is that they do have civil unions, with which I have no objections.
Civil Unions and Marriages do not offer the same rights.
If I remember correctly, there are a couple hundred rights associated with civil unions, and over a thousand associated with marriage, including some of the most important ones.

If they were equal in everything but name, I would sit down and be quiet.

This is different from "separate but equal" as in schools before the Supreme Court decided to be smart, because they actually would be equal. It's still not perfect, but I think that it would be a good steppingstone.

I think...that maybe....for some it's a choice, and for others it isn't. I think the one's who get a choice are more bisexual then homosexual though. I didn't get a choice, not that I mind. I tried dating guys at first, not realizing I was attracted only to other girls....believe me...it didn't work out. So any "choice" I had in the matter was this: have a loveless relationship with a man who is frustrated because I'm not attracted to him, or have a wonderful, happy relationship with a woman.

... would God punish me for being how he made me? If he would....how can he be Good?

I have heard the argument that the Devil made me gay. Never made sense to me.

And for the record, marriage IS just for making a family.
That is why it was created. It has since been expanded to include childless couples. But this is why infertile people Adopt.
To create a family.

A family does not require a child.

My boyfriend, myself, and our dog constitute a family. When we want to go to extended family, we can include our siblings and parents. Even further are our aunts, uncles, and cousins. But as for general, everyday family, that would be myself, my boyfriend, and our dog. One day when we do have children (or get more dogs), our family will be even larger.

Pacific Northwesteria could you source those studies. I have always wondered about the sample size and how the extraneous variables were dealt with. It would be most appreciated :)

im not for gay marriages but people who say it is against the bible must also be aware that the bible also say that it is wrong to eat animals who chew their own cudd so no more hamburgers lol

Incorrect. It is fine to eat animals that chew the cud so long as they have a cloven hoof. Thus, cattle are ok. =)

Rabbits are not.

Wait! Rabbits don't chew cud! They just eat and redigest their own poo!

Doesn't matter. 4000 years ago, some people thought they chewed cud and so they do.

Ah, ok

I have heard the argument that the Devil made me gay. Never made sense to me.

I've heard it to....and it doesn't make any sense to me either.......

There are same sex relationships in nature with animals. Did the devil do that to them as well? Why would he bother? Same sex relationships are natural, and have the evolutionary benefit of controlling population.

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

:headbang: Too many fallacies, too many fallacies!:headbang:

Sarcasm doesen't (shouldn't) work without facts...

Try again...

This post brought to you by this Emoticon> :headbang:

No, their love for one another was platonic.
Disrobing and then embracing someone isn't platonic, kid.

I'm bush like. Can you imagine two women engaged in sexual intercourse. Rubbing their hands all over each other, sleeping in the same bed? Its just plain wrong. Sex is evil I assure you I have never done anything like that with my wife. Sh*t laurens gunna kill me. Da*n it! Well anyway I say its wrong, and I'm the president. I got elected two times b*tch. Thats more than you. What I say goes, and I say is no gay marriage. Marriage is evil, Sh*t I mean gays. Its just plain wrong. You know. Right mary kary.

Well then, if that's exactly the same as marriage, than isn't this debate kinda pointless over the name of it?
They aren't. Civil unions are denied a massive amount of rights that marriages have, including the right to inherit, and the right to hospital visitations of their spouse without the permission of the spouse's family.

on the first page of the thread.

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

I disagree with this premise for the following reasons.

Being tall is the result of a gene combination (genotype) being physically expressed (phenotype). If two tall people marry and were to have children those children would grow up to be tall (barring poor nutrition and or congenital defect),

I view homosexuality as a chosen behavior. Eventhough there has in the recent past been much controvery about a possible genetic component,whether true or not, I still believe there are behavior choices involved.

Behavior can be learned. If exposed to an evironment where a particular behavior is the norm the likelihood that the behavior will be emulated is increased. This is not to state that it will be emulated but that a greater chance of it occurring is to be expected.

You and your blasphemous geneticist ways! Faith makes all things possible. In my youth I was encouraged to be content with a humble stature. My short parents were content with their lot and encouraged me to remain short with them. But I was rebellious as a youth. I grew taller every year and mocked those who honored their parents and remained short as the Bible commanded them. All through high school, when teenagers are the most rebellious, I grew the most.

When I graduated, my temper softened and I saw the truth of my parents' faith. At first I merely softened to the possiblities that there was truth in their faith, and I slowed my growing down. But eventually I embraced their wisdom and stopped growing completly. Alas, the corruption of my youth has left its mark on my body to this day and I am taller than either of my more faithful parents.

We must teach children all over the nation to eschew this height crazed material culture that our liberal excesses have prompted. Encourage a diet of wholewheat graham crackers and wine (the beverage of Jesus) and we will see health return to our increasingly tall and obese nation. Excess height, like excess girth, puts undue strain on the heart that must send ever increasing amounts of blood over longer and longer distances. How else do you explain the ever increasing insidences of heart disease?

Height is a choice I tell you. Heed my words and be joyously short. Height is the work of the devil. It leads you to vanity and pride, spiritual diseases to accompany the coronary ones it causes. The truly holy know to walk humbly in their diminuitive stature.

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

I would like to point out that the bible was written by humanity.. and saying that God guided mankind while it was being written is a load of junk.. since the only arguement you can use comes from the book.. The Bible took a while to write, and it was passed down from word of mouth before it was put on page.. its nothing to base laws on.

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

I've found mean-spiritedness on both sides of the equation. Also, the mean-spiritedness of one side does not exclude the hypocrisy or bigotry of the other side. The two are not mutually exclusive.

As a lapsed Christian who tentatively supports gay marriage, though, I like your (generally non-abrasive) style, and I think it'd be cool to talk to you about this someplace that isn't a public forum. Let me know if you're interested.

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
And before God, the only marriages that will matter will be those. If you think government can be trusted to uphold the ideals and morals that stem from faith, I some waterfront property in New York that's for sale, including a nice toll bridge with a great view of Brooklyn. The single most consistantly corrupt legal professions in human history are in the creation, application, and interpretation of laws.

The only reason I have not posted any "proof" or arguments, because frankly it is a waste of my time. I have done it before on other sites, given long answers to all those questions. You know what happens, they don't respond to my answers. They skirt the issue by saying it is a "right" and "na na na na I'm not listening".

Which is funny, since whenever I hear someone put up arguments against gay marriage they invariably come down to "Waaah! God tells me it's evil!" and "It's icky!".

And before God, the only marriages that will matter will be those. If you think government can be trusted to uphold the ideals and morals that stem from faith, I some waterfront property in New York that's for sale, including a nice toll bridge with a great view of Brooklyn. The single most consistantly corrupt legal professions in human history are in the creation, application, and interpretation of laws.

Since when did God care about marriage?

Which is funny, since whenever I hear someone put up arguments against gay marriage they invariably come down to "Waaah! God tells me it's evil!" and "It's icky!".

Which is just too damn weird. Show me one homosexual who ever forced a christian busybody to marry him/her, or just have sex.

So what concern can it possibly be to christians whether homosexuals choose to marry or have sex?
And what's evil? Preventing complete strangers being happy? Or marrying someone you love?

/me secretly thinks the world would improve immensely without religion

Ahem, if we're pushing this issues just to continue this so called "charade" of yours of pretending we're not gay, then why the hell did we come out of the closet and accept ourselves as gay in the first place!?

Because you were screwed up in the head!

This issue isn't just about gay men, it's about all homosexuals; and clearly you have no idea about why we want to be able to get married. The marriage bills are being pushed by out of the closet homosexuals, so I think you could say that they're well past the acceptance stage.

Hey, look at me I'm GAY!!!, And I need attention!!!


You say you think we're lying to ourselves wanting society to tell us it's alright, but you couldn't be more wrong. The only time we lie to ourselves is during the acceptance stage, telling ourselves, "I'm straight, it's just a phase".

So just because you got a woody in the lockerroom you decide that you dont like women anymore, that the anus is a better alternative? If you were a hermaphrodite I might understand the confusion. But if your physiologically normal then you must have some psychological issues because the anus is not exactly the choice place to store foreign objects.


This marriage issue isn't so much about acceptance for us at it is equality. We know not everyone will accept us but that's not what matters. We just want equal treatment and the same rights as everyone else.

Extra! Extra! Dingbats and flying squirrels now to be considered the same species! More inside!


Oh and by the way, I'll have you know that I don't want children, so your little generalization could not have been more off.

And all this time I thought you spoke for tho whole gay community.

And as for your last sentence, why are you such a hypocrit? What makes it wrong for men to gay if it's ok for women to be lesbians?

Because the anus is nasty, and I bet the lesbians know a little more about monogomy.


We're not trying to make who we sleep with the gov'ts business.

No you have made it everyones business.

You clearly have no idea what it is to be gay.

Being gay means that something went wrong in your development and somehow you got fixated on the wrong sex. Mabye a female did something really mean to you. Or you hated mommy or daddy or one of them or both loved you too much. Whatever, point is something went wrong.

Are you telling me that the only thing there is to being straight is who you sleep with? I doubt it.

Basically, yes, because I dont run around proclaiming my straightness because that makes a statement as to my sexuality which is nobody elses business. My opening line to the world is not, "I have sex with women, that is who I am and it defines me as a person", sounds a little shallow now does'nt it?

Being gay is who we are and it defines us as people.

As I said above.

Who we sleep with comes as a result of being gay, it's not what being gay is about.

So you were a gay child? I dont think I've ever met a gay child. Or a straight child for that matter. And what is the difference between gay and straight again?

We have our identities figured out, and being gay just happens to be a very large part of that identity.[/QUOTE]

So your only mostly gay?

Because you were screwed up in the head!
Look who's talking...
Hey, look at me I'm GAY!!!, And I need attention!!!
Wrong again. Homosexuals want the same legal rights as you have. Apart from what goes on in your head, what makes you so special you need special privileges?
So just because you got a woody in the lockerroom you decide that you dont like women anymore, that the anus is a better alternative? If you were a hermaphrodite I might understand the confusion. But if your physiologically normal then you must have some psychological issues because the anus is not exactly the choice place to store foreign objects.
Not that it matters, but... Do you honestly think anyone turned on by men would get a hard on in a locker room? But of course.. Being self cocious, embarresed and utterly disgusted by the fat idiot in the corner really helps getting it up. If anything, gays should sue schools etc. for having them use the mens lockerrooms.
Extra! Extra! Dingbats and flying squirrels now to be considered the same species! More inside!
Wxtra! Extra! Violent schizophrenic's, trying to please their invisible friend now to be considered the same species as humans! Read all about it!
And all this time I thought you spoke for tho whole gay community.
Would you care either way?
Because the anus is nasty, and I bet the lesbians know a little more about monogomy.
Yea... So, have a lot of friends then? Other than your personal opinions about assholes (and I can see how you'd know all about those), what makes you think dykes know any more about monogamy than you or the entire gay population?
No you have made it everyones business.
Peoples sexuality is not what it's about. It's about equality. But personally I can forgive people if they get a kick out of offending people like yourself with their sexuality.
Being gay means that something went wrong in your development and somehow you got fixated on the wrong sex. Mabye a female did something really mean to you. Or you hated mommy or daddy or one of them or both loved you too much. Whatever, point is something went wrong.
Prove your claim or drop it. Seeing how many screwed up hetero's there are, and how few, by comparison, skrewed up homosexuals there are, I beg to differ. Heterosexuality must be a sign of mental problems, a troubles upbringing or whatever. Let's just kill the lot and enjoy a peacefull world.
Basically, yes, because I dont run around proclaiming my straightness because that makes a statement as to my sexuality which is nobody elses business. My opening line to the world is not, "I have sex with women, that is who I am and it defines me as a person", sounds a little shallow now does'nt it?
Can you say "Love"? I guess not. I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.
As I said above.
What? That sex - hetero sex - is what defines you? Like I said: I almost feel sorry for you.
So you were a gay child? I dont think I've ever met a gay child. Or a straight child for that matter. And what is the difference between gay and straight again?
I don't think you've ever actually looked at a child. Anyway, the only difference between a homosexual child and a hetero one is that you hate one more than the other. It's when they grow up it becomes an issue, because the straight person get's to enjoy certain rights the gay one doesn't.
So your only mostly gay?
I'm pretty sure he meant being gay is a major part of him. It defines who he falls in love with, and normal humans define themselves largely by their relarionships. Of course since you have no clue what love is, I don't expect you to understand what I just wrote.

Ugh. Wow, your arguments are really so very clearly "I think it's icky".
Grow up. I like putting honey on bananas, and serving it with icecream. That's icky too.

Because you were screwed up in the head!

Yeah, I'll tentatively agree with you here.
Gays, coming out in our society are kinda screwed up. It's sad, but true. Any sensible person making the choice would choose to be straight. You get much less grief from your family/friends/society. You get much more legal protection for your relationship.

There's something screwed up when people choose to be gay.

BUT

I'd say the same thing about roleplayers (of the D&D kind). You get looked down upon, your family doesn't understand, society really doesn't accept it. Sheesh, you want to pretend your an elven ranger? What is your major malfunction?

The reason people admit that they are gay is because it effects their life. In a large, real way. The reason they are screwed up is because their life is effected by something which isn't socially very acceptable.

Thank God that gays are much more accepted nowdays than in previous points of history.


Hey, look at me I'm GAY!!!, And I need attention!!!

What? You're telling me that some gay people want attention?
Really? And christians have never sought attention? (oh, that's ok, they're spreading gods word).
And general consumers have never sought attention?
And...straight people never seek attention?

Let me tell you this, when my group of male friends gathers at a party where they don't know the other people, there is a discussion about the girls there. Then they either try to do something that looks like fun to get attention from other people, or they will go over and talk to the girls (if they can pluck up the courage)...again...to get attention from the girls.
Oh, and when one gets a new girlfriend...they tell people about it. It's exciting to get a new partner. This goes for girls too. Why should we expect gays to just shut up and pretend it doesn't happen, so us straight folks can pretend they don't exist.

Why is it a surprise that gays want attention, and recognition? Hey, know how to solve the problem? Give them the recognition they want! I live in Sydney, Australia, home of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. It's great fun. The gay and lesbian community organized big parades to celebrate their sexuality. yes, this is looking for attention. Nowdays they complain because the mardi gras has become an event that straight people go to and have "taken over". Yay! We both accept gays, celebrate their right to have different sexuality, and...at the same time...have our own big, apprently straight, fun evening of parades.


So just because you got a woody in the lockerroom you decide that you dont like women anymore, that the anus is a better alternative? If you were a hermaphrodite I might understand the confusion. But if your physiologically normal then you must have some psychological issues because the anus is not exactly the choice place to store foreign objects.

Uh, I really don't think it works like this.
I think it works much more like "I want a girlfriend. But...uh....I don't find any girls sexually attractive, and I don't want to date someone that I don't find sexually attractive. I find guys sexually attractive, and would appreciate dating them." Oh, and relationships aren't all about sex, there are other aspects. I can have platonic love for other males, but I think it's very unlikely that I will develop romantic love for one. I can develop romantic love for a girl without sleeping with her. If I develop romantic love for someone, I desire to partner with them (not necessarily have sex with them, although I probably would desire that too).

Yeah, I really don't think it's a "look, I have a woody. Guess I'm gay, and I'll prefer the anus".

as for your mentioning of the anus...yeah, some straight guys enjoy that too. The anus isn't the "choice" place, as you say. Neither is the mouth, and a lot of people enjoy oral sex. Neither is the hand. I know that various religious people have been against all those things, too. I just think it's silly to sum up someones romantic and sexual feelings towards another person with "anus? yuck!"


Extra! Extra! Dingbats and flying squirrels now to be considered the same species! More inside!

Yeah, people who prefer girls are different to people who prefer guys. They aren't the same (although they are definately the same species). Let's accept that they are different. Let's discuss their differences.
and...in the areas where they are NOT different...
let's treat them the same.

lets consider same sex couples adopting children as a seperate argument to same sex marriage. Sure, it's different. Not necessarily better or worse, but different.
Now, if we're talking about marriage, in the sense of two people making a civil, not religious, commitment to each other...how exactly does the gender of the individuals factor into this?


And all this time I thought you spoke for tho whole gay community.

Was that line necessary?


Because the anus is nasty, and I bet the lesbians know a little more about monogomy.

EXCUSE ME?
As a male I take extreme offence at that. Males are more likely to cheat? Sure. Should we put that into law? I think not. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Oh, and again, I love your "but it's icky" argument. Nobody is asking you to deal with another guys anus. Nobody is suggesting that any anuses will be shown in public. Nobody is even mentioning the issue of sex. They are talking about marriage. And, unless married people are required to have sex in public, I don't see why your squeamishness about how they choose to have sex should have any bearing at all on the argument.

Heck, I'm allowed to eat my honey-banana-sundaes in public, and that's icky. The gay community is asking for LESS than I currently do.


No you have made it everyones business.

Nonsense. They have requested something, and lobbied for it appropriately. Nobody is flying planes into buildings to highlight the topic. You are choosing to read a debate on the topic, YOU are making it your business. THEY are requesting something, and those that have an interest, either for or against, are speaking out.

Oh, unless you mean that it's mentioned on tv and newspapers. That's the choice of the tv or newspaper, in thinking it's newsworthy.

If you have a problem with this, let me get started on the problems I have with the pro-life billboards I can see on my way into work each day.


Being gay means that something went wrong in your development and somehow you got fixated on the wrong sex. Mabye a female did something really mean to you. Or you hated mommy or daddy or one of them or both loved you too much. Whatever, point is something went wrong.

So? It's still something that they have chosen/resulted in. Look, being scared of swimming could mean that something went wrong. You almost drowned, never leant to swim etc.
Doesn't mean that we force you to go swimming regardless of your desires.

Being fixated with keeping everything around you clean could mean something went wrong, you're obsessive-compulsive. Doesn't mean we don't allow people to compulsively clean their homes. In fact, we make special allowances.

Being gay COULD mean that something went wrong. Why does this mean we shouldn't allow gay people to marry?


Basically, yes, because I dont run around proclaiming my straightness because that makes a statement as to my sexuality which is nobody elses business. My opening line to the world is not, "I have sex with women, that is who I am and it defines me as a person", sounds a little shallow now does'nt it?
You don't have to make a statement about it. You are, fortunately for you, part of the majority. It is kind of assumed that you are straight. Gay people need to let off little signals that they are gay if they want to let other people know. So what? I let off little signals that I'm interested in computers. Usually just an idle comment or two, and if the other person is interested they respond.
Oh, and I have actually spent a reasonable amount of time proclaiming my straightness. I've got a lisp, and a lot of people assume that means that I'm gay. It means that, if there seems to be some confusion, or if I'm single and want to let girls know that I'm a potential partner, I do need to proclaim my straightness. It's remarkably hard to do subtly. You probably never needed to do this, as people probably assume you're straight already. Gay people often do need to do this, either by saying it in some way, or affecting gay mannerisms that will be recognised, such as the thrice-cursed "gay" lisp that I seem to also share.

Sure, some people go around proclaiming their gayness, and it's a large part of their self identity. I'm not particularly surprised, after what a lot of them need to go through to become comfortable with their own feelings. I suspect most of these self-proclaiming gays aren't entirely comfortable with it yet (but I'm guessing here, no evidence to think that, really). I know there are a LOT of guys that go around proclaiming their straigness. Girls too. I know guys that constantly talk about girls they are interested in, have slept with, don't want to sleep with, could sleep with. Why should gay guys not say the same thing? Oh, that's right! It makes you uncomfortable!

So you were a gay child? I dont think I've ever met a gay child. Or a straight child for that matter. And what is the difference between gay and straight again?
You can get gay children, who grow up, and as they become sexual they just only are interested in their own gender. This is rare.
You can also get sexual children, you can get a condition called precocious puberty, where children as young as...something like 6 years old...start getting adult sex drives. It's rare. I've never seen it. It happens.
Who cares when individuals decide they are gay, isn't the important thing that they choose how they want to live their life, and can live their life how they choose?


"We have our identities figured out, and being gay just happens to be a very large part of that identity."

So your only mostly gay?
No. He's saying that being gay doesn't make up his entire identity. He is also saying that being gay does make up an important part of his identity. I can understand that, we all choose something to focus our identity on. For me, being a computer programmer makes up an important part of my identity. I'm luckier than him in that I can choose to take up a different hobby without needing to go through the emotional washing machine of trying to go against my established sexuality.

Boy that really got yalls goat huh? lol

Frankly your responses tired me out or I'd write more.

I dont hate you guys, I'm not from Texass or anything, I'm just really put out with the gay community as a whole and I was taught that you are no better than the company you keep.

Sorry, I have to jump in here. I don't know if someone has said this already or not.

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

Alright, I want to address the Founder's Intent from a legal and moral perspective, because I think that it is absolute bull. Feel free to disagree.

Legal: Legally, as Underemployed Pirates points out, the Founder's Intent (that is, that the founding fathers 'actually' meant when they drafted the Constitution) is often used to interpret the legitimacy of a law or practice if there is a question as to the constitutionality of the said law/practice.

Is it applicable to homosexuality? No.

Reason? People often counter the Founder's Intent with examples such as slavery and women's rights. However, the problem is that the Constitution does not protect slavery or prohibit women's suffrage.

Specifically, the Constitution protects slavery as an existing and derisive institution for the first twenty years after the Constitution was drafted. After that, the issue of slavery was an open target, with no Constitutional protection. Thus, it is assumed that the Founder's Intent was to protect slavery for twenty years, no more. Slavery, then, is not part of the Founder's Intent (unless we are living before 1820.)

Similarly, the Constitution has a provision which states that men over the age of 18 will be granted the right to vote. It does not, however, have a related clause which says that women may not vote. Thus, Founder's Intent is only that men age 18 and above will be able to vote. As the current system still allows that, Founder's Intent does not refute women's suffrage.

Along this line of reasoning, we notice the problem with Founder's Intent. There is not clause for or against homosexuality in the Constitution, nor is there any definition or marriage. Thus, the Founding Fathers never specified what their intent was on that issue, and no argument can be made to that effect.

Moral: The Founder's Intent argument, in a (general) moral context, is flawed because it assumes an acceptable framework. This problem applies, even to the Christian moral system, because of the fact that Founder's Intent is based on the intent of men who are fallen beings.

Wha? From a strictly atheistic moral stance, the Founder's Intent argument carries a distinct flaw. There are two types of moral systems, and both carry distinct flaws. Because relativist morals are so heavily flawed and have carried no weight in these discussions, I will discount them. Deontological morals, on the other hand, are being bickered over left and right.

Deontological morals are morals which consist of a code of conduct if you will, they are determinants as to what is and is not acceptable action. Because they do not change form case to case (an example would be the Commandment "Do not kill." "Do not kill," means don't kill, not don't kill anyone except people you don't like. Don't kill, period.) they require something to validate them other than an individual's temperament or thoughts, as they will often go against the individual’s desires.

The validation of most deontological morals must then call upon something universally understood to be true, and something which will always be that way. It must call upon some absolute in order to itself become an absolute (things can not validate themselves or be validated by something not universal, or they do not hold against the question “What if – insert validating object here – was wrong?”).

If the Founder’s Intent is then to be morally correct, it must appeal to some universal law or power. Instead, the Founder’s Intent appeals to the decisions of men, decisions which could have been wrong. Thus, the Founder’s Intent cannot carry water morally because it is not universally accepted – that is it is not based on a universal principle. Furthermore, even if it were, the interpretation of the Founder’s Intent may still be wrong, leaving room for the same downfall.

And specifically, what’s wrong with Christians using Founder’s Intent? For Christians to use the Founder’s Intent, they are falling back on the decisions of other men to determine what is and is not correct – morally or legally. Because Christianity is not concerned with the laws of men to begin with – rather the Commandments of the divine – everything must be viewed from a moral standpoint, which gives rise to the same problem as above. “What if the Founding Fathers were wrong?”

Secondly, the Christian stance must recognize that no man is moral, that all men are ‘fallen,” imperfect beings. This inflates the above problem, almost guaranteeing that the Founding Fathers were morally wrong – or at least quite capable of morally wrong decisions – as all men are fallen and many of the Founding Fathers (Jefferson comes of mind) were atheists and rejected Christian morals.

Sorry, I have to jump in here. I don't know if someone has said this already or not.


*snip*

It's been said, but maybe... MAYBE!

If enough people say it, it will get through some people's THICK SKULLS.

On the point that all Gay's are IN YOUR FACE:

I'm bi, leaning towards men. You would never know it from how I act, look, live, sound - anything. There are only two ways to tell that I like men in addition (Or instead of) women:

1. Someone tells you, be it me or someone else I told;
2. I either comment on a REALLY HOT looking guy that walks by, or its obvious from the look on my face that I'm saying my equivalent of 'HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLOOOO NURSE!" (...I love California summer, by the by...)

Other than that, there's simply no way to tell. As with alot of my friends (The ones that are gay, at least.)

As for monogamous situation... my eye wanders, so does my hand on occasion, but thats mostly because my girlfriend of many years is seperated from me by a great distance, I see her infrequently, and I'm a cuddlewhore.

Look who's talking...

Wrong again. Homosexuals want the same legal rights as you have. Apart from what goes on in your head, what makes you so special you need special privileges?

Not that it matters, but... Do you honestly think anyone turned on by men would get a hard on in a locker room? But of course.. Being self cocious, embarresed and utterly disgusted by the fat idiot in the corner really helps getting it up. If anything, gays should sue schools etc. for having them use the mens lockerrooms.

Wxtra! Extra! Violent schizophrenic's, trying to please their invisible friend now to be considered the same species as humans! Read all about it!

Would you care either way?

Yea... So, have a lot of friends then? Other than your personal opinions about assholes (and I can see how you'd know all about those), what makes you think dykes know any more about monogamy than you or the entire gay population?

Peoples sexuality is not what it's about. It's about equality. But personally I can forgive people if they get a kick out of offending people like yourself with their sexuality.

Prove your claim or drop it. Seeing how many screwed up hetero's there are, and how few, by comparison, skrewed up homosexuals there are, I beg to differ. Heterosexuality must be a sign of mental problems, a troubles upbringing or whatever. Let's just kill the lot and enjoy a peacefull world.

Can you say "Love"? I guess not. I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

What? That sex - hetero sex - is what defines you? Like I said: I almost feel sorry for you.

I don't think you've ever actually looked at a child. Anyway, the only difference between a homosexual child and a hetero one is that you hate one more than the other. It's when they grow up it becomes an issue, because the straight person get's to enjoy certain rights the gay one doesn't.

I'm pretty sure he meant being gay is a major part of him. It defines who he falls in love with, and normal humans define themselves largely by their relarionships. Of course since you have no clue what love is, I don't expect you to understand what I just wrote.


Can you read?

Can you read?

Yes, he can. But I think what he's saying, we're not too certain that you can think.

Yes, he can. But I think what he's saying, we're not too certain that you can think.
Pretty much, yea.

Look who's talking...

Wrong again. Homosexuals want the same legal rights as you have. Apart from what goes on in your head, what makes you so special you need special privileges?

Not that it matters, but... Do you honestly think anyone turned on by men would get a hard on in a locker room? But of course.. Being self cocious, embarresed and utterly disgusted by the fat idiot in the corner really helps getting it up. If anything, gays should sue schools etc. for having them use the mens lockerrooms.

Wxtra! Extra! Violent schizophrenic's, trying to please their invisible friend now to be considered the same species as humans! Read all about it!

Would you care either way?

Yea... So, have a lot of friends then? Other than your personal opinions about assholes (and I can see how you'd know all about those), what makes you think dykes know any more about monogamy than you or the entire gay population?

Peoples sexuality is not what it's about. It's about equality. But personally I can forgive people if they get a kick out of offending people like yourself with their sexuality.

Prove your claim or drop it. Seeing how many screwed up hetero's there are, and how few, by comparison, skrewed up homosexuals there are, I beg to differ. Heterosexuality must be a sign of mental problems, a troubles upbringing or whatever. Let's just kill the lot and enjoy a peacefull world.

Can you say "Love"? I guess not. I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

What? That sex - hetero sex - is what defines you? Like I said: I almost feel sorry for you.

I don't think you've ever actually looked at a child. Anyway, the only difference between a homosexual child and a hetero one is that you hate one more than the other. It's when they grow up it becomes an issue, because the straight person get's to enjoy certain rights the gay one doesn't.

I'm pretty sure he meant being gay is a major part of him. It defines who he falls in love with, and normal humans define themselves largely by their relarionships. Of course since you have no clue what love is, I don't expect you to understand what I just wrote.



Do you really need to resort to insults to convey your message? That's usually a sign of desperation.

Do you really need to resort to insults to convey your message? That's usually a sign of desperation.

Or a sign of frustration. And seeing as your arguments boil down to "Its icky!" and "God hates it!", we can get frustrated as...

1. I like Maple Syrup on Mushrooms. Thats icky. Should it be illegal?

2. God has no place in govern,ent.

Can you read?

What's the matter? Can't deal with people disagreeing with you?

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Yes because religion is always right, such as "sprinkling water on your enemies poo will make their arse seal up" and "the earth is flat." There's a real world outside the bible, go live it.

Yes because religion is always right, such as "sprinkling water on your enemies poo will make their arse seal up" and "the earth is flat." There's a real world outside the bible, go live it.


How wonderful of you to describe the opposition to Christianity with one adjective: Misinformed. The Bible never states either of those.



Or a sign of frustration. And seeing as your arguments boil down to "Its icky!" and "God hates it!", we can get frustrated as...

1. I like Maple Syrup on Mushrooms. Thats icky. Should it be illegal?

2. God has no place in govern,ent.


I can see you getting frustrated, but I'll have to disagree with point #2.

How wonderful of you to describe the opposition to Christianity with one adjective: Misinformed. The Bible never states either of those.






I can see you getting frustrated, but I'll have to disagree with point #2.


Why? I don't believe in the same God that you do - I'll tell you that right now, because I believe there is a god, and that's where the resemblence between my beliefs and anything near Christianity ends.

So, why should your religion be the basis for the laws I have to live under?

Yeah, I'll tentatively agree with you here.
Gays, coming out in our society are kinda screwed up. It's sad, but true. Any sensible person making the choice would choose to be straight. You get much less grief from your family/friends/society. You get much more legal protection for your relationship.

There's something screwed up when people choose to be gay.

BUT

I'd say the same thing about roleplayers (of the D&D kind). You get looked down upon, your family doesn't understand, society really doesn't accept it. Sheesh, you want to pretend your an elven ranger? What is your major malfunction?

The reason people admit that they are gay is because it effects their life. In a large, real way. The reason they are screwed up is because their life is effected by something which isn't socially very acceptable.

Thank God that gays are much more accepted nowdays than in previous points of history.

WAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH! Oh, and I never said all gay people chose to be gay.

What? You're telling me that some gay people want attention?
Really? And christians have never sought attention? (oh, that's ok, they're spreading gods word).
And general consumers have never sought attention?
And...straight people never seek attention?

Why do you guys always bring up god?

Let me tell you this, when my group of male friends gathers at a party where they don't know the other people, there is a discussion about the girls there. Then they either try to do something that looks like fun to get attention from other people, or they will go over and talk to the girls (if they can pluck up the courage)...again...to get attention from the girls.
Oh, and when one gets a new girlfriend...they tell people about it. It's exciting to get a new partner. This goes for girls too. Why should we expect gays to just shut up and pretend it doesn't happen, so us straight folks can pretend they don't exist.

Why is it a surprise that gays want attention, and recognition? Hey, know how to solve the problem? Give them the recognition they want! I live in Sydney, Australia, home of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. It's great fun. The gay and lesbian community organized big parades to celebrate their sexuality. yes, this is looking for attention. Nowdays they complain because the mardi gras has become an event that straight people go to and have "taken over". Yay! We both accept gays, celebrate their right to have different sexuality, and...at the same time...have our own big, apprently straight, fun evening of parades.

How could anyone ever forget that they exist when at every instance in conversation queer innuendo pops up. Man I have to deal with gay people every day. I used to not have any problem with them as long as they left me alone. But the'yre damned annoying when they dont let up with all the gay posturing. It makes it very hard for me to take any of the'yre issues seriously.

Thats because you've cought the "Gay is cool" bug. Gays have wormed their way into the entertaniment industry and have been slowly brainwashing you. The next step is to turn you completely gay.

Uh, I really don't think it works like this.
I think it works much more like "I want a girlfriend. But...uh....I don't find any girls sexually attractive, and I don't want to date someone that I don't find sexually attractive. I find guys sexually attractive, and would appreciate dating them." Oh, and relationships aren't all about sex, there are other aspects. I can have platonic love for other males, but I think it's very unlikely that I will develop romantic love for one. I can develop romantic love for a girl without sleeping with her. If I develop romantic love for someone, I desire to partner with them (not necessarily have sex with them, although I probably would desire that too).

If a person dosent find any women attractive then they have no asthetic taste whatsoever, women are about the most beautiful occurences in the physical universe. I can accept a man also having tendancies towards men but to reject women altogether just implies a malfunction somewhere (barring certain ambiguous physiologies of course)


Yeah, I really don't think it's a "look, I have a woody. Guess I'm gay, and I'll prefer the anus".

as for your mentioning of the anus...yeah, some straight guys enjoy that too. The anus isn't the "choice" place, as you say. Neither is the mouth, and a lot of people enjoy oral sex. Neither is the hand. I know that various religious people have been against all those things, too. I just think it's silly to sum up someones romantic and sexual feelings towards another person with "anus? yuck!"

I was being juvenile


lets consider same sex couples adopting children as a seperate argument to same sex marriage. Sure, it's different. Not necessarily better or worse, but different.

I can accept lesibans raising a child if there are no stable heterosexual families available, but I think that having no male role model is preferable to two bad rolemodels

lNow, if we're talking about marriage, in the sense of two people making a civil, not religious, commitment to each other...how exactly does the gender of the individuals factor into this?


Was that line necessary?

no



Nonsense. They have requested something, and lobbied for it appropriately. Nobody is flying planes into buildings to highlight the topic. You are choosing to read a debate on the topic, YOU are making it your business. THEY are requesting something, and those that have an interest, either for or against, are speaking out.

Oh, unless you mean that it's mentioned on tv and newspapers. That's the choice of the tv or newspaper, in thinking it's newsworthy.

If you have a problem with this, let me get started on the problems I have with the pro-life billboards I can see on my way into work each day.

Me too, I'm pro choice

So? It's still something that they have chosen/resulted in. Look, being scared of swimming could mean that something went wrong. You almost drowned, never leant to swim etc.
Doesn't mean that we force you to go swimming regardless of your desires.

Being fixated with keeping everything around you clean could mean something went wrong, you're obsessive-compulsive. Doesn't mean we don't allow people to compulsively clean their homes. In fact, we make special allowances.

Being gay COULD mean that something went wrong. Why does this mean we shouldn't allow gay people to marry?

So why do they shape themselves all to the same mold?


You don't have to make a statement about it. You are, fortunately for you, part of the majority. It is kind of assumed that you are straight. Gay people need to let off little signals that they are gay if they want to let other people know. So what? I let off little signals that I'm interested in computers. Usually just an idle comment or two, and if the other person is interested they respond.
Oh, and I have actually spent a reasonable amount of time proclaiming my straightness. I've got a lisp, and a lot of people assume that means that I'm gay. It means that, if there seems to be some confusion, or if I'm single and want to let girls know that I'm a potential partner, I do need to proclaim my straightness. It's remarkably hard to do subtly. You probably never needed to do this, as people probably assume you're straight already. Gay people often do need to do this, either by saying it in some way, or affecting gay mannerisms that will be recognised, such as the thrice-cursed "gay" lisp that I seem to also share.

I dont condone picking on people because someone thinks they may be gay. But the full blown package can be a bit overdone and its those people I have a problem with. And with the rhetoric I've heard it seems these people will be included in any legislation.

Sure, some people go around proclaiming their gayness, and it's a large part of their self identity. I'm not particularly surprised, after what a lot of them need to go through to become comfortable with their own feelings. I suspect most of these self-proclaiming gays aren't entirely comfortable with it yet (but I'm guessing here, no evidence to think that, really). I know there are a LOT of guys that go around proclaiming their straigness. Girls too. I know guys that constantly talk about girls they are interested in, have slept with, don't want to sleep with, could sleep with. Why should gay guys not say the same thing? Oh, that's right! It makes you uncomfortable!

No Its merely annoying. Take the workplace for example: If I were to walk up to a woman and tell her that I like to have sex with women I could be fired for this, but it seems that gay males are an exception to this rule and I think that is wrong. It has happened to me and to people I have known and its not a comfortable position, especially if the person is your boss or something. Ive had gay men approach me and when I have politely told them I am straight they acted like assholes, "how dare he not want to fuck me", or if they met my girlfriend they acted like total pricks to her. This happens all the time here in San Francisco, so no I dont want these pricks to get any special priviledges.



You can get gay children, who grow up, and as they become sexual they just only are interested in their own gender. This is rare.
You can also get sexual children, you can get a condition called precocious puberty, where children as young as...something like 6 years old...start getting adult sex drives. It's rare. I've never seen it. It happens.
Who cares when individuals decide they are gay, isn't the important thing that they choose how they want to live their life, and can live their life how they choose?

So why is the answer always "I was born gay"?

What's the matter? Can't deal with people disagreeing with you?

No but I'm tired of people who cant change my mind.

Why? I don't believe in the same God that you do - I'll tell you that right now, because I believe there is a god, and that's where the resemblence between my beliefs and anything near Christianity ends.

So, why should your religion be the basis for the laws I have to live under?


Much for the same reason Democrats and Republicans try to implement their policies when in office: Because they believe in what they are doing. Which is the same reason those who don't believe in God wish to remove God from government. You don't believe in Him and want him out. I do believe in Him and want him in.

No but I'm tired of people who cant change my mind.

Why can they not change your mind?
And why do you need to express this by pretending that they cannot read?

Thats because you've cought the "Gay is cool" bug. Gays have wormed their way into the entertaniment industry and have been slowly brainwashing you. The next step is to turn you completely gay.


As much as that sounds like a conspiracy theory, it is suprisingly accurate.


If a person dosent find any women attractive then they have no asthetic taste whatsoever, women are about the most beautiful occurences in the physical universe.


Thanks :D

Why can they not change your mind?
And why do you need to express this by pretending that they cannot read?


Most likely because this debate goes in circles and circles. Eventually, you come to the point where you start to believe that maybe they're just ignoring you.

*snip*

Lets see how my memory works.

1. Why do we always bring up God?
A: We don't. Your side did. In this case, God is the excuse for Christians to go about forcing their lifestyle on other people. A bad excuse.

2. People are born gay
A: ...I was born not knowing, and really, not caring until I hit puberty, then I was all "HELLO HORMONES." You never know until you know. As for that being the answer usually, its alot easier than spending an hour soul searching to say "I was born Gay" instead of a different answer that - if you generalise and fudge a bit, means mostly the same thing.

3. Two female role models as opposed to two bad ones
A: So, you're saying that because I have a Y chromosone, I'm automatically a bad role model? Two sets of parents of friends younger than me disagree with you.

4. Its part of the Gay Agenda to make everyone gay!
A: No. Its not. Its part of the Christian Agenda to make everyone Christian. Personally, I'd rather be raped by a gorilla every day.

5. Every conversation queer innuendo pops up
A: ...dude, what the hell you on? Unless I'm the one that brings it up, theres little to none innuendo like that amoung where I work and go to school.

6. If you don't find women attractive you have no sense of aesthetics.
A: Personally, I've seen more of hte bad of women than anything else. Then again, I'm more attracted to personality rather than physical looks (Which seems to be all you care about :rolleyes:

And thats all I really feel like answering. Its nearly five am, I've got work in 11 hours @.@

lol

Why can they not change your mind?
And why do you need to express this by pretending that they cannot read?

You guys just wont move on will you?

Much for the same reason Democrats and Republicans try to implement their policies when in office: Because they believe in what they are doing. Which is the same reason those who don't believe in God wish to remove God from government. You don't believe in Him and want him out. I do believe in Him and want him in.

...I do believe in Him. I don't believe in your interpretation of God. And policies do not equal morals or religions.

Policies come from men, and thus can be challenged. Religion comes from God and therefore must be infalliable - personally I think this is bullshit.

I don't want him out, I want to keep him seperate. You can go worship him in public, if you so choose to. Try to make me do the same and you'll be eating shotgun lead pie.

yeah nite nite for me too, have fun :D

Most likely because this debate goes in circles and circles. Eventually, you come to the point where you start to believe that maybe they're just ignoring you.

It goes in circles because you fall back on two falliable arguments that you will not take rationally.

So far, the people against gay marriage have yet to utter a single valid point against it.

The three main ones that ARE offered are:

1. Its against God. (Which God? What interpretaiton of the Bible? Is there even a God? Because of these questions, we can't use this as a reason for ANYTHING.)

2. Its icky. (So's alot of things, yet maple syrup on mushrooms aren't being banned or full of stigma.)

3. It ruins the institution of marriage. (...hello, reality to AltarBoy, that's been long gone in the US between Celebrety weddings, divorse, and Las Vegas. More straight couples have done far more damage to the idea of the Man-Woman-Children family than any gay person could do in a dozen lifetimes.)

A: No. Its not. Its part of the Christian Agenda to make everyone Christian. Personally, I'd rather be raped by a gorilla every day.


*gasp* The very thought that people would dare suggest that you will somehow be responsible for your sins when the afterlife comes! And such insolence! They have the guts to actually want you to repent of your sins so that you may go to heaven!? Of course you would want to be violated by a giant ape instead of actually exhibiting self-restraint! Who wouldn't!?

You guys just wont move on will you?

This seems to be bothering you. Why don't you go do something constructive then?
Eating icecream is good.

1. Its against God. (Which God? What interpretaiton of the Bible? Is there even a God? Because of these questions, we can't use this as a reason for ANYTHING.)


Jehovah/Yahweh, the interpretation that is so obvious that you would have a rough time disagreeing with it, and yes....there has to be a God. That which is physical cannot generate spontaneously. There must be matter beforehand for it to exist. If there is no matter, then that matter must be created. Matter cannot create itself, therefore something or Someone has to create it.

*gasp* The very thought that people would dare suggest that you will somehow be responsible for your sins when the afterlife comes! And such insolence! They have the guts to actually want you to repent of your sins so that you may go to heaven!? Of course you would want to be violated by a giant ape instead of actually exhibiting self-restraint! Who wouldn't!?

Exactly, atheists and other non-Christians obviously do believe in God and know they are sinning, but are just pretending not to so they can continue to sin.
Oh wait, here comes your medication.

*gasp* The very thought that people would dare suggest that you will somehow be responsible for your sins when the afterlife comes! And such insolence! They have the guts to actually want you to repent of your sins so that you may go to heaven!? Of course you would want to be violated by a giant ape instead of actually exhibiting self-restraint! Who wouldn't!?

See, here's why I FUCKING HATE EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CHRISTIAN.

You seem to think that Christianity has a monopoly on morals, and that non-Christians are incapable of being sane, rational, moral people.

1. Your heaven and your hell do not exist. Why should I care if you think I go to either one? STOP FUCKING BOTHERING ME ABOUT IT.

2. Who are YOU to say what I do is a sin? Nobody, that's who. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING THICK SKULL.

3. I said I would rather be fucking by a gorilla than become a Christian, which has absolutly no impact on my ability to function in society, showing self-restraint, as opposed to wandering around, pilliging and raping. Which - GASP! - Christians have done in the past!

I don't care about your pipe dreams of a place in the clouds or some sort of volcanic cave, and your judgement of what a sin is and isn't has no jurisdiction upon me.

I consider worshipping anyone who was nailed on a cross a sin. Every Christian, therefore, is going to go to hell. REPENT! DENOUNCE YOUR BELIEF IN YOUR FALSE GOD AND RISE WITH ME INTO HEAVEN WHERE THERE IS NO AIR AND ITS FRICKEN COLD.

Not so funny, is it.

Jehovah/Yahweh, the interpretation that is so obvious that you would have a rough time disagreeing with it,

If that's true, why do so many people disagree anyway? Are they just trying to be mean?

This seems to be bothering you. Why don't you go do something constructive then?
Eating icecream is good.

Nah this is fun :D

Jehovah/Yahweh, the interpretation that is so obvious that you would have a rough time disagreeing with it, and yes....there has to be a God. That which is physical cannot generate spontaneously. There must be matter beforehand for it to exist. If there is no matter, then that matter must be created. Matter cannot create itself, therefore something or Someone has to create it.

Says who? Are you a theoretical physicst? I doubt it.

Lets see... What if I thought that God refered to, oh, lets say Apollo? Or how about Jupiter? The Horned Man?

Well, theres how many freaking demoniations of Christanity - and I'm including Catholics (You believe in Christ, your a Christian. DEAL WITH IT) - and all based out of the same book you say?

And since I obviously am disagreeing with it so easily, it must not be so rough to disagree with.

Nah this is fun :D

So is icecream. ;)

See, here's why I FUCKING HATE EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CHRISTIAN.

You seem to think that Christianity has a monopoly on morals, and that non-Christians are incapable of being sane, rational, moral people.

1. Your heaven and your hell do not exist. Why should I care if you think I go to either one? STOP FUCKING BOTHERING ME ABOUT IT.

2. Who are YOU to say what I do is a sin? Nobody, that's who. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING THICK SKULL.

3. I said I would rather be fucking by a gorilla than become a Christian, which has absolutly no impact on my ability to function in society, showing self-restraint, as opposed to wandering around, pilliging and raping. Which - GASP! - Christians have done in the past!

I don't care about your pipe dreams of a place in the clouds or some sort of volcanic cave, and your judgement of what a sin is and isn't has no jurisdiction upon me.

I consider worshipping anyone who was nailed on a cross a sin. Every Christian, therefore, is going to go to hell. REPENT! DENOUNCE YOUR BELIEF IN YOUR FALSE GOD AND RISE WITH ME INTO HEAVEN WHERE THERE IS NO AIR AND ITS FRICKEN COLD.

Not so funny, is it.


Are you lonely?

See, here's why I FUCKING HATE EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CHRISTIAN.

You seem to think that Christianity has a monopoly on morals, and that non-Christians are incapable of being sane, rational, moral people.

1. Your heaven and your hell do not exist. Why should I care if you think I go to either one? STOP FUCKING BOTHERING ME ABOUT IT.

2. Who are YOU to say what I do is a sin? Nobody, that's who. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING THICK SKULL.

3. I said I would rather be fucking by a gorilla than become a Christian, which has absolutly no impact on my ability to function in society, showing self-restraint, as opposed to wandering around, pilliging and raping. Which - GASP! - Christians have done in the past!

I don't care about your pipe dreams of a place in the clouds or some sort of volcanic cave, and your judgement of what a sin is and isn't has no jurisdiction upon me.

I consider worshipping anyone who was nailed on a cross a sin. Every Christian, therefore, is going to go to hell. REPENT! DENOUNCE YOUR BELIEF IN YOUR FALSE GOD AND RISE WITH ME INTO HEAVEN WHERE THERE IS NO AIR AND ITS FRICKEN COLD.

Not so funny, is it.


It's pretty obvious that you're rather adamant in your blind, misguided hatred of anyone who condemns you, so I'll leave you alone to wallow in that hatred and not even bother replying to your asinine, incorrect assertions. If you're going to resort to ad hominem attacks, why even bother posting? Oh well.

Matthew 10:14-15 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

So is icecream. ;)

But its cold, so cold. :(

Most likely because this debate goes in circles and circles. Eventually, you come to the point where you start to believe that maybe they're just ignoring you.

Rather, I come to believe that some people are incapable of making sense.
"Gay marriage is wrong because God said it's icky." is basically what I hear all the time.

But its cold, so cold. :(

Fine, muffins then.

Fine, muffins then.

OOOOHHHH. I love Muffins! ;)

Says who? Are you a theoretical physicst? I doubt it.

Lets see... What if I thought that God refered to, oh, lets say Apollo? Or how about Jupiter? The Horned Man?

Well, theres how many freaking demoniations of Christanity - and I'm including Catholics (You believe in Christ, your a Christian. DEAL WITH IT) - and all based out of the same book you say?

And since I obviously am disagreeing with it so easily, it must not be so rough to disagree with.


I keep up with theoretical physics, and there has not been ONE theory that has withstood scrutiny. In fact, the general direction of theoretical physics is going into the quantum and metaphysical realm. Perhaps if you would spend less time flaming Christians like a child throwing a temper tantrum and more time keeping up with current developments, you would know that?

Rather, I come to believe that some people are incapable of making sense.
"Gay marriage is wrong because God said it's icky." is basically what I hear all the time.


God refers to homosexuality as an abomination. We are God's creation, and therefore subject to God's will. Common sense would dictate that you DON'T disobey the will of an omnipotent Being. I believe it is YOU who are incapable of making sense.

I keep up with theoretical physics, and there has not been ONE theory that has withstood scrutiny. In fact, the general direction of theoretical physics is going into the quantum and metaphysical realm. Perhaps if you would spend less time flaming Christians like a child throwing a temper tantrum and more time keeping up with current developments, you would know that?

True, the deeper they look, the weirder it gets.

OOOOHHHH. I love Muffins! ;)

Yay! Peace on earth!

Yay! Peace on earth!

And goodwill towards men! And women!

God refers to homosexuality as an abomination. We are God's creation, and therefore subject to God's will. Common sense would dictate that you DON'T disobey the will of an omnipotent Being. I believe it is YOU who are incapable of making sense.

Indeed, that would be common sense if God's excistence was obvious. But it is not. (at least not to me)
Off course, *my* God states that Christians are an abomination, so why are you one? Wouldn't it be common sense not to disobey God?

I keep up with theoretical physics, and there has not been ONE theory that has withstood scrutiny. In fact, the general direction of theoretical physics is going into the quantum and metaphysical realm.

Are you saying that quantum mechanics are an obvious sign of (your) God?

Are you saying that quantum mechanics are an obvious sign of (your) God?


In a sense, I'm saying contemporary research points in that direction. When you have no explanation that works other than one, you take the one that works. No explanations have shown how a universe could have arisen from nothingness. A metaphysical explanation, however, does.

Indeed, that would be common sense if God's excistence was obvious. But it is not. (at least not to me)
Off course, *my* God states that Christians are an abomination, so why are you one? Wouldn't it be common sense not to disobey God?


Because your God doesn't have several thousand years of history, miracles, prophecies-come-to-fruition, and other facts.

In a sense, I'm saying contemporary research points in that direction. When you have no explanation that works other than one, you take the one that works. No explanations have shown how a universe could have arisen from nothingness. A metaphysical explanation, however, does.

No explaination has shown how *yet*.
Earlier in history, people were ignorant of many things, but this did not mean God caused them.
For example, people did not know what caused lightning, so they claimed God did it. Now, we know He did not, because we now know how lightning really comes to be.
Why should the beginning of the universe be any different?

Because your God doesn't have several thousand years of history, miracles, prophecies-come-to-fruition, and other facts.

Prove it.

Because your God doesn't have several thousand years of history, miracles, prophecies-come-to-fruition, and other facts.

So we should all be hindu, then?

No explaination has shown how *yet*.
Earlier in history, people were ignorant of many things, but this did not mean God caused them.
For example, people did not know what caused lightning, so they claimed God did it. Now, we know He did not, because we now know how lightning really comes to be.
Why should the beginning of the universe be any different?



Because any explanation outside of the metaphysical would result in a contradiction, and, as contradictions are not acceptable in the scientific community, it could not be considered feasible.

ok, you want to know where God stands on the whole issue of marriage. This is God's message to the world on the subject (in the year 1995):


Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

So we should all be hindu, then?


Hindu has the history, but not the many prophecies-come-true or the miracles which were recorded by unbiased people.

Prove it.


You prove that he does. You were the one who brought up the fact that your God abhors Christians. Now prove that he exists and that what you are saying is correct. Proof for mine would be historical records, the failure of science to explain an origin that removes the need for a God, and witnesses to miracles.

You prove that he does. You were the one who brought up the fact that your God abhors Christians. Now prove that he exists and that what you are saying is correct. Proof for mine would be historical records, the failure of science to explain an origin that removes the need for a God, and witnesses to miracles.

If faith is good enough for me, it's good enough for you.

Edit: Why is science's failure to explain an origin *now* reason to believe in *your* god?

Edit: Why is science's failure to explain an origin *now* reason to believe in *your* god?

Because, as I stated earlier, it never WILL have an explanation, because any explanation would lie outside the material dimension and science only cover the material dimension. Thus, the explanation would not be scientific but philosophical.

Nothing worth reading here folks. Keep moving

Because, as I stated earlier, it never WILL have an explanation, because any explanation would lie outside the material dimension and science only cover the material dimension. Thus, the explanation would not be scientific but philosophical.
In that case, let's give up on all science now and take up Aser Tro (Norse mythos). That way, we'll also have a reason to send all the homophobic christians to heaven ;)

Sorry but I never will buy into your religion. If I really had to pick one, Christianity (any brand) would be the very very last.
I'm fully capable of living on my own accord. I do not need your lecturing me, and I will never respect some fictitious being trying to rob me of my personal freedom. And I am not alone with that opinion.

Why is it you feel a need to damn other people and treat them as second rate beings? Last time I checked, noone's treating christians bad just because they're a dogmatic and biggotry bunch, who for all intents and purposes fit the medical term schizophrenia.
Even though you let your invisible friend make decisions for you, you're judged competent. Why should realists suffer under your ideas just because we don't lock you up and force medicate you?

Because any explanation outside of the metaphysical would result in a contradiction, and, as contradictions are not acceptable in the scientific community, it could not be considered feasible.


I beg to disagree. Life is inevitable as soon as you have a semi-stable universe. If life hadn't existed, entropy would've won instantly.

The problem with proving life started the way it started is because any explanation requires an unprovable assumption. One choice is: somehow an omnipotent being came into existence and created us. Another: any system without life will either form life or instantaneously (timescale ;)) collapse due to entropy. Both are fundamentally untestable. And these are just two possibilities. Basic ID reasoning is that since it is fundamentally impossible to prove the event of existence (for lack of a better word), and any explanation would by its nature require an untestable assumption, it had to be God.

Creationist theory has (in my opinion) only one unforgivable flaw: claiming that the 'magical/untestable' event (the only fact in these types of discussions is that SOMETHING happened) was in fact the christian God (and no other), without accepting that anything could have come into existence. Needlessly complex and, frankly, insulting. The other flaws are just silly attempts to undermine methodology.


Something else I've come to notice:
Many religious people want the government to prohibit things like gay-marriages because they believe their bible tells them to. But if I understand anything about the common religions, it's that God itself will judge us.
If it is Gods duty to judge us, who are we to play God and do it for him?

Governments should do what's best for a nation, God has no place there. Hence churches should choose for themselves whether they marry gays or goats. The same right does mean that churches should have no say in whether a government marries gays or goats. (Not allowing gays/goats to marry in front of the state annihilates the entire concept of state marriage, since it would make it impossible for straight couples to marry anywhere except in the nations ruling church).

Because, as I stated earlier, it never WILL have an explanation, because any explanation would lie outside the material dimension and science only cover the material dimension. Thus, the explanation would not be scientific but philosophical.
Fanatically religious people always have trouble understanding the point of Science and Philosophy because there are no Undebatable Dogmas or Final Authorities.

The whole point of science is that it doesn't provide Final, Holy, Undebatable Answers. Science is simply a way of expanding our knowledge about the universe. Every theorem, conjuncture, axiom and corollary is meant to be argued about, and eventually disproven and replaced with something more accurate.

Since some religions, like Christianity, are based on "THESE ARE THE RULES! DO NOT ARGUE!", they often mix poorly with science. Anyone remember their history classes? Have you read about that time in history when the Church ruled Europe? That era was called "The Dark Ages" and was remarkable for its lack of technological advancement. Oh, and for the Inquisition. And witch burning.

Fanatically religious people always have trouble understanding the point of Science and Philosophy because there are no Undebatable Dogmas or Final Authorities.

The whole point of science is that it doesn't provide Final, Holy, Undebatable Answers. Science is simply a way of expanding our knowledge about the universe. Every theorem, conjuncture, axiom and corollary is meant to be argued about, and eventually disproven and replaced with something more accurate.

Since some religions, like Christianity, are based on "THESE ARE THE RULES! DO NOT ARGUE!", they often mix poorly with science. Anyone remember their history classes? Have you read about that time in history when the Church ruled Europe? That era was called "The Dark Ages" and was remarkable for its lack of technological advancement. Oh, and for the Inquisition. And witch burning.

Treat all the areas of knowledge differently. Rules such as "Do not kill" and "Love your enemies" do not require to be scientific.

Let me tell you: anything manipulated by humans is BOUND to be tainted. Science not only brought us technology, but also other unpleasant things such as nuclear bombs and air pollution. So do we immediately put a verdict to say "science is bad". Hardly. I hope you hold the same view towards religion, which inherently has good sides, but when meddled with artificially gives birth to bad sides.

In that case, let's give up on all science now and take up Aser Tro (Norse mythos). That way, we'll also have a reason to send all the homophobic christians to heaven


Homophobic? That's a laugh, if we were homophobic, then wouldn't we try keeping our distance from the homosexuals instead of trying to convert them? Also, we have science because its discoveries improve our lives. Does the impossibility of having a scientific explanation for universal origins mean that we should relinquish our progress in the medical and other fields?




Sorry but I never will buy into your religion. If I really had to pick one, Christianity (any brand) would be the very very last.
I'm fully capable of living on my own accord. I do not need your lecturing me, and I will never respect some fictitious being trying to rob me of my personal freedom. And I am not alone with that opinion.


Ah, but He is not fictitious as you maintain. He exists. He is. And what a wonderful way to describe sin: "Personal freedom". Dressing the concept up in a glorious description does not detract from its true reality. Of course, wouldn't it be nice and convenient if I could label murder "A beautiful and wonderful thing"?



Why is it you feel a need to damn other people and treat them as second rate beings? Last time I checked, noone's treating christians bad just because they're a dogmatic and biggotry bunch, who for all intents and purposes fit the medical term schizophrenia.
Even though you let your invisible friend make decisions for you, you're judged competent. Why should realists suffer under your ideas just because we don't lock you up and force medicate you?


Second rate beings? Hardly! We are all on an equal footing, as we have all sinned. Romans 3:21-26 21But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


Does this mean that we should keep to ourselves and work on abstaining from sin on our own while others hasten to eternal seperation from God? No, we are to also help others reach heaven...and Christians are not schizophrenic. For one to be schizophrenic, they would have to see and hear that which does not exist. God does exist...and we do not see Him nor do we hear Him. And those who deny the existence of a metaphysical plane are the ones who are not realists. They live in the delusion that things which cannot exist without a cause do exist, while rejecting the only rational explanation for it. That would make YOU subject to living in a mental institution.

I beg to disagree. Life is inevitable as soon as you have a semi-stable universe. If life hadn't existed, entropy would've won instantly.

The problem with proving life started the way it started is because any explanation requires an unprovable assumption. One choice is: somehow an omnipotent being came into existence and created us. Another: any system without life will either form life or instantaneously (timescale ) collapse due to entropy. Both are fundamentally untestable. And these are just two possibilities. Basic ID reasoning is that since it is fundamentally impossible to prove the event of existence (for lack of a better word), and any explanation would by its nature require an untestable assumption, it had to be God.

Creationist theory has (in my opinion) only one unforgivable flaw: claiming that the 'magical/untestable' event (the only fact in these types of discussions is that SOMETHING happened) was in fact the christian God (and no other), without accepting that anything could have come into existence. Needlessly complex and, frankly, insulting. The other flaws are just silly attempts to undermine methodology.


Something else I've come to notice:
Many religious people want the government to prohibit things like gay-marriages because they believe their bible tells them to. But if I understand anything about the common religions, it's that God itself will judge us.
If it is Gods duty to judge us, who are we to play God and do it for him?

Governments should do what's best for a nation, God has no place there. Hence churches should choose for themselves whether they marry gays or goats. The same right does mean that churches should have no say in whether a government marries gays or goats. (Not allowing gays/goats to marry in front of the state annihilates the entire concept of state marriage, since it would make it impossible for straight couples to marry anywhere except in the nations ruling church).


Actually, I wasn't talking about life but the universe itself. But regardless of that, life can emerge when the conditions are suitable for it. However, our atmosphere was anything but suitable for such generation.

Does this mean that we should keep to ourselves and work on abstaining from sin on our own while others hasten to eternal seperation from God? No, we are to also help others reach heaven...and Christians are not schizophrenic. For one to be schizophrenic, they would have to see and hear that which does not exist. God does exist...and we do not see Him nor do we hear Him. And those who deny the existence of a metaphysical plane are the ones who are not realists. They live in the delusion that things which cannot exist without a cause do exist, while rejecting the only rational explanation for it. That would make YOU subject to living in a mental institution.

A true gem. Ever wonder whether or not 'the' christian view of God is absolutely 100% correct? Even when considering the millions of differents sects/factions in it? Since most christians have distinctively different views on God, most christians believe in different God than the real, absolute God. A God that doesn't exist, making them schizophrenic by your definition.
Yes, if 'the christian God' exists, you would have to describe over 95% of all christians as schizophrenic. Luckily there are many non-fanatical christians around too.


"No, we are to also help others reach heaven."
And I'd thank you kindly to stop doing so in the standard ways. Many people help others, but only christians actually invade others privacies to 'help'. All religions will actively try to prevent others helping others.

A true gem. Ever wonder whether or not 'the' christian view of God is absolutely 100% correct? Even when considering the millions of differents sects/factions in it? Since most christians have distinctively different views on God, most christians believe in different God than the real, absolute God. A God that doesn't exist, making them schizophrenic by your definition.
Yes, if 'the christian God' exists, you would have to describe over 95% of all christians as schizophrenic. Luckily there are many non-fanatical christians around too.


"No, we are to also help others reach heaven."
And I'd thank you kindly to stop doing so in the standard ways. Many people help others, but only christians actually invade others privacies to 'help'. All religions will actively try to prevent others helping others.

The only bit of Christianity that really really really matters absolutely is the belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, and that if we accept this gift we are automatically entitled to a place in heaven. The rest is secondary to this central principle. Once you take this principle seriously, the others will be far easier.

I agree. Nobody shares a gift by coercion.

Hindu has the history, but not the many prophecies-come-true or the miracles which were recorded by unbiased people.

Unfortunately I don't know the specifics of Hinduism very well, but; most of those prophecies-come-true in the Bible I know/have heard of, seem to depend a lot upon individual interpretation. There are plenty of them to interpret and misinterpret, so they could be used to 'predict' an extremely wide range of events. It would be strange if none of them occurred.

And how would you know the writers were unbiased?

Actually, I wasn't talking about life but the universe itself. But regardless of that, life can emerge when the conditions are suitable for it. However, our atmosphere was anything but suitable for such generation.

I'd say the conditions were perfect, considering life is known to exist in pretty extreme conditions (pH 2-13, -5 to 110 oC, pressures up to tens (hundreds?) of bars, high and low oxygen, etc. Poison for some is food for others). Life is fundamentally a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I find it cheap to use this fact for propaganda.


Using the existence-event of the (current) universe as proof for a creator doesn't hold as soon as you use sensible boundary conditions. For one, time is linear, which means that we should expect something to exist before what we call t=0 (Big Bang/Fingersnap). Also, 'nothing' is a difficult concept to truly use: Space appears as nothing, but outside our universe there is truly 'nothing'. Problem with this 'nothing' is that we have no way to see whether it is e.g. absence of matter, absence of time and matter, matter (!) or simply a herd of goats; 'nothing' is just a name.

But I agree, if you assume that time, space, matter, interaction, energy, entropy etc. came into existence instantaneously, it becomes very hard to properly describe. Not as difficult as trying to describe the creation of a being capable of doing that, though.

Let me tell you: anything manipulated by humans is BOUND to be tainted.
And yet you take the human-written and human-translated bible for Truth. Try checking out the original version (Hebrew, I believe) sometime - it's like reading a totally different book.

Homophobic? That's a laugh, if we were homophobic, then wouldn't we try keeping our distance from the homosexuals instead of trying to convert them?
Misunderstanding. "Homophobia" as in "fear of homosexuality".

*sigh*
Your argument that no one has an explanation about the beginning of the universe, therefore God did it, is both a false dicotomy and just plain bad.

Who created God? Since no effect can be without cause, logically God must have a cause. Therefore, all you've gone and done is added another useless, inexplicable step. Science is:
1. Something happens.
2. Universe appears.

Yours is:
1. Something.
2. God appears.
3. God makes universe.

The only bit of Christianity that really really really matters absolutely is the belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, and that if we accept this gift we are automatically entitled to a place in heaven. The rest is secondary to this central principle. Once you take this principle seriously, the others will be far easier.


And exactly that principle is why I am offended by invasive christianity. The bible is an immensely valuable book, and I refuse to have people use it as a carte blanche.

One doesn't need a God (and especially not a God you'd call your God) to behave responsibly, 'sin'less, or generally 'good'. Common sense does the trick better. If you believe others can only have a good life if you force them to lead their lives the way you think they should, you've not spent enough time and thought to figuring out exactly who we are. Fix your own life before you damage others'.

And yet you take the human-written and human-translated bible for Truth. Try checking out the original version (Hebrew, I believe) sometime - it's like reading a totally different book.




It was actually written in Armaic and Greek, if I'm not mistaken...

Human written - divine inspiration. I take divine inspiration. Yes, yes, interpretations are inevitable. That's why theology is though and churches are organised.

homophobia

n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

A laugh indeed...

As for the rest: Sorry your extreme arrogance just piss me off. I'll advice you put a damper on your extreme prejudice out in the real world, for your own sake.

Random thought for the day: Won't Somebody Think of the Children?!

If we were to put the health and welfare of children ahead of our individual views on sexuality, wouldn't it make sense to be encouraging all female children to become lesbians? They would be far less likely to contract STDs, far less likely to suffer an unplanned pregnancy, far less likely to be abused by a romantic partner, and far less likely to be raped on a date. They would also be less likely to engage in the most high risk form of sexual contact (anal sex). They would have to go to greater lengths to become pregnant or to acquire a child, so we could be more assured that any child they have would really really be wanted. They would have increased average lifespan relative to women who remain in the "traditional" lifestyle, and would be less likely to suffer from eating disorders or body dysmorphic disorder.

Of course, not all young girls will want to become lesbians, just as not all young girls currently wish to be heterosexual, but shouldn't we encourage them to make the safest possible choice? Shouldn't we put their safety ahead of our own squeemishness about "alternative lifestyles?"

Is this what a discussion about Gay marriage evolves into? Realistically, all religion aside, could you imagine being the small child raised by two individuals of the same sex? Could you imagine the daily torment at school? School activites? The constant questions? Do you not think that the child would harbor some sense of resentment for the parents? Yes, they would have the "understanding" click of friends. Yes over time this would pass. Yes over time (generations), society would begin to accept that situation. Would you be willing to sacrifice your child to the so that children generations from now would live comfortably with gay parents? Keep in mind that there is nothing more vicious than a prepubescent with the ammo to completely destroy the self image of another in his or her age range. Sure, it would make them stronger when they are older, but you can only enjoy being a child once. No, it isn't right that it happens, but that doesn't mean that the problem goes away. Society doesn't even fully accept black/white marriages yet! Sure, it needs to begin somewhere. Any pioneers willing to subject their own to this reality? There is no utopia.

Is this what a discussion about Gay marriage evolves into? Realistically, all religion aside, could you imagine being the small child raised by two individuals of the same sex? Could you imagine the daily torment at school? School activites? The constant questions? Do you not think that the child would harbor some sense of resentment for the parents? Yes, they would have the "understanding" click of friends. Yes over time this would pass. Yes over time (generations), society would begin to accept that situation. Would you be willing to sacrifice your child to the so that children generations from now would live comfortably with gay parents? Keep in mind that there is nothing more vicious than a prepubescent with the ammo to completely destroy the self image of another in his or her age range. Sure, it would make them stronger when they are older, but you can only enjoy being a child once. No, it isn't right that it happens, but that doesn't mean that the problem goes away. Society doesn't even fully accept black/white marriages yet! Sure, it needs to begin somewhere. Any pioneers willing to subject their own to this reality? There is no utopia.
This babble has to end. A recent study (http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm59/vr.pdf) indicated that there was no significant difference in the upbringing of the kids. Further, Polls (http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar04/213490.asp) indicate that homosexuality is becoming increasingly tolerated with every passing generation.

If you're going down this road, you could make the same argument about blacks. "It sucks growing up black in the United States. Think of all the shit they have to deal with. We should just ban black marriage. That way the kids will never have to deal with the problems of a black upbringing." Instead of banning gay marriage, we should deal with the anti-gay bigotry that's so common in schools right now. Unless you're a fan of killing the victims to stop the persecution.

One more thing: many of the kids from gay marriages come from orphanages. Do you have any idea what growing up in an orphanage is? Suffice to say, it's much, much, much worse than having two dads or two moms.

This babble has to end. A recent study (http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm59/vr.pdf) indicated that there was no significant difference in the upbringing of the kids. Further, Polls (http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar04/213490.asp) indicate that homosexuality is becoming increasingly tolerated with every passing generation.

If you're going down this road, you could make the same argument about blacks. "It sucks growing up black in the United States. Think of all the shit they have to deal with. We should just ban black marriage. That way the kids will never have to deal with the problems of a black upbringing." Instead of banning gay marriage, we should deal with the anti-gay bigotry that's so common in schools right now. Unless you're a fan of killing the victims to stop the persecution.

One more thing: many of the kids from gay marriages come from orphanages. Do you have any idea what growing up in an orphanage is? Suffice to say, it's much, much, much worse than having two dads or two moms.

The black argument, no...sorry. You really can't argue that it sucks to be a rich black kid because of all of the shit they have to deal with...I would be more inclined to say that it would suck growing up in poor ghetto neighborhood, regardless of race. With that said, No, I wouldn't go as far to say to Ban Poor Marriages, but I would ecourage education as far as contraception.
As far as the polls....Like I said, it would get easier for the children of gay parents with each passing generation. Kids have enough to deal with, why compound the situation? Deal with the anti-gay bigotry in school, that is a wonderful idea. Just like dealing with any bigotry, it will take lots of time and patience. People will not be so quick to encourage their children to accept homosexuality as they encourage them to accept racial differences. There is a difference with standing in the streets screaming "accept diversity, my culture is unique and beautiful, let me share it with you" and screaming "we're here, we're queer, get used to it"
Sure it would be better to have gay parents then none at all. It would also be better to have a toe removed as opposed to the whole foot. I never stated that gay marriage was wrong, I am just stating what I see as a reality. The chances of a gay couple (or any couple for that matter) going to an orphanage to rescue a child is very small. They, like most others, want a newborn.

You and your blasphemous geneticist ways! Faith makes all things possible. In my youth I was encouraged to be content with a humble stature. My short parents were content with their lot and encouraged me to remain short with them. But I was rebellious as a youth. I grew taller every year and mocked those who honored their parents and remained short as the Bible commanded them. All through high school, when teenagers are the most rebellious, I grew the most.

When I graduated, my temper softened and I saw the truth of my parents' faith. At first I merely softened to the possiblities that there was truth in their faith, and I slowed my growing down. But eventually I embraced their wisdom and stopped growing completly. Alas, the corruption of my youth has left its mark on my body to this day and I am taller than either of my more faithful parents.

We must teach children all over the nation to eschew this height crazed material culture that our liberal excesses have prompted. Encourage a diet of wholewheat graham crackers and wine (the beverage of Jesus) and we will see health return to our increasingly tall and obese nation. Excess height, like excess girth, puts undue strain on the heart that must send ever increasing amounts of blood over longer and longer distances. How else do you explain the ever increasing insidences of heart disease?

Height is a choice I tell you. Heed my words and be joyously short. Height is the work of the devil. It leads you to vanity and pride, spiritual diseases to accompany the coronary ones it causes. The truly holy know to walk humbly in their diminuitive stature.

Your humor makes me smile. :)

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

This is in my eyes the only valid argument in this discussion.

This is in my eyes the only valid argument in this discussion.
Thank you :D.

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

Yes because Physical attributes and behavioral attributes are sort of like the same thing.

A comparison like that is sort of like comparing apples to pianos. I would have hoped that somebody would have though of something better for that one by now. I guess not though.

Fine then. How's this one:

Hanging around gays will make you gay, just like hanging around straights will make you straight. Since 99% of my friends are straight, I must be straight, no?

No.

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

Yes because Physical attributes and behavioral attributes are sort of like the same thing.

A comparison like that is sort of like comparing apples to pianos. I would have hoped that somebody would have though of something better for that one by now. I guess not though.

Ok, a better example: being tall among short people will make you duck a lot, because of the lower doorframes. Is something like love/attraction behavioral? Do I prefer person A over person B (whether they be female, male, blond, coloured, goat) because I choose to prefer one, or because my nature/physique is my guide?

Aknowledging that gay people exist will probably cause more gay to creep out of hiding, much in the same way that nowadays a black person could use a white public toilet. Confusing physical urges (hunger, attraction) with behaviour (smoking cigarettes, being vegan) isn't much help here.

Just thinking of gay people makes me wretch and gag in horror. I can't believe that anyone with any sense whatever actually condones this sickening behavior.

Ok, a better example: being tall among short people will make you duck a lot, because of the lower doorframes. Is something like love/attraction behavioral? Do I prefer person A over person B (whether they be female, male, blond, coloured, goat) because I choose to prefer one, or because my nature/physique is my guide?

Aknowledging that gay people exist will probably cause more gay to creep out of hiding, much in the same way that nowadays a black person could use a white public toilet. Confusing physical urges (hunger, attraction) with behaviour (smoking cigarettes, being vegan) isn't much help here.
Actually physical urges are a part of behavioral science.

Just thinking of gay people makes me wretch and gag in horror. I can't believe that anyone with any sense whatever actually condones this sickening behavior.
Just thinking of straight people makes me wretch and gag in horror. I can't believe that anyone with any sense whatever actually condones this sickening behaviour.

Actually physical urges are a part of behavioral science.

Fine, autonomous behaviour and ?non-autonomous? behaviour? Doesn't matter how you phrase it, the analogy isn't there.

Just thinking of sex makes me wretch and gag in horror. I can't believe that anyone with any sense whatever actually condones this sickening behaviour.

Just thinking of gay people makes me wretch and gag in horror. I can't believe that anyone with any sense whatever actually condones this sickening behavior.


Caring for another person? Straight people molest children/beat their spouses/rape/cheat/misbehave in general too, you know. It's the individual, not the group (gays/blacks/goats/...) that is relevant here. I can sooner live with the fact that consenting persons do certain things I wouldn't than the fact that non-consensting things happen with others (e.g. females not being allowed to vote because someone said a book said so).

Fine, autonomous behaviour and ?non-autonomous? behaviour? Doesn't matter how you phrase it, the analogy isn't there.
How so?

Homophobic? That's a laugh, if we were homophobic, then wouldn't we try keeping our distance from the homosexuals instead of trying to convert them? Also, we have science because its discoveries improve our lives. Does the impossibility of having a scientific explanation for universal origins mean that we should relinquish our progress in the medical and other fields?







Ah, but He is not fictitious as you maintain. He exists. He is. And what a wonderful way to describe sin: "Personal freedom". Dressing the concept up in a glorious description does not detract from its true reality. Of course, wouldn't it be nice and convenient if I could label murder "A beautiful and wonderful thing"?






Second rate beings? Hardly! We are all on an equal footing, as we have all sinned. Romans 3:21-26 21But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


Does this mean that we should keep to ourselves and work on abstaining from sin on our own while others hasten to eternal seperation from God? No, we are to also help others reach heaven...and Christians are not schizophrenic. For one to be schizophrenic, they would have to see and hear that which does not exist. God does exist...and we do not see Him nor do we hear Him. And those who deny the existence of a metaphysical plane are the ones who are not realists. They live in the delusion that things which cannot exist without a cause do exist, while rejecting the only rational explanation for it. That would make YOU subject to living in a mental institution.

At this point any further arguments you make about gay marriage not be allowed in the United States are invalidated by your statement that the only reason it shouldn't be allowed is because your religion says it shouldn't. Seperation of Church and State's a bitch , isnt' it?

How could anyone ever forget that they exist when at every instance in conversation queer innuendo pops up. Man I have to deal with gay people every day. I used to not have any problem with them as long as they left me alone. But the'yre damned annoying when they dont let up with all the gay posturing. It makes it very hard for me to take any of the'yre issues seriously.

Queer innuendo? You mean like "Hey, I was talking to my boyfriend last night and he said 'X'"? This is the kind of comment that no one would think twice about if I said it. However, if a guy says it, "Oh no! He's pushing his gay in my face!"

Thats because you've cought the "Gay is cool" bug. Gays have wormed their way into the entertaniment industry and have been slowly brainwashing you. The next step is to turn you completely gay.

That is complete and utter bullshit.

If a person dosent find any women attractive then they have no asthetic taste whatsoever, women are about the most beautiful occurences in the physical universe. I can accept a man also having tendancies towards men but to reject women altogether just implies a malfunction somewhere (barring certain ambiguous physiologies of course)

You really are completely unaware of biology.

I can accept lesibans raising a child if there are no stable heterosexual families available, but I think that having no male role model is preferable to two bad rolemodels

So all men are naturally bad rolemodels? In that case, shouldn't a lesbian couple be the ultimate parents?

So why do they shape themselves all to the same mold?

They don't. However, you sure seem to want to.

I dont condone picking on people because someone thinks they may be gay. But the full blown package can be a bit overdone and its those people I have a problem with. And with the rhetoric I've heard it seems these people will be included in any legislation.

Wait! You mean all homosexuals are not the same!! (never mind that this is completely the opposite of everything else you have said)

Meanwhile, of course the more annoying people would be included in legislation. There is nothing in the Constitution that says "You aren't human if you are annoying."

No Its merely annoying. Take the workplace for example: If I were to walk up to a woman and tell her that I like to have sex with women I could be fired for this, but it seems that gay males are an exception to this rule and I think that is wrong. It has happened to me and to people I have known and its not a comfortable position, especially if the person is your boss or something. Ive had gay men approach me and when I have politely told them I am straight they acted like assholes, "how dare he not want to fuck me", or if they met my girlfriend they acted like total pricks to her. This happens all the time here in San Francisco, so no I dont want these pricks to get any special priviledges.

I hate to break it to you darling, but there are people of all sexualities that do that. A straight man may walk up to a woman and express interest. Then, when she tells him she's not interested, he acts like a jerk - had it happen to me. I've also had it happen to me with women. There are assholes in every group. That hardly means that all human beings are assholes.

Meanwhile, we aren't talking about special priviledges. We are talking about equal protection under the law.

So why is the answer always "I was born gay"?

Choosing a lifestyle is not the same as choosing a sexuality. Sexuality cannot be chosen. You are either attracted to that person, or you are not. What you choose to do about it, is of course, a choice.

See, here's why I FUCKING HATE EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CHRISTIAN.

You seem to think that Christianity has a monopoly on morals, and that non-Christians are incapable of being sane, rational, moral people.

Calm down, darling. All Christians don't think that. In fact, only a minority do.

God refers to homosexuality as an abomination.

That all depends on how you translate the Hebrew. In fact, it is very likely that the passage actually says that lying in the bed of a menstrating woman is an abomination. Go figure.

Do you read Hebrew?

We are God's creation, and therefore subject to God's will. Common sense would dictate that you DON'T disobey the will of an omnipotent Being. I believe it is YOU who are incapable of making sense.

If you are really intent on having this discussion, you need to remember your own fallibility.

Because any explanation outside of the metaphysical would result in a contradiction, and, as contradictions are not acceptable in the scientific community, it could not be considered feasible.

You assume that a universe had to come from nothingness, which is an invalid assumption. It may have always been there, just as many of us believe that God has always been there.

ok, you want to know where God stands on the whole issue of marriage. This is God's message to the world on the subject (in the year 1995):

Really?

God personally appeared before all human beings and wrote that down!?!?!?!?

Funny, I was around in 1995 and I don't remember that.

Why is it you feel a need to damn other people and treat them as second rate beings? Last time I checked, noone's treating christians bad just because they're a dogmatic and biggotry bunch, who for all intents and purposes fit the medical term schizophrenia.
Even though you let your invisible friend make decisions for you, you're judged competent. Why should realists suffer under your ideas just because we don't lock you up and force medicate you?

You do realize that your own idiotic and unfounded stereotypes are no better than those presented by the minority of Christians you describe in this post?

Really?

God personally appeared before all human beings and wrote that down!?!?!?!?

Funny, I was around in 1995 and I don't remember that.

Yes, he said it. No, not in front of everyone. He has never appeared in front of all humans in the past (with the Exception of Adam and Eve being ALL humans at the time). Nor will he appear in front of EVERYONE until the Second Coming. In the mean-time He has appeared to his Prophets and Apostles and He has guided them like He guided Moses.

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states that man shall not lie to another man as they would to a woman.

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states that man shall not lie to another man as they would to a woman.
Nope, no it doesn't. THat's one interpretation. If you read the original, it literally translates as:

"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman."

In other word, have gay sex, just don't do it in a womans bed.

Nope, no it doesn't. THat's one interpretation. If you read the original, it literally translates as:

"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman."

In other word, have gay sex, just don't do it in a womans bed.
If you would have paid more attention to my word choice you would have realized that what I said has nothing to do with sex whatsoever.

*Edit: Well at least not directly

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

I respect and understand your position... but we live in the USA... land of religious freedom. Your religion cannot dictate law that I must follow.

Yes, he said it. No, not in front of everyone. He has never appeared in front of all humans in the past (with the Exception of Adam and Eve being ALL humans at the time). Nor will he appear in front of EVERYONE until the Second Coming. In the mean-time He has appeared to his Prophets and Apostles and He has guided them like He guided Moses.

And which prophet or apostle made that statement in 1995? Surely you realize that said prophet was not recognized by all of humanity as being a true prophet. Indeed, that prophet was not recognized by all of Christianity.

Until such time as God does appear before all people, one can never be so sure of their beliefs that they would force them on another. This suggests infallibility of that person - which is something I am sure you would not claim. You cannot state that God did say this. You can only state that you personally believe that God said this.

Meanwhile, why have so much faith in human beings? Should your faith not lie with God?

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states that man shall not lie to another man as they would to a woman.

Or, in the original Hebrew, it may mean that a man shall not lie in the bed of a menstruating woman.

If you would have paid more attention to my word choice you would have realized that what I said has nothing to do with sex whatsoever.

*Edit: Well at least not directly

Ah, thought that was just a typo. =)

Pacific Northwesteria could you source those studies. I have always wondered about the sample size and how the extraneous variables were dealt with. It would be most appreciated :)
Which study, the one with the gay men having similar neural responses as women to male pheromones or the one where homophobes are more likely to get boners watching gay porno?

Which study, the one with the gay men having similar neural responses as women to male pheromones or the one where homophobes are more likely to get boners watching gay porno?


both, I'm interested as well

How so?

"Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall" was the statement you opposed, saying that height is physical, while attraction isn't.


The need to breathe is autonomous, and a purely physical(i.e. .../biological/genetic) property. You could call the act of breathing behaviour, but also a subset of the physical property of us requiring oxygen. The urge to eat falls in this category. Feeling attracted to a person falls in this category, just as much as a persons height does.

Eating with a fork, a spoon, chopsticks or a spork is behaviour. 'acting gay' and 'acting straight' as means to avoid peer pressure are behaviour. Why should a gay man or woman looking for a (socio-fiscal-emotional) life partner force unhappines to themselves and their partners? And if helps people from trying to lie to their God and themselves about their sexuality, all the better.


I am aware of the grey areas (e.g. weight)

<some serious snippage>
So why do they shape themselves all to the same mold?
Straight mean often conform to a mold as well... liking football (American football where applicable) and beer, for example. It's the "manly thing".
Gays sometimes "conform" to gay stereotypes to the extreme, because they went through such a struggle to figure out who they were that they desperately want to belong to something.
This is all conjecture, of course, seeing as I'm straight, but I can understand where that might come from.



I dont condone picking on people because someone thinks they may be gay.
Yay!
But the full blown package can be a bit overdone and its those people I have a problem with. And with the rhetoric I've heard it seems these people will be included in any legislation.
Straights overdo it too...

No Its merely annoying. Take the workplace for example: If I were to walk up to a woman and tell her that I like to have sex with women I could be fired for this, but it seems that gay males are an exception to this rule and I think that is wrong. It has happened to me and to people I have known and its not a comfortable position, especially if the person is your boss or something. Ive had gay men approach me and when I have politely told them I am straight they acted like assholes, "how dare he not want to fuck me", or if they met my girlfriend they acted like total pricks to her. This happens all the time here in San Francisco, so no I dont want these pricks to get any special priviledges.
They're not "special privileges". They're the same privileges that everyone else has. It's equality, not special treatment.
And if all of the gay people you've met are assholes, I'm sorry. I assure you that my gay friends are not, in fact, assholes. Please don't judge an entire subculture based on a few pricks.


So why is the answer always "I was born gay"?
To combat the "why don't you just be straight???" suggestion from people who don't know what's going on. Homosexuality isn't a choice, kind of like heterosexuality isn't a choice.

You mentioned (I think, could be someone else) that everyone should be attracted to women, because they're just beautiful, and if you don't then there's something wrong with you... well, what about women?
Gay men have similar neural responses to pheramones as straight women. Thus, they like men and not women. There's nothing "wrong" with it.

both, I'm interested as well
Here is an article on the study that shows gay men are respond to male pheromones in the same way as "women". http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050510_pheremones.html
My question on this study is, why were gay women not included? Or those who identify as bisexual or asexual, for that matter?

Here's the studies I'd like to see:
(1) A bunch of adults volunteer for testing. They have to fill out some papers, and somewhat "hidden" in the midst of all those questions is one asking the sexual orientation of the individual in little bubble dots. Then, the scientists test the brain activity of all these people versus male and female pheromones. Then they figure out how often a person's sexual identity supports their brain's reaction to the pheromones. If most of the time, it matches, then we have a scientific method of testing our sexuality! In the future, we will have home sexual orientation tests! MWA-HA-HA-HA!

(2) A group of teenagers, children, and infants of varying ages are volunteered by their greedy, money-grabbing parents for testing. The scientists continue with the method they used to test brain activity versus male and female pheromones. They discover what age a child's brain reacts to them, and they discover if there are varying sexualities in children from that age. If not, they search to find that age.

Tada! With these two tests, we can find out if sexuality is biological, if we are "born with it", etc. I can't believe the scientists stopped where they did. Idiots.

Much for the same reason Democrats and Republicans try to implement their policies when in office: Because they believe in what they are doing. Which is the same reason those who don't believe in God wish to remove God from government. You don't believe in Him and want him out. I do believe in Him and want him in.
Unfortunately for you, that's unconstitutional...

Ooh! Try: "Its anti-family! Just like giving women the right to vote was!"

Ooh! Try: "Its anti-family! Just like giving women the right to vote was!"
Or, "If gay marriage is legalized, people will want to marry their pets, because homosexuality is really the same thing as beastiality!"

Jehovah/Yahweh, the interpretation that is so obvious that you would have a rough time disagreeing with it, and yes....there has to be a God. That which is physical cannot generate spontaneously. There must be matter beforehand for it to exist. If there is no matter, then that matter must be created. Matter cannot create itself, therefore something or Someone has to create it.
Huh. Let's see.

1. Ok, so you picked a God. No way to know that it's the right one. The Bible says so, but guess what, so does every other holy text or religious tradition. A book that says that it itself is infallible is, ironically, a fallacy in itself. However, this was answering the question posed (which was rhetorical, methinks) so I'll let it slide.
2. Ok, so since things can generate spontaneously, huh? So how did God get here? God couldn't just come into being. If I recall correctly (and I may not be) the theory is that God was there from the beginning. So, why not say that all the matter in the Universe was there forever? If it works for God, it works for the Universe, and there's no way to disprove that. It it's been around forever, nobody had to make it, right?
3. Sorry if this is repeat... I'm almost caught up with this thread.

I think this is an open-and-shut issue. The entire argument against gay marriage( and gay rights for that matter) is based on assumptions about gays( i.e. they are more promiscuous than straight people blah blah blah)

I know theres a passage in Matthew where Jesus talks about " a man and woman becoming one" but i think that passage is obviously just a prohibiton against divorce. Do you think gay marriage even occured to anyone back then? Heck no!

See, here's why I FUCKING HATE EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CHRISTIAN.

You seem to think that Christianity has a monopoly on morals, and that non-Christians are incapable of being sane, rational, moral people.

1. Your heaven and your hell do not exist. Why should I care if you think I go to either one? STOP FUCKING BOTHERING ME ABOUT IT.

2. Who are YOU to say what I do is a sin? Nobody, that's who. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING THICK SKULL.

3. I said I would rather be fucking by a gorilla than become a Christian, which has absolutly no impact on my ability to function in society, showing self-restraint, as opposed to wandering around, pilliging and raping. Which - GASP! - Christians have done in the past!

I don't care about your pipe dreams of a place in the clouds or some sort of volcanic cave, and your judgement of what a sin is and isn't has no jurisdiction upon me.

I consider worshipping anyone who was nailed on a cross a sin. Every Christian, therefore, is going to go to hell. REPENT! DENOUNCE YOUR BELIEF IN YOUR FALSE GOD AND RISE WITH ME INTO HEAVEN WHERE THERE IS NO AIR AND ITS FRICKEN COLD.

Not so funny, is it.

I agree with many of your underlying principles, and I understand why you are angry and offended, but please, calm down.
Flaming and getting out of control is just going to reinforce their warped image of you, and it isn't going to change their minds.
I wish you peace, and freedom from torment by those who think you evil.

To Neo Regolia and Pacific Northwesteria:
Please don't hijack this thread. There are separate threads for ontological arguments.

God refers to homosexuality as an abomination. We are God's creation, and therefore subject to God's will. Common sense would dictate that you DON'T disobey the will of an omnipotent Being. I believe it is YOU who are incapable of making sense.
Where exactly, does God refer to homosexuality as an abomination?
I'm assuming you're talking about somewhere in the Bible. Which is what fallible humans wrote, claiming it to be the transcribed Word of God. If they were lying, you're wrong. People lie a lot. Faith is fine, and I'm glad yours is strong, but please understand that the whole BibleisthewordofGod thing is purely a matter of faith, not verifiable fact.
That said, I don't think the Bible even specifically talks about homosexuality... from what I've seen, it talks about gay sex as among a list of things, like, say, drunkenness, that made God mad. It was (again, I'm no Biblical scholar, correct me if I'm wrong) only a minor afterthought that is now being blown up big.

So please, leave people alone if they want to be left alone.

I am a Christian conservative and these are my views:

If America was a theocrasy then gay marriage should be illegal.

America, however, is not a theocrasy so Christians should rely on evangelism instead of politics to fight sin.

If you'll notice, Jesus didn't say squat about homosexuality according to the approved canon. It was all Paul and Timothy. I do not consider the Old Testament or anything Jesus did not say as infallible. Unless, of course, its common sense, or rehashing a moral theme that Jesus mentioned.

In a sense, I'm saying contemporary research points in that direction. When you have no explanation that works other than one, you take the one that works. No explanations have shown how a universe could have arisen from nothingness. A metaphysical explanation, however, does.
Oh, just like since we didn't used to understand lightning, Thor and Jupiter clearly exist. Oh, wait. We eventually figured that out. Too bad, your point falls apart.
Just because it is currently unknown, does not mean that it will be unknown forever. Therefore, you can't pull the "best theory" trick.

Being gay is the temptation to sin. The sin being the act of gay sex or un natural relationships

Because any explanation outside of the metaphysical would result in a contradiction, and, as contradictions are not acceptable in the scientific community, it could not be considered feasible.
Why would it result in contradiction?

(and sorry for my previous post, I scrolled down and somebody made a very similar point)

Hindu has the history, but not the many prophecies-come-true or the miracles which were recorded by unbiased people.
Unbiased people? ::sits up and listens:: pray tell, who exactly would be objective about such things?

Because, as I stated earlier, it never WILL have an explanation, because any explanation would lie outside the material dimension and science only cover the material dimension. Thus, the explanation would not be scientific but philosophical.
Again, how can you make this assertion?
Let me guess at your train of thought (no offense meant, and of course I could be wrong):

[hypothetical thought process of Neo Rogolia]
My God exists. Science does not at this time support the theory of a God, and cannot currently explain the origin of the Universe. Therefore, any eventual Scientific explanation of the origin of the Universe would not include God. However, this would be false, because my God exists and created the Universe.[/hypothetical thought process of Neo Rogolia]

That's all well and good, but then you can't use the "no scientific explanation" as an argument for why your God exists, because that would be circular logic.

"Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall" was the statement you opposed, saying that height is physical, while attraction isn't.


The need to breathe is autonomous, and a purely physical(i.e. .../biological/genetic) property. You could call the act of breathing behaviour, but also a subset of the physical property of us requiring oxygen. The urge to eat falls in this category. Feeling attracted to a person falls in this category, just as much as a persons height does.

Eating with a fork, a spoon, chopsticks or a spork is behaviour. 'acting gay' and 'acting straight' as means to avoid peer pressure are behaviour. Why should a gay man or woman looking for a (socio-fiscal-emotional) life partner force unhappines to themselves and their partners? And if helps people from trying to lie to their God and themselves about their sexuality, all the better.


I am aware of the grey areas (e.g. weight)

Lets change the words “physical” as you use it with the word neurophysiological or dumb it down to just physiological. A physiological response to an external stimuli can be considered a behavior, even if that behavior isn’t controllable. So if one individual finds one trait to be attractive, in this case gender, than they will exhibit a response which starts in the nervous system and the endocrine system. Whether or not they act on those responses they’re still exhibiting a behavioral response on whether or not to suppress or go with what they’re feeling. True people may not have complete control on what they find attractive but they’re still exhibiting some behavioral response.

Breathing too is physiological and can be respond to external and internal stimuli such as when somebody is running, or if they have allergies or asthma. Then you can control your breathing too if need be, halting it to swim under water or if their is an atrocious stench.

As for a persons height, there is much less of a physiological aspect about that. The growth process maybe, but once you’ve reached your maximum height the only thing you can do is slouch, kneel, or do something to get your legs amputated.

I think your all been played for fools i smell a troll maybe

as far as the issue its self i for one am quite tirred of it

i personaly have difculty exepting the idear however i realsie that legislating laws which effect non chisitians without compromising our own belefes is difficult , and i have no awser which would solve it and lets be honest you will never please evry one.


I am quite sick of this been the nuber one question thats im asked in realtion to my faith.

should any of you feel that you would like to discuse points of Vues sencibly telagram me.

i think the center of the Christain faith is not to hate , we are here to be the best Amasodors for Chrisat we can be.

i have no problem of disagreeing and debating Homosexuality without hate,

(you would be suprosed how often im end up having to do so)

best Wishes Dave

I agree with many of your underlying principles, and I understand why you are angry and offended, but please, calm down.
Flaming and getting out of control is just going to reinforce their warped image of you, and it isn't going to change their minds.
I wish you peace, and freedom from torment by those who think you evil.

I'm sorry, but EVERY SINGLE ENCOUNTER I have ever had with someone who actually 'believes' in Christianity - as opposed to having it be a major mold on their lives, yeah I celebrate Easter and Christmas, I believe in god, whatever - people who Believe with a capital B...

Every single encounter has led to them attempted to aggressivly convert me, calling me a heretic, and persecuting me.

This does NOT exactly make me feel warmth and happyness towards Christianity.

As for reinforcing their warped image of me, it was warped to begin with.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of their same old rhetoric, which is boiling down to "God Says Its Evil" (He didn't, and even if he did, you can't legislate on that basis) and "Its Icky!" in which case I'll be force feeding several things I consider icky and several things I don't but others do.

Being gay is the temptation to sin. The sin being the act of gay sex or un natural relationships

So being a member of the favored majority is the temptation to sin and showing up at gay people's funerals with signs saying "AIDS kills fags dead" or "Sodomites get your hands off our children" is the sin?

Or is the temptation to sin being a judgemental asshole who happens to be a member of a favored majority?

The only bit of Christianity that really really really matters absolutely is the belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, and that if we accept this gift we are automatically entitled to a place in heaven. The rest is secondary to this central principle. Once you take this principle seriously, the others will be far easier.

I agree. Nobody shares a gift by coercion.
Actually, that's not even quite true...

I know someone who is a Fundamentalist, and quotes some passage from the Bible which says (and I'm probably paraphrasing horribly) that the true path is narrow, and that those who will go to heaven are few indeed. Anyway, so if you have this belief then you don't believe that anyone who "accepts the gift" will go to heaven. This person thinks that if he reads Harry Potter he'll go to hell.

So you're going to have to narrow the part that they all believe in down a bit... perhaps:
"Jesus was the son of the God of Abraham and died on the cross for our sins, and then rose again after three days."

Any Christians here who disagree with that?

Look, I am honestly trying to come out of this with a better understanding of the subjects being discussed.

You really are completely unaware of biology.

No Ive just notice that any scientific study that doesnt exactly support the gay party line is considered bigoted or subjective. I believe the there are more reasons to being gay than just being born that way, its kind of like the nature vs. nurture debate, its pointless because its obviously both to varying degrees.


So all men are naturally bad rolemodels? In that case, shouldn't a lesbian couple be the ultimate parents?

Quite a few in this society, yes. And from the gay men I have interacted with, it seems that they accentuate the worst traits in men and adopt the worst traits in women in their quest to create an identity for themselves. I was raised by my mother, my dad was a loser but I had other healthy male role models in my family, whom, being hetero, I could relate to. I feel sorry for the hetero male child whom has no mother and cant relate to his "dads". Women are natural child rearers I actually know a lesbian couple whom raised a healthy hetero male child. They made sure that he had interaction with responsible hetero males which was important for his development into a healthy male adult. They understood this. Ive seen documentaries about gay male couples raising male childeren and from what I could see there were no alternatives to gay males for the children to interact with and this seems very irresponsible. Knowing that children often adopt the traits and mannerisms of their parents how would that affect their interaction with other heterosexual males and females, nobody knows, we are seeing the affects of fatherless homes on society right now and going to the other extreme doesnt seem to be an answer. It would be wonderful for that child if they were going to be gay anyways but the odds are against them.


Wait! You mean all homosexuals are not the same!! (never mind that this is completely the opposite of everything else you have said)

I have responded to individuals who speak as if any man who has had sex with a man is homosexual or any woman who has had sex with a female is a lesbian, what about the people who dont fit into your either/or categories. Im saying that alot of posters only speak for a small minority of individuals who have had sex with the same gander.


Meanwhile, we aren't talking about special priviledges. We are talking about equal protection under the law.

Is it any less illegal to infringe upon a gay persons rights than a straights?
I personally think a person should be able to decide who is the executer of his/her estate regardless of what gender they prefer to have sex with. Im all for civil unions being recognised in all 50 states, but are you just going after a "white wedding" fantasy. Or if civil unions were accepted nationwide would that be satisfactory for now? Because considering the short time that gays have been out of the closet in this country you are pushing for a lot and in the process polarizing people against your movement. Do you realize how long it was for african americans to get to the point they are now, and the struggle still is'nt over, while a gay rally, for example, is'nt considered a threat to the public.

I'd say the conditions were perfect, considering life is known to exist in pretty extreme conditions (pH 2-13, -5 to 110 oC, pressures up to tens (hundreds?) of bars, high and low oxygen, etc. Poison for some is food for others). Life is fundamentally a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I find it cheap to use this fact for propaganda.


Using the existence-event of the (current) universe as proof for a creator doesn't hold as soon as you use sensible boundary conditions. For one, time is linear, which means that we should expect something to exist before what we call t=0 (Big Bang/Fingersnap). Also, 'nothing' is a difficult concept to truly use: Space appears as nothing, but outside our universe there is truly 'nothing'. Problem with this 'nothing' is that we have no way to see whether it is e.g. absence of matter, absence of time and matter, matter (!) or simply a herd of goats; 'nothing' is just a name.

But I agree, if you assume that time, space, matter, interaction, energy, entropy etc. came into existence instantaneously, it becomes very hard to properly describe. Not as difficult as trying to describe the creation of a being capable of doing that, though.

I'm by no means any kind of expert, but couldn't you define "nothing" as not being able to support fields? (e.g. electric field, magnetic field, gravitational field). Think about it... light would just.... stop. Particles couldn't exist there, because the only way a particle ever interacts with something is through fields, so it could be said that a particle is nothing but a collection of fields. In a place where fields don't work... poof. It'd be like stopping a photon, it just disappears.
Just my 3.27 cents (Canadian).

Note: I'm American. I have no idea what 2¢ is in Canadian. Just trying (and failing) to be clever.

both, I'm interested as well
I'll try to find them for you guys/gals, but I can't promise anything... it's been a while since I've seen them. But it's not BS, I promise you that, so there's a chance I'll be able to find them.

Sorry, wasn't aware I was hijacking the thread. What in post(s) in particular make you say that? Just curious, so that I know what to stop.

I'm sorry, but EVERY SINGLE ENCOUNTER I have ever had with someone who actually 'believes' in Christianity - as opposed to having it be a major mold on their lives, yeah I celebrate Easter and Christmas, I believe in god, whatever - people who Believe with a capital B...

Every single encounter has led to them attempted to aggressivly convert me, calling me a heretic, and persecuting me.

This does NOT exactly make me feel warmth and happyness towards Christianity.

As for reinforcing their warped image of me, it was warped to begin with.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of their same old rhetoric, which is boiling down to "God Says Its Evil" (He didn't, and even if he did, you can't legislate on that basis) and "Its Icky!" in which case I'll be force feeding several things I consider icky and several things I don't but others do.

Yeah, I know... however, most of the Christians (even the ones who Believe) who aren't homophobic aren't going to be as loud. People may come up to you to heckle you or to say you're going to burn in Hell, but do you really expect someone to randomly come up to you and say "I don't hate your lifestyle"? Think about it, wouldn't you be seriously weirded out? Most people who are supportive of gays show it by just letting gays be (except for gay pride parades, of course, in which case some of them go crazy). The fact that not every Christian who you know has attacked your lifestyle means that there is hope yet, and it also means that it is not all Christians that are against you.
There are many people in America who only see Arabs and Muslims when they're on TV for blowing things up. This has led to great confusion about Islam, and great hatred for Muslims, even though the vast majority are peace-loving individuals. It is the same with Christians: if all you see are the militants, the get-in-your-face Christians, you are likely to get the wrong idea about the faith.

Look, I am honestly trying to come out of this with a better understanding of the subjects being discussed.
Good, so should everyone.

No Ive just notice that any scientific study that doesnt exactly support the gay party line is considered bigoted or subjective.
By some people, yes. And some people consider any scientific study that does support the "gay party line" to be biased "gay propaganda". It goes both ways, and both are unfortunate.

I believe the there are more reasons to being gay than just being born that way, its kind of like the nature vs. nurture debate, its pointless because its obviously both to varying degrees.
That is quite probable. However, for me at least, the most important part is the fact that it's not a choice, it's not something where you can get shock treatment and you're "cured". This debate could affect peoples' beliefs on whether gay parents will tend to raise gay offspring, but other than that, nothing. And if being gay isn't bad... then... who would care anyway?

Quite a few in this society, yes. And from the gay men I have interacted with, it seems that they accentuate the worst traits in men and adopt the worst traits in women in their quest to create an identity for themselves.
It's too bad that that's the only exposure to gays that you've had. I have some good friends who are gay, and they're nothing like that. Maybe it's more the older generation... the generation where they were grown up before it was "ok" to come out of the closet. Think about it, that has got to leave some emotional scarring...

I was raised by my mother, my dad was a loser but I had other healthy male role models in my family, whom, being hetero, I could relate to. I feel sorry for the hetero male child whom has no mother and cant relate to his "dads". Women are natural child rearers I actually know a lesbian couple whom raised a healthy hetero male child. They made sure that he had interaction with responsible hetero males which was important for his development into a healthy male adult. They understood this. Ive seen documentaries about gay male couples raising male childeren and from what I could see there were no alternatives to gay males for the children to interact with and this seems very irresponsible. Knowing that children often adopt the traits and mannerisms of their parents how would that affect their interaction with other heterosexual males and females, nobody knows, we are seeing the affects of fatherless homes on society right now and going to the other extreme doesnt seem to be an answer. It would be wonderful for that child if they were going to be gay anyways but the odds are against them.
The child is going to end up gay, or straight, or bi, or whatever. Does it really matter? If homosexuality isn't a bad thing to begin with, this shouldn't be a problem, as long as the parents don't expect their kids to be gay or force them to be gay. That's just as bad as parents of gay kids who try to force them to be straight.

I have responded to individuals who speak as if any man who has had sex with a man is homosexual or any woman who has had sex with a female is a lesbian, what about the people who dont fit into your either/or categories. Im saying that alot of posters only speak for a small minority of individuals who have had sex with the same gander.
Yes, this is true. Many people simply "experiment", or have hormones that are swinging back and forth and they can't figure themselves out. Also, bisexuals are often misunderstood.

Is it any less illegal to infringe upon a gay persons rights than a straights?
I personally think a person should be able to decide who is the executer of his/her estate regardless of what gender they prefer to have sex with. Im all for civil unions being recognised in all 50 states, but are you just going after a "white wedding" fantasy. Or if civil unions were accepted nationwide would that be satisfactory for now? Because considering the short time that gays have been out of the closet in this country you are pushing for a lot and in the process polarizing people against your movement. Do you realize how long it was for african americans to get to the point they are now, and the struggle still is'nt over, while a gay rally, for example, is'nt considered a threat to the public.
Civil Unions and marriages have different rights associated with them. It's not just a "white wedding fantasy". I don't have all of the details memorized, but some of the most basic rights you would expect for life partners aren't there in a civil union, such as hospital visitation rights and others. It's not that they're married just under different wording: it's that they're not married. Period. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but civil unions aren't just weddings without the ceremony.

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

God is a myth, like free speech, clean water and american hockey ;)

Yeah, I know... however, most of the Christians (even the ones who Believe) who aren't homophobic aren't going to be as loud. People may come up to you to heckle you or to say you're going to burn in Hell, but do you really expect someone to randomly come up to you and say "I don't hate your lifestyle"? Think about it, wouldn't you be seriously weirded out? Most people who are supportive of gays show it by just letting gays be (except for gay pride parades, of course, in which case some of them go crazy). The fact that not every Christian who you know has attacked your lifestyle means that there is hope yet, and it also means that it is not all Christians that are against you.
There are many people in America who only see Arabs and Muslims when they're on TV for blowing things up. This has led to great confusion about Islam, and great hatred for Muslims, even though the vast majority are peace-loving individuals. It is the same with Christians: if all you see are the militants, the get-in-your-face Christians, you are likely to get the wrong idea about the faith.
Or about the sexual preference for that matter. I think 80 percent of this thread could have been avoided if only we all were to think this way about each other, wether it be christians and/or homosexuals. Not all churches condemn homosexuality, y'know (http://www.uaa.org)
One argument that still remains undisputed though, is the following one.

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

I may be surprised by some insightful response, but my general experience tell me the only "refutation" of that point involves long, complex arguments that boil down to "well law is one group's morality imposed on others so we should be able to force people to obey the Bible".

This is not meant to insult Christians, only to say that so far I haven't heard any good arguments against Faraulaer's above post.

Why is it you feel a need to damn other people and treat them as second rate beings? Last time I checked, noone's treating christians bad just because they're a dogmatic and biggotry bunch, who for all intents and purposes fit the medical term schizophrenia.
Even though you let your invisible friend make decisions for you, you're judged competent. Why should realists suffer under your ideas just because we don't lock you up and force medicate you?

You do realize that your own idiotic and unfounded stereotypes are no better than those presented by the minority of Christians you describe in this post?

Yes. I very much do realize that. That was pretty much the point of my post. I figured, since the Christian fundamentalists are unable to see how completely deranged they are, perhaps they would notice the similarities if I turned their own rethoric against them. I know it was a long shot, but they really do piss me off. Honestly I feel like going out and burning a church each time I see their hatefilled dribble.

I sincierly apologise to all normal christians out there. I honestly don't give a damn about religion. If it makes you happy, knock yourself out. I'm only ever gonna care if you try to force your personal religious agenda upon me and other innocent bystanders. 99.9% of you (ok maybe only 20% of Americans if the media is to be believed) would never do such a thing, just like I really don't consider you insane. I hope you can forgive my response and understand what brought it on. I promise I'll take a walk and calm down pefore I respond to flamebait and hate propaganda another time.

More on topic, I fail to see what religion has to do with gay marriage. It's not like any sane homosexual or bisexual would ever want to be married in a church that hates them. It's only ever been about getting equal rights and protection. IF it makes the fundies feel better, we can call it civil union in stead of marriage. The point is, you married couples enjoy rights and protections unobtainable by homosexual couples. Apart from plain biggotry I don't see any reason why it has to be like that. Aren't we all equals?

Yes. I very much do realize that. That was pretty much the point of my post. I figured, since the Christian fundamentalists are unable to see how completely deranged they are, perhaps they would notice the similarities if I turned their own rethoric against them. I know it was a long shot, but they really do piss me off. Honestly I feel like going out and burning a church each time I see their hatefilled dribble.

I sincierly apologise to all normal christians out there. I honestly don't give a damn about religion. If it makes you happy, knock yourself out. I'm only ever gonna care if you try to force your personal religious agenda upon me and other innocent bystanders. 99.9% of you (ok maybe only 20% of Americans if the media is to be believed) would never do such a thing, just like I really don't consider you insane. I hope you can forgive my response and understand what brought it on. I promise I'll take a walk and calm down pefore I respond to flamebait and hate propaganda another time.

More on topic, I fail to see what religion has to do with gay marriage. It's not like any sane homosexual or bisexual would ever want to be married in a church that hates them. It's only ever been about getting equal rights and protection. IF it makes the fundies feel better, we can call it civil union in stead of marriage. The point is, you married couples enjoy rights and protections unobtainable by homosexual couples. Apart from plain biggotry I don't see any reason why it has to be like that. Aren't we all equals?


*sigh* When will you get this through your head? WE...DO...NOT....HATE....ANYONE!!!!

*sigh* When will you get this through your head? WE...DO...NOT....HATE....ANYONE!!!!

Well no you don't but people like Pastor Fred Phelps (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228401_westboro14.html?source=rss) and the 'Christians' like him do hate people.

Naginah

Neo Rogolia I'm thrilled to hear you don't hate people. It still feels exactly like hate to me, tho.
I freely admit I don't understand you at all, and there's likely a good chance I never will understand any Christian fundie (or any other fundies for that matter), but I'd still appreciate if you'd try to explain how your point of veiw isn't the same as hating homosexuals & bisexuals.
And don't worry. Like I wrote above, I'm done with the verbal abuse. If I can't respond in a normal manner, I'll refrain from responding at all.

- Peace

ok I'd like to see someone give a valid reason for calling homosexuality wrong. By valid I mean it shouldn't have the words god, the creator, moral, children, or gays are violent. Have fun.
-sits back and waits to laugh at peoples attempts- No really in all seriousness I'd like ot see if there's anyone out there that's creative enough to come up with a partially decent and valid reason cause so far all I've heard is lie after lie after lie.

Neo Rogolia I'm thrilled to hear you don't hate people. It still feels exactly like hate to me, tho.
I freely admit I don't understand you at all, and there's likely a good chance I never will understand any Christian fundie (or any other fundies for that matter), but I'd still appreciate if you'd try to explain how your point of veiw isn't the same as hating homosexuals & bisexuals.
And don't worry. Like I wrote above, I'm done with the verbal abuse. If I can't respond in a normal manner, I'll refrain from responding at all.



Ok, basically we believe homosexuality is a sin. Now, a very cliche-but-true quote also describes my viewpoint: "Hate the sin, not the sinner". Also, the Bible condemns hatred as well, so any Christian who hates homosexuals is herself no better than the person she so despises. The duty of Christians is to follow God's will and spread the gospel that others may see the light and repent of their sins. All have sinned, and one sin, no matter how minute it may be, outweighs every act of good we could possibly muster. God is an infinite Being and thus any sin against him is infinite in scale. However, Christ, the son of God, died a sinless creature as a sacrifice that our sins might be forgiven. For us to accept His sacrifice, we must accept Him and follow his commandments to the best of our abilities, and if we stumble we repent.
We try to convert everyone so that they, too, might be saved from the punishment we all deserve for our iniquities. Understand now? If not, just tell me and I'll explain more.

Yeah, I know... however, most of the Christians (even the ones who Believe) who aren't homophobic aren't going to be as loud. People may come up to you to heckle you or to say you're going to burn in Hell, but do you really expect someone to randomly come up to you and say "I don't hate your lifestyle"? Think about it, wouldn't you be seriously weirded out? Most people who are supportive of gays show it by just letting gays be (except for gay pride parades, of course, in which case some of them go crazy). The fact that not every Christian who you know has attacked your lifestyle means that there is hope yet, and it also means that it is not all Christians that are against you.
There are many people in America who only see Arabs and Muslims when they're on TV for blowing things up. This has led to great confusion about Islam, and great hatred for Muslims, even though the vast majority are peace-loving individuals. It is the same with Christians: if all you see are the militants, the get-in-your-face Christians, you are likely to get the wrong idea about the faith.

The thing is, I'm not obviously gay. Its the LAST thing people guess about me. Nerd, yes. Anime freak, yes. Gamer, yes. Gay? ...

"...seriously?" is the reply I usually get when I tell someone I'm bisexual. Its not the lifestyle that they attack, I've yet to actually meet someone with the balls to tell me I'm going to go to hell for wanting to lay with a man in addition to women. At least, to my face, but I've found that people tend to be a bit nicer when the person that they are going to be making angry is right in front of 'em.

What pisses me off is the 'In your face you must be a Christian or you'll go to hell!' attitude alot take. I don't preach my religion at you, HELL! I don't even preach my morals to you. The most I do is that I post my philosophy on life out there, and ask for comments. I don't say "Follow these or you're going to go to hell!" I say, "Hey, this is what I believe in, what do you think about the points I'm making?"

Personally, I've stood up, and in front of a group of people refuted my belief in Jesus Christ, saying that even, if the world went insane some two thousand years ago, he was the son of god and died for our sins, that I didn't want that.

I'm an adult, I'm responsible for my own actions. If I break the law, I get in trouble for it, and no matter how much of belief in Christ may save my soul, it doesn't change the fact that I am responsible for my own actions, and even if my God - which may or may not be the same as the Judeo-Christian God - exists, I do not believe that he has such control over my life as to look over any actions that I may have taken that were wrong and I knew to be wrong.

That's what Adam and Eve were, thats why I actually like that story from the bible. God made them, then let them choose. He did not force them to believe in him, he didn't force them to follow his rules, he only punished them - in his world - for doing so.

This doesn't look like his world, and I don't think that any Christian here is God, therefore, by their own religion, they shouldn't force anyone to believe in the same things they do.

Meaning, every Christian who tries to convert someone is a hypocrite, by doing something even God wouldn't do, and then passing judgement upon the living in the place of God.

I've been looking at this forum, and I have to say this-----

I never had a problem with gay people marrying--outside of the fact that gayness is kind of wierd--but disallowing gay marriage to protect other people's marriages is kind of stupid. If I'm gonna marry a woman, it won't make a difference to our union that homosexuals can marry(or have civil unions, as it is now is some or all states): you see, me and that woman are still married as if nothing happened out of the ordinary but 2 people deciding they wanted a family. The point is, when people say gay marriages should be illegal, simply to ''protect'' straight marriages and that supposedly God said that was a bad idea, they're just trying to exert their own beleifs of how things should be done other people when it wouldn't really matter either way. Plus, before anyone starts quoting the bible and God on this matter, they need to actually find verses to quote, not just repeat what their pastor or parent said (this is a blatant assumption of course, but I'm just wondering at the whole christian thing). Once they do that, their arguements have basis in fact.

This is a freaking long post, but I hope you guys get some interesting thoughts from it. I'm not out to make enemies.

The thing is, I'm not obviously gay. Its the LAST thing people guess about me. Nerd, yes. Anime freak, yes. Gamer, yes. Gay? ...

"...seriously?" is the reply I usually get when I tell someone I'm bisexual. Its not the lifestyle that they attack, I've yet to actually meet someone with the balls to tell me I'm going to go to hell for wanting to lay with a man in addition to women. At least, to my face, but I've found that people tend to be a bit nicer when the person that they are going to be making angry is right in front of 'em.

What pisses me off is the 'In your face you must be a Christian or you'll go to hell!' attitude alot take. I don't preach my religion at you, HELL! I don't even preach my morals to you. The most I do is that I post my philosophy on life out there, and ask for comments. I don't say "Follow these or you're going to go to hell!" I say, "Hey, this is what I believe in, what do you think about the points I'm making?"

Personally, I've stood up, and in front of a group of people refuted my belief in Jesus Christ, saying that even, if the world went insane some two thousand years ago, he was the son of god and died for our sins, that I didn't want that.

I'm an adult, I'm responsible for my own actions. If I break the law, I get in trouble for it, and no matter how much of belief in Christ may save my soul, it doesn't change the fact that I am responsible for my own actions, and even if my God - which may or may not be the same as the Judeo-Christian God - exists, I do not believe that he has such control over my life as to look over any actions that I may have taken that were wrong and I knew to be wrong.

That's what Adam and Eve were, thats why I actually like that story from the bible. God made them, then let them choose. He did not force them to believe in him, he didn't force them to follow his rules, he only punished them - in his world - for doing so.

This doesn't look like his world, and I don't think that any Christian here is God, therefore, by their own religion, they shouldn't force anyone to believe in the same things they do.

Meaning, every Christian who tries to convert someone is a hypocrite, by doing something even God wouldn't do, and then passing judgement upon the living in the place of God.o.o you're my hero -constructs a statue out of post-it notes in your honor and idolizes it-

"Gay Marriage" is bad because it is borne of illiteracy. Marriage means the legal union of a man and a woman, and gay means happy. "Homosexual Marriage" would also be incorrect and stupid to say, because marriage, by definition, is not homosexual. That said, there is nothing wrong with the union of a same-sex couple. However, marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman, and changing a definition that is thousands of years old for an uppity minority is stupid. It's a new thing, it should be defined as something new, e.g. a "Civil Union." Number five on the list:
Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
...which supposedly refutes this is a bad comparison, because marriage was never defined as "the union of a man and a woman where the woman is the man's property," or "the union of a man and a woman of the same race." Those were side-effects of racism and chauvinism. As for divorce, that's not part of marriage, that's the opposite of marriage - the anti-marriage, if you will. Thus, gay marriage is bad simply because changing a definition that old is an obnoxious thing to do and is a shot in the balls to dictionaries everywhere.

By the way, I'm an agnostic, so my views on this have absolutely jack shit to do with religion.

Being gay is the temptation to sin. The sin being the act of gay sex or un natural relationships

BAHA! Unnatural as in it wouldn't occur in nature? Being that nature is considered to include animals and there are homosexual animals, homosexuality is not unnatural.

"Gay Marriage" is bad because it is borne of illiteracy. Marriage means the legal union of a man and a woman, and gay means happy. "Homosexual Marriage" would also be incorrect and stupid to say, because marriage, by definition, is not homosexual. That said, there is nothing wrong with the union of a same-sex couple. However, marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman, and changing a definition that is thousands of years old for an uppity minority is stupid. It's a new thing, it should be defined as something new, e.g. a "Civil Union." Number five on the list:

...which supposedly refutes this is a bad comparison, because marriage was never defined as "the union of a man and a woman where the woman is the man's property," or "the union of a man and a woman of the same race." Those were side-effects of racism and chauvinism. As for divorce, that's not part of marriage, that's the opposite of marriage - the anti-marriage, if you will. Thus, gay marriage is bad simply because changing a definition that old is an obnoxious thing to do and is a shot in the balls to dictionaries everywhere.

By the way, I'm an agnostic, so my views on this have absolutely jack shit to do with religion.

Where is it stated that marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman outside of recent dictionaries? Even if it is stated in a historical non-religous document you'll notice that we have done away with a number of other "traditions" in this country. Also we've changed the meanings of the words in dictionaries, and even come up with new words, hundreds of times before, saying that eqaulity is less important than a dictionary is pretty damn foolish don't you think?

Where is it stated that marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman outside of recent dictionaries? Even if it is stated in a historical non-religous document you'll notice that we have done away with a number of other "traditions" in this country. Also we've changed the meanings of the words in dictionaries, and even come up with new words, hundreds of times before, saying that eqaulity is less important than a dictionary is pretty damn foolish don't you think?
First of all, I didn't say anything about tradition. Second of all, I never support randomly changing the definitions of words, for instance when "gay fag" became "homosexual homosexual person" instead of "happy cigarette." It doesn't matter whether it is related to marriage or not. Thirdly, the equality point is out, because we are already equal. Homosexual men can marry all the women they want, just like any straight man. Homosexual men can't marry men, of course, but neither can straight men.