NationStates Jolt Archive

Where did Christ say you have to be insensitive? I mean "I suppose it would take the most devout Christian to stay with an abusive husband....."
You don't even know this woman, nor what she has been through and you claim she is not a devout Christian? That to me sounds like being unkind to your neighbour. You know, it's one thing to be unkid about a big, anonymous group, but another to say that flat out to someones face.
You know the bible, so you must know the story about the prostitute that washed Jesus' feet. Did he tell her she was an undevout believer? Did he insult her without even knowing her full story? No, he forgave her for her sins, no questions asked. Why don't you take that as an example for once?



>>>MOST<<< devout. My statement was not cold, but rather sympathetic. I guess it came across the wrong way in the text? That's what I dislike about the internet: you can't tell the tone of voice of the person behind the message.

>>>MOST<<< devout. My statement was not cold, but rather sympathetic. I guess it came across the wrong way in the text? That's what I dislike about the internet: you can't tell the tone of voice of the person behind the message.
Ok, I see now. I apologise sincerely.

Where did Christ say you have to be insensitive? I mean "I suppose it would take the most devout Christian to stay with an abusive husband....."
You don't even know this woman, nor what she has been through and you claim she is not a devout Christian? That to me sounds like being unkind to your neighbour. You know, it's one thing to be unkind about a big, anonymous group, but another to say that flat out to someones face.
You know the bible, so you must know the story about the prostitute that washed Jesus' feet. Did he tell her she was an undevout believer? Did he insult her without even knowing her full story? No, he forgave her for her sins, no questions asked. Why don't you take that as an example for once?

To be fair I attacked first, meaning to point out the irrelevance of the Bible when making laws. I am not a devout christain I'm a rabid agnostic. That said your point stands. Many women divorce abusive men; and believe in the Bible. I asked one such woman about how she justified her divorce in light of her religion. In way of answer she cited scripture from the old testament which commands people to protect their lives.

Nope, God's will supercedes ours :)

:eek: What denomination are you?

That's true, but I think we're assuming the marriage is sanctified.....at least I am....is everyone else?


Sometimes. But like its been said before, only for certain people. The government has no place in marriage, period. It is an intimate commitment between two people. If they want to issue civil unions, because they don’t want it to be religious, then logic follows that all people claiming the rights and responsibilities of marriage should have civil union, and marriage should simply between the two people involved in the commitment. How they choose to recognize their union should be up to them.

Matthew 19:1-10...snip... 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

10His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry."

Then was "Saint" Ronald Reagan an adulterer? After all, was he not married first to Jane Wyman?
and what about whoever married Jane Wyman after Ronnie? Was he, too, an adulterer?

And no mention of a woman being with a once-divorced man?? Hmmm...so it seems Mrs. Nancy Reagan is off the hook on the adultery charge...yet Ronnie Reagan clearly WAS an adulterer!

And here, I thought it took two to commit adultery!

Dang, I'm learning new stuff every day from the Bible literalists!!

So, Ronnie was engaged in adultery, but Nancy was not. That clears that up. NOT.

To be fair I attacked first, meaning to point out the irrelevance of the Bible when making laws. I am not a devout christain I'm a rabid agnostic. That said your point stands. Many women divorce abusive men; and believe in the Bible. I asked one such woman about how she justified her divorce in light of her religion. In way of answer she cited scripture from the old testament which commands people to protect their lives.

That's right. Marriage is sanctified by God, but life is the greatest gift from God. God prioritises, and I believe He puts life above marriage. Jesus came to save lives, not the order of marriage, after all.

If your husband abuses you, by all means get a divorce.

Then was "Saint" Ronald Reagan an adulterer? After all, was he not married first to Jane Wyman?
and what about whoever married Jane Wyman after Ronnie? Was he, too, an adulterer?

And no mention of a woman being with a once-divorced man?? Hmmm...so it seems Mrs. Nancy Reagan is off the hook on the adultery charge...yet Ronnie Reagan clearly WAS an adulterer!

And here, I thought it took two to commit adultery!

Dang, I'm learning new stuff every day from the Bible literalists!!

So, Ronnie was engaged in adultery, but Nancy was not. That clears that up. NOT.
Well, don't take the Bible literally at all times.

All three of them were adulterers.

Well, don't take the Bible literally at all times.

All three of them were adulterers.

Well, Neo Rogolia...to whom this was initially addressed...sure seems to want to take eveything in the Bible literally. So I thought I'd get his views on this question about the Reagans.

8He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

Notice that this only discusses a reason that a man may divorce a woman, not the other way around.

Meanwhile, one could argue that any man who beats his wife has already broken the marriage vows - and has thus ended the marriage himself - thus, it is his sin.

On top of that, Christ was exceedingly clear that one should not sit down and take abuse, but that one should stand up to it at all times, in the most passive manner possible. In fact, he gives numerous examples of such passive resistance.

So I thought I'd get his views on this question about the Reagans.



I'm a her :mad:

Ah, but those who were ordained prior to the apostles were not given authority to make law that would last until kingdom come. You would think God would be a bit careful with allowing the apostles to say what they did then, no?

You would think that if and only if you think that God messes around with free will and makes human beings, which are clearly faillible, infallible.

What you need to realize Neo, is that you are not God. Thus, you do not hold all truth. Claiming that you do (as you consisitently do) is not only completely against the faith you claim to follow (as I am assuming you do agree with the parts of the Bible that clearly state that human beings are fallible), but demonstrates a complete lack of faith.

If the only answer you have to the fact that others believe differently than you is, "Well, you are wrong and I am right!" you are quite obviously very weak of faith indeed.

[QUOTE=Andapaula]Originally posted by WhoyousayIam:

However, if you are truly a Bible-abiding person (as your post implies), you understand that by doing so, you are violating the law of the Lord: a human has no right to pass judgement on anyone -- only the Lord can do so.



Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (NASB)

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." (NASB)


The bible condems them for him. Convenient, right?

Notice that this only discusses a reason that a man may divorce a woman, not the other way around.

Meanwhile, one could argue that any man who beats his wife has already broken the marriage vows - and has thus ended the marriage himself - thus, it is his sin.

On top of that, Christ was exceedingly clear that one should not sit down and take abuse, but that one should stand up to it at all times, in the most passive manner possible. In fact, he gives numerous examples of such passive resistance.

Thank you. I pointed that out, too...in my initial query about the Reagans.

So, let me get this straight...or try to, anyway...

So, if a woman ends up divorced, through no fault of her own...because the MAN decided to divorce her....then she is not able to go on with her life and find another man, for, if she did, then she is basically luring that new man into sin, since it would be "adulterous" for him to be with her?

This is basically saying a wife is forever the property of just one man...and nothing ever breaks that...she is forever soiled goods...even through no fault of her own...

YET...a MAN can divorce his wife because of reasons fo "sexual immorality" and be scot-free to go marry another woman, and not be considered an adulterer?

SO...in essence, then....it is okay for a MAN to commit sexual immorality...and the woman just has to put up with it...she does not get the free pass on this that a MAN does.

Or have I missed somerthing in the reading?

I'm a her :mad:

My apologies. I thought I'd get HER views on the Reagans.

And incidentally, I, too...am a HER. And often get addressed as a male by those who do not know me. so nothing personal was intended by referring to you in the incorrect gender. Happens to me all the time, I don't take immediate offense, either.

S'ok lol. I really don't mind, I was just teasing with the :mad:

I'm a her

Can’t believe it. Why would any women willingly attend a church where they aren’t allowed to speak, in this country.

S'ok lol. I really don't mind, I was just teasing with the :mad:
Good then. I'd still be interested in hearing your views concerning the Reagans.

Can’t believe it. Why would any women willingly attend a church where they aren’t allowed to speak, in this country.



24Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. :)

Can’t believe it. Why would any women willingly attend a church where they aren’t allowed to speak, in this country.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!

Back up there!!

Do not imply that I attend any specific church. I merely stated I'm female. As did Neo Rogolia...who was rthe one who was asked as to whether or not women were allowed to speak in her church.

Do NOT make ME look like one of these fundamentalist religious zealots, by quoting ME...and then asking that question.

You quote Neo Rogelia when asking that question!

I have never stated, in this thread...what church I attend, if any...or what faith I profess to, if any.

Please recitfy this immediately. I do not want anyone to go around thinking I'M one of these fundamentalist zealots, okay?

That's true, but I think we're assuming the marriage is sanctified.....at least I am....is everyone else?
Nope the institution of marrige namly its civil variaty ... you may wish to believe anything you damn well please ... I deffinaty not trying to tell you what your faith should believe about the matter
Just in the same way you should not have the right to limit my resonable civil liberties

Good then. I'd still be interested in hearing your views concerning the Reagans.


They're all adulterers. To marry an adulterer is to commit adultery.

Nope the institution of marrige namly its civil variaty ... you may wish to believe anything you damn well please ... I deffinaty not trying to tell you what your faith should believe about the matter
Just in the same way you should not have the right to limit my resonable civil liberties

Ah, Upward Thrust...but don't you get it??? Your civil liberties do not matter. The christians have had THEIR sensibilities offended bby YOUR rights. so you should be denied those rights.

Don't you get that??

(sarcasm off)

They're all adulterers. To marry an adulterer is to commit adultery.
Always?
In every case?

Well, no matter. I got the answer I wanted from you. ronald Reagan was an adulterer. That was what I wanted to hear from one I assume MUST vote Republican.

Family values my eye!

Ah, Upward Thrust...but don't you get it??? Your civil liberties do not matter. The christians have had THEIR sensibilities offended bby YOUR rights. so you should be denied those rights.

Don't you get that??

(sarcasm off)


Why are all the new posters atheist/agnostic/liberal/opposite-of-me? You think I would be given a break for once with someone who actually agreed with me :(

Always?
In every case?

Well, no matter. I got the answer I wanted from you. ronald Reagan was an adulterer. That was what I wanted to hear from one I assume MUST vote Republican.

Family values my eye!


The lesser of two evils ;)

Why are all the new posters atheist/agnostic/liberal/opposite-of-me? You think I would be given a break for once with someone who actually agreed with me :(

Sorry but not everyone can be twins. Tough luck.

Why are all the new posters atheist/agnostic/liberal/opposite-of-me? You think I would be given a break for once with someone who actually agreed with me :(
It just seems that way ... there are too many earthly viewpoints for us to all line up

I am sure some day we will get another flood of simmilar beliefs to yours and I will be arguing by myself too
Such is life on the forums

Always?
In every case?



No. Adulterers can repent and never commit the sin ever again. Remember Nahab, the Jericho prostitute? She helped God's army and turns out that she married into a Jewish family.

Why are all the new posters atheist/agnostic/liberal/opposite-of-me? You think I would be given a break for once with someone who actually agreed with me :(
I agree with you! Um...most of the time :P

What you need to realize Neo, is that you are not God. Thus, you do not hold all truth.

Actually, yes, she is, and does. As are we all, and as do we all. There are many instances of God, we are all parts of God. There are many truths, and we all contain them.

Your mistaken idea of separation from one another and from God has gotten you in a mess again.

WE ARE ALL ONE.

Why are all the new posters atheist/agnostic/liberal/opposite-of-me? You think I would be given a break for once with someone who actually agreed with me :(

I don't agree with people who are WRONG.

And anyone who wishes to deny another their basic human rights, their civil rights, and their happiness...and justify it in the name of their religion...is WRONG.

YOUR religion, sorry to say, Neo rogolia...has NO PLACE in informing CIVIL LAW.

Nor should it.

Any more than the government should have any place in informing YOUR CHURCH'S BELIEFS...or your own, for that matter.

You mingle religion and government...because you want government to enforce YOUR dogma on everyone else...even those who do not subscribe to your faith.

Yet, if the government tried to impose IT's views on YOUR church...you'd be screaming bloody murder!!

Well, how long do you think government will stay out of your church....if you keep insisting on mingling your church with the civil government?

You only want the civil government to use it's force to impose YOUR church's dogma? Sorry, sweetie. It don't work that way. It's not a one-way street.

This is probably a useless plug, seeing as this topic has gone through 52 pages already, but I once read a book with "12 Reasons". I think it was called, "What's Wrong With Same-Sex Marriage?" All I remember was that it was D. James Kennedy (An a-hole dominionist---as redundant as "a-hole dominionist" is---with the ear of the Bush administration. Probably one of the most dangerous men around.)

Anyway, here's what I wrote about it:

http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?tab=weblogs&user=CRA5H&uid=174921043

Actually, yes, she is, and does. As are we all, and as do we all. There are many instances of God, we are all parts of God. There are many truths, and we all contain them.

Your mistaken idea of separation from one another and from God has gotten you in a mess again.

WE ARE ALL ONE.

Really now?

Then what of the Scripture..."For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

If we all are God...then GOD is part of all...and thus GOD also has sinned...and also falls short of the Glory of God. Or did I miss something?

This is probably a useless plug, seeing as this topic has gone through 52 pages already, but I once read a book with "12 Reasons". I think it was called, "What's Wrong With Same-Sex Marriage?" All I remember was that it was D. James Kennedy (An a-hole dominionist---as redundant as "a-hole dominionist" is---with the ear of the Bush administration. Probably one of the most dangerous men around.)

Anyway, here's what I wrote about it:

http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?tab=weblogs&user=CRA5H&uid=174921043

Yes..."a-hole dominionist" is indeed, redundant. but at least you admit to, and acknowledge your own redundancy before someone else had to point it out to you!!

I don't agree with people who are WRONG.

And anyone who wishes to deny another their basic human rights, their civil rights, and their happiness...and justify it in the name of their religion...is WRONG.

YOUR religion, sorry to say, Neo rogolia...has NO PLACE in informing CIVIL LAW.

Nor should it.

Any more than the government should have any place in informing YOUR CHURCH'S BELIEFS...or your own, for that matter.

You mingle religion and government...because you want government to enforce YOUR dogma on everyone else...even those who do not subscribe to your faith.

Yet, if the government tried to impose IT's views on YOUR church...you'd be screaming bloody murder!!

Well, how long do you think government will stay out of your church....if you keep insisting on mingling your church with the civil government?

You only want the civil government to use it's force to impose YOUR church's dogma? Sorry, sweetie. It don't work that way. It's not a one-way street.

True...but give the poor lady a break! Let's all be nice to each other.

Really now?

Then what of the Scripture..."For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

If we all are God...then GOD is part of all...and thus GOD also has sinned...and also falls short of the Glory of God. Or did I miss something?

Yes. A correct interpretation of the post.

True...but give the poor lady a break! Let's all be nice to each other.

Rond of drinks on me for everyone. :rolleyes:

True...but give the poor lady a break! Let's all be nice to each other.

No chance!

Not until she and all the other dominionists quit trying to oppress everyone who isn't EXACTLY LIKE THEM!!!!

No chance!

Not until she and all the other dominionists quit trying to oppress everyone who isn't EXACTLY LIKE THEM!!!!

Well, coercion and screaming your head off won't get you anywhere near that -_-' lol.

Neo Rogolia, you realize most homo's & bi's would settle for a civil union if it had the same legal aspects as marriage, right?
Ignoring my personal opinions on what you preach, I can appreciate why some religious fundies would find it demeaning. Nevermind that marriages is every bit as much a secular thing as a religious thing, and that several opposed faiths share the concept... I guess homo marriages is the only one of those battles you'll ever have the slightest chance of winning.
If you're not opposed to homo's & bi's obtaining equal rights, and just want it to take place outside of your religion and possibly under a different name than marriage, please let me know.
Personally I'd be as outraged as you if any homo or bi wanted a church wedding in a christian church. To you it would be taking a dump on your values. To me it would be condoning the institution responsible for more hate propaganda and more wars than any other thing in existence. If you'd want to kick their asses, I'd want to help.
Oh and, sorry about my dogma mix up. I haven't read it in 10-15 years. I know I should have checked first, but I thought I remembered correctly.


Muffin monster (I forgot your name, sorry), I apologise for my previous post. Reading back a bit, I realize you have changed your attitude quite a bit, so it's only fair I adjust mine as well. Forgive & forget?
Suprisingly I do agree with you on a lot of things. Femigay is a word of my own making, but it seems appropriate, right? anyway, I don't exactly feel good about them either. Actually I can't stand them. But I'll fight for their right to express themselves in any way they see fit as long as they don't harm anyone. Preferably fight for it far far away from them, but I'll do whatever it takes.
I'm not even close to being a tolerant person. Many things many people do makes me want to throw up. Or beat them up. But I do neither. If they're not doing any harm other than to my sense of morals or estetics, I (most often grudgingly) admit they have a right to be idiots. And just like with the girley-gays I will stand up for their right to be the laughing stock of the world.
I agree they do the cause more harm than good. The attention is there. Meaningful dialogue would be preferable to naked bums. I myself have never, and likely will never, associate myself with them. I wouldn't be able to look at a bunch of them for more than five minutes with out laughing, crying or punching them in the face. But it doesn't change the fact that just like I have a right not to be able to take them seriously, they have a right to make asses out of themselves. And they really aren't that hard to avoid ;)
I've been wondering about something though... What makes you think you haven't already voted for a gay senator? Apart from those - thankfully - very few loose-wristed fellows, homo's & bi's don't wear little badges. How can you tell they're not hetero's? - I think several people would be really really keen on knowing that trick :p

Just to round off this long ass post, I'll ask again: What bearing on marrital legislation could some handfull of religious people possibly have? What's gay rights got to do with god in a secular society?

No chance I'm giving a fundamentalist a break on this one. I got her up against the ropes, and I'm using her own arguments to invalidate her views, and breaking down slowly but surely forcing her...however slowly...into that corner where she will FINALLY have to admit that she and her people are WRONG for oppressing others...and that WE are right...and deserve our rights.

We are NOT going to go away.

You wanna not hear from us anymore? Then give us our equal rights, quit trying to oppress us...and you likely won't hear from us anymore, either.

Quite frankly, most of us want nothing to do with people like Neo Rogolia. We are, however, forced to have interactions with them...as long as they continue to try to oppress us.

We must stand against oppression.

and we shall.

When they stop...we stop. Not until.

We didn't start the fire.

Well, coercion and screaming your head off won't get you anywhere near that -_-' lol.
nor will shutting up and being nice. But yelling and pointing out straw-men will make you feel less like a door mat for those people.

nor will shutting up and being nice. But yelling and pointing out straw-men will make you feel less like a door mat for those people.

Exactly.

And that is precisely what I am doing, as you have so astutely figured out. i'm pointing out...and knocking over...her straw-men.

That was WHY I brought up the Reagans. I had her pegged as a "Conservative Christian Republican" and just wanted to make ONE of them admit that their "Saint" Ronnie was an adulterer. I got my satisfaction.

Well, I think she's completely entitled to her own opinion - and it's not that she's oppressing you physically. I doubt if she's even within a hundred miles from you.

This is a public forum for discussion. A beacon of the freedom of speech and expression without people browbeating you for the "wrong" opinions...

I don't agree with people who are WRONG.

And anyone who wishes to deny another their basic human rights, their civil rights, and their happiness...and justify it in the name of their religion...is WRONG.

YOUR religion, sorry to say, Neo rogolia...has NO PLACE in informing CIVIL LAW.

Nor should it.

Any more than the government should have any place in informing YOUR CHURCH'S BELIEFS...or your own, for that matter.

You mingle religion and government...because you want government to enforce YOUR dogma on everyone else...even those who do not subscribe to your faith.

Yet, if the government tried to impose IT's views on YOUR church...you'd be screaming bloody murder!!

Well, how long do you think government will stay out of your church....if you keep insisting on mingling your church with the civil government?

You only want the civil government to use it's force to impose YOUR church's dogma? Sorry, sweetie. It don't work that way. It's not a one-way street.


While a bit hash I agree ... mingling church and state is a bad Idea
People start liking it because it enforces their belief

But some of us recognize that freedom even at the cost of things not lining up to my moral code are WAY better then religon dictating government rules

No chance I'm giving a fundamentalist a break on this one. I got her up against the ropes, and I'm using her own arguments to invalidate her views, and breaking down slowly but surely forcing her...however slowly...into that corner where she will FINALLY have to admit that she and her people are WRONG for oppressing others...and that WE are right...and deserve our rights.

We are NOT going to go away.

You wanna not hear from us anymore? Then give us our equal rights, quit trying to oppress us...and you likely won't hear from us anymore, either.

Quite frankly, most of us want nothing to do with people like Neo Rogolia. We are, however, forced to have interactions with them...as long as they continue to try to oppress us.

We must stand against oppression.

and we shall.

When they stop...we stop. Not until.

We didn't start the fire.



What on earth....lol

Neo Rogolia, you realize most homo's & bi's would settle for a civil union if it had the same legal aspects as marriage, right?
Ignoring my personal opinions on what you preach, I can appreciate why some religious fundies would find it demeaning. Nevermind that marriages is every bit as much a secular thing as a religious thing, and that several opposed faiths share the concept... I guess homo marriages is the only one of those battles you'll ever have the slightest chance of winning.
If you're not opposed to homo's & bi's obtaining equal rights, and just want it to take place outside of your religion and possibly under a different name than marriage, please let me know.
Personally I'd be as outraged as you if any homo or bi wanted a church wedding in a christian church. To you it would be taking a dump on your values. To me it would be condoning the institution responsible for more hate propaganda and more wars than any other thing in existence. If you'd want to kick their asses, I'd want to help.
Oh and, sorry about my dogma mix up. I haven't read it in 10-15 years. I know I should have checked first, but I thought I remembered correctly.


Muffin monster (I forgot your name, sorry), I apologise for my previous post. Reading back a bit, I realize you have changed your attitude quite a bit, so it's only fair I adjust mine as well. Forgive & forget?
Suprisingly I do agree with you on a lot of things. Femigay is a word of my own making, but it seems appropriate, right? anyway, I don't exactly feel good about them either. Actually I can't stand them. But I'll fight for their right to express themselves in any way they see fit as long as they don't harm anyone. Preferably fight for it far far away from them, but I'll do whatever it takes.
I'm not even close to being a tolerant person. Many things many people do makes me want to throw up. Or beat them up. But I do neither. If they're not doing any harm other than to my sense of morals or estetics, I (most often grudgingly) admit they have a right to be idiots. And just like with the girley-gays I will stand up for their right to be the laughing stock of the world.
I agree they do the cause more harm than good. The attention is there. Meaningful dialogue would be preferable to naked bums. I myself have never, and likely will never, associate myself with them. I wouldn't be able to look at a bunch of them for more than five minutes with out laughing, crying or punching them in the face. But it doesn't change the fact that just like I have a right not to be able to take them seriously, they have a right to make asses out of themselves. And they really aren't that hard to avoid
I've been wondering about something though... What makes you think you haven't already voted for a gay senator? Apart from those - thankfully - very few loose-wristed fellows, homo's & bi's don't wear little badges. How can you tell they're not hetero's? - I think several people would be really really keen on knowing that trick

Just to round off this long ass post, I'll ask again: What bearing on marrital legislation could some handfull of religious people possibly have? What's gay rights got to do with god in a secular society?



Oh, I really don't mind civil unions with equal rights. I just feel that the government recognizing as legitimate the institution of gay marriage would be a slap in the face of God.

Well, I think she's completely entitled to her own opinion - and it's not that she's oppressing you physically. I doubt if she's even within a hundred miles from you.

This is a public forum for discussion. A beacon of the freedom of speech and expression without people browbeating you for the "wrong" opinions...

No, but others with her opinions and arguments...who compose the current Powers That Be...ARE oppressing me and my kind.

She is merely a symbol of the oppression, by holding and stating the views she does. And an enabler. Therefore, being an enabler...makes her every bit as bad as those who are actually engaging in the oppression.

If people like Neo Rogolia didn't ENABLE the Powers That Be to oppress me, by giving tacit approval of the oppression...they would not be ABLE to oppress us.

Therefore, in my view...she is as guilty as if she, herself were physically oppressing me.

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

Well, I think she's completely entitled to her own opinion - and it's not that she's oppressing you physically. I doubt if she's even within a hundred miles from you.

This is a public forum for discussion. A beacon of the freedom of speech and expression without people browbeating you for the "wrong" opinions...

No, but others with her opinions and arguments...who compose the current Powers That Be...ARE oppressing me and my kind.

She is merely a symbol of the oppression, by holding and stating the views she does. And an enabler. Therefore, being an enabler...makes her every bit as bad as those who are actually engaging in the oppression.

If people like Neo Rogolia didn't ENABLE the Powers That Be to oppress me, by giving tacit approval of the oppression...they would not be ABLE to oppress us.

Therefore, in my view...she is as guilty as if she, herself were physically oppressing me.

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

Well, I think she's completely entitled to her own opinion - and it's not that she's oppressing you physically. I doubt if she's even within a hundred miles from you.

This is a public forum for discussion. A beacon of the freedom of speech and expression without people browbeating you for the "wrong" opinions...

No, but others with her opinions and arguments...who compose the current Powers That Be...ARE oppressing me and my kind.

She is merely a symbol of the oppression, by holding and stating the views she does. And an enabler. Therefore, being an enabler...makes her every bit as bad as those who are actually engaging in the oppression.

If people like Neo Rogolia didn't ENABLE the Powers That Be to oppress me, by giving tacit approval of the oppression...they would not be ABLE to oppress us.

Therefore, in my view...she is as guilty as if she, herself were physically oppressing me.

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.


While a bit hash I agree ... mingling church and state is a bad Idea
People start liking it because it enforces their belief

But some of us recognize that freedom even at the cost of things not lining up to my moral code are WAY better then religon dictating government rules

True, Upward Thrust. They love it because it enforces THEIR belief.

And those people don't mind that there is no freedom for anyone...as long as it is THEIR religion dictating government rules. but they wouldn't like it if SOMEONE ELSE'S religion were dictating government rules!!

No, but others with her opinions and arguments...who compose the current Powers That Be...ARE oppressing me and my kind.

She is merely a symbol of the oppression, by holding and stating the views she does. And an enabler. Therefore, being an enabler...makes her every bit as bad as those who are actually engaging in the oppression.

If people like Neo Rogolia didn't ENABLE the Powers That Be to oppress me, by giving tacit approval of the oppression...they would not be ABLE to oppress us.

Therefore, in my view...she is as guilty as if she, herself were physically oppressing me.

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.



I feel like you are oppressing me by trying to get the government to ok something I believe is wrong. It's not just you who feels oppressed ;)

No, but others with her opinions and arguments...who compose the current Powers That Be...ARE oppressing me and my kind.

She is merely a symbol of the oppression, by holding and stating the views she does. And an enabler. Therefore, being an enabler...makes her every bit as bad as those who are actually engaging in the oppression.

If people like Neo Rogolia didn't ENABLE the Powers That Be to oppress me, by giving tacit approval of the oppression...they would not be ABLE to oppress us.

Therefore, in my view...she is as guilty as if she, herself were physically oppressing me.

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

Um...okay....

Oh, I really don't mind civil unions with equal rights. I just feel that the government recognizing as legitimate the institution of gay marriage would be a slap in the face of God.

Of course the government has nothing to do with religion or god so why should it be worried about that? Shouldnt it be striving for equal rights for everyone instead of the ideas of one religious group in its borders?

I feel like you are oppressing me by trying to get the government to ok something I believe is wrong. It's not just you who feels oppressed ;)

no one is saying YOU...or YOUR CHURCH have to okay it. Only the CIVIL GOVERNMENT...which is supposed to represent ALL PEOPLE...NOT JUST CHRISTIANS, DAMN IT!!!!

Oh, I really don't mind civil unions with equal rights. I just feel that the government recognizing as legitimate the institution of gay marriage would be a slap in the face of God.
Ok, what is the difference between a civil union w/ equal rights and a marriage? I mean it's not like anyone is trying to force catholic priests to preform gay marriages. Legally speaking I see no difference.

I mean, sincerely...and seriously...

WHY can't you Christians get it through your heads that other peoples views...other people's rights...and other people's happiness...are JUST AS IMPORTANT!!

Why should YOUR views...and YOUR beliefs...and YOUR happiness always trump everyone else's?

As a sidenote...

Other things that have been validated by The Bible...or by "Christian Values and Beliefs"

1. Slavery
2. The Crusades
3. The Inquisition
4. The Salem Witch Trials (in which many innocent people were killed)
5. Segregation of Schools.
6. Preventing inter-racial marriage
7. Oppressing GLBT people...and denying them their basic human rights civil rights, and human dignity.

Your bloody history, Christians.
Choke on it.

It's all yours.

Really now?

Then what of the Scripture..."For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

If we all are God...then GOD is part of all...and thus GOD also has sinned...and also falls short of the Glory of God. Or did I miss something?

Everything, and I mean everything, was created by God. There is nothing but God. Everything comes from God, and is a part of God. As "sin" means to go against the will of God, God cannot "sin".

Each little part of God is only tributary to His glory, and thus falls short of "The Glory of God" that you speak of. Someday, we will all rejoin in Spirit and the full glory shall be experienced by the Whole.

Ok, what is the difference between a civil union w/ equal rights and a marriage? I mean it's not like anyone is trying to force catholic priests to preform gay marriages. Legally speaking I see no difference.


The institution of marriage in the US is mainly religious. Perhaps if they were to instate the practice of humanist marriages like that one couple had in England, then it would not be infringing upon what I perceive as my rights.

YOUR religion, sorry to say, Neo rogolia...has NO PLACE in informing CIVIL LAW.
Ahh yes. This is true despite the fact that if it wasn't for >certain< religions you wouldn't even have the United States, which i'm assuming is the country we are talking about at the moment. Or perhaps we are talking European society in general, which was preserved by Charles Martel fighting for religous purposes in the first place? It doesn't matter. To say that religion has no place in civil law, the same civil law that would not exist in the first place were it for religion in numerous cases is completely uninformed.

You mingle religion and government...because you want government to enforce YOUR dogma on everyone else...even those who do not subscribe to your faith.
Dogma? If you do not wish to be under the product of religion than you should move to the remote regions of the pacific where I believe the rest of your obvious misguided kind belong anyway. You cannot subscribe to the faith, but if laws are made by the government as yet another product of religion, than you should submit to the will of the majority. If we vote in officials who pass laws on religion, than you have no right to complain about it if decisions are made based on religion. It would appear the majority is against you if these officials are elected in the first place. Perhaps you fail to realize you are the minority, and as such, recieve less 'notice' than the majority under democracy.

You only want the civil government to use it's force to impose YOUR church's dogma? Sorry, sweetie. It don't work that way. It's not a one-way street.
The government has enforced church "dogma" since so long ago, and it has worked until fairly recently. As we move further away from church, and as sick practices such as "gay marriage" are proposed, it only hastens the decline of society. Your mere presence here only serves to prove me correct. 100 years ago we did not have problems with serial killers and 'mental cases' being acquited and undergoing rehab and escaping from their crimes. Back when we followed religion, lazy people did not recieve welfare checks they were punished by society. Underage sex was not seen as 'cool' but as an offense. Pregnant teenagers are far too acceptable today to even make the possibility of fixing that problem a reality.

You need to see that religion mixed with the government, and in the government, religion in society only served the public good. There are more religions than Christianity, however under democracy, it is the majority that rules. The majority, therefore, equalling the above 50%, and thus the governing body. If that means religion is mixed with government, so be it. That means it's what the majority wants.

It's called democracy, and it's called the right track. Maybe you should get on it.

Everything, and I mean everything, was created by God. There is nothing but God. Everything comes from God, and is a part of God. As "sin" means to go against the will of God, God cannot "sin".

Each little part of God is only tributary to His glory, and thus falls short of "The Glory of God" that you speak of. Someday, we will all rejoin in Spirit and the full glory shall be experienced by the Whole.

So I'm NOT Hellbound, for being "an abomination unto God" as some would have me?

you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

Only the Sith think in absolutes. :D

Anyway, @Neo Rogolia, what about

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God‘s" I don’t think Jesus ever says he has claim over civil institutions, which is what marriage is in our society.

The institution of marriage in the US is mainly religious. Perhaps if they were to instate the practice of humanist marriages like that one couple had in England, then it would not be infringing upon what I perceive as my rights.
Mainly? Sure. However when I was married by a judge (who I told expicity not to make mention of God) married my current husband and I that was what... I mean do we have a marriage, civil union or a humanist marriage? To be honest I have no idea what you mean by a humanist marriage.

I mean, sincerely...and seriously...

WHY can't you Christians get it through your heads that other peoples views...other people's rights...and other people's happiness...are JUST AS IMPORTANT!!

Why should YOUR views...and YOUR beliefs...and YOUR happiness always trump everyone else's?


Well, in a religion that claims to be the Truth, wouldn't recognizing others as valid be a logical fallacy? Absolute Truth is exclusionary, and to regard homosexuality as acceptable would be to disregard the Truth. Anyways, I'm about to pass out so I'm going to bed.

So I'm NOT Hellbound, for being "an abomination unto God" as some would have me?

OF COURSE you're not, Hunny Bunny, and NEITHER AM I!! Bring on the go-go boys.

Mainly? Sure. However when I was married by a judge (who I told expicity not to make mention of God) married my current husband and I that was what... I mean do we have a marriage, civil union or a humanist marriage? To be honest I have no idea what you mean by a humanist marriage.


A humanist marriage is a relatively new thing, I just heard about it on the radio the other night. Basically, you base your marriage upon....well.....nothing, as you have no God. But it's still a form of marriage.

Well, in a religion that claims to be the Truth, wouldn't recognizing others as valid be a logical fallacy? Absolute Truth is exclusionary, and to regard homosexuality as acceptable would be to disregard the Truth.

You don’t have to recognize them as valid, just let others do what they want and give them the same rights you have. No one comes to the Lord by force anyway.

Ahh yes. This is true despite the fact that if it wasn't for >certain< religions you wouldn't even have the United States, which i'm assuming is the country we are talking about at the moment. Or perhaps we are talking European society in general, which was preserved by Charles Martel fighting for religous purposes in the first place? It doesn't matter. To say that religion has no place in civil law, the same civil law that would not exist in the first place were it for religion in numerous cases is completely uninformed.


Dogma? If you do not wish to be under the product of religion than you should move to the remote regions of the pacific where I believe the rest of your obvious misguided kind belong anyway.

Ahh, I love hearing from the "It's MY country and if YOU don't like it then YOU can leave" crowd. Well, buddy, I was BORN here, same as you, and it DAMN WELL IS my country, too...and this government is supposed to be representyative of ALL PEOPLE...not just the majority!

In FACT...the Constitution was supposed to PROTECT the minority against the tyranny of the majority!

For example, the Free Speech provisions of the First Amendment...by definition POPULAR SPEECH doesn't need protection. So why bother with this Amendment unless it was intended to protect UNPOPULAR SPEECH aka, the MINORITY VIEW??

The majority does NOT have carte-blancehe in this country...nor should it...to run roughshod over the rights and freedoms and liberties of the minorities.

The Founding Fathers, I believe, would agree with ME on this point.

You cannot subscribe to the faith, but if laws are made by the government as yet another product of religion, than you should submit to the will of the majority.

Not if those laws are inherently unfair. Not if they fail to represent the interests of minorities against being steamrolled by the majority. By your logic, the blacks shoulda sat down and shut up, they should have accepted slavery and Jim Crow. somehow, I don't suspect you'd have a real big problem with that, if slavery and Jim Crow still existed.

If we vote in officials who pass laws on religion, than you have no right to complain about it if decisions are made based on religion.

I beg to differ! First of all, it is one of my most BASIC rights, in this country...to complain. And two, it is against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution...to pass laws based on any specific religion. You might wanna whip out your handy pocket Constitutiona nd have a look-see sometime.

Dissent is the MOST CHERISHED right of any and ALL Americans. Incidentally, the First Amendment outlines five very specific rights:

1. Freedom of Speech (this INCLUDES unpopular speech)
2. Freedom of Press
3. Freedom of Religion (this also includes Freedom FROM Religion)
4. Right to peaceful assembly
5. Right to petition government for redress of grievances.

Now, if number 5 is not A DIRECT ENDORSEMENT OF MY RIGHT TO COMPLAIN....then I don't know what is!


It would appear the majority is against you if these officials are elected in the first place. Perhaps you fail to realize you are the minority, and as such, recieve less 'notice' than the majority under democracy.

Perhaps you are one of the ill-informed who believes this country is...or ever was intended to be...a democracy. Itr isn't...nor was it ever...nor was it intended to be. Try reading some of the original writings of the founding Fathers and you will discover that they viewed democracy as mob rule...and rightly feared this.
Thus, they gave us A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC...governed by THE RULE OF LAW...not always in accordance with the majority's desires.

The government has enforced church "dogma" since so long ago, and it has worked until fairly recently.

Has it, now? You really want to go there?
Stop me if I am wrong, but did not our Founding Fathers come here to escape religious dogma they did not agree with being forced upon them by THEIR governments? Were they not called PILGRIMS?? Did they not come here to be free of oppression from the RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENTS of their time?


As we move further away from church, and as sick practices such as "gay marriage" are proposed, it only hastens the decline of society. Your mere presence here only serves to prove me correct.

I take this as a personal offense! My MERE PRESENCE here? Do you mean on this board? In this country? On this planet?? MY MERE PRESENCE...is offensive to you? Well tough shit, buddy...there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR GUARANTEE to never be offended. So, if you're offended by MY MERE PRESENCE...I suggest you get over yourself.

I have cut the rest of your post in the interest of saving bandwidth, as it is more of the same spew and pabulum puking...to which I would have the same responses.

Azacar

You have an odd idea about history. We've had serial killers since time out of mind. Science makes them easier to find now. We have no evidence that God helps catch serial killers.

European society is largely the product of Roman invasion. Even the language we are all typing is largely Latin. 99% of the English vocabulary is not Germanic. Does this mean we should all celebrate the solstice?

As far as America goes our founders might very well have been religious but they recognized the importance of leaving us an out when it comes to religion. Owing to a lack of consensus about God even amongst themselves.

They also made an effort to protect us from the tyranny of the majority hence the Supreme Court.

Humanist marriages or civil unions - in places where they work - are queal to any other marriage in all respects under the law. The difference is it doesn't involve the blessing of the church. This can be because the happy couple are nausiated by the church or because the church refuses to marry people it claims will live in sin and burn in hell.

And this is where this discussion get's interesting. Because rabid as most people might find Neo Rogolia's veiws, she doesn't try to force them on any of us or take away our rights in any way. Her beef with homo & bi marriages is 2 fold as far as I can tell.
1: It must not be associated with the church (and I agree. homo's wanting church weddings really deserve to be kicked in the head for wanting the blessing of an institution that hates them)
2: It must not be called a marriage, because it demeans her faith's marriages (I couldn't give a toss. There's practical reasons for calling it marriage, but I suppose even institutions preaching prejudice should be heard).

If the above is indeed correct, there's no need to shout at her. Unlike the biggots in the whitehouse, Neo Rogolia's not the one stopping it from happening. Chances are she's getting keen on making it happen, just to shut up the lot of us. And if all this is correct, I really do apologise for shouting your head off earlier NR. I suppose you have as much right to your personal opinion as I do to mine. And if you're not standing in my way, I'd be a bastard to get in yours.

Well, in a religion that claims to be the Truth, wouldn't recognizing others as valid be a logical fallacy? Absolute Truth is exclusionary, and to regard homosexuality as acceptable would be to disregard the Truth. Anyways, I'm about to pass out so I'm going to bed.

Well, how about the fact that our religios views are diametrically opposed to one another...and we both claim Truth?

Why should YOUR "truth" trump MY "truth"?

What makes YOURS any better?

Especially when you use yours to hurt others?

You don’t have to recognize them as valid, just let others do what they want and give them the same rights you have. No one comes to the Lord by force anyway.

Exactly.

Ahh yes. This is true despite the fact that if it wasn't for >certain< religions you wouldn't even have the United States, which i'm assuming is the country we are talking about at the moment. Or perhaps we are talking European society in general, which was preserved by Charles Martel fighting for religous purposes in the first place? It doesn't matter. To say that religion has no place in civil law, the same civil law that would not exist in the first place were it for religion in numerous cases is completely uninformed.

If it weren't for a certain King wanting to divorce his wife there would be no Anglican Church. So really it is the king to blame for America existing, and Amerigo Vespucci.


Dogma? If you do not wish to be under the product of religion than you should move to the remote regions of the pacific where I believe the rest of your obvious misguided kind belong anyway. You cannot subscribe to the faith, but if laws are made by the government as yet another product of religion, than you should submit to the will of the majority. If we vote in officials who pass laws on religion, than you have no right to complain about it if decisions are made based on religion. It would appear the majority is against you if these officials are elected in the first place. Perhaps you fail to realize you are the minority, and as such, recieve less 'notice' than the majority under democracy.

Seperation of Church and state ring a bell? Also we aren't a democracy


The government has enforced church "dogma" since so long ago, and it has worked until fairly recently. As we move further away from church, and as sick practices such as "gay marriage" are proposed, it only hastens the decline of society. Your mere presence here only serves to prove me correct. 100 years ago we did not have problems with serial killers and 'mental cases' being acquited and undergoing rehab and escaping from their crimes. Back when we followed religion, lazy people did not recieve welfare checks they were punished by society. Underage sex was not seen as 'cool' but as an offense. Pregnant teenagers are far too acceptable today to even make the possibility of fixing that problem a reality.

You need to see that religion mixed with the government, and in the government, religion in society only served the public good. There are more religions than Christianity, however under democracy, it is the majority that rules. The majority, therefore, equalling the above 50%, and thus the governing body. If that means religion is mixed with government, so be it. That means it's what the majority wants.

It's called democracy, and it's called the right track. Maybe you should get on it.

Listen to that conservative nostalgia and bigotry! First off you have stated that since YOU find gay sex "sick" marriage shouldn't be allowed which therefore allows me to say that your continued existence is sick and so you should be terminated.

"Let you who is without sin cast the first stone"

A 100 or so years ago we didn't have minimum wag or child labor laws allowing for the exploitation of the working class. Who the Hell says that those who recieve welfare are lazy? How about those who are desperately searching for a job and just need a little help so their kids don't starve? Also Jesus told the rich that in order to follow him they had to give everything the owned away, meaning the had to become POOR!

Underage sex? Sexual activity goes in cycles and around a hundred years ago many couples were in the practice of "bedding", or something like that, which was where they spent the night in the same bed. Also even farther back are numerous occasions of girls being married off at 14-16, so don't give me that "no underage sex", "No pregnant teens" bullshit.

First off, Seperation of Church and Stae. Secondly, public good? You mean like how the KKK used the scripture to justify their activities, or how about the Spanish Inquisition, or maybe the Crusades, or the Salem Witch Trials(though these were more based on economic issues than anything else religion still was the how the people came to be burned).

Again, we aren't a democracy we are a Republic, as the 2000 election proved. Secondly, the majority isn't always right. Remember how there was a majority of white people for quite some time, were they right to oppress the blacks? NO!

If that's what your "right track" is then I can't even begin to contemplate the "wrong track".

Oh how Gay.... :fluffle:

I'll look back later to see if Azacar has HAD THE GUTS to argue my points, and back up his own ill-informed ideas.

Or better yet...if he has had the guts to admit I'm right and he's wrong. At least as far as our history and constitution are concerned, anyway.

I don't expect to change his opinion. his mind's obviously already made up.

But I'd sure like to see him have the guts to admit he is very misinformed about American history, the constitution, and the structure of our Governemnt.

Incidentally, I happen to have majored in Constitutional Law in college...with a 4.0 GPA. So I know what I'm talking about.

Ahh yes. This is true despite the fact that if it wasn't for >certain< religions you wouldn't even have the United States, which i'm assuming is the country we are talking about at the moment.


Oh god please don't tell me your going to talk about the myth of the pilgrims.


Or perhaps we are talking European society in general, which was preserved by Charles Martel fighting for religous purposes in the first place? It doesn't matter. To say that religion has no place in civil law, the same civil law that would not exist in the first place were it for religion in numerous cases is completely uninformed.

Well the Laws of Hamurabi are a tad older then Christianity.


Dogma? If you do not wish to be under the product of religion than you should move to the remote regions of the pacific where I believe the rest of your obvious misguided kind belong anyway. You cannot subscribe to the faith, but if laws are made by the government as yet another product of religion, than you should submit to the will of the majority. If we vote in officials who pass laws on religion, than you have no right to complain about it if decisions are made based on religion. It would appear the majority is against you if these officials are elected in the first place. Perhaps you fail to realize you are the minority, and as such, recieve less 'notice' than the majority under democracy.


Hmmm are you suggesting the US is a democracy?


The government has enforced church "dogma" since so long ago,

No we haven't.


and it has worked until fairly recently. As we move further away from church, and as sick practices such as "gay marriage" are proposed, it only hastens the decline of society. Your mere presence here only serves to prove me correct. 100 years ago we did not have problems with serial killers and 'mental cases' being acquited and undergoing rehab and escaping from their crimes. Back when we followed religion, lazy people did not recieve welfare checks they were punished by society. Underage sex was not seen as 'cool' but as an offense. Pregnant teenagers are far too acceptable today to even make the possibility of fixing that problem a reality.

Oh yea and let's talk about the slavery that good christians said was ok. How about the genocide of this lands natives which many good christians thought was gods work.

Looking at your arguements, you seem rather ignorant about things. Care to give more detail as to disprove my theory?


You need to see that religion mixed with the government, and in the government, religion in society only served the public good.



The religious wars of Europe have disproved that. Not to mention the Crusades and the inquistion.


There are more religions than Christianity, however under democracy, it is the majority that rules. The majority, therefore, equalling the above 50%, and thus the governing body. If that means religion is mixed with government, so be it. That means it's what the majority wants.

Somebody slept through civics class. Our system of law has protections against majority.


It's called democracy, and it's called the right track. Maybe you should get on it.

Ahh so you do think the US is only a democracy.......

If it weren't for a certain King wanting to divorce his wife there would be no Anglican Church. So really it is the king to blame for America existing, and Amerigo Vespucci.




Seperation of Church and state ring a bell? Also we aren't a democracy




Listen to that conservative nostalgia and bigotry! First off you have stated that since YOU find gay sex "sick" marriage shouldn't be allowed which therefore allows me to say that your continued existence is sick and so you should be terminated.

"Let you who is without sin cast the first stone"

A 100 or so years ago we didn't have minimum wag or child labor laws allowing for the exploitation of the working class. Who the Hell says that those who recieve welfare are lazy? How about those who are desperately searching for a job and just need a little help so their kids don't starve? Also Jesus told the rich that in order to follow him they had to give everything the owned away, meaning the had to become POOR!

Underage sex? Sexual activity goes in cycles and around a hundred years ago many couples were in the practice of "bedding", or something like that, which was where they spent the night in the same bed. Also even farther back are numerous occasions of girls being married off at 14-16, so don't give me that "no underage sex", "No pregnant teens" bullshit.

First off, Seperation of Church and Stae. Secondly, public good? You mean like how the KKK used the scripture to justify their activities, or how about the Spanish Inquisition, or maybe the Crusades, or the Salem Witch Trials(though these were more based on economic issues than anything else religion still was the how the people came to be burned).

Again, we aren't a democracy we are a Republic, as the 2000 election proved. Secondly, the majority isn't always right. Remember how there was a majority of white people for quite some time, were they right to oppress the blacks? NO!

If that's what your "right track" is then I can't even begin to contemplate the "wrong track".


Hmm...unless I'm mistaken...my view of our History...Constitution...and Governmental structure...has gotten some unsolicited independent validation from another person.

Azacar

As far as America goes our founders might very well have been religious but they recognized the importance of leaving us an out when it comes to religion. Owing to a lack of consensus about God even amongst themselves.



The truth is, a large number of the Founders weren't very religious as most were either deist or agnostic. You know what's funny? Conservatives sometimes claim that liberals are an "intellectual aristocracy" who aren't "in-touch" with the "common man". Wann know who the Founders were? Highly educated and rich men! They in fact wanted to keep the power out of the common man's hands by having him choose among a number of the educated, or shall we say elect one, to get together with a bunch of the highly educated and make up laws that affected the "common man".

Oh god please don't tell me your going to talk about the myth of the pilgrims.


Well the Laws of Hamurabi are a tad older then Christianity.



Hmmm are you suggesting the US is a democracy?


No we haven't.


Oh yea and let's talk about the slavery that good christians said was ok. How about the genocide of this lands natives which many good christians thought was gods work.

Looking at your arguements, you seem rather ignorant about things. Care to give more detail as to disprove my theory?



The religious wars of Europe have disproved that. Not to mention the Crusades and the inquistion.


Somebody slept through civics class. Our system of law has protections against majority.



Ahh so you do think the US is only a democracy.......


DANG!!
More unsolicited, independent validation of my views...Well, it's looking bleak for ya, Azacar!!

Oh, I really don't mind civil unions with equal rights. I just feel that the government recognizing as legitimate the institution of gay marriage would be a slap in the face of God.
Let them slap the imaginary god ... if he is real he will judge not you
if he is not you have done nothing but harm others in the name of a truth you cant prove

Well, in a religion that claims to be the Truth, wouldn't recognizing others as valid be a logical fallacy? Absolute Truth is exclusionary, and to regard homosexuality as acceptable would be to disregard the Truth. Anyways, I'm about to pass out so I'm going to bed.
Oh really? and I am sure others claim the same thing

Amazing thing about freedom ... you are alowed to act on your believed truth as are others

First off, Azacar's post was my own... i'm logging in from a different cpu and it auto-logged in on another account. Keep me accountable for that post, Azacar is just a friend of mine. Now then... where to start...

Ahh, I love hearing from the "It's MY country and if YOU don't like it then YOU can leave" crowd. Well, buddy, I was BORN here, same as you, and it DAMN WELL IS my country, too...and this government is supposed to be representyative of ALL PEOPLE...not just the majority!

In FACT...the Constitution was supposed to PROTECT the minority against the tyranny of the majority!

...and yet, for obvious reasons, the electorial system is set up such that the majority decides what is best for everybody. We protect your 'rights' as a minority by simply letting you exist here. That should be enough, and if it isn't, move. Do us all a favor. You love hearing from 'us' so much, i'll repeat myself in this area more often than you can possibly imagine.

For example, the Free Speech provisions of the First Amendment...by definition POPULAR SPEECH doesn't need protection. So why bother with this Amendment unless it was intended to protect UNPOPULAR SPEECH aka, the MINORITY VIEW??

The majority does NOT have carte-blancehe in this country...nor should it...to run roughshod over the rights and freedoms and liberties of the minorities.

The Founding Fathers, I believe, would agree with ME on this point.

Perhaps saying you didn't have the 'right' was a little extreme. What I mean is you SHOULDN'T have the right. You have all the rights and freedoms you or any other minority DESERVE, however to deny the very basis on what the entire election process, and the entire government in my opinion and the opinion of the intelligent, stands for by saying that even if not ELECTED the minority should hold some sort of political power is an insult to the country and democracy in general.

Not if those laws are inherently unfair. Not if they fail to represent the interests of minorities against being steamrolled by the majority. By your logic, the blacks shoulda sat down and shut up, they should have accepted slavery and Jim Crow. somehow, I don't suspect you'd have a real big problem with that, if slavery and Jim Crow still existed.

Wrong. If they INFRINGE on your 'minority' rights then you have right to come complaining to the ones elected, the majority (that's us, not you), not if they fail to represent your interests. Your comment on slavery is not applicable to the topic at hand and is apparently just some attempot to deface my character and my beliefs to get more sympathizers to your cause, so I will disregard it.

Perhaps you are one of the ill-informed who believes this country is...or ever was intended to be...a democracy. Itr isn't...nor was it ever...nor was it intended to be. Try reading some of the original writings of the founding Fathers and you will discover that they viewed democracy as mob rule...and rightly feared this.
Thus, they gave us A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC...governed by THE RULE OF LAW...not always in accordance with the majority's desires.

And yet our electorial system would complete go against all of this. Interesting. Maybe you should remind yourself of how this country works, and not the rough writings of some of the founding fathers. Rough draft and finished product, would be applicable comparisons here.

Has it, now? You really want to go there?
Stop me if I am wrong, but did not our Founding Fathers come here to escape religious dogma they did not agree with being forced upon them by THEIR governments? Were they not called PILGRIMS?? Did they not come here to be free of oppression from the RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENTS of their time?

Congrats! You DO know something true, however again, interpreted all wrong... and as such completely wrong. I take back my congratulations. To be free of oppression. Mind telling us what oppression? Oh right right... RELIGIOUS oppression. Now that's odd, I think that disproves that entire pathetic paragraph. So sorry.

I take this as a personal offense! My MERE PRESENCE here? Do you mean on this board? In this country? On this planet?? MY MERE PRESENCE...is offensive to you? Well tough shit, buddy...there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR GUARANTEE to never be offended. So, if you're offended by MY MERE PRESENCE...I suggest you get over yourself.

The majority is offended by the minority. Big surprise... a shame that too many bleeding hearts enjoy your company or I assure you there would be more people like myself giving it to you straight. You are offensive. Your beliefs are offensive. Your interpretations of this great country are offensive, your leaders or poor excuses for them are offensive, and almost more than all of it, "gay marriage" is offensive. To take a religious union of people and ... destroy the very principles of it by doing something completely against religion with it is OFFENSIVE, and so are ALL who agree with it. By merely suggesting gay marriage should be accepted, you are offending myself and my religion, and because I am the majority, the idea of gay marriage should never be accepted.

I have cut the rest of your post in the interest of saving bandwidth, as it is more of the same spew and pabulum puking...to which I would have the same responses.

Ahh, I love hearing from the "I really don't have any other responses so i'll make myself look childish" group. Well BUDDY you are more wrong than apparently you would like to admit to, and for that, you have my pity.

The truth is, a large number of the Founders weren't very religious as most were either deist or agnostic. You know what's funny? Conservatives sometimes claim that liberals are an "intellectual aristocracy" who aren't "in-touch" with the "common man". Wann know who the Founders were? Highly educated and rich men! They in fact wanted to keep the power out of the common man's hands by having him choose among a number of the educated, or shall we say elect one, to get together with a bunch of the highly educated and make up laws that affected the "common man".
While I can believe that of the Founders, there are many arguments to show that they were religious. I haven't figured out who I believe yet. Either way I disagreed with most of them on many points but, I think that the constitution is great. So what they believed in their heart os hearts is fine. Also when arguing with believers I prefer not to get side tracked about this matter, when I can make my point without questioning who believed what.

Other things that have been validated by The Bible...or by "Christian Values and Beliefs"

1. Slavery
2. The Crusades
3. The Inquisition
4. The Salem Witch Trials (in which many innocent people were killed)
5. Segregation of Schools.
6. Preventing inter-racial marriage
7. Oppressing GLBT people...and denying them their basic human rights civil rights, and human dignity.

Your bloody history, Christians.
Choke on it.

It's all yours.

I dont profess to be Christian, but if it wasnt Chistianity it would have some other religion, and as I seem to remember the greatest cultural revolutions on this planet came out of Christian Europe, The enlightement, the Renaissance, etc. It was almost Islamic Europe but thank god because that wonderful arabic culture collapsed under the inflexibility of their new found religion and festered into its present pitiful state.

1.Only gay slaves I ever heard of chose to be ;)
2.San Francisco has not been sacked, yet.
3.Nobody inquires as to yous personal life, you force it down their throat.
4.No crispy gays on a stick that I can recall.
5.Well, you can go to any schools you want
6.I seem to remember those Catholics all over Latin America who regularly married anyone of any race, in Cathederals. Hell my great grandmother was Comanche indian and married my White great grandfather in a Baptist curch, In Texas! And Dr. Martin Luther King who was a protestant minister and marched with Christians of all races and denominations.
7.What basic Human Rights of yours have been violated?!? You are not enslaved, seiged, persecuted, segregated, or oppressed. Your human dignity is up to you! So just chill out and go make a church and perform your own little white weddings, all the while respectfully petitioning your representitive government to recognize your vows, but by attacking a majority of Americans and their religous beliefs you aint gonna get shit!

but by attacking a majority of Americans and their religous beliefs you aint gonna get shit!
Your right we will get the unthinking kneejeark reaction we are used to seeing out of them

Why are all the new posters atheist/agnostic/liberal/opposite-of-me? You think I would be given a break for once with someone who actually agreed with me :(

Your hard-line "my version of Christianity is the only possible one because I am infallible," kind of gets you in trouble.

Even those of us who are Christians can't agree with that.

But some of us recognize that freedom even at the cost of things not lining up to my moral code are WAY better then religon dictating government rules

...or government dictating religion. =)

...or government dictating religion. =)
Exactly government has no right telling what people should believe or practice (baring harm to others)

WHY can't you Christians get it through your heads that other peoples views...other people's rights...and other people's happiness...are JUST AS IMPORTANT!!

Why can't people like you get it through your heads that painting all Christians with the same bigot brush like that is just as bad as when fundies paint all homosexuals with the same brush?

Your bigotry is no better than anyone elses, darling.

The institution of marriage in the US is mainly religious. Perhaps if they were to instate the practice of humanist marriages like that one couple had in England, then it would not be infringing upon what I perceive as my rights.

Incorrect.

There are two separate institutions of marriage in the US - the religious and the civil. Many, many people get the civil without the religious. And the civil is all that is being fought for here.

Incidentally, many religious groups will perform gay marriages of their own accord. And, as that is their belief, it is their right to do so.

Segregated & oppressed... Key words mate. One leading to the other. By refusing a minority the legal standing you freely give the majority you are praticing segregation.
By refusing to change the system you are oppressing the minority.

And that's really all there is to it. The religious outrage is completely misplaced. No homo or bi in his/her right mind would ever set fot in a christian church or ask for it's blessing. The laws governing marriage are there for pratical reasons. They have nothing to do with the sanctity or holyness of the union of man and wife. If there were no marriage laws, there'd be no issue. America is a somewhat free country. The citizens can freely decide they're in some sort of union, holy to themselves, a god or whatever they can come up with. Only doing so grants none of the benefits of a government sanctioned marriage. If they did, there'd be no issue.

This whole Gay Marriage thing isn't about church weddings or some inane god or other. It's about equal rights. If you believe all Americans are equal under the law then you cannot be against this. Sure, maybe you want it to be called something other than marriage because you feel the use of the word infringes on some religious institution. It's fine. Come up with a better term for it, but make sure people get equality under the law.

God/Allah/Whatever doesn't have anything to do with this what so ever. Get over yourself for a moment. Treat people like your equals.

Well, in a religion that claims to be the Truth, wouldn't recognizing others as valid be a logical fallacy? Absolute Truth is exclusionary, and to regard homosexuality as acceptable would be to disregard the Truth. Anyways, I'm about to pass out so I'm going to bed.

In a religion that claims that human beigns are fallible, wouldn't suggesting that you yourself have the absolute Truth be hypocritical?

Meanwhile, you are still being incredibly arrogant by claiming that your personal version of religion is absolutely right. According to the guidance I have received from God, homosexuality is a fact of life for many people - and is acceptable. You believe you have received different guidance. What exactly makes you so arrogant as to believe you are infallible?

...and yet, for obvious reasons, the electorial system is set up such that the majority decides what is best for everybody. We protect your 'rights' as a minority by simply letting you exist here. That should be enough, and if it isn't, move. Do us all a favor. You love hearing from 'us' so much, i'll repeat myself in this area more often than you can possibly imagine.


Perhaps saying you didn't have the 'right' was a little extreme. What I mean is you SHOULDN'T have the right. You have all the rights and freedoms you or any other minority DESERVE, however to deny the very basis on what the entire election process, and the entire government in my opinion and the opinion of the intelligent, stands for by saying that even if not ELECTED the minority should hold some sort of political power is an insult to the country and democracy in general.


And yet our electorial system would complete go against all of this. Interesting. Maybe you should remind yourself of how this country works, and not the rough writings of some of the founding fathers. Rough draft and finished product, would be applicable comparisons here.


The majority is offended by the minority. Big surprise... a shame that too many bleeding hearts enjoy your company or I assure you there would be more people like myself giving it to you straight. You are offensive. Your beliefs are offensive. Your interpretations of this great country are offensive, your leaders or poor excuses for them are offensive, and almost more than all of it, "gay marriage" is offensive. To take a religious union of people and ... destroy the very principles of it by doing something completely against religion with it is OFFENSIVE, and so are ALL who agree with it. By merely suggesting gay marriage should be accepted, you are offending myself and my religion, and because I am the majority, the idea of gay marriage should never be accepted.


You demonstrate your ignorance! A Democracy would mean a vote by EVERY citizen on EVERY new law, tax, progra, or other expenditure. Whereas we elect representatives to decide for us! The Electoral system shows us proof of this when Bush won te election of 2000 while having fewer actual votes! so according to you Gore should have been in office from 2001-2005.

"...They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"

You are infringing on homosexuals rights.

Also, you mean that religious union with a 50% withdrawal rate? Also: Seperation of Church and State

1. "Being homosexual does not equate being gay" Did you read that part?

snip

I was trying to convey my reservations for gays, and not all homosexuals.

It seems to me that perhaps there's misinterpretation going on here? Gay and homosexual DO mean the same thing, at least if you're talking about a guy. Perhaps by "gay" Ouachitasas means an effiminate man? Meaning he's descriminating against femme-gays, but not all gay men? *shrugs* Any descrimination is bad, but I was just wondering if that's what he meant?

If that's the case, he's not exactly "stereotyping" all gays...he's just pointing out that he doesn't like the kind of gay man who pretenses to have all the stereotypical qualities (lisps, effiminate walk, being pissy to straights, etc) *shrug* It'd be like me saying I hate those really macho men that have something to prove...I"m not hating on all men...just that type.

I just figured maybe Ouachitasas deserved someone on his side... *shrug* He seems like he's trying to be reasonable and you're all jumping down his throat, accusing him of things. Try to listen, alright people? Yes: He is a little prejudice against a certain type of homosexual man. This does not mean he is intolerant of all gay men, alright? And yes, it's quite clear he likes lesbians -.-

I have some questions for those opposed to gay marriage:

1) Regardless of your personal feelings, do you oppose gays being allowed to get legally married (as in the eyes of the law, not God)?

2) If you answered yes, is your religion the basis for your stance?

If the answer to question #'s 1 & 2 were yes, please answer these:

3) I am not a religious person, and my boyfriend is an athiest. When we get married, we do not plan to do so in a church, and we will not be married in the eyes of your God. Do you feel comfortable with me telling people that we're "married?" (I'm a girl, by the way.)

4) Please dispute the fact that marriage existed before Christianity. I have yet to see this done.

5) Your church will never be forced to marry couples it doesn't want to, thanks to the freedom of religion. Keeping that in mind, please tell me how you will be affected by gay couples enjoying legal rights that come with a legally recognized marriage. And use specifics.

I am not going to try to tear apart anybody's religious beliefs; if you want to think that being gay is wrong, fine. But I want legitimate reasons as to why your beliefs should be projected onto people who don't share them, and even worse, why those same people should suffer from it.

Segregated & oppressed... Key words mate. One leading to the other. By refusing a minority the legal standing you freely give the majority you are praticing segregation.
By refusing to change the system you are oppressing the minority.

And that's really all there is to it. The religious outrage is completely misplaced. No homo or bi in his/her right mind would ever set fot in a christian church or ask for it's blessing. The laws governing marriage are there for pratical reasons. They have nothing to do with the sanctity or holyness of the union of man and wife. If there were no marriage laws, there'd be no issue. America is a somewhat free country. The citizens can freely decide they're in some sort of union, holy to themselves, a god or whatever they can come up with. Only doing so grants none of the benefits of a government sanctioned marriage. If they did, there'd be no issue.

This whole Gay Marriage thing isn't about church weddings or some inane god or other. It's about equal rights. If you believe all Americans are equal under the law then you cannot be against this. Sure, maybe you want it to be called something other than marriage because you feel the use of the word infringes on some religious institution. It's fine. Come up with a better term for it, but make sure people get equality under the law.

God/Allah/Whatever doesn't have anything to do with this what so ever. Get over yourself for a moment. Treat people like your equals.

Than the term "marriage" shouldn't be used. It is not a marriage to any degree, for the same reason a man wouldn't walk into a woman's bathroom, a homosexual should not be allowed to ... leech off of the practices of a religion that many of them don't follow. AND even IF they follow it than they should accept the views of the church, AND government, and just shut up.

God has everything to do with marriage, and the misguided people that can't see that are the reason we have this pathetic arguement in the first place. If they want to be gay, do it behind closed doors, behind their families, away from all of us. The way it was, the way it should be.

God has everything to do with marriage, and the misguided people that can't see that are the reason we have this pathetic arguement in the first place. If they want to be gay, do it behind closed doors, behind their families, away from all of us. The way it was, the way it should be.
You heterosexuals first ... if I have a BF everyime I see a girl and boy kiss eachother I am going to give him a kiss
Just for you :)

You demonstrate your ignorance! A Democracy would mean a vote by EVERY citizen on EVERY new law, tax, progra, or other expenditure. Whereas we elect representatives to decide for us! The Electoral system shows us proof of this when Bush won te election of 2000 while having fewer actual votes! so according to you Gore should have been in office from 2001-2005.

"...They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"

You are infringing on homosexuals rights.

Also, you mean that religious union with a 50% withdrawal rate? Also: Seperation of Church and State
You're starting to bother me. Bush WON the popular vote the second time around so it's not as though I am not the majority now, and you must realize this. What year is it? 2005? I believe a statistic from 2004 is much more relevant than your own.

"Homosexuals" are infringing on my right to pursue happiness when the peace of my religion, and the dignity of my god are ... ruined with this insult. Things (crime rate, and overall happiness of people) were much better one hundred years ago when the church and state were much more close together.

Maybe you should think on that for a little while, and tell me what you make of it. With religion in our everyday lives, we had a much more peaceful atmosphere. When homosexuality was frowned upon, we didn't have morons lobbying for rights for them. You need to see the trend here. The farther the government gets away from the church, the more twisted our society, our legal system, and everything about us gets.

I just figured maybe Ouachitasas deserved someone on his side... *shrug* He seems like he's trying to be reasonable and you're all jumping down his throat, accusing him of things. Try to listen, alright people? Yes: He is a little prejudice against a certain type of homosexual man. This does not mean he is intolerant of all gay men, alright? And yes, it's quite clear he likes lesbians -.-
I realized that tonight. Around the same time I realized the same thing about Neo Rogolia. I tried to apologize for my outbursts against both of you earlier, but here's another one in case you missed it.

But both of you really do write some horrendously provoking things from time to time. Please consider how vast amounts of shit some of us have put up with over the years when you look at the responses you get. I've had a tough time figuring out you weren't just taking a piss on homo's & bi's.

Than the term "marriage" shouldn't be used. It is not a marriage to any degree, for the same reason a man wouldn't walk into a woman's bathroom, a homosexual should not be allowed to ... leech off of the practices of a religion that many of them don't follow. AND even IF they follow it than they should accept the views of the church, AND government, and just shut up.

Who gave your personal religion monopoly on the word marriage?

Even if we completely ignore the civil institution of marriage, which is totally and completely separate from any religious view of marriage, why does your particular faith get a monopoly? Meanwhile, there are many faiths who have no problem at all marrying gay couples - some of them even Christian *gasp!* So how exactly is that "leeching"? They are active members in their church, just as anyone in any other church is.

God has everything to do with marriage, and the misguided people that can't see that are the reason we have this pathetic arguement in the first place. If they want to be gay, do it behind closed doors, behind their families, away from all of us. The way it was, the way it should be.

Wow, bigotry is fun, eh?

I think bigots should have to hold all of their ceremonies behind closed doors. That's the way the KKK did it - or at least out in a field in secret. The bigots should have stuck to doing it that way - the way it was, the way it should be.

"Homosexuals" are infringing on my right to pursue happiness when the peace of my religion, and the dignity of my god are ... ruined with this insult. Things (crime rate, and overall happiness of people) were much better one hundred years ago when the church and state were much more close together.

Proof?

You're starting to bother me. Bush WON the popular vote the second time around so it's not as though I am not the majority now, and you must realize this. What year is it? 2005? I believe a statistic from 2004 is much more relevant than your own.

What does whether or not you are in the majority have to do with the price of eggs in China? It doesn't change the fact that we don't live in a democracy, but in a representative republic controlled by a Constitution.

"Homosexuals" are infringing on my right to pursue happiness when the peace of my religion, and the dignity of my god are ... ruined with this insult. Things (crime rate, and overall happiness of people) were much better one hundred years ago when the church and state were much more close together.

Bullshit on all counts.

First of all, you are in no way harmed - and neither is your church - by a decision that doesn't affect your church in any way. It isn't as if anyone is going to force you or your church to recognize gay marriages. Thus, you can go on believing whatever you want - with no change at all.

Second of all, neither the crime rate nor the overall happiness where any better 100 years ago. In fact, the poverty rate was huge and most people were struggling just to eat. Crime was rampant - but often not prosecuted, because there was no one to enforce it. Seriously, study a little history.

With religion in our everyday lives, we had a much more peaceful atmosphere.

Many of us still have religion in our everyday lives. What you are really bothered by is that we don't all believe in your personal religion. Tough.

When homosexuality was frowned upon, we didn't have morons lobbying for rights for them.

When being black was frowned upon, we didn't have 'morons' lobbying for rights for them.

I have some questions for those opposed to gay marriage:

1) Regardless of your personal feelings, do you oppose gays being allowed to get legally married (as in the eyes of the law, not God)?

Yes

2) If you answered yes, is your religion the basis for your stance?

Yes

If the answer to question #'s 1 & 2 were yes, please answer these:

3) I am not a religious person, and my boyfriend is an athiest. When we get married, we do not plan to do so in a church, and we will not be married in the eyes of your God. Do you feel comfortable with me telling people that we're "married?" (I'm a girl, by the way.)

No

4) Please dispute the fact that marriage existed before Christianity. I have yet to see this done.

Alright, I will. It was still a religious ceremony, not necessarily christian, but religious. The term 'marriage' comes from Old French, and has christian background to it. That's all.

5) Your church will never be forced to marry couples it doesn't want to, thanks to the freedom of religion. Keeping that in mind, please tell me how you will be affected by gay couples enjoying legal rights that come with a legally recognized marriage. And use specifics.

I've dealt with this in other posts. The insult that it presents using a christian word and the fact that something so much against the majority can be legally EQUAL is against my own religion. It is insulting. There need to be certain lines that we cannot cross, or soon there will cases saying sane and people legally insane are completely equal, and suddenly crimes will be gotten away with all across the country. There need to be limits.

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Really???
You were there?!?
SO KEWL!!!
What does god look like?

Luke 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.

Which is Lukes spin on the gospel; nice way to pick 'n choose; kinda like how the bible was constructed; throw out the politically sensitive stuff, and keep the not-so-controversial books.

Nice attempt, try again.

Jesus wanted HIS words to be spread NOT Jesus's plus Pauls opinion.

Proof?
Go read a text book. Didn't hear much about twisted serial killers dismembering children back then, did you? If and when there was an incident, it was the talk of the country. Nowadays, sick things happen like that all the time but we can't do anything about it "legally" because people would come crying complaining we are infringing on rights.

No no. Jesus acknowledges the fact that some people are slaves and some people are masters. His followers included slaveowners and landowevers He wasn't against rich people.

Interesting, and the main focal phrase from Acts is:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

Hmm, sounds rather socialist/communist; the idea of eat working for the benefit of each other, and only taking what we need from the collective pool of resources.

Go read a text book. Didn't hear much about twisted serial killers dismembering children back then, did you? If and when there was an incident, it was the talk of the country. Nowadays, sick things happen like that all the time but we can't do anything about it "legally" because people would come crying complaining we are infringing on rights.
I asked for proof not "go read something"
Congrats you responded about how I expected ... now care to give some proof?

Yet Leviticus is still present, in full, in the New Testament (that is, books which bear the title 'New Testament' on the cover). Are you picking and choosing which bits of the Bible you like and which you don't? Tsk tsk. Perhaps you could show me a Bible where the true bits are highlighted, yes?

IIRC, the Leviticus is an all or nothing affair; progressive Jews have rejected a number from Leviticus, and depending on how conservative of progressive, it depends on what parts of Leviticus are taken seriously.

Leviticus isn't relevant today, and the only parts that deal with homosexuality is temple prostitution when Paul reports back; there are no paragraps dealing with what there is today; one on one same sex relationships.

What does god look like?
My friend just answered my question for me. He looks like Oprah.
Trust me, my boy knows about these things.

What does whether or not you are in the majority have to do with the price of eggs in China? It doesn't change the fact that we don't live in a democracy, but in a representative republic controlled by a Constitution.

Second of all, neither the crime rate nor the overall happiness where any better 100 years ago. In fact, the poverty rate was huge and most people were struggling just to eat. Crime was rampant - but often not prosecuted, because there was no one to enforce it. Seriously, study a little history.

Majority means that decisions affect my group more than any of you, and in so, we should be considered above all of you. Ever hear of the French Revolution? The estates general was messed up because two minorities had just as much rights as the majority, until the majority was sick of it and decided they'd just put an end to it. It's a shame we don't do the same to you... people, but alas, we are above that barbarism.

Secondly, dealing with economy has given us many benefits, however i'm referring to the SOCIAL issues, if you understand me correctly... which apparently you either don't want to or simply are unable to.

[QUOTE=Eskertania]

"Homosexuals" are infringing on my right to pursue happiness when the peace of my religion, and the dignity of my god are ... ruined with this insult. Things (crime rate, and overall happiness of people) were much better one hundred years ago when the church and state were much more close together.

QUOTE]
Before I go to bed I wanted to tell you that you are a twit. Even if I'm deleted for flaming it will be worth it to call you an idiot. The only people better off 100 yrs ago were christian white men (don't get me wrong I love white men, alot of them are great) every one else was pretty screwed. And it's just plain crap that anyone demanding the right to express love is infringing on you're right to pursue happiness. It's been stated many times you have no right to an unoffended life. At best you are a pansy, and a bigot. You and you're religion are not above insult especially when equal treatment is deemed offencive to you. I'm reminded of a lake of fire, I hope you get to see it.

There need to be certain lines that we cannot cross, or soon there will cases saying sane and people legally insane are completely equal, and suddenly crimes will be gotten away with all across the country. There need to be limits.

OMFG! The criminally insane will run free if gay marriage is legalized! Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!

First off, Azacar's post was my own... i'm logging in from a different cpu and it auto-logged in on another account. Keep me accountable for that post, Azacar is just a friend of mine. Now then... where to start...



...and yet, for obvious reasons, the electorial system is set up such that the majority decides what is best for everybody. We protect your 'rights' as a minority by simply letting you exist here. That should be enough, and if it isn't, move. Do us all a favor. You love hearing from 'us' so much, i'll repeat myself in this area more often than you can possibly imagine.



Perhaps saying you didn't have the 'right' was a little extreme. What I mean is you SHOULDN'T have the right. You have all the rights and freedoms you or any other minority DESERVE, however to deny the very basis on what the entire election process, and the entire government in my opinion and the opinion of the intelligent, stands for by saying that even if not ELECTED the minority should hold some sort of political power is an insult to the country and democracy in general.



Wrong. If they INFRINGE on your 'minority' rights then you have right to come complaining to the ones elected, the majority (that's us, not you), not if they fail to represent your interests. Your comment on slavery is not applicable to the topic at hand and is apparently just some attempot to deface my character and my beliefs to get more sympathizers to your cause, so I will disregard it.



And yet our electorial system would complete go against all of this. Interesting. Maybe you should remind yourself of how this country works, and not the rough writings of some of the founding fathers. Rough draft and finished product, would be applicable comparisons here.



Congrats! You DO know something true, however again, interpreted all wrong... and as such completely wrong. I take back my congratulations. To be free of oppression. Mind telling us what oppression? Oh right right... RELIGIOUS oppression. Now that's odd, I think that disproves that entire pathetic paragraph. So sorry.



The majority is offended by the minority. Big surprise... a shame that too many bleeding hearts enjoy your company or I assure you there would be more people like myself giving it to you straight. You are offensive. Your beliefs are offensive. Your interpretations of this great country are offensive, your leaders or poor excuses for them are offensive, and almost more than all of it, "gay marriage" is offensive. To take a religious union of people and ... destroy the very principles of it by doing something completely against religion with it is OFFENSIVE, and so are ALL who agree with it. By merely suggesting gay marriage should be accepted, you are offending myself and my religion, and because I am the majority, the idea of gay marriage should never be accepted.



Ahh, I love hearing from the "I really don't have any other responses so i'll make myself look childish" group. Well BUDDY you are more wrong than apparently you would like to admit to, and for that, you have my pity.

You have just proceeded to prove everything I set out to prove about you. no further comment is necessary.

You have expposed yourself as being the self-centerted racist, homophobic bigot that you are.

Thank you.

I love it when I can get people to admit it.

I asked for proof not "go read something"
Congrats you responded about how I expected ... now care to give some proof?
Congrats you responded about how I expected as well, by simply repeating yourself despite the fact you realize that there is no "proof" that I could give you directly. What, do you want me to send you newspapers from across the country, in every city, on every day 100 years ago to prove that there was no dismemberment? There is no basic proof I can give you of what DIDN'T occur, unless you want simple proof that it goes on today, which I would LOVE to give you.

Majority means that decisions affect my group more than any of you, and in so, we should be considered above all of you. Ever hear of the French Revolution? The estates general was messed up because two minorities had just as much rights as the majority, until the majority was sick of it and decided they'd just put an end to it. It's a shame we don't do the same to you... people, but alas, we are above that barbarism.

Secondly, dealing with economy has given us many benefits, however i'm referring to the SOCIAL issues, if you understand me correctly... which apparently you either don't want to or simply are unable to.
psst with all this personal you ... she is a strait (I believe) christian


And you apparently either dont want or simpily unable to understand the tie between economic situation and crime

OMFG! The criminally insane will run free if gay marriage is legalized! Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!
Sarcasm... amusing. If you truly didn't understand my point, than you weren't worthy of reading it in the first place.

despite the fact you realize that there is no "proof" that I could give you directly
Exactly ... so you have recognized you made a claim that you could not back up

As such I can hardly consider it with any sort of weight

Actually that was one of my earlier posts in this thread to see how people reacted and I do admit that it was rather juvenile, but it does'nt summ up how I really feel. I was just poking at you, and I apologise. Though, it did get responses and predictably all I heard were the same party line commentaries in response.
I dont have anything against homosexuals, I just dont care for gays, and there is a difference. Homosexuals dont have to act gay, that is a chioce. Who you have sex with should'nt have anything to do with how you conduct yourself in society. Yeah, gay rallies with half nude men playing grab ass in public is real mature. Saying "I fucking hate all christians because they dont agree with me" is real mature, I have never profesed to be christian nor have I used the bible to make a point. I actually lean left of center on social issues.
If you want me to respect you as a man then conduct yourself with some dignity, dont swish your ass around in public, dont put on some bad imitation of a hooker when you walk, and by god if your gonna dress like a woman please shave your beard first. Because clearly any man who tries to act like a woman(or their twisted idea of one) has issues. And people with issues arent taken seriously by me or society. As for homosexuals marrying, not until they distance themselves from gays.
And on your last sentence, are you gay or are'nt you because above you stated: "keep hating us" then later you stated: "I think the ideas of heterosexual sex and lesbian sex is rather disgusting, but I don't hate them because of it..I just don't waste my time thinking about it!", because if you are gay then you surely do have issues. ;)

:eek: ..omg..That is the most rational post of yours I've ever read! ;) First of all, yes I am gay. Second, there is no difference between being gay and being a homosexual male. What you're talking about is our unfortunately stereotyped, flambouyant image that the media continuously perpetuates. As it so happens, only about 2% of gay males fall into this category that you have a problem with; and I must agree that public nudity and such are not acceptable for any reason.

As for how we act. I myself find that I do fit some of the stereotypes of how a "typical" gay man acts(if you can consider a 16 yr old a man). Do I do this on purpose? No. It's just how I am. So what you need to understand is that the image you have of gay people only comprises a very small percentage of the gay community. You live in what is probably the most open area for homosexuals there is. So naturally you must..suffer..this side more frequently. I'll admit, there are some ways gay men act, some things they do, that I just cannot stand; but I don't make anything of it because I understand that everyone is different and expresses themself in a different manner.

If your only problem with us is those of us who happen to express themselves in more open, flambouyant ways then I don't see what your problem with same-sex marriage is. It is a social issue that has nothing to do with how some of us behave. We just want to be able to have what heterosexual couples have.

As for your last paragraph I definitely did not follow your train of thought there. Maybe you just need to re-read what I wrote. "If I'm gay then I surely do have issues"?..Yes, as I said above, I'm gay(a word much easier to say and type than homosexual)..no..I do not have any issues..none that pertain to my being gay at least.

Sarcasm... amusing. If you truly didn't understand my point, than you weren't worthy of reading it in the first place.

It is quite amusing, isn't it? I laughed. Endorphins are good. I fully understood your point, as well as your other points, and their respective weaknesses. However, these topics are far too stressful and move far too fast for any well thought out argument to be made, so I decided to capitalize on a single weakness of one of your arguments, and thus satisfy my thirst for some liberal retaliation on my part. Good day.

4) Please dispute the fact that marriage existed before Christianity. I have yet to see this done.

Alright, I will. It was still a religious ceremony, not necessarily christian, but religious. The term 'marriage' comes from Old French, and has christian background to it. That's all.

5) Your church will never be forced to marry couples it doesn't want to, thanks to the freedom of religion. Keeping that in mind, please tell me how you will be affected by gay couples enjoying legal rights that come with a legally recognized marriage. And use specifics.

I've dealt with this in other posts. The insult that it presents using a christian word and the fact that something so much against the majority can be legally EQUAL is against my own religion. It is insulting. There need to be certain lines that we cannot cross, or soon there will cases saying sane and people legally insane are completely equal, and suddenly crimes will be gotten away with all across the country. There need to be limits.

The word Maritus, which marriage is derived from, is latin and means husband.
The word is roman in origin and as we all know christianity was persecuted by Rome for a long time.
Therefore you perceive an imaginary insult.
Frankly I am appalled at people calling themselves christians who preach hate and intolerance.
As christians we follow Christ and his example, to hate is not included, he didn't hate, he was tolerant and tried to teach the people around him how to love.
Let people be happy and learn the most important lesson from christianity, to forgive.

psst with all this personal you ... she is a strait (I believe) christian


And you apparently either dont want or simpily unable to understand the tie between economic situation and crime
Haha. That sounded like something i'd say... oh wait, I did. Ahem. Crime is also caused by social problems, such as the twisted mental instability which did not SEEM to exist when religion was more or less a requirement by society. Strange stuff, that. Economy was fixed but it did not have to be done by mucking up the valued tie that religion had with society.

Without religion, society is just law, and the way the law and order system is set up does not allow for proper convictions. When insanity pleas and 'blame it on the mother' convictions first started spilling out and people began getting away with murder it should have said something was horribly wrong with today.

Seperation of Church and State is the wrong direction, clearly, and Gay "marriage" is only a step that way.

Go read a text book. Didn't hear much about twisted serial killers dismembering children back then, did you? If and when there was an incident, it was the talk of the country. Nowadays, sick things happen like that all the time but we can't do anything about it "legally" because people would come crying complaining we are infringing on rights.

How about the rampant lynchings? Many white politicians in the south encouraged lynchings. But going by your "the majority is all that matters" wat of thinking that was all right because they were a minority. Also, how many child killers you see getting off?

Haha. That sounded like something i'd say... oh wait, I did. Ahem. Crime is also caused by social problems, such as the twisted mental instability which did not SEEM to exist when religion was more or less a requirement by society. Strange stuff, that. Economy was fixed but it did not have to be done by mucking up the valued tie that religion had with society.

Without religion, society is just law, and the way the law and order system is set up does not allow for proper convictions. When insanity pleas and 'blame it on the mother' convictions first started spilling out and people began getting away with murder it should have said something was horribly wrong with today.

Seperation of Church and State is the wrong direction, clearly, and Gay "marriage" is only a step that way.

A step in the wrong direction? You mean to say that Seperation of Church and State shouldn't happen despite the fact that has been the law since the begining in that case I will use the argument a number of conservatives have used before" If you don't love our country then get the Hell out!"

The word Maritus, which marriage is derived from, is latin and means husband.
The word is roman in origin and as we all know christianity was persecuted by Rome for a long time.
Therefore you perceive an imaginary insult.
Frankly I am appalled at people calling themselves christians who preach hate and intolerance.
As a christians we follow Christ and his example, to hate is not included, he didn't hate, he was tolerant and tried to teach the people around him how to love.
Let people be happy and learn the most important lesson from christianity, to forgive.
Interesting. But I believe the actual word, although derived from latin like everything else, comes from Old French more accurately. All language is derived from latin (basically), but the word marriage IS from French... i'm almost sure on that. Although, i'll admit, i'm not as confident in this matter as other arguements, so you may be correct.

The rest of that, i'm tired of atheists and otherwise hiding behind that veil. You can mock us all you want but when we try it back I get that card. I have nothing to say on the matter other than I knew that would come up.

Congrats you responded about how I expected as well, by simply repeating yourself despite the fact you realize that there is no "proof" that I could give you directly. What, do you want me to send you newspapers from across the country, in every city, on every day 100 years ago to prove that there was no dismemberment? There is no basic proof I can give you of what DIDN'T occur, unless you want simple proof that it goes on today, which I would LOVE to give you.

Geuss what they had 100 years ago? A national census. Surely that would have something like a statistic or to that would either back up your claim or prove how full of shit you are.

Go read a text book. Didn't hear much about twisted serial killers dismembering children back then, did you? If and when there was an incident, it was the talk of the country. Nowadays, sick things happen like that all the time but we can't do anything about it "legally" because people would come crying complaining we are infringing on rights.

Oh, please...get real! We can and DO do things about it. It's called jail...it's called putting them in a mental hospital (which is just another term for jail)

And, unless I am mistaken...either you are

A - attempting to drag a red herring across the main issue, in order to win supporters to your side

or B - you are actually suggesting that most homosexuals are "twisted serial killers dismembering children."

So which is it?

Is it a red herring...or are you actually making that vile, and nonsensical claim...with, of course, no facts to back up such a claim?

A step in the wrong direction? You mean to say that Seperation of Church and State shouldn't happen despite the fact that has been the law since the begining in that case I will use the argument a number of conservatives have used before" If you don't love our country then get the Hell out!"
The organizations themselves should be seperate, not how I meant that at all. I mean the principles should not be the so vastly different as you would suggest. When I read "Seperation of Church and State" I think of the Pope and the President. Understand what I mean? The Pope has nothing over the president, or vice versa, however the values of the church, that is, all of the ones that benefited our country and others for so long should not be lost into a political mess brought about by the minority.

Interesting. But I believe the actual word, although derived from latin like everything else, comes from Old French more accurately. All language is derived from latin (basically), but the word marriage IS from French... i'm almost sure on that. Although, i'll admit, i'm not as confident in this matter as other arguements, so you may be correct.

The rest of that, i'm tired of atheists and otherwise hiding behind that veil. You can mock us all you want but when we try it back I get that card. I have nothing to say on the matter other than I knew that would come up.

Well given that a uge number of times in the past religion has been used as a reason for discrimination and genocde it is a valid argument especilly with someone who has acted in a manner such as yourself.

1. Yes, I did read it but forgot to reply to it. You know, I think those mannerisms you are refering to aren't always displayed by choice. When I was a child, I was your typical homo; a very talented danser, girl like voice, always hung out with girls, flappy hands, fine build, good at singing and acting, sensitive, you get the picture. The strange thing was that there was no gay role model around me for miles. My dad is your average red-blooded (I always wonder what colour my blood must have then :) ) heterosexual sports fan and I lived in a neighbourhood filled with those guys. Where had I gotten it from then? I still wonder. I think though that I was born that way. Anyway, the strange thing is that nowadays people can't tell I'm gay by looking at me anymore, while now is when I need it :). Wether I learned to not behave this way or grew out of it I don't know. I'd like to see that researched though.

Join me in the 'club of hand waving nancy boys' :P

Same here, I was a short, hand waving, high pitched voice (still am), girly boy, and all my exposure when I was young was to über straight guys; real mens men - rugby is more than a game, its a way of life, and the best thing to partake in is a good piss up drinking out of 650ml bottles of DB Draught.

I turned out gay, even with this über male atmosphere.

2. I am of course aware of where these stereotypical images came from. That does however not make them applicable to everyone.

True, if it did, it would make finding a boyfried ALOT easier.

3. Well, lucky you for being sexy ;). I was also refering to behaviour displayed in public. I can see you have a problem with any type of sexually inspired behaviour, which takes us to a discussion about decency. However, if we are talking about the aforementioned mannerisms, I can't agree on it being the same. There are also heterosexual men who have these mannerisms, but who would rather not have them, for obvious reasons. Would these heterosexual men make you feel uncomfortable as well?

The sad part is that many do, they somehow think that these men are letting down 'team alpha male'; that there is something 'terribly wrong' with being a little femme.

4. I think we difer in opinion about what a respectable homosexual is. I do not find a homosexual dressed as a woman any less respectable than a homosexual not dressed as a woman. I'd rather find the first more respectable for having the nerve to dress in such a vulnerable manner.
If you do choose to view one portion of the homosexuals as unrespectable, then you must know that they are still part of the group. Now wouldn't it be kind of hypocrite to let someone select which homosexual should go on the march or not? It's probably illegal too since every person has a right to demonstrate or walk on the street the demonstration is being held on.

I find that those who are offended tend to have personal issues themselves; when I was in the closet, I was creeped out because subconsciencely, I knew I was one of 'them' - I'm gay, but I couldn't admit it to myself.

The organizations themselves should be seperate, not how I meant that at all. I mean the principles should not be the so vastly different as you would suggest. When I read "Seperation of Church and State" I think of the Pope and the President. Understand what I mean? The Pope has nothing over the president, or vice versa, however the values of the church, that is, all of the ones that benefited our country and others for so long should not be lost into a political mess brought about by the minority.

So what you are saying is, is that church and state should be seperate entities, but the church should still control the state despite the fact that there is no one church?

And, unless I am mistaken...

You are mistaken. Simple as that.

I'm dropping out of this conversation. Eskertania is DELIBERATELY trying to piss me off, and get me to flame him.

I've had too many nations I love DEATed for that, and I don't intend on getting this one DEATed.

Notice my low post-count, compared to my sign-up date?

that is because I do not usually use this nation to come into the General Forum, because usually, the General Forum is a good place to end up getting DEATed...which isn't fair or right.

I refuse to hang around while Eskertania baits me and angers me further by displaying such blatant bigotry...and engaging in obvious flamebait, while getting no reprimand...and we are supposed to just sit there and take it.

If we rise to the bait, WE end up DEATed...while the baiter gets off scot-free.

I'm not participating in this any further.

You are mistaken. Simple as that.

Then what are you trying to say when you say that allowing gay marriage will allow for serial killers to walk free?

Go read a text book. Didn't hear much about twisted serial killers dismembering children back then, did you? If and when there was an incident, it was the talk of the country. Nowadays, sick things happen like that all the time but we can't do anything about it "legally" because people would come crying complaining we are infringing on rights.
Um, yes we did. Crime was rampant.
Know what the difference is? Television and newspapers. Now we can hear about the serial killers. Back then? You needed to rely on gossip. It wasn't regularly researched or reported.

Try to find some statistics on child rape back in colonial australia. I don't have the statistics, so don't shoot my head off. I know when I was studying it, I found it was commonplace. There are references throughout primary sources. I know it was commonplace for convict women to be placed with a family and then returned when she got pregnant with the head of the household (and, of course, they claimed the convict was prostituting herself). Other awful things. Don't think crime is something new.

Also, what do you plan to do "legally" that you're not allowed to? I know there are cases where criminals escape punishment. I know there are also other people who would love to actually kill other human beings just because they are gay. Honest to god, there are people out there that would kill another human being for no reason other than their choice of partner. Can you believe that?

Know what scares me? Not when I hear about crime on the tv and the newspapers. It's when I *don't* hear about crime. For something to be in the news that means it has to be relatively uncommon. Otherwise it wouldn't be "news", now would it? You don't see articles about "the sun rose again today". When I see a news article about a horrible crime in my city, I think "Wow, only one? And three million people in the city. I've got really good odds of that not ever happening to me. Lucky!"

But this is all beyond the point. The point is, you can't just automatically assume that a stronger connection between religion and government would help anything. I agree, there are many things it WOULD help. But there are also many things it would hinder. Such as gay (civil) marriages. Which, I happen to believe, is an equality issue, and should be allowed. Frankly, I'm amazed that it wasn't allowed years ago, then we could all have gotten on with our lives.

No what he's claiming is that humanity has grown complacent in the fact we aren't outraged by things that would have done so ages ago. This is good and bad, we accept gays, personally I don't care as long as their faithfull to their "partner". But we also accept serial killers and death, which to me isn't allright. It's a double edged sword, for better or worse, we've grown complacent.

You are mistaken. Simple as that.

Yes you are absolutely correct. Child killings and sexual exploitation of children never occurred 'til recently. :rolleyes:

When I read "Seperation of Church and State" I think of the Pope and the President. Understand what I mean? The Pope has nothing over the president, or vice versa, however the values of the church, that is, all of the ones that benefited our country and others for so long should not be lost into a political mess brought about by the minority.

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/04/jun/13/pope.jpg

I just had to.

So what you are saying is, is that church and state should be seperate entities, but the church should still control the state despite the fact that there is no one church?

I'm saying the VALUES, the positive values the church has given society and that HAD been working for us until the minorities had to try and mess everything up. I don't wish harm upon them, or wish them to leave...necessarily, however the problem is, if what they want angers the majority of people than they should not be able to "have it". Gay 'marriage' for example...

Interesting. But I believe the actual word, although derived from latin like everything else, comes from Old French more accurately. All language is derived from latin (basically), but the word marriage IS from French... i'm almost sure on that. Although, i'll admit, i'm not as confident in this matter as other arguements, so you may be correct.

The rest of that, i'm tired of atheists and otherwise hiding behind that veil. You can mock us all you want but when we try it back I get that card. I have nothing to say on the matter other than I knew that would come up.

The etymology is clear, latin maritare - to marry, became O.Fr. marier.

And I am not an ateist, I am deeply committed to christianity and its main message, forgiveness and love will save us.
I may not belong in church, but neither did the first christians.
I forgive you for your faulty assumptions about me and apologise for my less than perfect english, I am not a native speaker.
God loves us all and wishes us to be happy and kind to each other.

No what he's claiming is that humanity has grown complacent in the fact we aren't outraged by things that would have done so ages ago. This is good and bad, we accept gays, personally I don't care as long as their faithfull to their "partner". But we also accept serial killers and death, which to me isn't allright. It's a double edged sword, for better or worse, we've grown complacent.

See above for notes on lynching and the Crusades and other such fun things.

Also when have we let a serial killer walk free?

I'd like to kill adulturers.

The word Maritus, which marriage is derived from, is latin and means husband.
The word is roman in origin and as we all know christianity was persecuted by Rome for a long time.
Therefore you perceive an imaginary insult.
Frankly I am appalled at people calling themselves christians who preach hate and intolerance.
As christians we follow Christ and his example, to hate is not included, he didn't hate, he was tolerant and tried to teach the people around him how to love.
Let people be happy and learn the most important lesson from christianity, to forgive.

Not to mention just about everything in Christianity is borrowed from some other religion so it's kind of hypocritical to complain about the word marriage being used for this, even if it isn't technically a Christian word.

I'm saying the VALUES, the positive values the church has given society and that HAD been working for us until the minorities had to try and mess everything up. I don't wish harm upon them, or wish them to leave...necessarily, however the problem is, if what they want angers the majority of people than they should not be able to "have it". Gay 'marriage' for example...

You mean just like how slaves wanted their freedom and the Southerners wouldn't have it?

See above for notes on lynching and the Crusades and other such fun things.

Also when have we let a serial killer walk free?
I didn't say we let them walk you retard I said that people aren't as shocked.

I didn't say we let them walk you retard I said that people aren't as shocked.
Settle down ... flaiming is not appreciated on this forum

I'd like to kill adulturers.

Thou shall not murder

The organizations themselves should be seperate, not how I meant that at all. I mean the principles should not be the so vastly different as you would suggest. When I read "Seperation of Church and State" I think of the Pope and the President. Understand what I mean? The Pope has nothing over the president, or vice versa, however the values of the church, that is, all of the ones that benefited our country and others for so long should not be lost into a political mess brought about by the minority.

I agree. The values of the church should not be lost in a political mess. I agree 100%. There are a lot of REALLY GOOD christian values, which are great for individuals and the country as a whole, regardless of whether you are religious or not.

We should try to keep these christian values. However, we should NOT use the religion as our foundation for building any laws. We should have a non-religious reason.

I can say, without invoking any religion, that it would be a really good thing to treat all people equally. To look out for other people. To give to charity. Those are all christian values, that the government is welcome, in my opinion, to adopt.

The government should NOT EVER say "god said for gays not to get married", however. If you think "not thinking gays should get married" is a christian value...um...then please define what you mean by "value". I know I'm putting words in your mouth there, so don't think I'm doing it maliciously, I'm just asking for clarification as to which christian values you feel are being lost.

If you feel the sanctity of marriage is being lost, then please remember that
a) we are talking about civil marriages, not religious marriages and
b) other than some passages from the bible (which the goverment should never reference when passing laws), why would two people not be able to have an equally valuable marriage, regardless of the gender of the individuals?

I just say that thread like these are stupid and don't change anything. Who agree's with me?

I didn't say we let them walk you retard I said that people aren't as shocked.

Given the history the human race has with destruction you say that like it wasn't expected. Also lots of people are still shocked by death and destruction, case in point the reaction to 9/11

The arguments for and against gay marriage seem ridiculous to me without adding the Bible's perspective on thjis topic. Of course, if you do not believe in the Bible, then nothing is wrong, no matter what the thing is. Moral standards come from an outside source, usually for Christians from the Bible.

If you actually read Leviticus with an open mind, you will find that the "laws" are not to discriminate against people, but to keep a group of people from significant misery and unhappiness. God told the Old Testament believers not to marry foreign people because he wanted to prevent the spread of disease and also to keep families together. God is certainly not a bigot. He created us, and He understands us better than we ourselves do.

In Genesis, Soddom and Gomorrah were specifically destroyed for homosexual behavior. You all may misread the text because the specific word "homosexual" is not used in the translation, but if you look at the etimology of the word "to know" you will find that it refers to more than "knowing" something as in "understanding" or "comprehending" something. In the old English used in the King James Version, the word "know" also refers to sexual relations. To God, for a man to "know" another man is clearly homosexuality and a sin. Soddom and Gomorrah's men openly practiced homosexuality. When they went to Lot's door, they shouted for Lot to come out, not for his daughters or wife to come out. Lot begs these men not to be wicked and perverted. He pleads with them to accept his virgin daughters in his place. They wanted sex with Lot, another man, not with a young woman.

You may certainly disagree with what the Bible says on this topic. I am advocating that before you all bash the Bible or use it as a weapon against others, read the Bible for yourselves and then come to your own conclusions. Don't jump to conclusions without first reading what the Bible says. If after reading the Bible's words on this topic, you still disagree, you are certainly still free to hold a differing opinion and belief.

Also, if you agree with the Bible, then the Bible certainly is not just for the people who lived 2000 years ago. It is relevant for today's modern world. I am a Christian, and I firmly believe in what the Bible says on this topic. I have read what the Bible says on homosexuality, and the Bible's teachings make good sense to me.

I do not believe that God designed us humans to be happy living a homosexual lifestyle. God designed us for heterosexual relations within the context of marriage. To me, marriage is more than a "civil union." It is a committed relationship that is designed to last a lifetime. The only legitimate reason that the Bible gives for divorce is adultery.

Study for yourselves. If marriage is just a "civil union" and you do not see homosexuality as a sin, then gay marriage probably makes perfect sense to you. As I see it, there is no reason to argue if you believe what the Bible says about marriage and homosexuality.

These are just my humble thoughts. I mean to offend no one. If I do offend, I am very sorry.

I just say that thread like these are stupid and don't change anything. Who agree's with me?
You are welcome to not participate in them

#1's comeback: Do eyeglasses take part in spreading AIDS?
#2's comeback: is just plain retarded and I consider an invalid argument on both sides.
#3's comeback: Straight children which are later influenced by homosexuality to become gay.
#4's comeback: is just idiotic. It's fucking Brittany Spears. Seriously.
#5's comeback: ... and all of those are laws or misconceptions made by man, and in no way instituted with marriage. Idiot.
#6's comeback: ... no comment. *sigh*
#7's comeback: Your sarcastic comeback is even wrong. Again, idiot.
#8's comeback: is just the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
#9's comeback: ... what?
#10's comeback: Ok, whoever the hell even made this argument should die.
#11's comeback: Yeah, you just made shit up for this one.
#12's comeback: ... shoot yourself. Now.

I just say that thread like these are stupid and don't change anything. Who agree's with me?

Then why post?

You are mistaken. Simple as that.
And from my POV so are you

I agree. The values of the church should not be lost in a political mess. I agree 100%. There are a lot of REALLY GOOD christian values, which are great for individuals and the country as a whole, regardless of whether you are religious or not.

We should try to keep these christian values. However, we should NOT use the religion as our foundation for building any laws. We should have a non-religious reason.

I can say, without invoking any religion, that it would be a really good thing to treat all people equally. To look out for other people. To give to charity. Those are all christian values, that the government is welcome, in my opinion, to adopt.

The government should NOT EVER say "god said for gays not to get married", however. If you think "not thinking gays should get married" is a christian value...um...then please define what you mean by "value". I know I'm putting words in your mouth there, so don't think I'm doing it maliciously, I'm just asking for clarification as to which christian values you feel are being lost.

If you feel the sanctity of marriage is being lost, then please remember that
a) we are talking about civil marriages, not religious marriages and
b) other than some passages from the bible (which the goverment should never reference when passing laws), why would two people not be able to have an equally valuable marriage, regardless of the gender of the individuals?
Ya need proof look at Amsterdam. The year they allowed gay marrige the in law birth rate plumeted to less than 50% the year after it was lower than 10%. It's not that they weren't fucking, it's that they wern't marrying, and in the christian religion that's not a good thing. To have children without marrying.

Then why post?
Because I like to argue.

I just say that thread like these are stupid and don't change anything. Who agree's with me?
I disagree.
There are some people who have made up their minds, and will not change it.
There are others who are genuinely interested, and see the value of both sides of the argument. They can have their minds changed.

And then there are others, like me, who are willing to have their minds changed, but are pretty firm in their current belief. I doubt my mind will be changed. I am, however, still interested in the counter arguments, and want to know what the other side of the argument is, so I can refine my beliefs, throw out what I don't think is entirely valid, solidify and advance what I think is valid. I'll end up with a stronger idea of exactly where my convictions hinge, and what I feel is important.

Honestly? I hadn't given gay marriage much of a thought. After participating in these discussions, I'm much more interested in the topic, and am a much stronger supporter than I was previously.

Because I like to argue.
Then it is not "pointless" its point is to discuss

Ya need proof look at Amsterdam. The year they allowed gay marrige the in law birth rate plumeted to less than 50% the year after it was lower than 10%. It's not that they weren't fucking, it's that they wern't marrying, and in the christian religion that's not a good thing. To have children without marrying.

Can you cite your source please?

You are welcome to not participate in them
I know that, you don't need to say what obvious, it's not like I'm in cuba and being forced by Castro to do this retard.

Can you cite your source please?
Actually I saw it on an internet news site. But if you give me some time, I should be able to hunt down the origanal stats.

And just so you know, I'm not saying that gay marrige is bad, just that it resulted in a decrease of marrige in Amsterdam and it's neighbor the Netherlands.

it's that they wern't marrying, and in the christian religion that's not a good thing. To have children without marrying.

"in the christian religion"
You Americans, to repeat again, have seperation of church and state.

Chances are the gay people getting married aren't part of your brand of christian religion. Therefore, why does it matter to you if they are having children or not?

If you actually read Leviticus with an open mind, you will find that the "laws" are not to discriminate against people, but to keep a group of people from significant misery and unhappiness. God told the Old Testament believers not to marry foreign people because he wanted to prevent the spread of disease and also to keep families together. God is certainly not a bigot. He created us, and He understands us better than we ourselves do.

You will notice that those laws were abolished in the NT which is why you are allowed to eat pork and crab

In Genesis, Soddom and Gomorrah were specifically destroyed for homosexual behavior. You all may misread the text because the specific word "homosexual" is not used in the translation, but if you look at the etimology of the word "to know" you will find that it refers to more than "knowing" something as in "understanding" or "comprehending" something. In the old English used in the King James Version, the word "know" also refers to sexual relations. To God, for a man to "know" another man is clearly homosexuality and a sin. Soddom and Gomorrah's men openly practiced homosexuality. When they went to Lot's door, they shouted for Lot to come out, not for his daughters or wife to come out. Lot begs these men not to be wicked and perverted. He pleads with them to accept his virgin daughters in his place. They wanted sex with Lot, another man, not with a young woman.

I think you need to reread that story. The men shouted for the two angels, disguised as men, who had come to Lot's house after which Lot offered his daughters but they wouldn't take them. It is more likely a case against rape than against homosexuality. Also the book was written over 2000 years ago in a language few know, and those don't know it fully and they were written by men and are therefore falliable.

I know that, you don't need to say what obvious, it's not like I'm in cuba and being forced by Castro to do this retard.
Then why post in a thread just complaining about how pointless it is?

Does posting such add more point to the thread really?

No need to flame as well

I know that, you don't need to say what obvious, it's not like I'm in cuba and being forced by Castro to do this retard.
I hate it when Castro forces me to post on forums. Fortunately he doesn't do that much here, but he does make me post on slashdot.
And the things he makes me say! It's terrible.

Incidentally, your post would have been just as effective without that one final word.

First off, i'm not trying to 'bait' anybody into flaming me, nor am I trying to anger anybody intentionally. It happens when different points of view come into contact, if you're taking this personally than perhaps you have an idea of how I feel about gay 'marriage'. I take it personally that something against my religion so much could even be considered to be legally and socially acceptable. The very idea is repulsive.

Also, as a general statement, i'm sick of all of you comparing slavery to gay 'marriage'. Tell me when a white southern man enslaves a homosexual and ... oh I find no need to go on about this. I think you get the point. They do NOT compare to any degree. Slavery and gay 'marriage' are two completely different matters. Some slaveowners found the words of the bible gave 'blessing' to slavery, however some homosexuals find that the words of the bible say that gay 'marriage' is acceptable. Both of which are and were wrong. I think i've beaten that to death... that's all I have to say about that.

Now let's see who else has quoted me...

Ya need proof look at Amsterdam. The year they allowed gay marrige the in law birth rate plumeted to less than 50% the year after it was lower than 10%. It's not that they weren't fucking, it's that they wern't marrying, and in the christian religion that's not a good thing. To have children without marrying.
Hmm, so gay people getting married stop straight people from having babies? I wish I had known that when I was 18. That's the easiest birth control I've ever heard of. Also Unwed mothering doesn't lower the birth rate. silly rabbit. Bastards still count as babies.

First off, i'm not trying to 'bait' anybody into flaming me, nor am I trying to anger anybody intentionally. It happens when different points of view come into contact, if you're taking this personally than perhaps you have an idea of how I feel about gay 'marriage'. I take it personally that something against my religion so much could even be considered to be legally and socially acceptable. The very idea is repulsive.

Also, as a general statement, i'm sick of all of you comparing slavery to gay 'marriage'. Tell me when a white southern man enslaves a homosexual and ... oh I find no need to go on about this. I think you get the point. They do NOT compare to any degree. Slavery and gay 'marriage' are two completely different matters. Some slaveowners found the words of the bible gave 'blessing' to slavery, however some homosexuals find that the words of the bible say that gay 'marriage' is acceptable. Both of which are and were wrong. I think i've beaten that to death... that's all I have to say about that.

Now let's see who else has quoted me...

Why do you take it personally what two consenting adults do in private? Also since when did homosexuality become so "anti-christian"? Shouldn't you be off fighting thins that the Bible really harps on , like murder or theft?

Also, as a general statement, i'm sick of all of you comparing slavery to gay 'marriage'. Tell me when a white southern man enslaves a homosexual and ... oh I find no need to go on about this. I think you get the point. They do NOT compare to any degree. Slavery and gay 'marriage' are two completely different matters. Some slaveowners found the words of the bible gave 'blessing' to slavery, however some homosexuals find that the words of the bible say that gay 'marriage' is acceptable. Both of which are and were wrong. I think i've beaten that to death... that's all I have to say about that.

Now let's see who else has quoted me...
They are actualy very comparable

One group deprived of rights by another group
For a long time considered non human and had christian (suposedly) groups suport the continuation of the lack of equality

It is a prime example of why might does not make right (or in the more recent case majority)

They are not identical but they do have their comparison points

...if you're taking this personally than perhaps you have an idea of how I feel about gay 'marriage'. I take it personally that something against my religion so much could even be considered to be legally and socially acceptable. The very idea is repulsive.

Agreed. It's repulsive to someone who believes in your religion as you do. HOWEVER, it's repulsive because of your RELIGIOUS beliefs. Not because of your secular beliefs. Therefore, while it's repulsive, you really should push those feelings to the back when discussing the secular matter. Let them well up full-force when discussing whether gays should have marriage in religious institutions.


Also, as a general statement, i'm sick of all of you comparing slavery to gay 'marriage'. Tell me when a white southern man enslaves a homosexual and ... oh I find no need to go on about this. I think you get the point. They do NOT compare to any degree. Slavery and gay 'marriage' are two completely different matters. Some slaveowners found the words of the bible gave 'blessing' to slavery, however some homosexuals find that the words of the bible say that gay 'marriage' is acceptable. Both of which are and were wrong. I think i've beaten that to death... that's all I have to say about that.

Slavery and gay marriage are completely different things. They don't even sit on the same scale.
The comparison, I believe, was that when you say "the bible says that gay 'marriage' is not acceptable", people are saying "perhaps you're mis-understanding the bible, as it was also said the bible claims slavery was acceptable, and we all agree that slavery is not acceptable."
Slavery and gay marriage are not the same thing. Believing that the bible condones slavery and believing that the bible is against gay marriage could be the same thing.

This is why it's important not to base laws on the bible, as much as that might offend you. Different people have different interpretations of the bible.

Now let's see who else has quoted me...
Me, apparently.

Something I like about the whole gay marriage issue: it cannot be stopped. No piece of legislation, short of mandated genocide, will stop the ball from rolling on this one. To quote Jon Caroll: "Ha ha ha ha."

Why do you take it personally what two consenting adults do in private? Also since when did homosexuality become so "anti-christian"? Shouldn't you be off fighting thins that the Bible really harps on , like murder or theft?

It is not your place to decide what I am "off fighting" ... Perhaps you should realize that it is all part of the same problem, the social 'unrest' that you minorities cause when you cause such a big problem purely because under the constitution you are equal. Yes, you as an individual are equal to any other American, hower GROUPS are based on size. Minorities have no power over majorities, that was the entire basis on the elimination of monarchies and dictatorships. To say that minorities have EQUAL rights as majorities, would be communism. Majorities rightfully have a power of the minority that, even when the individuals are equal, you must respect.

Something I like about the whole gay marriage issue: it cannot be stopped. No piece of legislation, short of mandated genocide, will stop the ball from rolling on this one. To quote Jon Caroll: "Ha ha ha ha."
Yup we are not going a way ... however long it takes

It is not your place to decide what I am "off fighting" ... Perhaps you should realize that it is all part of the same problem, the social 'unrest' that you minorities cause when you cause such a big problem purely because under the constitution you are equal. Yes, you as an individual are equal to any other American, hower GROUPS are based on size. Minorities have no power over majorities, that was the entire basis on the elimination of monarchies and dictatorships. To say that minorities have EQUAL rights as majorities, would be communism. Majorities rightfully have a power of the minority that, even when the individuals are equal, you must respect.
And thats why I love how america is set up and will continue to be set up to protect the minority from the tirany of the majority

It is not your place to decide what I am "off fighting" ... Perhaps you should realize that it is all part of the same problem, the social 'unrest' that you minorities cause when you cause such a big problem purely because under the constitution you are equal. Yes, you as an individual are equal to any other American, hower GROUPS are based on size. Minorities have no power over majorities, that was the entire basis on the elimination of monarchies and dictatorships. To say that minorities have EQUAL rights as majorities, would be communism. Majorities rightfully have a power of the minority that, even when the individuals are equal, you must respect.

Wasn't Jesus all about the minority causing unrest against the majority? To say that all people are equal in the eyes of God?

Or did I misinterpret something?

It is not your place to decide what I am "off fighting" ... Perhaps you should realize that it is all part of the same problem, the social 'unrest' that you minorities cause when you cause such a big problem purely because under the constitution you are equal. Yes, you as an individual are equal to any other American, hower GROUPS are based on size. Minorities have no power over majorities, that was the entire basis on the elimination of monarchies and dictatorships. To say that minorities have EQUAL rights as majorities, would be communism. Majorities rightfully have a power of the minority that, even when the individuals are equal, you must respect.

So then it's okay for white people to say that black people can't vote because we are the majority?

Also, attempts at personal attacks get you nowhere and I love how you assume I'm a minority because I defend gay marriage.

Edit: I said "Shouldn't you..." not "GO OFF AND FIGHT MURDERERS!!!!1111!!1!" and I like how you think that homosexuality is as bad as murder.

Majorities rightfully have a power of the minority that, even when the individuals are equal, you must respect.

The beautiful part about the American social structure is that you actually don't have to respect anybody. Go decadence, irresponsibility, and all that.

#1's comeback: Do eyeglasses take part in spreading AIDS?
#2's comeback: is just plain retarded and I consider an invalid argument on both sides.
#3's comeback: Straight children which are later influenced by homosexuality to become gay.
#4's comeback: is just idiotic. It's fucking Brittany Spears. Seriously.
#5's comeback: ... and all of those are laws or misconceptions made by man, and in no way instituted with marriage. Idiot.
#6's comeback: ... no comment. *sigh*
#7's comeback: Your sarcastic comeback is even wrong. Again, idiot.
#8's comeback: is just the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
#9's comeback: ... what?
#10's comeback: Ok, whoever the hell even made this argument should die.
#11's comeback: Yeah, you just made shit up for this one.
#12's comeback: ... shoot yourself. Now.

#1. What do you care if the risk of AIDS is higher for homosexual MEN. That effects you how? Fact, AIDS is more common in straight African men and women than in gay men. Homosexual marriage is about lesbians too anyways.
#2. gj. procreation is completely unnecessary these days
#3. OMG you couldn't be more wrong. I'm gay and I sure as hell don't remember any homosexual influences that turned me gay. I didn't even watch Will and Grace! The closest thing to homosexual influence I had was everyone using the words "gay", "fag", and "queer" in durogatory ways. Not to mention you totally missed the point of the argument.
#4. Another point that flew right over your head.
#5. They are all pertinent to marriage. Tradition!!! The point is that traditions of marriage have changed!
#6. Why no comment? Because it's right and you have nothing to counter it?
#7. How is it wrong? If you took it literally I can understand why you'd think it was wrong. But seeing as you claim to have understood its sarcasm..how is it wrong?..enlighten me
#8. Only because you ignorantly believe homosexuality is a choice.
#9. The requirements for a marriage to be legally recognized. Geez.
#10...I won't argue with that
#11. Nothing was made up, you just have nothing worthwhile to say
#12. Why, do you believe in apartheid?*hands you dictionary*

The beautiful part about the American social structure is that you actually don't have to respect anybody. Go decadence, irresponsibility, and all that.
*raises my drink to thee*

Actually I saw it on an internet news site. But if you give me some time, I should be able to hunt down the origanal stats.

And just so you know, I'm not saying that gay marrige is bad, just that it resulted in a decrease of marrige in Amsterdam and it's neighbor the Netherlands.

Oh... so it's from the internet so it must be credible. Who would have known the heterosexual people of Amsterdam were so delicate as to stop marrying each other because gays suddenly were.

:rolleyes:

Sorry I was confused it was Scandinavia.

Source: The Weekly Standard

The “conservative case” for same-sex marriage collapses

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA - A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern–including gay marriage–is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

This is not how the situation has been portrayed by prominent gay marriage advocates journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr. Sullivan and Eskridge have made much of an unpublished study of Danish same-sex registered partnerships by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher with an undergraduate degree who visited Denmark in 1996 on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite evidence that since then, marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent. Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale’s study had exposed the “hysteria and irresponsibility” of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage. Andrew Sullivan’s Spedale-inspired piece was subtitled, “The case against same-sex marriage crumbles.”

More> (http://am.novopress.info/index.php?p=57#more-57)

Also it seems gays are getting violent over intolerance.

Paris and Madrid, June 6, 2005, (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two events in Europe indicate that the culture war between those defending traditional marriage and those promoting same-sex marriage is continuing to escalate. As Canada’s Liberal government moves closer to pushing through its same-sex marriage law, Bill C-38, predictions of resulting social unrest may echo events already occurring in Paris and Madrid.

In Paris, France the Agence France-Presse (AFP) is reporting that an altercation broke out at the famed Notre-Dame Cathedral on Sunday when 20 members of the group “Act Up” gained entry and proceeded to perform a mock marriage of two lesbians. One of the activists was dressed as a priest and pronounced the two women married, while other members of Act Up chanted “Pope Benedict XVI, homophobe, AIDS accomplice.”
Church security personnel pursued the gay rights activists as they fled the Cathedral. As a result clashes broke out outside the Paris landmark, during which Monsignor Patrick Jacquin suffered a minor neck injury.

Monsignor Jacquin is quoted in the AFP as saying: “They are savages. I was pushed to the ground and trampled, kicked in the neck. “It’s a scandal for these people to lash out at me and the Pope.” Jerome Martin, the president of Act Up Paris, participated in the demonstration. Mr. Martin claims the priest had exaggerated the actual events.

More> (http://am.novopress.info/index.php?p=676#more-676)

Agreed. It's repulsive to someone who believes in your religion as you do. HOWEVER, it's repulsive because of your RELIGIOUS beliefs. Not because of your secular beliefs. Therefore, while it's repulsive, you really should push those feelings to the back when discussing the secular matter. Let them well up full-force when discussing whether gays should have marriage in religious institutions.
First off i'd like to thank you for your kind tone. However, the values of my religion should be implemented into the law not just in my religious institutions. History has shown us, even if you want to go as extreme as during the Middle Ages, that when religious values have a place in society (unfortunately due to people like i've been arguing with, they are losing that place) order is above all and justice is served completely and not halfway.

Slavery and gay marriage are completely different things. They don't even sit on the same scale.
The comparison, I believe, was that when you say "the bible says that gay 'marriage' is not acceptable", people are saying "perhaps you're mis-understanding the bible, as it was also said the bible claims slavery was acceptable, and we all agree that slavery is not acceptable."
Slavery and gay marriage are not the same thing. Believing that the bible condones slavery and believing that the bible is against gay marriage could be the same thing.

This is why it's important not to base laws on the bible, as much as that might offend you. Different people have different interpretations of the bible.

But through it all there is always a truth that society clings on to. Nobody would DARE say that, in fact, the bible says slavery was correct. That's because the law says slavery has been outlawed. As such, it should outlaw homosexual 'marriage.' This would assure that society would view the bible's interpretation as against gay 'marriage' and not for it, much in the same way making laws against slavery solidified the view that the bible is in fact against slavery.

Oh... so it's from the internet so it must be credible. Who would have known the heterosexual people of Amsterdam were so delicate as to stop marrying each other because gays suddenly were.

:rolleyes:
For a respectable eroupian news article.

I'm saying the VALUES, the positive values the church has given society and that HAD been working for us until the minorities had to try and mess everything up. I don't wish harm upon them, or wish them to leave...necessarily, however the problem is, if what they want angers the majority of people than they should not be able to "have it". Gay 'marriage' for example...


alrighty now...minorities arent trying to mess things up for you, they are simply trying to live their lives. Yes, about 10% of people are gay, but that doesnt necessarily mean that there are less gay marraige supporters than homophobes.

I am a straight male, grew up in a gay family (2 moms), started on the football, wrestling, track, and baseball teams, while still keeping a 4.0 GPA.

the majority, almost all people that are against it do not understand it. they only hear myths about it, and usually dont know a sinlge gay person personally, because the gay society has been opressed for so long.

FACT: homosexual and bisexual people are not more likely to be child molesters, or other types of criminals

FACT: gay parents are just as suitable as straight parents

FACT: gay people cannot make other people gay. it is not "contagious", such as your common cootie

FACT: people are born either gay or straight

LIE: being gay makes you bad at athletics

LIE: all gay people have STDs

people need to learn more about this issue before passing judgment, and trying to control other people with their beliefs.

if you dont like gay marraige...thats fine...then dont get one. i think you can probably handle that. although it is not your place to keep loving gay couples from marrying, that really dont have a problem with gay marraige. i personally dont like tatoos, but im not going to keep other people from getting them. I sure as heck dont like brussell sprouts...but im not trying to shut down every company that produces them. keep your beliefs off of my body, and the bodies that i care for.

Sorry I was confused it was Scandinavia.

Source: The Weekly Standard

The “conservative case” for same-sex marriage collapses

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA - A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern–including gay marriage–is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

This is not how the situation has been portrayed by prominent gay marriage advocates journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr. Sullivan and Eskridge have made much of an unpublished study of Danish same-sex registered partnerships by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher with an undergraduate degree who visited Denmark in 1996 on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite evidence that since then, marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent. Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale’s study had exposed the “hysteria and irresponsibility” of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage. Andrew Sullivan’s Spedale-inspired piece was subtitled, “The case against same-sex marriage crumbles.”

More> (http://am.novopress.info/index.php?p=57#more-57)

Also it seems gays are getting violent over intolerance.

Paris and Madrid, June 6, 2005, (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two events in Europe indicate that the culture war between those defending traditional marriage and those promoting same-sex marriage is continuing to escalate. As Canada’s Liberal government moves closer to pushing through its same-sex marriage law, Bill C-38, predictions of resulting social unrest may echo events already occurring in Paris and Madrid.

In Paris, France the Agence France-Presse (AFP) is reporting that an altercation broke out at the famed Notre-Dame Cathedral on Sunday when 20 members of the group “Act Up” gained entry and proceeded to perform a mock marriage of two lesbians. One of the activists was dressed as a priest and pronounced the two women married, while other members of Act Up chanted “Pope Benedict XVI, homophobe, AIDS accomplice.”
Church security personnel pursued the gay rights activists as they fled the Cathedral. As a result clashes broke out outside the Paris landmark, during which Monsignor Patrick Jacquin suffered a minor neck injury.

Monsignor Jacquin is quoted in the AFP as saying: “They are savages. I was pushed to the ground and trampled, kicked in the neck. “It’s a scandal for these people to lash out at me and the Pope.” Jerome Martin, the president of Act Up Paris, participated in the demonstration. Mr. Martin claims the priest had exaggerated the actual events.

More> (http://am.novopress.info/index.php?p=676#more-676)

Wow that's amazing. You should read this week's Enquirer. :D

It is not your place to decide what I am "off fighting" ... Perhaps you should realize that it is all part of the same problem, the social 'unrest' that you minorities cause when you cause such a big problem purely because under the constitution you are equal. Yes, you as an individual are equal to any other American, hower GROUPS are based on size. Minorities have no power over majorities, that was the entire basis on the elimination of monarchies and dictatorships. To say that minorities have EQUAL rights as majorities, would be communism. Majorities rightfully have a power of the minority that, even when the individuals are equal, you must respect.

That's called Tyranny of the Majority. That's not how things work anymore. It's called Majority Rule with Respect to Minority Rights.

Hmm, so gay people getting married stop straight people from having babies? I wish I had known that when I was 18. That's the easiest birth control I've ever heard of. Also Unwed mothering doesn't lower the birth rate. silly rabbit. Bastards still count as babies.
No, dip shit, people aren't marrying because marrige has become stigmatic because the legelization, so quit being so damn sarcastic. After all sarcasism is the humor of the mentally incapable.

For a respectable eroupian news article.

Say hello to the 50% divorce rate that is already in America

Then why post in a thread just complaining about how pointless it is?

Does posting such add more point to the thread really?

No need to flame as well
I like to flame, I like to argue.

No, dip shit, people aren't marrying because marrige has become stigmatic because the legelization, so quit being so damn sarcastic. After all sarcasism is the humor of the mentally incapable.

And repeatedly insulting someone's intelligence is... ? :confused:

Wasn't Jesus all about the minority causing unrest against the majority? To say that all people are equal in the eyes of God?

Or did I misinterpret something?

Do NOT use my religion against me, or even attempt it. That I do not appreciate. There is more to Christianity than the common stereotype, so i'll just say you 'misinterpretated something' and leave it at that.

Sorry I was confused it was Scandinavia.

Source: The Weekly Standard

The “conservative case” for same-sex marriage collapses

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA - A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern–including gay marriage–is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

This is not how the situation has been portrayed by prominent gay marriage advocates journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr. Sullivan and Eskridge have made much of an unpublished study of Danish same-sex registered partnerships by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher with an undergraduate degree who visited Denmark in 1996 on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite evidence that since then, marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent. Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale’s study had exposed the “hysteria and irresponsibility” of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage. Andrew Sullivan’s Spedale-inspired piece was subtitled, “The case against same-sex marriage crumbles.”

More> (http://am.novopress.info/index.php?p=57#more-57)

Also it seems gays are getting violent over intolerance.

Paris and Madrid, June 6, 2005, (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two events in Europe indicate that the culture war between those defending traditional marriage and those promoting same-sex marriage is continuing to escalate. As Canada’s Liberal government moves closer to pushing through its same-sex marriage law, Bill C-38, predictions of resulting social unrest may echo events already occurring in Paris and Madrid.

In Paris, France the Agence France-Presse (AFP) is reporting that an altercation broke out at the famed Notre-Dame Cathedral on Sunday when 20 members of the group “Act Up” gained entry and proceeded to perform a mock marriage of two lesbians. One of the activists was dressed as a priest and pronounced the two women married, while other members of Act Up chanted “Pope Benedict XVI, homophobe, AIDS accomplice.”
Church security personnel pursued the gay rights activists as they fled the Cathedral. As a result clashes broke out outside the Paris landmark, during which Monsignor Patrick Jacquin suffered a minor neck injury.

Monsignor Jacquin is quoted in the AFP as saying: “They are savages. I was pushed to the ground and trampled, kicked in the neck. “It’s a scandal for these people to lash out at me and the Pope.” Jerome Martin, the president of Act Up Paris, participated in the demonstration. Mr. Martin claims the priest had exaggerated the actual events.

More> (http://am.novopress.info/index.php?p=676#more-676)

That's just stupid. It's a downward trend on behalf of the heterosexuals. Same-sex marriage being legal is in now way responsible for this.

"in the christian religion"
You Americans, to repeat again, have seperation of church and state.

Chances are the gay people getting married aren't part of your brand of christian religion. Therefore, why does it matter to you if they are having children or not?
Im not christian at all, so please do hold furth comments to the fact I'm Gaian. Thank you for your intelligent response. Ya euro trash.

No, dip shit, people aren't marrying because marrige has become stigmatic because the legelization, so quit being so damn sarcastic. After all sarcasism is the humor of the mentally incapable.

How would letting homosexuals marry bring a stigma upon marriage. If a man or woman decides they don't want to marry the person they love because two girls can marry each other shouldn't be having a marriage in the first place. Face it marriage has been doing poorly ever since women stopped being oppressed/believing in the cult of domesticity.

Do NOT use my religion against me, or even attempt it. That I do not appreciate. There is more to Christianity than the common stereotype, so i'll just say you 'misinterpretated something' and leave it at that.

Oh aren't we touchy but you sure seem to have no qualms about swinging your fists here. Please **** off. :)

Im not christian at all, so please do hold furth comments to the fact I'm Gaian. Thank you for your intelligent response. Ya euro trash.

So does your collection of religious documents/stories say homosexuals can't marry or do you just think they are "icky"?

That's called Tyranny of the Majority. That's not how things work anymore. It's called Majority Rule with Respect to Minority Rights.

As soon as a man with a torch comes to a gay person's house and shoots them to death and is acquited because he claims that he had Majority rights, you can claim Tyranny of the Majority. We are still ALLOWING them to live here, and do their ... business legally. Making all of us watch, and know about it, however, is insulting.

Do NOT use my religion against me, or even attempt it. That I do not appreciate. There is more to Christianity than the common stereotype, so i'll just say you 'misinterpretated something' and leave it at that.

Well he's not using YOUR religion he's using MY religion, because I'm Christian without all the judging

How would letting homosexuals marry bring a stigma upon marriage. If a man or woman decides they don't want to marry the person they love because two girls can marry each other shouldn't be having a marriage in the first place. Face it marriage has been doing poorly ever since women stopped being oppressed/believing in the cult of domesticity.
What ever fuck nut, that's what I read, I don't understand it fully, but obviously most straight people, don't seem to like gays to much. And the fact that marrage has become stigmatic is in itself the answer to your question, so for future referance don't ask questions you want answered.

Sorry I was confused it was Scandinavia.

Source: The Weekly Standard

The “conservative case” for same-sex marriage collapses

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA - A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern–including gay marriage–is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

This is not how the situation has been portrayed by prominent gay marriage advocates journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr. Sullivan and Eskridge have made much of an unpublished study of Danish same-sex registered partnerships by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher with an undergraduate degree who visited Denmark in 1996 on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite evidence that since then, marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent. Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale’s study had exposed the “hysteria and irresponsibility” of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage. Andrew Sullivan’s Spedale-inspired piece was subtitled, “The case against same-sex marriage crumbles.”

More> (http://am.novopress.info/index.php?p=57#more-57)

Also it seems gays are getting violent over intolerance.

Paris and Madrid, June 6, 2005, (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two events in Europe indicate that the culture war between those defending traditional marriage and those promoting same-sex marriage is continuing to escalate. As Canada’s Liberal government moves closer to pushing through its same-sex marriage law, Bill C-38, predictions of resulting social unrest may echo events already occurring in Paris and Madrid.

In Paris, France the Agence France-Presse (AFP) is reporting that an altercation broke out at the famed Notre-Dame Cathedral on Sunday when 20 members of the group “Act Up” gained entry and proceeded to perform a mock marriage of two lesbians. One of the activists was dressed as a priest and pronounced the two women married, while other members of Act Up chanted “Pope Benedict XVI, homophobe, AIDS accomplice.”
Church security personnel pursued the gay rights activists as they fled the Cathedral. As a result clashes broke out outside the Paris landmark, during which Monsignor Patrick Jacquin suffered a minor neck injury.

Monsignor Jacquin is quoted in the AFP as saying: “They are savages. I was pushed to the ground and trampled, kicked in the neck. “It’s a scandal for these people to lash out at me and the Pope.” Jerome Martin, the president of Act Up Paris, participated in the demonstration. Mr. Martin claims the priest had exaggerated the actual events.

More> (http://am.novopress.info/index.php?p=676#more-676)


Homosexual people have been beaten, burned, murdered, and opressed in other forms for thousands of years and especially in the present. this acting of a pro-gay bunch of people is small in the big picture. These people are also probably not all gay. there most likely were many straight people in that bunch too. These people also do not represent the whole homosexual society.

So does your collection of religious documents/stories say homosexuals can't marry or do you just think they are "icky"?
No, not that I know of, but than again I don't really give a shit either, as long as their not adultureous that is.

Oh aren't we touchy but you sure seem to have no qualms about swinging your fists here. Please **** off. :)
Well although your obvious maturity makes me want to listen, I don't think so. Anybody of my faith I would glady have them talk to me about christian values, however, much in the same way I wouldn't pretend to know how a member of the Jewish faith feels on a matter, I don't like when atheists or a follower of any other religion pretend to know how a christian 'should' feel on something.

As soon as a man with a torch comes to a gay person's house and shoots them to death and is acquited because he claims that he had Majority rights, you can claim Tyranny of the Majority. We are still ALLOWING them to live here, and do their ... business legally. Making all of us watch, and know about it, however, is insulting.

Because we all know how gays just love to tie straight people to chairs and force the straights to watch them have sex. If you already know they are going to do it then why not let them have the legal benefits of commitment?

Homosexual people have been beaten, burned, murdered, and opressed in other forms for thousands of years and especially in the present. this acting of a pro-gay bunch of people is small in the big picture. These people are also probably not all gay. there most likely were many straight people in that bunch too. These people also do not represent the whole homosexual society.
Don't get your panties in a bunch, I was kinda citing it because it was interesting, and might make people here think a little more, hopefully.

As soon as a man with a torch comes to a gay person's house and shoots them to death and is acquited because he claims that he had Majority rights, you can claim Tyranny of the Majority. We are still ALLOWING them to live here, and do their ... business legally. Making all of us watch, and know about it, however, is insulting.

No..Tyranny of the Majority is where no respect is given to minority rights and laws are passed that pertain only to what the majority wants. Majority Rule with Respect to Minority Rights is where laws are passed still pertaining to the majorities wants/needs, but are weighed against any effect they might have on minorities.

No, dip shit, people aren't marrying because marrige has become stigmatic because the legelization, so quit being so damn sarcastic. After all sarcasism is the humor of the mentally incapable.

So...because gay people can do it now it isn't cool anymore? And that's why people aren't getting married?

That's ridiculous. Just because two separate things are happening in the same country doesn't mean there's a causal relationship.

What your little article consitutes is right wing, homophobic propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less. Apparently Bill O'Reilly made some similar claim, and now the conservatives think it is true.

And I hope you're not wearing any blend fabrics because those are expressly forbidden by the bible, too.

That's just stupid. It's a downward trend on behalf of the heterosexuals. Same-sex marriage being legal is in now way responsible for this.
The statistics prove other wise, but I don't care, I'm American.

What ever fuck nut, that's what I read, I don't understand it fully, but obviously most straight people, don't seem to like gays to much. And the fact that marrage has become stigmatic is in itself the answer to your question, so for future referance don't ask questions you want answered.

You say you don't fully understand what it means and then make judgements!? Wouldn't it be a good idea to actually understand something before you try and geuss what it means?

Also are you saying I should only ask questions I already know the answers to? Because that is a rather foolish thing to say.

What ever fuck nut, that's what I read, I don't understand it fully, but obviously most straight people, don't seem to like gays to much. And the fact that marrage has become stigmatic is in itself the answer to your question, so for future referance don't ask questions you want answered.

Actually we're quite accepted by the majority of straight people thank you very much.

Well he's not using YOUR religion he's using MY religion, because I'm Christian without all the judging
Judging and recognizing potential threats to the rights to MY religion are two different matters. Homosexuality is not acceptable in the eyes of oh-so-many christians, and yet you would have them legally getting 'married'? That is incorrect, and even moreso because, we have the political power that the majority should enjoy in any form of fair government and no minority should be allowed to take that away.

So...because gay people can do it now it isn't cool anymore? And that's why people aren't getting married?

That's ridiculous. Just because two separate things are happening in the same country doesn't mean there's a causal relationship.

What your little article consitutes is right wing, homophobic propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less. Apparently Bill O'Reilly made some similar claim, and now the conservatives think it is true.

And I hope you're not wearing any blend fabrics because those are expressly forbidden by the bible, too.
Not true, but I bet it will pass, with time, and if not, so what, who needs marrage anyways?

First off i'd like to thank you for your kind tone.
Always a pleasure. Thank you for your kind response.


However, the values of my religion should be implemented into the law not just in my religious institutions. History has shown us, even if you want to go as extreme as during the Middle Ages, that when religious values have a place in society (unfortunately due to people like i've been arguing with, they are losing that place) order is above all and justice is served completely and not halfway.

I'm really not sure that I agree.
First of all, you're assuming that it should be your religion that is used. What about ghandi's religion? That stopped a war through peaceful means. Those are very good, religious values, too.
Or what about my religion? Will you be offended if we use my religion instead of yours? Will I be offended if we use your religion instead of mine?

I'm not sure that history has shown us that. You can give me examples of religious governments keeping law and order, sure. That can be countered with examples such as the spanish inquisition. Monarchys are founded on "divine right" and have a strong religious influence. They certainly haven't always been the best governments.

I'd argue that "justice" wasn't always served, either. I'd argue that whatever the people in power wanted was served, and it got dressed up as "gods will". We all know that terrible things, like the crusades, happened in the name of God. I think most people don't truly believe God wanted them to happen.


But through it all there is always a truth that society clings on to. Nobody would DARE say that, in fact, the bible says slavery was correct. That's because the law says slavery has been outlawed. As such, it should outlaw homosexual 'marriage.' This would assure that society would view the bible's interpretation as against gay 'marriage' and not for it, much in the same way making laws against slavery solidified the view that the bible is in fact against slavery.
Yes, but by that same argument, nobody would DARE say that, in fact, the bible says that there is anything wrong with gay marriages. If we legalized them. Are you trying to convince me that peoples interpretation of the bible is based on the socially acceptable norms that they are comfortable with? You've convinced me.

That's why many people, religious or otherwise, ignore what the bible tells them to do. Because it's not part of the social norms they are used to. They follow the bits of the bible that makes sense to them. Like "no gay marriages", and ignore the bits that don't make sense, like "slavery is just fine". (assuming the bible condones slavery. Which is a seperate topic.)

Didn't Pope John Paul say that you shouldn't have oral sex? I bet many Christians ignored that. But he said homosexuality was an abomonation, and I sure heard about that all the way here in Australia. Incidentally, in that same speech he made the case for tolerance, and accepting other people. I sure didn't hear that bit either. I'm not catholic, or pay much attention, so I don't know the full story. I only know what I heard on the radio and from talking to my catholic friend.

lets see... I was looking for a good to place this, and this seems acceptable here:
http://www.freewebtown.com/brainofme/christianity.html

The statistics prove other wise, but I don't care, I'm American.

You mean like the 50% divorce rate in America despite the fact gay marriage isn't legal?

The statistics prove other wise, but I don't care, I'm American.

Statistics!?! That didn't prove it was the same-sex marriage that was the cause for that. It was just like all the other conservative garbage presented as proof of the negative effects of same-sex marriage. "Something bad(in our views) happened around the same time or during the many years since same-sex mariages have been legalized"

Actually we're quite accepted by the majority of straight people thank you very much.
Ok then ask them to their faces if you can date their son, and see how fast you get your ass kicked or worse. The truth is, no one has a problem till it becomes personal, or in other words part of their family, then it's an issue.

Statistics!?! That didn't prove it was the same-sex marriage that was the cause for that. It was just like all the other conservative garbage presented as proof of the negative effects of same-sex marriage. "Something bad(in our views) happened around the same time or during the many years since same-sex mariages have been legalized"
Then prove me wrong, oh and make sure it's Scandinavia, not any other region.

It is not your place to decide what I am "off fighting" ... Perhaps you should realize that it is all part of the same problem, the social 'unrest' that you minorities cause when you cause such a big problem purely because under the constitution you are equal. Yes, you as an individual are equal to any other American, hower GROUPS are based on size. Minorities have no power over majorities, that was the entire basis on the elimination of monarchies and dictatorships. To say that minorities have EQUAL rights as majorities, would be communism. Majorities rightfully have a power of the minority that, even when the individuals are equal, you must respect.

Under the US constitution all are equal under the law. That means homo's (should) have the same legal rights as you. Whether your particular brand of extremist veiws are the majority or minority doesn't matter in the slightest.

Go look at it if you doubt me. The constitution guarantees everyone equal rights under the law. That means homosexual couples must be allowed to form a union that grants the same legal rights as marriage does. Whether such a union is called marriage or The-Way-To-Be-Gay-Every-Day doesn't matter. It's the civil rights it comes down to.

I realize you'll find it degrading & infuriating when homo's & bi's are allowed to form such unions. Rest assured, most of us find it equally degrading & infuriating people like you have equal protection under the law.

I appreciate seeing you merrily compare perfectly ordinary human beings, with more ethics in their pinky than you have in your body, with child molesters and mass murderours. Very nice. And please do point the blame for your percieved decline of western civilization as we know it.
If your religion had but a different name, I'm sure a lot of the people behind 9/11 would appreciate your rabid self joining their ranks.

Frankly, you in no way contribute to the debate. You post nothing but the most extremely wild and unfounded insults.

Your only redeeming quality is being so utterly absurd that you make me laugh

Judging and recognizing potential threats to the rights to MY religion are two different matters. Homosexuality is not acceptable in the eyes of oh-so-many christians, and yet you would have them legally getting 'married'? That is incorrect, and even moreso because, we have the political power that the majority should enjoy in any form of fair government and no minority should be allowed to take that away.

You mean YOU think it goes against YOUR version of Christianity which has no place in the Goverment as has already been stated. also fair implies equal for all meaning not just the majority! Again I state the fact that under that thinking blacks still would be affected by Jim Crow laws.

Ok then ask them to their faces if you can date their son, and see how fast you get your ass kicked or worse. The truth is, no one has a problem till it becomes personal, or in other words part of their family, then it's an issue.

Well assuming their son is gay and they haven't kicked him out then I assume they'll be quite happy to see him finally have a bf. ;)

Because we all know how gays just love to tie straight people to chairs and force the straights to watch them have sex. If you already know they are going to do it then why not let them have the legal benefits of commitment?
Pathetic. Let's say a 5 year old boy and a 79 year old woman thought they were 'in love' ? Should they enjoy legal benefits of commitment?

Of course not. Because, in my opinion, true love can't exist between a 5 year old boy and a 79 year old woman, and by that I mean they can't even reproduce or perform any of the NATURAL functions that a couple would perform.

Now, Incidentally... that sounds like another 'couple' example that I could think of.

Then prove me wrong, oh and make sure it's Scandinavia, not any other region.

I don't have to prove anything because that article didn't prove that same-sex marriage being legal was the cause!

Pathetic. Let's say a 5 year old boy and a 79 year old woman thought they were 'in love' ? Should they enjoy legal benefits of commitment?

Of course not. Because, in my opinion, true love can't exist between a 5 year old boy and a 79 year old woman, and by that I mean they can't even reproduce or perform any of the NATURAL functions that a couple would perform.

Now, Incidentally... that sounds like another 'couple' example that I could think of.

That's a terrible analogy! Two men can love each other(regardless of your opinion on that)..two women can love each other. It doesn't matter if they can reproduce because marriage is no longer about procreation!

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

Christianity...

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

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

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

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

I think the point here is that the excuses that so many republicans have come up with to make what they're doing look ok are completely ridiculous, and in many ways even worse than just coming out and admitting that they're out to impose a theocracy. But I know where you're coming from, I've seen the exact same sort of thing about some excuses liberals have made to go for things like pro-choice, and getting rid of the death penalty. For example, saying that people under 18 aren't responsible enough yet to be held accountable for their actions (which is really just a push to get rid of the death penalty, even if it does have to come a bit at a time) and yet are somehow responsible enough to decide the fate of their unborn baby (where of course most pro-choice people would say that children have certain freedoms just like adults, that the line between child and adult is fuzzy, and that a few stem cells can't yet be considered human life).

Edit: My advice is to just understand that if it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you.

You say you don't fully understand what it means and then make judgements!? Wouldn't it be a good idea to actually understand something before you try and geuss what it means?

Also are you saying I should only ask questions I already know the answers to? Because that is a rather foolish thing to say.
There's a differance between fully understanding and not understanding at all. And don't tell me that you completely understood every single word in that article. Because the fact is that you couldn't not without knowing the writer, and I doubt you do.

And yes, that's the only way to be correct 100% of the time.

"in the christian religion"
You Americans, to repeat again, have seperation of church and state.

Chances are the gay people getting married aren't part of your brand of christian religion. Therefore, why does it matter to you if they are having children or not?


Im not christian at all, so please do hold furth comments to the fact I'm Gaian. Thank you for your intelligent response. Ya euro trash.

1) I was quoting. That's why I had quote marks around "in the christian religion". I made no assumption to your religion, actually. I was responding to an aspect of the/some christian religion that may, or may not, be shared by your own personal beliefs.

2) You're welcome to my response. I'm glad you found it intelligent.

3) That you for the "euro trash" comment. Does it still apply to me, even if I'm Australian? I'm going to get a badge made up with "euro trash", which can sit next to my one that says "on the pull". (I like the double meaning of the word "pull", since here in Australia it means something completely different to in Britain. I'm not sure what Americans use.)

4) I don't actually know anything about Gaian religion. I admit to having skipped previous posts (I read this thread yesterday before I left from work, so it's now 24 hours later, and I skipped a bunch of posts in the middle). Please point me to any previous posts where you explained any relevant beliefs that you'd like me to address, or explain how your beliefs differe, and are relevant to the debate.

Cheers!

No, dip shit, people aren't marrying because marrige has become stigmatic because the legelization, so quit being so damn sarcastic. After all sarcasism is the humor of the mentally incapable.
But flagrant swearing is the mark of brilliance. From what I the birth rate hasn't fallen at all. Only the marriage rate. which was falling long before gay marriage.

You should try the phrase fuck wit. I think you'll like it.

Judging and recognizing potential threats to the rights to MY religion are two different matters. Homosexuality is not acceptable in the eyes of oh-so-many christians, and yet you would have them legally getting 'married'? That is incorrect, and even moreso because, we have the political power that the majority should enjoy in any form of fair government and no minority should be allowed to take that away.

We also have SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. To imply that the entire country should have to abide by Christian law is both un-American and un-constitutional. We do not have a pure democracy where we all vote and whoever's views has the most votes wins. If we did, Al Gore would have been president starting in 2000.

I don't have to prove anything because that article didn't prove that same-sex marriage being legal was the cause!
You do, since it seems you want to make me think otherwise, so do it please, or are you afraid of the results?

Preety please with sugar and sprinkles and chocalte sauce and a cherry on top? Please?

Pathetic. Let's say a 5 year old boy and a 79 year old woman thought they were 'in love' ? Should they enjoy legal benefits of commitment?

Of course not. Because, in my opinion, true love can't exist between a 5 year old boy and a 79 year old woman, and by that I mean they can't even reproduce or perform any of the NATURAL functions that a couple would perform.

Now, Incidentally... that sounds like another 'couple' example that I could think of.

Again with the child molestor comparison, is that all you can do? It has already been stated that it would be between two legally consenting adults so you comparison is foolish and only further illustrates your homophobia

But flagrant swearing is the mark of brilliance. From what I the birth rate hasn't fallen at all. Only the marriage rate. which was falling long before gay marriage.

You should try the phrase fuck wit. I think you'll like it.
Na, though I may assimilate it later, as for the birth rate, I said that before dumb ass. It's just affecting the marriage rate, but it did fall much more quickly than before.

Not true, but I bet it will pass, with time, and if not, so what, who needs marrage anyways?

What is not true?

You do, since it seems you want to make me think otherwise, so do it please, or are you afraid of the results?

Preety please with sugar and sprinkles and chocalte sauce and a cherry on top? Please?

Sorry to resort to name calling but you are an absolute idiot! You prove to me that same-sex marriage being legal is the cause of the declining rate of births to married couples and then I'll prove whatever you want me to prove!

Your only redeeming quality is being so utterly absurd that you make me laugh
Haha. I would send the same comment your way. Aside from this line, that entire post was either complete garbage, as is most of your contribution and responses to what I say, or deep down I just didn't WANT to know or care about what you were talking about. Either way, if you would to try your hand at some CONSTRUCTIVE posting rather than being completely rediculous yourself, feel free.

Do NOT use my religion against me, or even attempt it. That I do not appreciate. There is more to Christianity than the common stereotype, so i'll just say you 'misinterpretated something' and leave it at that.
Wait you can use your religon against others but no one should dare use it against you. And here I was going to ask forgiveness for being a bitch earlier. No, I was right the first time.twit.

to quote lewis black on this subject: "I understand that some people in this country dont like gay marriage because in the bible it states that marriage should exist between a man and a woman, I understand all that; but there is also something called seperation of church and state, or as I like to call it: the tough shit rule. You dont want gay marriage because it goes against your religion? well TOUGH SHIT."

also just because it says it should exist between a man and a woman doesnt mean that it can ONLY exist between a man and a woman

Again with the child molestor comparison, is that all you can do? It has already been stated that it would be between two legally consenting adults so you comparison is foolish and only further illustrates your homophobia
Excellent. So you admit, then, that love can't exist between everybody, no matter how 'sure' they are it's there? And that would be my point.

Na, though I may assimilate it later, as for the birth rate, I said that before dumb ass. It's just affecting the marriage rate, but it did fall much more quickly than before.

As we are talking about America I feel I should point ou that we already have a 50% divorce rate and a large number of single parent families. So you can't say marriage problems have gay marriage to blame.

Excellent. So you admit, then, that love can't exist between everybody, no matter how 'sure' they are it's there? And that would be my point.

No I'm saying that gay marriage would be between two legaly consenting adults. Love can exist between everybody as Jesus loves everyone, remember that concept?

Wait you can use your religon against others but no one should dare use it against you. And here I was going to ask forgiveness for being a bitch earlier. No, I was right the first time.twit.

They can use their own religion against me, or their lack of it, instead of using mine, yes... and I didn't care about what you said before, no need to ask for forgiveness. Unintelligents that post garbage like that when i'm having a discussion don't really interest me at all.

The truth is, no one has a problem till it becomes personal, or in other words part of their family, then it's an issue.

Actually, the opposite tends to be true. People are usually more bigoted in an impersonal sense, and less in a personal sense. Such as, a person who is generally racist might still have a friend who is of another race, and exempt that person from the idea they have of that race. And a lot of homophobic people have a family member who is gay. In fact, YOU probably have a family member who is gay.

Case in point: Dick Cheney and his gay daughter...he's a homophobe when it comes to politics, but he hasn't kicked his daughter out of the fold now has he?

Well although your obvious maturity makes me want to listen, I don't think so. Anybody of my faith I would glady have them talk to me about christian values, however, much in the same way I wouldn't pretend to know how a member of the Jewish faith feels on a matter, I don't like when atheists or a follower of any other religion pretend to know how a christian 'should' feel on something.
you hear that? If you've read the Bible but don't believe it your opinion doesn't count. good point.

Haha. I would send the same comment your way. Aside from this line, that entire post was either complete garbage, as is most of your contribution and responses to what I say, or deep down I just didn't WANT to know or care about what you were talking about. Either way, if you would to try your hand at some CONSTRUCTIVE posting rather than being completely rediculous yourself, feel free.

Nothing you've done so far has been constructive. All you've managed to do is show off your homophobia and fanatical zeal.

Excellent. So you admit, then, that love can't exist between everybody, no matter how 'sure' they are it's there? And that would be my point.
I'm contesting this.
At the risk of the child molestor topic sidetracking the discussion...

I believe love between a 5 year old and a 79 year old CAN exist. I believe there is nothing wrong with this. I believe that child molestation is a bad thing, and it is good we have laws against it. While the 5 yo can be in a loving relationship, it cannot CONSENT to a sexual relationship.
So the loving non-sexual relationship is fine. The sexual relationship, however, is not fine. Until the child is of consenting age. Then it is fine, as long as both individuals are consenting. And I might find it icky, but that's not really any of my business.

so love CAN exist between everyone if they are 'sure' that it's there. But that's not the only prerequisite of a sexual relationship.

However, this isn't an issue between two gay individuals of consenting age and mental ability, so it's not really relevant to the topic.

No I'm saying that gay marriage would be between two legaly consenting adults. Love can exist between everybody as Jesus loves everyone, remember that concept?
I remember that concept, yes. However...

To limit legally binding 'marriage's to adults would surely be an infringement on the rights of all 5 year old / 79 year old couples out there! We can't let that happen in America, now can we? We'd all be bigots and probably be accused of approving slavery.

They can use their own religion against me, or their lack of it, instead of using mine, yes... and I didn't care about what you said before, no need to ask for forgiveness. Unintelligents that post garbage like that when i'm having a discussion don't really interest me at all.

I'd say pot calling kettle buts its more like pot calling orange

Gay marriages has nothing to do with low marriage rates in Sweden, to be a bastard or have several siblings from one parents new and old relationships is not unusual, people got tired of divorce and we have relatively good protection with the cohabitees act.
http://www.regeringen.se/download/9aabdf51.pdf?major=1&minor=3339&cn=attachmentPublDuplicator_0_attachment

I remember that concept, yes. However...

To limit legally binding 'marriage's to adults would surely be an infringement on the rights of all 5 year old / 79 year old couples out there! We can't let that happen in America, now can we? We'd all be bigots and probably be accused of approving slavery.

Nope as a five year old wouldn't remember what was happening the next day because he's FIVE-fucking years old and he doesn't have hormones or a fully developed mental process yet. Like I said before it is a foolish comparison because in the US we have this thing known as statutary rape.

They can use their own religion against me, or their lack of it, instead of using mine, yes... and I didn't care about what you said before, no need to ask for forgiveness. Unintelligents that post garbage like that when i'm having a discussion don't really interest me at all.

If they have the nominally same religion, then they have no choice.

If they are pointing out fallocies and inaccuracies within the dogma you are using to attack their beliefs and defend yours, then you have no choice.

The Bible is an open book, with everyone allowed to read it and draw their own interpretations.

And how many different interpretations are there? Three main branches, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant, which no more agree on simple little things, than they do on complicated stuff like the Trinity.

You can't use the Bible as The One Holy Truth because you can only use your interpretation of it, whereas there are many more interpretations of the bible going back farther in time.

Nothing you've done so far has been constructive. All you've managed to do is show off your homophobia and fanatical zeal.
And you have been most constructive. All you've done is argue much in the same manner I have been doing with anybody who disagrees with you.

All you have managed to do is show off your sickening misguided thoughts on matters that I have already expressed are much more important than simple gay marriage. It's about the decay of society and you would sit by and let it happen.