NationStates Jolt Archive

HAH! That's a laugh! Who is the one trying to change the very wording of the Bible to suit them? Hmm? Who is the one trying to deny the absolute authority Jesus Christ, the Son of God, gave to Paul? Who is the one who actively participates in an activity that God considers abominable? Who is the one who openly sins with no shame!? That would be YOU! Don't you EVER try to twist the Scriptures to fit your own perverted view of morality! And don't you EVER accuse me of sins when you have NO knowledge of my personal life!...and finally....NEVER PLACE ME IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS FRED PHELPS!!!! I BELIEVE IN LOVE, NOT HATRED!

WELL, YOU HAVE A DAMNABLE WAY OF SHOWING LOVE THEN. YOU SHOW LOVE BY DENYING OTHER PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS, THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FREEDOM TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.

WELL, GODDAMN, HONEY, IF YOU LOVE ME, THEN I'M SURE AS SHIT GLAD YOU DON'T HATE ME.

BECAUSE YOU COULDA FOOLED THE FUCK OUTTA ME!!

Back on topic for a sec. I agree that the government should not be allowed to make laws regarding religion or forcing it on someone. Now when you propose a law say to ban gay marriage based on the tenants of your religion that is forcing a group of people who are not part of your religion to follow it. Is that not a violation of the seperation of church and state when a state forces a religion on a group of people.

WELL, YOU HAVE A DAMNABLE WAY OF SHOWING LOVE THEN. YOU SHOW LOVE BY DENYING OTHER PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS, THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FREEDOM TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.

WELL, GODDAMN, HONEY, IF YOU LOVE ME, THEN I'M SURE AS SHIT GLAD YOU DON'T HATE ME.

BECAUSE YOU COULDA FOOLED THE FUCK OUTTA ME!!

Calm down and step away from the caps lock button please.

Anyway, there is always a way to get married if you are gay.
http://www.gaykrant.nl/index.php?id=222

Incidentally, I really have no desire to get married...to anyone, or anyTHING, for that matter. It's the principle of the thing I'm fighting for here.

I, myself, happen to have absolutely no sex drive whatsoever. None.

But I am not going to sit around while one group, claiming "righteous authority" tramples all over the civil rights of another group.

The alternative lifestyle that I lead is that I CHOOSE to be celibate. I CHOOSE not to have sex. I have no desire for it.

Some of my best friends are gays. And I'm not going to allow a bully group to pulverize their rights.

What have they ever done to hurt you, Christians?

WELL, YOU HAVE A DAMNABLE WAY OF SHOWING LOVE THEN. YOU SHOW LOVE BY DENYING OTHER PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS, THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FREEDOM TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.

WELL, GODDAMN, HONEY, IF YOU LOVE ME, THEN I'M SURE AS SHIT GLAD YOU DON'T HATE ME.

BECAUSE YOU COULDA FOOLED THE FUCK OUTTA ME!!

Now step back take a deep breath and ask is it worth the potential forum ban for this stuff. Honestly it's not worth your time, it's painfully clear that Neo won't change her stance (and as much as I may not like it I respect her for it) so perhaps returning to the topic at hand and discussing potential reasons for why marriage shouldn't be allowed. In my mind the only real defense that is there is tradition, but if vegas weddings and pop culture haven't killed the tradition of marriage then I don't know what does.

WELL, YOU HAVE A DAMNABLE WAY OF SHOWING LOVE THEN. YOU SHOW LOVE BY DENYING OTHER PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS, THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FREEDOM TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.

WELL, GODDAMN, HONEY, IF YOU LOVE ME, THEN I'M SURE AS SHIT GLAD YOU DON'T HATE ME.

BECAUSE YOU COULDA FOOLED THE FUCK OUTTA ME!!

This is my first post, but i've been reading for awhile and you seriously need to calm down... the way you're acting, if I was Neo I would revoke my apology until asked nicely.

Calmn down, it's best to just ignore her(sorry if this is wrong) instead of rampant flaming. Frankly it's probably best for the both of you to cool down and take some time off this thread since constructive conversations aren't seeming to be made.

No I am NOT going to calm down!! she unjustly levelled a horrible charge at me, and I haven't gotten the MOTHERFUCKING APOLOGY I feel I deserve yet.

Lol, you actually.

You dare make another accusation...that I started it...when your first accusation against me was proven wrong??

Just goes to show you didn't fucking MEAN the half-assed apology you gave.

I WANT YOU TO FUCKING ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

Incidentally, I really have no desire to get married...to anyone, or anyTHING, for that matter. It's the principle of the thing I'm fighting for here.

I, myself, happen to have absolutely no sex drive whatsoever. None.

But I am not going to sit around while one group, claiming "righteous authority" tramples all over the civil rights of another group.

The alternative lifestyle that I lead is that I CHOOSE to be celibate. I CHOOSE not to have sex. I have no desire for it.

Some of my best friends are gays. And I'm not going to allow a bully group to pulverize their rights.

What have they ever done to hurt you, Christians?
How sweet of you to care. I live in Holland, am gay and able to get married here, so this whole thread has very little to do with me. Nevertheless I feel some very wrong things are being said here and have tried to get the same point across as you have, but the opposing party seems not to care about the right of equal treatment.

No I am NOT going to calm down!! she unjustly levelled a horrible charge at me, and I haven't gotten the MOTHERFUCKING APOLOGY I feel I deserve yet.

Welcome to the wonderful device known as the internet, where no matter what you say when it really boils down to it all you have to do is stop going on it and you never have to appologize. I'm not saying your wrong in wanting an apology, but the way you are going about getting it has as much chance of it ever happening as Brittny not getting married in Vegas, and much more likely will lead to warns from the mods for flaming/ect...which you probably know since you've been here so much longer then I have.

This is my first post, but i've been reading for awhile and you seriously need to calm down... the way you're acting, if I was Neo I would revoke my apology until asked nicely.

You have no idea the horrible accusations Neo made against me for which I am demanding apology. You would be as pissed as I am...if someone unjustly accused you of doing what she accused me of doing.

I'm so fucking mad right now I can barely see straight. I'm getting outta here before I REALLY blow my top!!

The THOUGHT that I would EVER be guilty of what she accused me of is enough to set ANYONE off.

Just so you know...she accused me of advocating violence against another group of people...christians, specifically. I did no such thing. I have NEVER advocated violence against ANYONE...or ANY GROUP...for ANY REASON....EVER!!!

And to be accused of it really insulted the fuck outta me.

You have no idea the horrible accusations Neo made against me for which I am demanding apology. You would be as pissed as I am...if someone unjustly accused you of doing what she accused me of doing.

I'm so fucking mad right now I can barely see straight. I'm getting outta here before I REALLY blow my top!!

The THOUGHT that I would EVER be guilty of what she accused me of is enough to set ANYONE off.

Just so you know...she accused me of advocating violence against another group of people...christians, specifically. I did no such thing. I have NEVER advocated violence against ANYONE...or ANY GROUP...for ANY REASON....EVER!!!

And to be accused of it really insulted the fuck outta me.

And I'm still a bit confused by was it my lions post that was taken out of context in that regard?

Now this is absolutely it.

I'm outta here for tonight. Because I have been angered beyond my ability to control my reaction anymore.

You will NEVER know, Neo...just how badly you insulted me. And I doubt you care.

And I apologized. And I apologize again. I made a mistake, I'm sorry.

You have no idea the horrible accusations Neo made against me for which I am demanding apology. You would be as pissed as I am...if someone unjustly accused you of doing what she accused me of doing.

I'm so fucking mad right now I can barely see straight. I'm getting outta here before I REALLY blow my top!!

The THOUGHT that I would EVER be guilty of what she accused me of is enough to set ANYONE off.

Just so you know...she accused me of advocating violence against another group of people...christians, specifically. I did no such thing. I have NEVER advocated violence against ANYONE...or ANY GROUP...for ANY REASON....EVER!!!

And to be accused of it really insulted the fuck outta me.

I can tell you're mad, that doesnt take sherlock to figure out. No I don't agree that I would be just as mad, I wouldn't be consistantly flaming and useing profanity because of it. And I think its a good idea to get out of here if you don't call your previous posts "blowing your top" then i'm afraid of what is. and she apologized and you rejected it, you have lost your right to demand another.

And I apologized. And I apologize again. I made a mistake, I'm sorry.
That's a little more like it. what I wanted was the "I made a mistake" part.

Now good night.

Back on topic for a sec. I agree that the government should not be allowed to make laws regarding religion or forcing it on someone. Now when you propose a law say to ban gay marriage based on the tenants of your religion that is forcing a group of people who are not part of your religion to follow it. Is that not a violation of the seperation of church and state when a state forces a religion on a group of people.

Still waiting for an reply to this.

Firstly, Neo you already admitted that you only had religous reasons to ban homosexuality and there is the seperation of church and state as has been pointed out. Don't start rying to pull out the "majority"card becuase then you'll start sounding like Ignatius, which no one wants. Also if Peter, who founded the Catholic Church if I'm not mistaken, were infalliable then we are all going to Hell, if you believe in it which I don't, because then the church system he set up was the only true religion and Martin Luther was completely wrong. If Martin Luther wasn't wrong then Peter was not infalliable because the system he created was flawed. Also, you will note that Paul had a tendency to go a bit overboard with discrimination (see: when he was Saul) and I find it unlikely that he would lose those tendencies. Also no where is it stated that those filled with the Holy Spirit are infalliable.

Ignatius, quit whining.

Wow... I go away for a day or two, and the thread doubles! Anyway, sorry if I repeat anyone's points, but I'm going to post as I read, there's really no other way.

It's just that this specific point is a personal belief of mine that isn't going to be changed, because there aren't facts or statistics or historical precedents to disprove the fact that I think it's a dumb idea to change words that old.
I would disagree... examples throughout history which I could theoretically convince you were necessary might change that absolute stance you have. It's always good to keep an open mind, but I'll try to respect your wishes and avoid that.

Yeah it is, the second clause of DOMA defines marriage as a being between a man and a woman. They just say that states are allowed to recognize gay marriages that are already in existence.
Massachusetts is marrying gays and lesbians. And they're calling it "marriage". So clearly DOMA wasn't as sweeping as one would think from reading it.

Don't chop up what I said, I clarified that it's nearly it is nearly global, not global. But the only reason it isn't global is because many countries with certain more liberal tendencies are changing it to be that way.
Sorry if you feel I'm misrepresenting what you say, but I'm doing my best to trim your full posts into shorter, more readable blocks that accurately represent the idea that I am responding to.
As for the definition thing... it is never set in stone. Every different dictionary has a different definition (except on certain words, in which case many might agree... you know, works such as "the"... maybe even "ice"). About liberal countries tweaking the existing generally pervasive notion of what the word means... yes, that is true. Right or wrong, they are liberal, and they are changing it. However, at one time, there were other definitions that have become outdated and had to be changed. "Computer", for example, used to be a job description. Times change, however, and it became apparent that the term should apply to this new machine that was coming out. So as you can see, definitions evolve. Some with invention and innovation, other from struggles for equality.

Which is all I'm saying.
Right... but you keep saying that gays should be lobbying for civil unions and not marriages, but at the present moment they do not give even close to the same rights. The only word right now that legally grants all of the benefits of marriage is "marriage". Is that their fault?

<snip, misleading in context> ...many homosexuals say they feel second class because the government won't let them change the definition. Which I think is just being whiny.
The Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. Individual schools had been white-only for generations upon generations. Where the protesters trying to change that "just being whiny", instead of building their own colleges for black people to attend? Because that's what you're talking about, here... gays would have to invent a legal relationship in order for it to be "equal", and it still wouldn't have any of the connotations that go with a marriage.

Actually, that whole Christianity analogy doesn't really work. Because muslims wouldn't be choosing to become christian, they'd be forced to. On the other hand, homosexuals are choosing to push for marriage, instead of civil unions.
No, they're not forced to become Christian. They are allowed to become Christian. They can still be a Muslim if they want, they just can't practice Islam. Just like gays don't HAVE to have a straight marriage. They just can't have a gay one.

My hypothesis is entirely supported by the research you already know. My statements were true, the percentage of depression and suicide and self-medication attempts in the gay community is astronomically higher than in the straight community, and I would say it’s epidemic in the straight city-dwelling community as it is now, the gay community is sunk in it.
Brilliant observation on your part. Now if you tried looking outside your nation's borders, you would suddenly have some context for the things you observe. Other nations have radically different practices concerning homosexuals. You'd for example find that in some countries, an anstrnomically higher amount of homosexuals are executed by government. Elsewhere, you will see that drug abuse, mental disorders, alcohol abuse and suicide rates are actually lower in the homosexual population than the straight population. Comparatively speaking of course.
You will also notice that divorce rates and the number of children removed from homosexual families are lower, comparatively, than amongst heterosexuals.

Since you're so very well versed in these things, I'll let you jump to your own conclusions.
You know, I was reading through this thread, and I found that…

I know deaf couples that have children born with defective inner ears and they are thus deaf, but they can be cured via a relatively simple surgery. The deaf parent’s deaf community 'Wants" their child to stay deaf to continue the deaf community. And you know what? They, like the gay community, are wrong. <Snip snip>
Funny, no offence but you sound like certain geneticists... Sexuality, no matter the orientation, is not regarded as a disease in your country. There is no basis to regard it as such. It's very likely there are some physiological factors involved, but even that is scetchy. As things stand, it's just how some people's sexuality manifests itself.
Comparing it to various illnesses serves no purpose - other than possibly portraying yourself as clueless.
Untill there's some sort of evidence supporting any sort of conclusion, my personal position is this:
It's akin to people who believe in religion (any one of them). It's a personal thing. It harms noone at all. Therefore, it's nobody's business.

By the way, posting propaganda against equal rights from a religious movement doesn't help your case any. And as numerous people have pointed out already, if you say A, you must say B. Otherwise you are clearly trying to oppress a specific minority. I'm pretty sure banning marriages between people who can't or won't procreate is the way to loose all your support.

There are many reasons why i don't believe that gay marriage is right, but primarly because it destroys a few thousand year old HUMAN tradition of which will crush the immage of the family and turn it into something that insted of producing children, our future world. It has a chance of creating nice friendly things like AIDS, or HIVs. Thats one reason, another to is because i feel that marriage will become to the point of commercialization where people will be able to marry what ever they please wheather it be there pet cat or there computer. I mean, 30 years ago no one around here would of thought about 2 gays getting married, and right now no one would think about a guy and a dog getting married. This kind of blows the idea of "if they love eachother, why shouldent they get married?!" out of the water. The slippery slope effect chances are WILL occur, and if we don't stop it now, why know what kind screwed up stuff us humans "and maybe even animals" may be doing with each other.
Ok... The great old institution you think will be crushed by this initiative might concievably be strenghtned. Because people might get the impression that, not only is it convenient for a number of legal reasons, but the institution itself is unbiased and unoppressive, meant to unite people, not devide them.
Your current stance on this issue could easily lead to people veiwing the institution as a biggoted old oppressive leftover from back when black's were slaves and women were too.
HIV, which is AIDS before it starts to kill you, is a virus. It comes from animals, not gays. Sure, traditionally it's been linked with gay (male) sex, but that's completely wrong right now. Males are still more likely to contract aids, because males are still more sexually active than females. However, HIV is more widespread amongst heterosexuals than homosexuals right now. If you want to look at the risk groups, here's how it looks: Dykes have virtually no chance of contracting HIV. Gays have a very low chance of contracting HIV. Hetero women have about the same chance of contracting HIV as gays. Hetero men have by far the greatest chance of getting HIV.
Since you appear to have virtually no clue how HIV is spread, I'll throw you a bone: Unprotected sex is the way to go. Unprotected anal sex is the way to get HIV.
I think one of the main reasons for the current state of things is that gays learned to protect themselves (yea, it's perfectly possible to pratice safe sex with a HIV infected partner), while straight men just do what they've always done... Execpt it's been getting increasingly trendy to have anal sex amongst hetero's, and hetero's have piss poor sex. Most think lubricants has something to do with car maintenance.
30 years ago people did infact make mass-weddings that weren't legally binding infront of government institutions etc, to try and raise awareness that they existed and were treated like shit. But really, I'm not American and have never been very involved in homo/bi rights movements. I'm sure others here are better history teachers than I am.
You may also want to reveiw your impression of what marriage is, historically. Information about that have previously been posted here.


About all you people having a go at religion and Neo Rogolia in particular... Why don't you lot lay the fuck off?! Sure, she offends me to no end with a lot of the things she says. But she has the same right to spew shit the rest of have. Sure, I think she's about as wrong as can be. I personally feel very sorry for people deluded enough to believe in religion. But that's my opinion. I have a right to it, same as she has every right to think I'm the deluded fool.
She is not, I repeat, is not against civil unions for same sex couples that grant exactly the same legal standing as marriage does. The only thing she's got a problem with is us insisting on calling it marriage or involving her faith in it - which the feels we do by clinging to the marriage word.

The smart thing would be to claim the moral high ground. Call it something other than marriage, obtain equal rights, and leave the fundies to their religion. Who the fuck cares what the bible does or doesn't say about same sex marriages/unions anyway? It's perfectly legal to be homo/bi-sexual, and even if it wasn't, noone would stop being it. Let her religion be her own business. She is NOT the one throwing peg's in the wheels. But our conduct might very well tempt her to do so.

... For fuck's sake! Think people.

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

I'm not sure which is a scarier concept.

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

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

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


The government has enforced church "dogma" since so long ago, and it has worked until fairly recently.
Is this supposed to be a defense? This claims illegal activity by the very group you support. Why would you say this?

As we move further away from church, and as sick practices such as "gay marriage" are proposed, it only hastens the decline of society.
Support and/or apology? If you are going to spout unsupported claims that are offensive, especially when they are this broad, kindly do it in your imagination and not where other people might have to actually read it.

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

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

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

You need to see that religion mixed with the government, and in the government, religion in society only served the public good.
Except for the times when it didn't.

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.
That's not how things work. The Constitution prevents it, or at least is trying as hard as it can. But it's getting old. Possibly the Constitution is arthritic. Can't defend itself anymore.

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

...

...

No pun intended.

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.

Spot on, except for the part where you say that civil unions are equal to marriage. They're not even close. Civil unions don't convey most of the rights of marriage.
I agree that it should be up to individual churches whether or not to religiously marry people, but I think that the State has to be willing to marry any couple who wants to marry (as far as the legal protections go and so forth).

Still waiting for an reply to this.

You'll be waiting a long time. It was too awesome for anyone one to argue with.

Spot on, except for the part where you say that civil unions are equal to marriage. They're not even close. Civil unions don't convey most of the rights of marriage.
I agree that it should be up to individual churches whether or not to religiously marry people, but I think that the State has to be willing to marry any couple who wants to marry (as far as the legal protections go and so forth).
I explicitly stated I was talking about Civil Unions that do convey the exact same rights as marriage. I know that's not at all the case in America, which is why I also said "Where they work", because in for example Denmark, Sweden and Norway, same-sex marriage are called different things, things that loosely translates to Civil Union.

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

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

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

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

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


They have to both be the same ... meaning both marrige or both civil unions ... all called treated the same and covered under the same laws

Seperate is not equal ... one or the other ( I personaly dont care which ... though it does bother me that christians somehow get to take over what "marrige" is)

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

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

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

I think having to have what is a marriage in every sense called a 'civil union' is also fairly offensive.

Firstly, Neo you already admitted that you only had religous reasons to ban homosexuality and there is the seperation of church and state as has been pointed out. Don't start rying to pull out the "majority"card becuase then you'll start sounding like Ignatius, which no one wants. Also if Peter, who founded the Catholic Church if I'm not mistaken, were infalliable then we are all going to Hell, if you believe in it which I don't, because then the church system he set up was the only true religion and Martin Luther was completely wrong. If Martin Luther wasn't wrong then Peter was not infalliable because the system he created was flawed. Also, you will note that Paul had a tendency to go a bit overboard with discrimination (see: when he was Saul) and I find it unlikely that he would lose those tendencies. Also no where is it stated that those filled with the Holy Spirit are infalliable.


1. I'm not Catholic nor am I Protestant. I am a New Testament Christian.

2. Seperation of Church and state only applies to official adoption of a religion. Never do they refer to restricting the morals of their own citizens. Seperation of Church and state is also not a justification for endorsing a purely secular system which infringes upon the religious doctrines of individuals of a particular religion. If this occurs, then it is the duty of those who embrace said religion to oppose the attempts to infringe their religion with their rights as a citizen to vote, petition, and/or otherwise resist secular persecution.

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

4. I'm not qualified to argue on behalf of the Petros/Petra subject, but it is my conclusion that Christ built his church upon Peter's confession and not Peter himself.

They have to both be the same ... meaning both marrige or both civil unions ... all called treated the same and covered under the same laws

Seperate is not equal ... one or the other ( I personaly dont care which ... though it does bother me that christians somehow get to take over what "marrige" is)

Look, there's no doubt in my mind that Christians and all other current religions have no claim on neither word nor concept. But unlike you, I see no point in arguing it.
Likewise, I could argue the whole religion thing 'till I turn blue in the faith.. err face. But what's the point?
This thing is a process. You Americans finally have a shot at getting equal rights. Take it. Don't get caught in irellevant details.
And don't kid yourselves. You'll not gain equal rights in respect to adoption and the like. Not yet.

But like I said, it's a process & a struggle. Where I am, it's realistic to start fighting for equal adoption rights. It has become realistic because we have been willing to take the fights & make the compromises. Now people can see for themselves that kids in gay families are statistically better off than their hetero family counterparts. The kids themselves are also old enough now to voice their own opinion about it.
Marriage here also spawned religious issues. Sure, we had gay priests and whatnot, but the "Marriage" thing was a huge camel to swollow. So we compromised, got the practical rights, but not the name.
Yet for all intents and purposes, everyone calls it marriage now, and if tyhe homo's & bi's were to rise up now and ask for the name to be changed to marriage, I doubt anyone would protest. At most, people would ask if we'd be willing to pay for all the shitty paperwork.

If getting what you want involves compromise, then think about it before you shoot both your feet off with a cannon ;)

Look, there's no doubt in my mind that Christians and all other current religions have no claim on neither word nor concept. But unlike you, I see no point in arguing it.
Likewise, I could argue the whole religion thing 'till I turn blue in the faith.. err face. But what's the point?
This thing is a process. You Americans finally have a shot at getting equal rights. Take it. Don't get caught in irellevant details.
And don't kid yourselves. You'll not gain equal rights in respect to adoption and the like. Not yet.

But like I said, it's a process & a struggle. Where I am, it's realistic to start fighting for equal adoption rights. It has become realistic because we have been willing to take the fights & make the compromises. Now people can see for themselves that kids in gay families are statistically better off than their hetero family counterparts. The kids themselves are also old enough now to voice their own opinion about it.
Marriage here also spawned religious issues. Sure, we had gay priests and whatnot, but the "Marriage" thing was a huge camel to swollow. So we compromised, got the practical rights, but not the name.
Yet for all intents and purposes, everyone calls it marriage now, and if tyhe homo's & bi's were to rise up now and ask for the name to be changed to marriage, I doubt anyone would protest. At most, people would ask if we'd be willing to pay for all the shitty paperwork.

If getting what you want involves compromise, then think about it before you shoot both your feet off with a cannon ;)


I understand but we have to have goals ... we take one thing at a time but always striving twards social equality (as close as realistic)

I think having to have what is a marriage in every sense called a 'civil union' is also fairly offensive.
Do you have any objective reasons?

I'm not asking for an explanation if it involves religion or being freaked out by what you think goes on in the bedrooms of couples of the same sex. Frankly, either would be redundant.

Do you have any objective reasons?

I'm not asking for an explanation if it involves religion or being freaked out by what you think goes on in the bedrooms of couples of the same sex. Frankly, either would be redundant.
I think what he/she was trying to get at was having to have sperate names for it when they really (idealy) are the same thing is stupid

I understand but we have to have goals ... we take one thing at a time but always striving twards social equality (as close as realistic)
Exactly mate!
And insisting on the name or the place to conduct it is counterproductive just now. If you obtain equal legal standing, chances are you'll have a great shot at getting the rest inside the next 25 years.

It's much easer to cross a football field one step at a time than in a single leap ;)

Do you have any objective reasons?

I'm not asking for an explanation if it involves religion or being freaked out by what you think goes on in the bedrooms of couples of the same sex. Frankly, either would be redundant.

Firstly, I think you got the wrong idea. I'm for same-sex marriages. I meant that same sex couples would be offended because while they would have the same rights and characteristics of a 'traditional' marriage, they would be forced to be called something different. They would be segregated via terminology.

I think what he/she was trying to get at was having to have sperate names for it when they really (idealy) are the same thing is stupid
Sure it is. It's nonsensical to me. Neo Rogolia disagrees though. She doesn't have a problem with the practical aspects of same-sex marriage, but she feels her faith is getting pissed on if you use the word.
So why not achive what you're fighting for without having to fight her?

Chances are you'll never convince a lot of various religion's followers that you're not intruding on their faith if you use the name. If history is anything to judge by, evidence just doesn't matter when it comes to faith.

Exactly mate!
And insisting on the name or the place to conduct it is counterproductive just now. If you obtain equal legal standing, chances are you'll have a great shot at getting the rest inside the next 25 years.

It's much easer to cross a football field one step at a time than in a single leap ;)
While in real life we fight things one step at a times
On the forums it is a discussion and if people are discussing anything but a specific short term goal I state my long term goals

Heh, I'm sorry I got you wrong Bogstonia.

And if we're speaking long term goals, mine is tolerance, awareness and education.

In my humble opinion, those 3 things are the only way to rid ourselves of prejudice, oppression and religion. I have a feeling it will also bring an end to national borders, capitalism, natural resource exploitation and pollution.

:fluffle: I can give you ALOT of reasons why gays should be allowed to marry. IT IS CALLED LOVE! It should not matter if they are the same sex... or opposite. As long as they can take care of themselves and be responsible. Love has no boundries. It never will. People are so quick to judge now a days that it sickens me. Are you quick to judge a black person wearing a dark coat sitting in his car at midnight in front of a store. What would you think of him? Well?? Switch it.. what if it was a white person. People would expect the black person to do something before the white person would. No, byfar am I prejudice. I treat people with equality. Cause I know I do not want to be judged for who I am or for what I do or for anything of that sort. It is wrong. I myself am part of the HRC (Human Rights Campaign), and proud of it. This month is Gay Pride... and I wear the colors bright and high. Because of people like you, people like us are afraid to be who we are. We are beatin, put down, spat on, disgraced, hated against, all because you cannot and will not accept the fact that two people are IN LOVE! and like I have said that is WRONG!!!

:sniper: People today should be shot for hatred and judgement of others.. but that is why we have laws.. to save people like them!

Yea, why not I mean it's not like those in the majority aren't trying to force their will on others who don't want it.... oh wai. Minority or majority people should still have equal rights, justifying the denial of some because the majority doesn't want them to have them is bullshit. Yep, agreed. But where is it in your Constitution that people have a "right" to get married to whomever they please?

1. I'm not Catholic nor am I Protestant. I am a New Testament Christian.

2. Seperation of Church and state only applies to official adoption of a religion. Never do they refer to restricting the morals of their own citizens. Seperation of Church and state is also not a justification for endorsing a purely secular system which infringes upon the religious doctrines of individuals of a particular religion. If this occurs, then it is the duty of those who embrace said religion to oppose the attempts to infringe their religion with their rights as a citizen to vote, petition, and/or otherwise resist secular persecution.

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

4. I'm not qualified to argue on behalf of the Petros/Petra subject, but it is my conclusion that Christ built his church upon Peter's confession and not Peter himself.


I'm sorry, but you do not speak for all christians.
I endorse gay marriage because christianity is based on love, if we as christians do not accept love, then our faith is in doubt.
Do we as a community not believe that Christ loves and forgives all of mankind?
Do you think he would be fighting gay peoples rights to be treated the same way as everybody else?
To have the same legal rights even.
Gay marriage is in no way opposed by the message of Christ.
I believe that Paul had a lot of the old traditions lodged too deep in his mind to let them go, I also believe that the founding of the church was in some ways to go over the top, because then we are not equal, my interprentations do not weigh as heavily as those made by the clergy for a large part of the christians. Christ did not build the church or created the clergical system.
That was made by people like you and me.
Paul is no different from you and me.
If we truly love eachother and embrace the message we will find that it becomes impossible to argue about peoples happiness.
We should try to make things better here and now, to ensure happiness for all. Because it may be so that the afterlife is not including some in humanity, this does not make it right to deny them happiness.
We are not god, we are fallible and prone to injustice, we should try not to be.
And until the day I die I will do my best to increase the amount of happiness and love in this world by endorsing equal rights and protecting the weak.
Just as God intended.

I'm sorry, but you do not speak for all christians.
I endorse gay marriage because christianity is based on love, if we as christians do not accept love, then our faith is in doubt.
Do we as a community not believe that Christ loves and forgives all of mankind?
Do you think he would be fighting gay peoples rights to be treated the same way as everybody else?
To have the same legal rights even.
Gay marriage is in no way opposed by the message of Christ.
I believe that Paul had a lot of the old traditions lodged too deep in his mind to let them go, I also believe that the founding of the church was in some ways to go over the top, because then we are not equal, my interprentations do not weigh as heavily as those made by the clergy for a lagre part of the christians. Christ did not build the church or created the clergical system.
That was made by people like you and me.
Paul is no different from you and me.
If we truly love eachother and embrace the message we will find that it becomes impossible to argue about peoples happiness.
We should try to make things better here and now, to ensure happiness for all. Because it may be so that the afterlife is not including some in humanity, this does not make it right to deny them happiness.
We are not god, we are fallible and prone to injustice, we should try not to be.
And until the day I die I will do my best to increase the amount of happiness and love in this world by endorsing equal rights and protecting the weak.
Just as God intended.


I couldn't have said that any better, thank you :fluffle:

1. I'm not Catholic nor am I Protestant. I am a New Testament Christian.

Doesn't matter as Peter started the Catholic Church and since he was "infalliable" any system he created would therefore be perfect and therefore it has the only true interpretation of what Christ wanted and therefore you are still wrong and will subsequently burn in Hell.

2. Seperation of Church and state only applies to official adoption of a religion. Never do they refer to restricting the morals of their own citizens. Seperation of Church and state is also not a justification for endorsing a purely secular system which infringes upon the religious doctrines of individuals of a particular religion. If this occurs, then it is the duty of those who embrace said religion to oppose the attempts to infringe their religion with their rights as a citizen to vote, petition, and/or otherwise resist secular persecution.

Problem is, the US goverment has banned the practices of some religions that called for living sacrifices. Further saying that homosexuals can be bound in a legal union in no way infringes upon your interpretation of Christianity as no one is forcing you to participate in homosexual marriage, nor are they forcing your church to. Also it is this sort of thinking that fundamentalist Islamic terroristgroups use to justify their attacks on us. Our way of life offends their religion and so therefore it must be destroyed.

3. Paul, having been granted authority by Christ and having been gifted with divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit, retains absolute authority in any commandments he gives, as they are of Christ. Whether we perceive them as contrary to our changing social standards of tolerance are regardless. Christianity is a religion of submission, be you man, woman, Jew, Gentile, Slave, Free, Young, Old, or any categories I've excluded. We are to accept our place in life on earth, so that we may enjoy an afterlife of eternal happiness, bliss, and true equality.[quote]

Insight =/= infalliability, also see above.

[quote]4. I'm not qualified to argue on behalf of the Petros/Petra subject, but it is my conclusion that Christ built his church upon Peter's confession and not Peter himself.

But if Peter is infalliable than his church is the one true church

And until the day I die I will do my best to increase the amount of happiness and love in this world by endorsing equal rights and protecting the weak.
Just as God intended. Well said. Equal rights should be fought for… as long as they are in fact rights.

No doubt this has been done already, but...

Can someone with decent Bibleknowledge tell me where in the Bible the rules of "marriage" are defined ? So I am not asking for sections that say "homosexuality is wrong", but for sections explaining what a good, Christian marriage would be, why it is something different than a statemarriage, and that it must always be between a man and a woman.

Edit: I already found this link: http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/transcript/marriage1.htm which does however not seem to contain anything that actually defines marriage, or for instance explicetly forbids polygamy... The only thing coming close to a definition is this:
Haven't you read the scripture that says that in the beginning the Creator made people male and female? 5 And God said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, and the two will become one.'
But it is not said that this can only happen once...

Problem is, the US goverment has banned the practices of some religions that called for living sacrifices. Further saying that homosexuals can be bound in a legal union in no way infringes upon your interpretation of Christianity as no one is forcing you to participate in homosexual marriage, nor are they forcing your church to. Also it is this sort of thinking that fundamentalist Islamic terroristgroups use to justify their attacks on us. Our way of life offends their religion and so therefore it must be destroyed.

Bingo.

Doesn't matter as Peter started the Catholic Church and since he was "infalliable" any system he created would therefore be perfect and therefore it has the only true interpretation of what Christ wanted and
therefore you are still wrong and will subsequently burn in Hell.

The first part does not qualify the second. In any case, the things that protestants disagree with Catholics on have to do with things the church did after Paul “founded” it. Also, I think you will find a big difference between the churches founded by Paul, and the grand cathedrals of the later Catholic church. The movement to unite the churches under an earthly authority came after Paul’s death, if I have my history correct.

1. I'm not Catholic nor am I Protestant. I am a New Testament Christian.

I was under the impression that any member of a denomination other than Catholic or Eastern Orthodox was protestant, I could be wrong, though.

No doubt this has been done already, but...

Can someone with decent Bibleknowledge tell me where in the Bible the rules of "marriage" are defined ? So I am not asking for sections that say "homosexuality is wrong", but for sections explaining what a good, Christian marriage would be, why it is something different than a statemarriage, and that it must always be between a man and a woman.

Acttually it can be between a man and women

The first part does not qualify the second. In any case, the things that protestants disagree with Catholics on have to do with things the church did after Paul “founded” it. Also, I think you will find a big difference between the churches founded by Paul, and the grand cathedrals of the later Catholic church. The movement to unite the churches under an earthly authority came after Paul’s death, if I have my history correct.


PETER founded that church, Paul never even met Jesus. So much for history here...

The first part does not qualify the second. In any case, the things that protestants disagree with Catholics on have to do with things the church did after Paul “founded” it. Also, I think you will find a big difference between the churches founded by Paul, and the grand cathedrals of the later Catholic church. The movement to unite the churches under an earthly authority came after Paul’s death, if I have my history correct.


I was saying that if Peter created a system upon which the leadership of the Catholic Church was based and he was infalliable then shouldn't the leaders that were chosen be the best possible men for the job and not allow for the corruption that caused the Protestant Reformation. If Peter was infalliable then the Protestant Reformation was wrong. However since Peter is not infalliable... CORRUPTION!

Can someone with decent Bibleknowledge tell me where in the Bible the rules of "marriage" are defined ? So I am not asking for sections that say "homosexuality is wrong", but for sections explaining what a good, Christian marriage would be, why it is something different than a statemarriage, and that it must always be between a man and a woman.


Well, the Bible never acknowledges same-sex marriage at all really. All the rules for marriage and family have a husband/wife, man/women, thing set up.

Acttually it can be between a man and women

Not since Deuteronomy.

Hah! Jolly good!

Well, the Bible never acknowledges same-sex marriage at all really. All the rules for marriage and family have a husband/wife, man/women, thing set up.

But what are they ?

PETER founded that church, Paul never even met Jesus. So much for history here...

I knew that. Paul set up churches throughout the Mediterranean, though. Many of the books of the bible are letters to churches he started while he was imprisoned in Rome, but I know you knew that Cabra.

Peter’s church in Palestine was wiped out, and he was crucified upside down, supposedly.

The bible just says don't do it for it is an abomination. No punishments. Gays get off easier than the bull if a woman were to have sex with a bull. The bull is to be stoned to death. two gay guys getting it on can go about their merry way.

Also, please check outSkeptics Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com)

Not since Deuteronomy.

Unlless you're Mormon!

But seriously, would you mind telling me the verses so that I'll remember them next time before I say something like that again?

Unlless you're Mormon!

In addition to the Bible they also use the Book of Mormons, which I have never so much as looked at, so I couldn’t really tell you why they practice polygamy. I believe they have discontinued it officially, though.

But seriously, would you mind telling me the verses so that I'll remember them next time before I say something like that again?

Previous to Deuteronomy it had been acceptable for kings to take multiple wives. In Deuteronomy, however, it says about the king in 17:17,

“He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray”

In addition to the Bible they also use the Book of Mormons, which I have never so much as looked at, so I couldn’t really tell you why they practice polygamy. I believe they have discontinued it officially, though.



Previous to Deuteronomy it had been acceptable for kings to take multiple wives. In Deuteronomy, however, it says about the king in 17:17,

“He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray”

They do in fact practise polygyny, women are not allowed to marry more than one man.

Okay, I need to go to bed, so I don't have time to write out a long thread, but this caught my eye:

Yep, agreed. But where is it in your Constitution that people have a "right" to get married to whomever they please?

I suggest you read my post on page 91, but I'll quote the relevant part here:

For most people, marriage would be considered "in the pursuit of happiness."The United States Supreme Court, in recognizing that marriage is a fundamental right, stated that "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967). See also Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618, 98 S. Ct. 673 (1978).

As I'm sure you're aware, we all have the right to pursue happiness (there's more about that in the actual post).

Magical Ponies could you please edit your post and add the text "Holy words of Magical Ponies " somewhere? Because I want to adobt you as my new idol, and I want some holy scripture I can hit people over the head with as well :)

Aw, how sweet! :p How about this:

The Holy Words of Magical Ponies

1 ~ Thou shalt not preach to others
2 ~ Thou shalt keep an open mind
3 ~ Thou shalt always ask questions
4 ~ Thou shalt not blindly follow
5 ~ Thou shalt not do harm unto others
6 ~ Thou shalt follow your heart
7 ~ Thou shalt always stand up for yourself
8 ~ Thou shalt have good taste when it comes to music
9 ~ Thou shalt not talk like this in conversation
10 ~ Thou shalt not mix plaids and stripes

:)

And Upward Thrust, thank you. :fluffle:

[QUOTE=Magical PoniesAs I'm sure you're aware, we all have the right to pursue happiness (there's more about that in the actual post).[/QUOTE] I'm not going to follow your religion, I like speaking archaically…
… the question is whether marriage in itself is a right or whether that only extends to the traditional definition of marriage.

They do in fact practise polygyny, women are not allowed to marry more than one man.

Really? All the Mormons I have ever known claim they don’t do polygamy anymore.

Really? All the Mormons I have ever known claim they don’t do polygamy anymore.

You mean they have divorced their other wives in favor for one of them?
I hardly believe that.

Myself I am in favor for polygamy, I believe in peoples right to commit themselves to one another freely.
Here in Sweden we will probably see it legalised in a few years, the political youth lobbies for it.

You mean they have divorced their other wives in favor for one of them?
I hardly believe that.

Myself I am in favor for polygamy, I believe in peoples right to commit themselves to one another freely.
Here in Sweden we will probably see it legalised in a few years, the political youth lobbies for it. Off topic slightly, but polygamy is a bad thing, since you'd end up with gender ratio differences, as some people would marry 10 people and others 1. Like in China, where there are few women as they're killed…

Off topic slightly, but polygamy is a bad thing, since you'd end up with gender ratio differences, as some people would marry 10 people and others 1. Like in China, where there are few women as they're killed…
I very much doubt it would make any difference at all in Sweden. People are perfectly free to live in any family structure they want to. The only difference is how spuses/husbands are recognised by the law.

So if it would have any effect like you outline, it would have happened already. Family structure haven't really been socially stigmatized in Sweden the last 30-40 years.

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

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

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

Off topic slightly, but polygamy is a bad thing, since you'd end up with gender ratio differences, as some people would marry 10 people and others 1. Like in China, where there are few women as they're killed…


Now you are thinking of polygyny and polyandry, where one marries only one gender, polygamy is a wider concept, including marriages which fit bisexuals for example. And with more adults in the commitment there will always be an adult available for the children in that union. Of course you have to work out a sytem which minimize jealousy and infidelity, unless of course lovers outside the marriage is approved of in the marriage. We can already live like this in Sweden since we have the cohabitee act, one can just not marry more than one yet.

I'm not going to follow your religion, I like speaking archaically…
… the question is whether marriage in itself is a right or whether that only extends to the traditional definition of marriage.
It doesn't matter really.

As soon as the government gives legal benefit to marriage, it has to give the same legal benefit to all stable, long-term couples (like civil unions). As long as this is not done, the Gays are right in saying that their rights are being denied.

As long as only the wife or husband has tax benefit when his/her partner dies, the Gay will lobby for being able to marry.

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

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

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


That’s fine … turning marriage into a purely religious thing and keeping the legal aspect separate for BOTH strait and gay

BUT if MY religion condones “marriage” for homosexuals I deserve EVERY right to also have the “marriage” title applied as well

BUT if MY religion condones “marriage” for homosexuals I deserve EVERY right to also have the “marriage” title applied as well

Not if there's a constitutional amendment preventing your renegade religion from destroying the traditional family. :rolleyes:

That’s fine … turning marriage into a purely religious thing and keeping the legal aspect separate for BOTH strait and gay

BUT if MY religion condones “marriage” for homosexuals I deserve EVERY right to also have the “marriage” title applied as well
Wouldn't that be up to your church? If married people of your particular fatih are known as married people, then why would you be any different?
Whatever the legal term for for it, I assume your religion will call it whatever it pleases. Whether it's "Marriage" or "The Holy union of Fudgeness", it must be up to them to decide.

Not if there's a constitutional amendment preventing your renegade religion from destroying the traditional family. :rolleyes:
Too bad I am going to call my self married anyways :p

Wouldn't that be up to your church? If married people of your particular fatih are known as married people, then why would you be any different?
Whatever the legal term for for it, I assume your religion will call it whatever it pleases. Whether it's "Marriage" or "The Holy union of Fudgeness", it must be up to them to decide.
Exactly … that’s what I was getting at. Because I know that will be the next battle if we ever get equal rights (just laying the groundwork early)

They will try to restrict the non legal title of “married” to (if we let them) only Christians (at least ideally for them)

:headbang: finally figured out my pass and i changed it cause he loves to ruin my petifull little existence but oh well here is MY say on this whole ordeal it more of a qoute i heard "live and let live for the ones you choose to condemn or praise can hold your life in their hands so let them do their thing "

Sure it is. It's nonsensical to me. Neo Rogolia disagrees though. She doesn't have a problem with the practical aspects of same-sex marriage, but she feels her faith is getting pissed on if you use the word.
So why not achive what you're fighting for without having to fight her?

Chances are you'll never convince a lot of various religion's followers that you're not intruding on their faith if you use the name. If history is anything to judge by, evidence just doesn't matter when it comes to faith.

Why should SHE get HER way?

Separate but equal is NEVER equal.

No one is saying her church can't still discriminate, and refuse to perform ceremonies.

What we are saying is...fine, Government: get out of "marriage" altogether. Government obnly performs civil union. THEN, couples who so desire, can go to the church of their choice, to get a marriage. And it would be up to the church then whether or not they will perform a marriage. And up to the couple if they even WANT one.

Point being...why should Neo get any sort of symbolism whatsoever that supports her "holier-than-thou, I'm-better-than-you" self-image?

What we are saying is...fine, Government: get out of "marriage" altogether. Government obnly performs civil union. THEN, couples who so desire, can go to the church of their choice, to get a marriage. And it would be up to the church then whether or not they will perform a marriage. And up to the couple if they even WANT one.

Even that is not enough. It must change laws to remove any benefits that marriage entails or give those benefits to civil unions too.

Even that is not enough. It must change laws to remove any benefits that marriage entails or give those benefits to civil unions too.
Thats what he was saying ... make EVERYTHING the same civil unions (on the gov side) and marrige will only be a "title" granted by any religous organization that carries no extra rights over the civil union

This is for EVERYONE

I knew that. Paul set up churches throughout the Mediterranean, though. Many of the books of the bible are letters to churches he started while he was imprisoned in Rome, but I know you knew that Cabra.

Peter’s church in Palestine was wiped out, and he was crucified upside down, supposedly.

I have been TRYING to find some independent corroboration of that. I told my mom about that, and she asked me to find it in the Bible, and of course, I couldn't. Where do you have it that Peter was crucified upside down??

I'd heard it before, and had mentioned it to my mom. I'd love a chance to be able to show her...

Thats what he was saying ... make EVERYTHING the same civil unions (on the gov side) and marrige will only be a "title" granted by any religous organization that carries no extra rights over the civil union

This is for EVERYONE

It's SHE...but, yes...that is exactly what I was saying.

My point is...I don't want little religious hypocrites being left with anything that they can use to justify their "I'm better than you" self-image.

I don't want the government to call us anything different than them, because it allows the bigots their self-delusions...and validates them.

It's SHE...but, yes...that is exactly what I was saying.

My point is...I don't want little religious hypocrites being left with anything that they can use to justify their "I'm better than you" self-image.

I don't want the government to call us anything different than them, because it allows the bigots their self-delusions...and validates them.
Sorry … I forget :) and I am usually so good about putting he/she when in doubt lol

First off: Damn this thread grew big in the time I wasgone.

Secondly : homosexual animals (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm)

Third: I'll be posting more once I read through teh 30 pages that have appeared

The book they mention at the bottom of the link (Biological Exuberance) is pretty good. I haven't read all the way through it, but it is interesting. Very well researched and organized in an easy manner.

Thats what he was saying ... make EVERYTHING the same civil unions (on the gov side) and marrige will only be a "title" granted by any religous organization that carries no extra rights over the civil union

This is for EVERYONE
Sorry, misread your statement. I agree with you.

Sorry, misread your statement. I agree with you.
That’s alright such is life in the forums :p

I have been TRYING to find some independent corroboration of that. I told my mom about that, and she asked me to find it in the Bible, and of course, I couldn't. Where do you have it that Peter was crucified upside down??

I'd heard it before, and had mentioned it to my mom. I'd love a chance to be able to show her...
Peter was crucified upside down because he pleaded that he was not worthy enough to die like the Christ did. So the executionners granted his wish... he died differently.

Peter was crucified upside down because he pleaded that he was not worthy enough to die like the Christ did. So the executionners granted his wish... he died differently.

The problem with that story is clear.

Crucifying someone upside down wouldn't work. Death in crucifixion was from suffocation because of the position you were hung in. Doing it upside down, if they could even keep you on the cross - which is doubtful, wouldn't put you in the same position to be suffocated.

The problem with that story is clear.

Crucifying someone upside down wouldn't work. Death in crucifixion was from suffocation because of the position you were hung in. Doing it upside down, if they could even keep you on the cross - which is doubtful, wouldn't put you in the same position to be suffocated.
Who said he suffocated … they could have left him out there to die of exposure … or dehydration or lack of food

A longer and more painful death but it could be done

The problem with that story is clear.

Crucifying someone upside down wouldn't work. Death in crucifixion was from suffocation because of the position you were hung in. Doing it upside down, if they could even keep you on the cross - which is doubtful, wouldn't put you in the same position to be suffocated.
I'm pretty sure that being upside down would cause blood to accumulate in the brain and would eventually cause death.

Hey, just cruisin the boards, skiped to the last page, so i dont know whats all is going on. to cover the recent.

To my knowlege (which is small) Crufiction didnt suffocate you (im porbably wrong) crucifition doesnt work anyways, your flesh is to weak to hold your body up with the silly spikes (prolly wrong again) and COOL! they crucified Peter upside down? thats awsome. oh, and gayness gives me the chills, so it must be wrong. Later! :headbang:

Let me just start off by saying:You don't know what you're talking about, please don't assume that you're right. Why am I not doing the exact same thing right now? Because I actually have a little bit of knowledge on this subject.

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...
Thanks to owning up. At first I thought it was a flamebait-and-run. I hate those.

...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.
The electoral system is set up such that the majority decides what is best for everyone, within the bounds of the Constitution. Even if every elected official in the nation thought that Christianity should be mandatory, EVERY SINGLE ONE, they couldn't write that into law. Why? Because of the Constitution. They'd have to get an amendment passed, and since the Constitution protects everyone, they're not likely to do that. It would be like killing the filibuster... since it protects whoever isn't in power, and power goes back and forth, nobody can do without it.


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.
It's not political power. It's civil rights. And yes, according to the Constitution, which legally speaking, is the foundation of what this country is, everyone has civil rights.
Not everyone deserves power. But everyone deserves rights. Can't you see that? This is not a country that was designed so that the majority could oppress the minority. It was made as a country to fix that previous problem.

Wrong.
That's a bit rich, coming from you... what's your source on all of this, anyway???

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.
Perhaps in your ideal world, but not here. You can complain whenever you want, about whatever you want. You could even complain about things that don't exist. You could rally in the streets, demanding that the US pressure the South Africans to release Nelson Mandela. It doesn't matter. It's your protected right. Read the bill of rights sometime. It's a bit quicker than the Constitution, and it would already be enough to prove almost everything you're saying wrong :D

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.
Actually, it's fairly accurate. If what you were saying about the US were true, there would still be Jim Crow (but not slavery necessarily, as the North stopped that by force).

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.
If by "rough writings" you mean The Constitution of the United States of America, then yeah. YOU should read that. You know, (c) 1787?

Congrats! You DO know something true, however again, interpreted all wrong...
Which, even if true, would be better than you have been doing...


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.
Actually, not to put words in someone's mouth, but I believe that that was the entire point.
Read more betterer :-P


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.
How so? You're rather easily offended... perhaps you should start some sort of a colony of people like you so that you aren't offended.
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.
Wow. First of all, nobody here thinks (or at least has posted) that churches should be required to marry gays. Read the thread. However, they want the State to allow churches who do accept gay marriage to be able to marry gays, and for the State to recognize those marriages as legal.
This is about the rights that go along with marriage, not some religious thing that you're going on and on about. The religious ceremony wouldn't be forced down the throats of any church, and those who do want a religious ceremony can easily find a church to give it to them.
I've seen one. One of my mentors, who happens to be a lesbian, got married to someone she has been in love with for a very long time. It was a beautiful service, and anyone who thinks that it's disgusting that they be allowed to visit each other in the hospital when one gets sick is a human being with a heart that is completely closed to compassion.


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.
Actually... that's sounding more and more like you. You, however, don't have my pity. I don't pity people who are so full of hate.
Especially ones who think they know everything, when in fact the exact opposite is closer to the truth.

Hey, just cruisin the boards, skiped to the last page, so i dont know whats all is going on. to cover the recent.

To my knowlege (which is small) Crufiction didnt suffocate you (im porbably wrong) crucifition doesnt work anyways, your flesh is to weak to hold your body up with the silly spikes (prolly wrong again) and COOL! they crucified Peter upside down? thats awsome. oh, and gayness gives me the chills, so it must be wrong. Later! :headbang:
Yes it does … and you can not be crucified through the hands but if they put the spikes through the wrist it works .

Wow. First of all, nobody here thinks (or at least has posted) that churches should be required to marry gays. Read the thread. However, they want the State to allow churches who do accept gay marriage to be able to marry gays, and for the State to recognize those marriages as legal.
This is about the rights that go along with marriage, not some religious thing that you're going on and on about. The religious ceremony wouldn't be forced down the throats of any church, and those who do want a religious ceremony can easily find a church to give it to them.
I've seen one. One of my mentors, who happens to be a lesbian, got married to someone she has been in love with for a very long time. It was a beautiful service, and anyone who thinks that it's disgusting that they be allowed to visit each other in the hospital when one gets sick is a human being with a heart that is completely closed to compassion.
Actually, take this paragraph to it's logical extent. Gays are already getting married under Eskertania's definition. There are religious institutions that perform same sex marriages, even if they're not legally recognized by the state. Which means to stop an "offensive practice," we'd have to impinge on someone's freedom to practice their religion! Do you really think the state should be able to ban religions?

This is all false. God's love for them was of the agape sense. As was David's love for Jonathan. Never is sex mentioned. Since when has an intimate, brotherly love entailed sexual relations?

Boy this place moves quickly... Anyway:

The love between David and Jonathan was not agape, it was of the breath. They are referred to as naked and bedded through their love. Also, Saul's reaction to the arrangement is indicative of a forbidden romantic relationship.

God on the other hand, well, that's harder to say for sure. But the love he speaks of for Gideon, Moses, Jacob and Joshua is different than the love he speaks of for mankind, which is of the agape, so it has to be somehow different. Saying he fucked them is hyperbolic, sure, but they did embrace, and he did treat Gideon like a jealous boyfriend.

Actually, take this paragraph to it's logical extent. Gays are already getting married under Eskertania's definition. There are religious institutions that perform same sex marriages, even if they're not legally recognized by the state. Which means to stop an "offensive practice," we'd have to impinge on someone's freedom to practice their religion! Do you really think the state should be able to ban religions?
Equal rights people = 1
Biggot = 2

Just to clarify what I've said earlier.
IF marriages and civil unions are equal under the law, then the word itself is meaningless. There's no point in fighting for it. It's not very suprising various religious institutions will object to the M word, but it's not something they can actually do a hell of a lot about. Making the compromise will make equal rights easier to obtain. Besides, even homo friendly churches may start to object if the M word has to extend to unbelievers...
Sad, pathetic, deceitful... But that's humans for you. Especially the supposedly altruistic ones.

Equal rights people = 1
Biggot = 2
Huh?

Just to clarify what I've said earlier.
IF marriages and civil unions are equal under the law, then the word itself is meaningless. There's no point in fighting for it. It's not very suprising various religious institutions will object to the M word, but it's not something they can actually do a hell of a lot about. Making the compromise will make equal rights easier to obtain. Besides, even homo friendly churches may start to object if the M word has to extend to unbelievers...
Sad, pathetic, deceitful... But that's humans for you. Especially the supposedly altruistic ones.
It's the principle of the thing. No society is truly free as long as it continues to oppress minorities just because they're different. America isn't living up to it's promise as long as gay marriage is illegal. Not to mention I think it's unconstitutional.

Boy this place moves quickly... Anyway:

The love between David and Jonathan was not agape, it was of the breath. They are referred to as naked and bedded through their love. Also, Saul's reaction to the arrangement is indicative of a forbidden romantic relationship.

God on the other hand, well, that's harder to say for sure. But the love he speaks of for Gideon, Moses, Jacob and Joshua is different than the love he speaks of for mankind, which is of the agape, so it has to be somehow different. Saying he fucked them is hyperbolic, sure, but they did embrace, and he did treat Gideon like a jealous boyfriend.
Could you cite the passages you're coming from for future reference?

Wait: Did someone post something about God having sex with human beings?!? :eek: That is very offensive to me. :mad:

And anyway a lot of those Old Testament stories Flatearth cited may just be parables. No offense.

Nidimor: Just a hint, smilies detract heavily from whatever you're saying.

Wait: Did someone post something about God having sex with human beings?!? :eek: That is very offensive to me. :mad:

And anyway a lot of those Old Testament stories Flatearth cited may just be parables. No offense.
Why does that offend you?

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.
I am a member of a religion that accepts gay marriage. There are many. Just because your religion doesn't accept it, doesn't mean no religion does. They won't leech off of the practices of your religion. They were enjoy the warmth of mine. They have nothing to do with your religion. In this country, religion cannot be a valid excuse in a case like this.

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.
So your answer is "shut up and go away"? Everyone has rights, and you suggest forcibly removing those rights. I tell you now, sir or madame, that you cannot be a true American and stand for stripping rights from people.

And atheists get married too, by the way. So clearly, God is not a necessity.

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

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

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

How is that? Our very country is based on priciples that bar church and state from mingling. I think it's done fairly well, seeing as how it's the only superpower on Earth. One hundred years ago, black people were lynched for looking at white women. This was tolerated by your nostalgic "religious society". Kindly cash this reality check.
Not to reign on your parade, but military spending and separation of church and state are as related as apples and helicopter. To wit: none at all.

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, yes, prosecuting serial killers would be infringing on their rights... we bleeding heart liberals would get all mad if you were to put a guy who killed small children in jail...
Wait, are you implying that gay people are responsible for that???

Ok, people, I'm bisexual and I'M against gay marraige, my boyfriend and I agree that gay marraige is a very bad thing, so it's not just religious zealots who see a problem.

Ok, people, I'm bisexual and I'M against gay marraige, my boyfriend and I agree that gay marraige is a very bad thing, so it's not just religious zealots who see a problem.

It is a very bad thing....why exactly?

Do you not think that you should be afforded equal protection under the law? Should you not be able to keep what is yours by any logical view of the situation? To make medical decisions for someone you eventually pledge your life to? To visit someone you love in the hospital? To, if the need arises, adopt the child you have always helped raise so that you can properly provide for them?

It is a very bad thing....why exactly?

Do you not think that you should be afforded equal protection under the law? Should you not be able to keep what is yours by any logical view of the situation? To make medical decisions for someone you eventually pledge your life to? To visit someone you love in the hospital? To, if the need arises, adopt the child you have always helped raise so that you can properly provide for them?


Because I think that there are some things we should let the zealots keep, sopecifically marraige, be like the british in this case, if you live together, then you get the tax benefits, if you have a living will then you needn't worry about medical decisions by the way, I'm all for civil unions, but marraige IS a religious institution, and let them keep it, I want to marry a woman, but I'd never marry my boyfriend, not because I like women better but because I'd be pandering to their sense of horror if I did, and I won't give them the satisfaction.

Because I think that there are some things we should let the zealots keep, sopecifically marraige, be like the british in this case, if you live together, then you get the tax benefits, if you have a living will then you needn't worry about medical decisions by the way, I'm all for civil unions, but marraige IS a religious institution, and let them keep it, I want to marry a woman, but I'd never marry my boyfriend, not because I like women better but because I'd be pandering to their sense of horror if I did, and I won't give them the satisfaction.

The zealots have never had any claim to civil marriage.

They have claim to the marriages performed by their own religions, and that is it.

Meanwhile, don't put so much faith in a living will. It is only legally binding if the wording is exactly the same as the circumstance you find yourself in, and a family can challenge it and get around it anyways.

Meanwhile, I don't think "Other people might get some satisfaction out of it, so it is bad," is a valid argument against equal protection of all citizens.

Because I think that there are some things we should let the zealots keep, sopecifically marraige, be like the british in this case, if you live together, then you get the tax benefits, if you have a living will then you needn't worry about medical decisions by the way, I'm all for civil unions, but marraige IS a religious institution, and let them keep it, I want to marry a woman, but I'd never marry my boyfriend, not because I like women better but because I'd be pandering to their sense of horror if I did, and I won't give them the satisfaction.
That’s fine that you personally do not wish to get marred … that is your choice
But all I ask for is the right to MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR MYSELF!

Because I think that there are some things we should let the zealots keep, sopecifically marraige, be like the british in this case, if you live together, then you get the tax benefits, if you have a living will then you needn't worry about medical decisions by the way, I'm all for civil unions, but marraige IS a religious institution, and let them keep it, I want to marry a woman, but I'd never marry my boyfriend, not because I like women better but because I'd be pandering to their sense of horror if I did, and I won't give them the satisfaction.
But why should Gay have to pay for a living will when it is automatically granted to married couples?

But why should Gay have to pay for a living will when it is automatically granted to married couples?

Because a living will is cheaper than a marraige, and if worded properly, like by removing your biological family from the choice of your treatment and putting your partner in their place, it can be much more effective.

The zealots have never had any claim to civil marriage.

They have claim to the marriages performed by their own religions, and that is it.

Meanwhile, don't put so much faith in a living will. It is only legally binding if the wording is exactly the same as the circumstance you find yourself in, and a family can challenge it and get around it anyways.

Meanwhile, I don't think "Other people might get some satisfaction out of it, so it is bad," is a valid argument against equal protection of all citizens.

It should be noted that I believe marraige shouln't have any of the special protections and such that it gets, and that includes taxes, question my tax thoughts if you like but I'm against most of the things marraige does for you anyway, like the medical decision bit.

That’s fine that you personally do not wish to get marred … that is your choice
But all I ask for is the right to MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR MYSELF!

No, because your actions and constant protests weaken our position, MLK won his fight because he had almost every courageous black american on his side, you have few people with true courage on yur side, and you come from so many backgrounds and races that your pretensions at being a minority are easily rationalised away.

It should be noted that I believe marraige shouln't have any of the special protections and such that it gets, and that includes taxes, question my tax thoughts if you like but I'm against most of the things marraige does for you anyway, like the medical decision bit.

So you think that, if two people live in a house all of their lives together, and one of them dies, the other should have to sell the house to pay the inheritance tax? Never mind, of course, that everything they own is just as much one person's as the other's.

And why are you against having the person closest to you in the whole world be the one that makes decisions for you if you cannot make them yourself?

No, because your actions and constant protests weaken our position, MLK won his fight because he had almost every courageous black american on his side, you have few people with true courage on yur side, and you come from so many backgrounds and races that your pretensions at being a minority are easily rationalised away.
I refuse to give up on equality just because it is not easy

Geez but I wish I knew how to use this board better so I could include the quotes!

Someone said that to defend marriage we should ban divorce and another person responded that was not fair because "no one" gets married intending to divorce. Well I have news for you. I was a legal assistant for 14 yrs. here in the States and while people may not marry "intending" to divorce, they certainly go into the situation with the attitude that they "can always get a divorce if it doesn't work out".

If you want to reduce the divorce rate, try implementing mandatory pre-marital counseling for engaged couples and RE-implementing mandatory marriage counseling for any couple wishing to divorce.

As far as banning gay marriage is concerned, it is plain, pure GENDER DESCRIMINATION. If my brother can marry "Sue" and I can't and the only reason is because I am female and he is male then that is gender descrimination in it's simplest form.

So you think that, if two people live in a house all of their lives together, and one of them dies, the other should have to sell the house to pay the inheritance tax? Never mind, of course, that everything they own is just as much one person's as the other's.

And why are you against having the person closest to you in the whole world be the one that makes decisions for you if you cannot make them yourself?


But I'm against that as well, I believe there shouldn't be an inheritance tax, nor am I against their making medical decisions for you, I think you should be given the right to say who can do that for you when you turn 18, and be able to change it at any time, and it would be a part of your medical record, and fully immune from court or other legal parties viewing it unless it were in dispute, and then only the judge could see it, and it would be inviolate, whoever it says is who decides period end of discussion, you could change it to who you marry as part of the paperwork for the name change and marraige license, I have an answer to every question you my ask on my beliefs.

But I'm against that as well, I believe there shouldn't be an inheritance tax, nor am I against their making medical decisions for you, I think you should be given the right to say who can do that for you when you turn 18, and be able to change it at any time, and it would be a part of your medical record, and fully immune from court or other legal parties viewing it unless it were in dispute, and then only the judge could see it, and it would be inviolate, whoever it says is who decides period end of discussion, you could change it to who you marry as part of the paperwork for the name change and marraige license, I have an answer to every question you my ask on my beliefs.

Ok, here are two:

1) Why and how do you think that your personal distaste with marriage should somehow change every law pertaining to couples thre is?

2) A marriage license is nothing without the protections and responsibilities associated. If you wish for these to be abolished, why do you still talk about getting a marriage license?

.... nor am I against their making medical decisions for you, I think you should be given the right to say who can do that for you when you turn 18, and be able to change it at any time, and it would be a part of your medical record, and fully immune from court or other legal parties viewing it unless it were in dispute, and then only the judge could see it, and it would be inviolate, whoever it says is who decides period end of discussion, you could change it to who you marry as part of the paperwork for the name change and marraige license......


I don't know where you are from, but that IS the law here and I believe it always has been. The problems arise because most people fail to designate someone with a Medical Power of Attorney and the poor doctors have to get decisions from SOMEONE at that point.

I refuse to give up on equality just because it is not easy

It is harder to do as I have done, because I am truly equal in every way that matters, and you weak willed fools will never realise it, their opinion matters nothing, your legal standing is unimportant, I am an equal with the two people I love(my boyfriend and my girlfriend) and that is all that matters in the end, not what the government says.

Originally posted by:
Dempublicans 1These zealots have no claim over civil marriage. They have control over marriages of their own religions. Thats it.

No they don't have control over civil marriages, but they are trying hard as all hell to get it. That just proves their whole argument against gay marriages is their own hatred of gays.

I think the main reason a lot of gay-rights activists are pushing so hard for gay marriage is because gays would get the same tax benefits as straight couples.

Its funny how right-wing pundits rant about how gays are all so promiscuous. By no means do I think that is anything other than a crappy stereotype.
But if you think about it, what better way is there to discourage gays from promiscuous lifestyles than to just stop b!tching and let them marry each other! It will have no effect on the average straight person at all!

Though like I posted a while ago, by no means should gay-rights activists let this controversy distract them from other equally important fronts. For example theres a new organization called Teach Respect, thats dedicated to banning homophobia from public schools.( That does not entail kicking out homophobic children from their schools.)

Keep fighting hatred on all fronts!

Originally posted by: Jakutopia

It is pure plain GENDER DISCRIMINATION!

Not sure I agree with you. I don't think its discriminating against women in general. Just gays in general.

Did you read the whole post? Look if the law says John Q. Public can marry Sue because John is male but that Jane Q. Public cannot marry Sue because Jane is female - how is it anything else?? You wouldn't tolerate John can buy a house but Jane can't

Not sure I agree with you. I don't think its discriminating against women in general. Just gays in general.

The courts have pretty much held that discrimination on the basis of sexuality falls under the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender.

It is harder to do as I have done, because I am truly equal in every way that matters, and you weak willed fools will never realise it, their opinion matters nothing, your legal standing is unimportant, I am an equal with the two people I love(my boyfriend and my girlfriend) and that is all that matters in the end, not what the government says.
See this is where your arguments (that made sense previously) fall flat. Nobody likes to be branded a weak willed fool. I find it sweet irony that while fighting against prejudice, you go on and dismiss everyone that is not bisexual as a weak-willed fool.

Respect... it goes a long way.

It is harder to do as I have done, because I am truly equal in every way that matters, and you weak willed fools will never realise it, their opinion matters nothing, your legal standing is unimportant, I am an equal with the two people I love(my boyfriend and my girlfriend) and that is all that matters in the end, not what the government says.

So these people are weak for fighting to get what they believe in recognized instead of just rolling over and saying that it only matters in their eyes??? It takes a lot of guts to actively fight for what you believe in.

Doesn't matter as Peter started the Catholic Church and since he was "infalliable" any system he created would therefore be perfect and therefore it has the only true interpretation of what Christ wanted and therefore you are still wrong and will subsequently burn in Hell.


Peter did not establish the Catholic church, Catholics established it based upon a misinterpretation of what Christ said. Peter himself denied any superiority to the other apostles. Therefore, no system was created other than that which is stated in the Bible and you are therefore wrong.

So these people are weak for fighting to get what they believe in recognized instead of just rolling over and saying that it only matters in their eyes??? It takes a lot of guts to actively fight for what you believe in.

thank you - my thoughts exactly :)

Peter did not establish the Catholic church, Catholics established it based upon a misinterpretation of what Christ said. Peter himself denied any superiority to the other apostles. Therefore, no system was created other than that which is stated in the Bible and you are therefore wrong.

Interestingly, there was no "pope" as we refer to it until centuries after the church had begun.

At least one of those the Catholics claim to be "popes" specifically wrote that the other bishops should not call him pope, as he had no more authority than they did. LOL

However, much like anything else in the church, many believe (and like to claim) against all historical evidence, that the church was unified in belief and has believed exactly what it does now from the very beginning.

Peter did not establish the Catholic church, Catholics established it based upon a misinterpretation of what Christ said. Peter himself denied any superiority to the other apostles. Therefore, no system was created other than that which is stated in the Bible and you are therefore wrong.
That’s your interpretation
They see it differently

Of course you have the right one

:rolleyes:

Ok, here are two:

1) Why and how do you think that your personal distaste with marriage should somehow change every law pertaining to couples thre is?

2) A marriage license is nothing without the protections and responsibilities associated. If you wish for these to be abolished, why do you still talk about getting a marriage license?

Because the government has a stranglehold on marraige, they'll never give it up, and there are still people who would get married because their religion compels them to do so.

I honestly do not believe that a perfectly logical argument will ever win against the emotion of the populace, so I never expect my opinion to change anything.

Quote (sorry had to cut and paste, couldn't find original)

"Doesn't matter as Peter started the Catholic Church and since he was "infalliable" any system he created would therefore be perfect and therefore it has the only true interpretation of what Christ wanted and therefore you are still wrong and will subsequently burn in Hell."




I could be wrong of course, but I believe the Bible states quite clearly that Jesus was the only person who was "infalliable" - any acts of Peter would be as rife with imperfection as the acts of any other person.

Because the government has a stranglehold on marraige, they'll never give it up, and there are still people who would get married because their religion compels them to do so.

I honestly do not believe that a perfectly logical argument will ever win against the emotion of the populace, so I never expect my opinion to change anything.
So you give up on equality just because it is not easy?

Originally posted by: Jakutopia

It is pure plain GENDER DISCRIMINATION!

Not sure I agree with you. I don't think its discriminating against women in general. Just gays in general.

so, let me see if I understand. In your book, then, Nidimor...it is perfectly okay to discriminate against gays? It sure sounds like you think so.

If so...then maybe you should stop and think of how you would feel if a large group of people got together and said it was okay to discriminate against YOU!

See how much you'd like it THEN...

Have you never heard of "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you?"

So these people are weak for fighting to get what they believe in recognized instead of just rolling over and saying that it only matters in their eyes??? It takes a lot of guts to actively fight for what you believe in.

It takes more guts to realise that we will never be accepted by everyone, which is why nothing but you and those you love matters in the grand scheme of things. Unless we are completely united, and I mean COMPLETELY no divisiveness in the various non-heterosexual communities we cannot win, and since that will never happen I see no other choice.

It takes more guts to realise that we will never be accepted by everyone, which is why nothing but you and those you love matters in the grand scheme of things. Unless we are completely united, and I mean COMPLETELY no divisiveness in the various non-heterosexual communities we cannot win, and since that will never happen I see no other choice.

No, it just takes being a realist to realize that. In the true grand scheme of things universally nothing matters, we are all dust in the wind, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to make the world a better place. It takes a hell of a lot more guts to fight for what you believe in when you know you probably won't win, then to pack up and admit defeat.

See this is where your arguments (that made sense previously) fall flat. Nobody likes to be branded a weak willed fool. I find it sweet irony that while fighting against prejudice, you go on and dismiss everyone that is not bisexual as a weak-willed fool.

Respect... it goes a long way.

I brand those who see public opinion as more important than their opinion, since the third grade I have never cared what others thought of me, and I was ostracised for it, yet I still did not care, because they were not important, only I mattered, and if I let them convince me that I should be as they are then I have lost myself, even if I let them convince me that I was different I would have lost myself, because they are no better than I am and any who says different can keep on saying it, I still won't care.

It takes more guts to realise that we will never be accepted by everyone, which is why nothing but you and those you love matters in the grand scheme of things. Unless we are completely united, and I mean COMPLETELY no divisiveness in the various non-heterosexual communities we cannot win, and since that will never happen I see no other choice.
Who ever said anything about being accepted by everyone?

I could give a shit care less. Those who accept me for who and what I am are the only people worth me knowing. everyone else can go to hell, as far as I am concerned...if they got a problem with who and what I am...then guess who's got the problem? THEY DO. And they have no right to make THEIR problem impact MY life negatively.

They can continue to be the bigoted assholes they are...I could care less. What I am saying...and all of us are saying is that we wish to be accepted as equal IN THE EYES OF THE LAW!!

Now, do you think everyone accepts...and agrees...with every law?

Of course not!

I'm not looking...nor, I believe, is anyone else here...looking for universal acceptance. Just equal standing in the eyes of the law.

As for those who don't accept us: Fuck 'em, they ain't worth knowing, and I'd just as soon act like they don't exist...if they weren't allowed to project their little hangups into complications in MY life.

They can keep their church, their religion, and their beliefs the fuck out of my love life. It's none of their goddamn business.

The quickest way to get us all to go away, and shut up is to just give us our equality. then there'd be no need to protest in the streets, or anything else.

If you don't like what you see, when a gayt couple kisses in public, or holds hands walking down the street...guess what?? You have a neck that swivels for a REASON!!

It takes more guts to realise that we will never be accepted by everyone, which is why nothing but you and those you love matters in the grand scheme of things. Unless we are completely united, and I mean COMPLETELY no divisiveness in the various non-heterosexual communities we cannot win, and since that will never happen I see no other choice.


Why do you feel that? You can't possibly believe that the ENTIRE black community was totally behind MLK.......some believed Malcolm X was the better representative and had better ideas. There was great disagreement in both the minority and non-minority groups - but, the majority were able to realize that legal equality was the only important issue at hand and the country acted accordingly.

Gay communities don't all HAVE to agree on everything - they just need to keep talking until the majority of the people in this country (heterosexual AND homosexual) remember that the original purpose of our forefathers was to create a place where people were not subject to laws made to force the religious and moral beliefs of a privileged few onto the entire population.

It takes more guts to realise that we will never be accepted by everyone, which is why nothing but you and those you love matters in the grand scheme of things. Unless we are completely united, and I mean COMPLETELY no divisiveness in the various non-heterosexual communities we cannot win, and since that will never happen I see no other choice.

The civil rights movement clearly demonstrated that something doesn't have to be accepted by everyone to be accepted by the government - which is all that this fight is about.

No, it just takes being a realist to realize that. In the true grand scheme of things universally nothing matters, we are all dust in the wind, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to make the world a better place. It takes a hell of a lot more guts to fight for what you believe in when you know you probably won't win, then to pack up and admit defeat.


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

I brand those who see public opinion as more important than their opinion, since the third grade I have never cared what others thought of me, and I was ostracised for it, yet I still did not care, because they were not important, only I mattered, and if I let them convince me that I should be as they are then I have lost myself, even if I let them convince me that I was different I would have lost myself, because they are no better than I am and any who says different can keep on saying it, I still won't care.
Fine.. go on pretending you're the only opinion that matters...

Don't come around asking why nobody would listen to you afterwards. You treat people of dimwits because they don't agree with your opinion. There's a difference between arguing the points of an isuue and flat-out saying "this is how it should be. Those who disagree are dumb."

Anyone who argues like you, and Neo are quickly being ignored as there is no point in listening to you.

Why do you feel that? You can't possibly believe that the ENTIRE black community was totally behind MLK.......some believed Malcolm X was the better representative and had better ideas. There was great disagreement in both the minority and non-minority groups - but, the majority were able to realize that legal equality was the only important issue at hand and the country acted accordingly.

Gay communities don't all HAVE to agree on everything - they just need to keep talking until the majority of the people in this country (heterosexual AND homosexual) remember that the original purpose of our forefathers was to create a place where people were not subject to laws made to force the religious and moral beliefs of a privileged few onto the entire population.


And Malcom X was a good choice, but so was MLK, they were united in purpose, they differd only in method.

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


If you truly don't care, why are you here? You DO care or you wouldn't be "wasting your time".

That’s your interpretation
They see it differently

Of course you have the right one


Only one interpretation can be correct, and, as Peter rejected any indications of papacy, guess who is correct? Roll your eyes all you want, but ignoring the words of your supposed pope when he says he cannot be above other apostles is kind of silly.

Only one interpretation can be correct, and, as Peter rejected any indications of papacy, guess who is correct? Roll your eyes all you want, but ignoring the words of your supposed pope when he says he cannot be above other apostles is kind of silly.
And of course it is your interpretation that is the “one correct one”

If you truly don't care, why are you here? You DO care or you wouldn't be "wasting your time".

I care that others should not waste their time, that and my boyfriend's on vacation, while my girlfriend is at work right now, so I've got nothing better to do on my day off.

Only one interpretation can be correct, and, as Peter rejected any indications of papacy, guess who is correct? Roll your eyes all you want, but ignoring the words of your supposed pope when he says he cannot be above other apostles is kind of silly.
There are many things about various theologies which range from "kind of silly" to "downright ridiculous".

Sarcasm... amusing. If you truly didn't understand my point, than you weren't worthy of reading it in the first place.
"not worthy" of reading your point?
Wow, it may not have been your intent, but that came across as highly arrogant, at least to me.

Fine.. go on pretending you're the only opinion that matters...

Don't come around asking why nobody would listen to you afterwards. You treat people of dimwits because they don't agree with your opinion. There's a difference between arguing the points of an isuue and flat-out saying "this is how it should be. Those who disagree are dumb."

Anyone who argues like you, and Neo are quickly being ignored as there is no point in listening to you.

Continue your futile attempts at rationalisation, I will watch and mourn for the death of a world, I take my leave of the Canuck but remain in the thread tio adress any questions that may arise due to my posts.

Anyone who argues like you, and Neo are quickly being ignored as there is no point in listening to you.


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

Only one interpretation can be correct, and, as Peter rejected any indications of papacy, guess who is correct? Roll your eyes all you want, but ignoring the words of your supposed pope when he says he cannot be above other apostles is kind of silly.



Hmmmm...... God is allknowing right? So he knows how much humans disagree and how much many of us enjoy those disagreements.

How funny will/would it be if we all got to the afterlife to discover that God in his/her wisdom had presented himself to different peoples in different forms and that we have all been praying to the same entity all along?

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

You telling non-Christians to base law on the Bible is WRONG.

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

No one cares for right or wrong, next question.

Side note, play holier than thou by metallic, it fits you so very well.

Hmmmm...... God is allknowing right? So he knows how much humans disagree and how much many of us enjoy those disagreements.

How funny will/would it be if we all got to the afterlife to discover that God in his/her wisdom had presented himself to different peoples in different forms and that we have all been praying to the same entity all along?
If there is a god, this is the most logical form it would take.

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

I have been an outcast my whole life as well, and I still realize that if my rights were being infringed upon I would need to fight to keep them. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with me, that doesn't mean I shouldn't stand up for myself. Even if I only impact one person, only one it is worth the effort to make changes. You can be fine all you want being outcast, that doesn't mean you can fight for what you believe in.

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

Even now all these other “non sanctified” marriages are allowed
You are not the only religion in existence
Nor are you the only one that dubs them marriages.

You can recognize them if you wish to or not but that does not mean I can not go by the term “married”

You telling non-Christians to base law on the Bible is “wrong”.



Yes, I'm sure God would love to have people disobey him :rolleyes:

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.
YOUR religion. YOUR values. Life 100 years ago was simpler, but not better. Religion and society were only mixed in certain areas, and America has been the home to multiple religions since before it was a country.

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.
Insanity is a valid defense. Do they let them out onto the streets? Heck no! They lock them up in mental institutions. "Blame the mother"? I doubt that works much.
And what does any of this have to do with religion?

Seperation of Church and State is the wrong direction, clearly, and Gay "marriage" is only a step that way.0
It's not a direction, it's a principle. And it's been on the books since we became a country. And it's not the "wrong way to go", even if it weren't already there. If you remove that, the US turns into a Christian version of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Or Iran after 1979.

I have been an outcast my whole life as well, and I still realize that if my rights were being infringed upon I would need to fight to keep them. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with me, that doesn't mean I shouldn't stand up for myself. Even if I only impact one person, only one it is worth the effort to make changes. You can be fine all you want being outcast, that doesn't mean you can fight for what you believe in.


I will not fight what I need not fight, it is a waste of time and efort, let the bigots be have all they wish, I will simply be myself, and they suffer everyday knowing that I don't care that they hate me, because in their hatred and the pain they cause they derive pleasure, but I feel no pain, so I hurt them instead.

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

I didn't call you bigot or anything of the sort.
And I certainly didn't answer your posts about your view on religion.
And I totally agree with Upward Thrust's comment when he said

"And of course your interpretation is the right one :rolleyes: "

When you claim to be open about other's point of view but then slams the door shut on their interpretation because your's is THE interpretation that matters, I beg to differ.

And the Bible can say that the sky is pink for all I care. The bible has absolutely NO SAY WHATSOEVER in the laws of a secular nation. And the facts is, you need a legal reason to ban Gay marriage. And "the bible says so" is not a legal reason because my holy book can say "Lesbians should marry and only them."

The bible absolutely does not hold a monopoly on the word marriage

Even now all these other “non sanctified” marriages are allowed
You are not the only religion in existence
Nor are you the only one that dubs them marriages.

You can recognize them if you wish to or not but that does not mean I can not go by the term “married”


But Christianity is the true religion.

Yes, I'm sure God would love to have people disobey him :rolleyes:
Well he IS all loving supposedly

Maybe his love will overcome his displeasure

Yes, I'm sure God would love to have people disobey him :rolleyes:

What it's not as if it didn't give us the choice to. If god really didn't want people to disobey it then it would have shown us clearly it exists and not leave so much doubt to it's existence.

I care that others should not waste their time, that and my boyfriend's on vacation, while my girlfriend is at work right now, so I've got nothing better to do on my day off.


Ahhh, I get it now lol. Playing a little "devils advocate" can be a great way to pass the time and it keeps the mental muscles sharp. I'll keep up as I can.

I'm sorry you've given up on society though. I too was ostracized in school - I attended 23 different ones and the "new kid" is always fair game for being treated like shit. But I kept trying and eventually I found a ready-made group of friends at each place by joining the band. You see, they were people who cared about others but were not overly concerned with being popular AND they knew how it felt to be ostracized and had resolved for themselves not to cause others to feel that way.

But Christianity is the true religion.
So you think …you or anyone has yet to prove that

I will not fight what I need not fight, it is a waste of time and efort, let the bigots be have all they wish, I will simply be myself, and they suffer everyday knowing that I don't care that they hate me, because in their hatred and the pain they cause they derive pleasure, but I feel no pain, so I hurt them instead.

You may not think of this as a worthwhile fight, but that doesn't make it any less of an important issue for those who are fighting it today does it?

Sounds like you think its OK to discriminate against gays.. Originally posted by:
Lyric
Sounds like you think its OK to discriminate against gays..

Bulls!t You completely misinterpreted what I posted. Banning gay marriage is not misogynist! Its homophobic! If you would just take the time to research you would find that throughout this thread I have been a force FOR gay rights. Be more thorough in the future, if you please. :mad:

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.
S/he is correct. Yes, it comes from Old French. But the Old French came from Latin. There are a number of different transitions any word makes when it is around for that long.
Also, only something like 60% of the words in the English language come from Latin, and most of those are words that we don't use much. If you go by frequency of use, rather than number of entries in a dictionary, most of the words that are used in an average English paragraph (including repeated words multiple times, to account for how much it is used) derive from Germanic roots, not Latin.

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.
According to the Constitution, religion has no place in government. So it's not us "hiding behind a veil" (I'm agnostic, btw) rather it's us letting you know that a religious argument is all well and good to try to persuade belief, but it is worthless in the eyes of the law.

So you think …you or anyone has yet to prove that


Whether it could be proven or not, I'm sure you would still reject it because you believe God to be "Evil".

But Christianity is the true religion.
That is what you believe, and you have a right to. There are other people of other religions and with other views who believe that their religion is "true", too. There are atheists who believe their view is "true". What makes you so sure that your religious beliefs are any more valid than anybody else's?

Whether it could be proven or not, I'm sure you would still reject it because you believe God to be "Evil".
Wrong I believe the Christian god by the common definitions of him (biblical and otherwise) to be immoral by my standards
Hence why I can not believe he is the one true god

Apparently not, as you all keep screaming about how I'm "a hater and a bigot".

If you don't like it, stop acting like one.

The point is, I do not believe my view is better than anyone else's, nor am I opposed to homosexuals having equal rights as I think they deserve them...but do NOT pretend those marriages are sanctified by the Lord. The only One who truly has a say in anything is God. He condemns homosexuality,

Again, you have contradicted yourself. You say you don't believe your view is better than anyone elses, but still claim to hold the authority on what God wants - thus claiming that your view of what God wants is better than any other.

There are religions that believe gay marriage is permissable. Do you really want to trample their religious freedom?

and our government trying to legitimize calling their unions "marriage" when the marriage standard is clearly specified in the Bible....is just WRONG.

Our government is not based on Christianity.

Meanwhile, Christianity (or Judaism) has never had a monopoly on the word marriage.

If you don't like the government using the word marriage, by all means lobby it to use another term - just do so for all government-sanctioned unions, not just the ones you don't personally like.

Ahhh, I get it now lol. Playing a little "devils advocate" can be a great way to pass the time and it keeps the mental muscles sharp. I'll keep up as I can.

I'm sorry you've given up on society though. I too was ostracized in school - I attended 23 different ones and the "new kid" is always fair game for being treated like shit. But I kept trying and eventually I found a ready-made group of friends at each place by joining the band. You see, they were people who cared about others but were not overly concerned with being popular AND they knew how it felt to be ostracized and had resolved for themselves not to cause others to feel that way.

I like my tuba, it rocks.

And yeah, pretty much devils advocate, you caught me.

But Christianity is the true religion.

How do you know that for sure?

I think you're wrong; I think Judaism is the true religion. But you don't see me trying to pass a law mandating that no meat and milk can be served together. Live and let live.

But Christianity is the true religion.


Neo I'm trying very very hard not to judge here, but you just quoted the rationalization of every religious terrorist on the planet.

I like my tuba, it rocks.

And yeah, pretty much devils advocate, you caught me.

Can't say it wasn't a nice disucssion aside from the usual arguments of this thread though. :p

Yes, I'm sure God would love to have people disobey him :rolleyes:

You have yet to show a single place in which God said "Go and force your beliefs upon others."

In fact, the Bible is quite clear that you shouldn't do so. You should live by God's rules and simply not associate with those who don't.

Originally posted by: Neo Rogolia
Whether it could be proven or not, I'm sure you would still reject it because you believe God to be "EVIL"

Thats a pretty big assumption. Yeah, there are some atheists and agnostics who hate theistic people's guts ( I can't see how they could hate God seeing as how they see Him as a construct of society) but there are some atheists who just went their own way, and don't hate theists.

You make a lot of assumptions. Its pretty dangerous.

Again, you have contradicted yourself. You say you don't believe your view is better than anyone elses, but still claim to hold the authority on what God wants - thus claiming that your view of what God wants is better than any other.

There are religions that believe gay marriage is permissable. Do you really want to trample their religious freedom?


I claim the Bible to hold authority on what God wants. Therefore, the Bible should dictate policy. Our views of God may differ, but the Bible speaks with authority.

Yes, I'm sure God would love to have people disobey him :rolleyes:

If God wants to punish someone, He can. However, the Bible is never mentioned in the constitution, therefore, laws (especially federal laws) should not be based solely on that religious text.

You have yet to show a single place in which God said "Go and force your beliefs upon others."

In fact, the Bible is quite clear that you shouldn't do so. You should live by God's rules and simply not associate with those who don't.
I would be happy to be not associated with

I claim the Bible to hold authority on what God wants. Therefore, the Bible should dictate policy. Our views of God may differ, but the Bible speaks with authority.
Well you think YOUR interpretation of the bible says to hold authority

You may not think of this as a worthwhile fight, but that doesn't make it any less of an important issue for those who are fighting it today does it?

I don't care because the people you are fighting DO NOT MATTER, let them hate you, then use heir hate and throw it right in their face, take their hate and make it your own, then they have no power left and you win, but you fight them head on, leaving you open to attack.

You have yet to show a single place in which God said "Go and force your beliefs upon others."

In fact, the Bible is quite clear that you shouldn't do so. You should live by God's rules and simply not associate with those who don't.


Wrong. We are commanded to go and preach to those who are erring. Anyone who cares for another person would reprove them, for their soul's sake. Do YOU care for someone in sin? Or do you just want them to live their lives the way they want and go to Hell? Do not try to claim moral superiority to me, at least I care about others' fate.

Dempublicents 1:

There is actually a passage in Matthew where Jesus instructs the disciples to " go out and spread my word" I don't agree with your ideology. I think Christians should evangelize. And by evangelize I don't mean go say "EVERY NON-CHRISTIAN ON THE PLANET WILL BURN IN HELL ONE DAY!" like so many people seem to want to. But its obvious you don't think that Christians should do that either.

I claim the Bible to hold authority on what God wants. Therefore, the Bible should dictate policy. Our views of God may differ, but the Bible speaks with authority.

You claim that. You believe that. However, if you are at all honest, you have to admit the fact that you might be wrong. It is either that or claim infallibility.

Meanwhile, going back to the original texts, the Bible's view on homosexuality (which wasn't even a concept back then) is very, very hazy.

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

Well, neo...we don't GIVE A SHIT if our marriages are sanctified by YOUR GOD. as long as they are equal in the eyes of the government, with the same rights and responsibilities...we could give a shit care less what YOUR GOD thinks.

We will get our marriages, civil unions, who gives a fuck what you want to call them...sanctified by OUR CHURCHES...by OUR GODS...by those who remember that Jesus stood for love, not hate...who remember that Jesus did not advocate discrimination or hatred. By those who remember the admonition about doing "for the least among you."

So, Neo...maybe we can agree here. We get our equal rights...you get to bury your head in the sand and pretend we didn't get equality...you can go on denying us and hating us...we don't care. We want nothing to do with you or people like you...we want nothing to do with churches like yours...and nothing to do with a God like yours.

I'll take the God of love, tolerance, peace, mercy, justice...you know, the one in the Gospels and New Testament...over your Nathaniel Hawthorne-inspired God of hell, fire, brimstone, anger, wrath, and hatred.

You keep your God. I'll keep mine.

Me, I'd rather a God I can love...and who loves me for who I am...and not a God that I have to be afraid of.

So, I can accept your solution. You go ahead, cover your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and continue to pretend all you want that you are better than the rest of us...and that you and your ilk alone are glorified by God. In the end, we will see who gets the apartment with the better view.

Peace!

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.
That's not what separation of church and state means.
That separation means that the government can't interfere with the Church, and that the Church has no place in government or government-run things.
This is why it's illegal to have prayer in public schools. Not illegal to pray, mind you. That would fall under the part where government can't interfere with religion. It's just that you're not allowed to have mandatory prayer lead by a teacher or anything like that.

Even now that you have finally admitted that separation of church and state exists, you still have no idea of what it says and what it means.

Dempublicents 1:

There is actually a passage in Matthew where Jesus instructs the disciples to " go out and spread my word" I don't agree with your ideology. I think Christians should evangelize. And by evangelize I don't mean go say "EVERY NON-CHRISTIAN ON THE PLANET WILL BURN IN HELL ONE DAY!" like so many people seem to want to. But its obvious you don't think that Christians should do that either.

Evangelize is not the same as force.

Making laws based on Christianity is equivalent to forcing others to live by Chrisitianity.

It is completely different from evangelizing.

Well you think YOUR interpretation of the bible says to hold authority


The places where the Bible is vague are open to interpretation. However, the places where it is clear are not.

Wrong. We are commanded to go and preach to those who are erring.

How exactly does "preach" equate to "force upon"?

Making something into law forces it upon someone. It is completely different from preaching.

Anyone who cares for another person would reprove them, for their soul's sake.

Does reproving necessitate legal action? I think not.

Do YOU care for someone in sin? Or do you just want them to live their lives the way they want and go to Hell?

Of course I do. However, unlike you, I recognize that the choice to follow Christ is a personal choice. I can tell someone what I believe, but it is their choice whether or not to agree with me.

Unlike you, I am not attempting to force it upon them - something I see as a really lazy way of going about "preaching" that is completely counter-productive.

Do not try to claim moral superiority to me, at least I care about others' fate.

I haven't claimed moral superiority, darling - that's been all you.

Meanwhile, I have said nothing to suggest for a second that I don't care about others' fate. Thanks for the completely unfounded attack though. It demonstrates what kind of person you really are.

I'll take the God of love, tolerance, peace, mercy, justice...you know, the one in the Gospels and New Testament...over your Nathaniel Hawthorne-inspired God of hell, fire, brimstone, anger, wrath, and hatred.


Fine, just don't be suprised when, on Judgement Day, you are suprised to learn that justice is an aspect of holiness.

Originally posted by:
Dempublicents 1:

Its completely different from evangelizing

You've shown just through posting this that the term evangelism has been b@stardized by the right. I define evangelism as " bringing the love of Jesus to people" and if some people like Christ's moral teachings and want to convert, whats wrong with that?

Yes, I'm sure God would love to have people disobey him :rolleyes:

Yeah. I'm sure you are right, Neo. And those who fail to love all others UNCONDITIONALLY...those who judge others...and those who fail to "do for the least among you," Those who hate others, and who advocate discrimination...they are OBEYING God??

Not according to the Bible I read!!

I don't care because the people you are fighting DO NOT MATTER, let them hate you, then use heir hate and throw it right in their face, take their hate and make it your own, then they have no power left and you win, but you fight them head on, leaving you open to attack.


If you take their hate and make it your own then you are giving them permanent residence in your head RENT FREE. Understand them, forgive them, love them and pray/meditate/whatever that they are eventually given understanding and compassion so they can know peace. That way, everybody wins.

The places where the Bible is vague are open to interpretation. However, the places where it is clear are not.

And you personally determine which places are vague and which are clear, eh?

Darling, if it was clear - there would be no debate!

Can't say it wasn't a nice disucssion aside from the usual arguments of this thread though. :p

Come on keep arguing, I'm just getting started! :D

Neo Rogolia:

Stop burning people d@mmit! :mad:

You claim that. You believe that. However, if you are at all honest, you have to admit the fact that you might be wrong. It is either that or claim infallibility.

Meanwhile, going back to the original texts, the Bible's view on homosexuality (which wasn't even a concept back then) is very, very hazy.


Need we return to Romans 1 again? The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality.

You've shown just through posting this that the term evangelism has been b@stardized by the right.

No, you completely misunderstood what I said.

I define evangelism as " bringing the love of Jesus to people"

Me too. Now how exactly do we "bring the love of Jesus to people" by attempting to force them to follow our moral views whether they convert or not?

and if some people like Christ's moral teachings and want to convert, whats wrong with that?

Nothing at all. It is force that I am against, not voluntary conversion or voluntary following.

But Christianity is the true religion.

Translation: The only TRUE religion is the one which encompasses the beliefs that (conveniently) I already happen to hold!

And you personally determine which places are vague and which are clear, eh?

Darling, if it was clear - there would be no debate!



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

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

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

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.




Pretty clear to me.

Need we return to Romans 1 again? The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality.

No, you believe it is clear. When you brought it up before, more than one person showed how it could be read differently.

Notice, however, that those people didn't say "I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT MY WAY YOU ARE REJECTING GOD!!!!!!!!!"

If you take their hate and make it your own then you are giving them permanent residence in your head RENT FREE. Understand them, forgive them, love them and pray/meditate/whatever that they are eventually given understanding and compassion so they can know peace. That way, everybody wins.

No because, you have turned their words upon them and shown that they have no power over you, that is the true path to victory, when you show them that they have nothing that can hurt you then they will be unable to strike at you, it is only by retaliating that you give them a way into your mind, because by your retalliation you have shown that you have been hurt by their words and they will continue to use them against you.

Fine then we're both on the same page Dempublicent 1 ;)

Pretty clear to me.

And it is pretty clear to me that this passage refers to leaving that which is natural for you and having sex with those you have no feelings for.

What exactly makes you infallible in this matter?

Translation: The only TRUE religion is the one which encompasses the beliefs that (conveniently) I already happen to hold!


www.apologeticsindex.com


Let that solve any qualms you have with it not being the true religion.

Whether it could be proven or not, I'm sure you would still reject it because you believe God to be "Evil".

No. I don't believe God to be "evil." I believe many of His so-called followers...who are badly misguided...ARE evil, however.

You can take that any way you wish, but I will note, for the record, I never specifically called YOU evil, Neo.

And it is pretty clear to me that this passage refers to leaving that which is natural for you and having sex with those you have no feelings for.

What exactly makes you infallible in this matter?



The fact that the heterosexual act is not condemned in the passage, but the homosexual one is.

No. I don't believe God to be "evil." I believe many of His so-called followers...who are badly misguided...ARE evil, however.

You can take that any way you wish, but I will note, for the record, I never specifically called YOU evil, Neo.


I was quoting UpwardThrust who does.

I believe in Jesus, but, Neo, please, you make it sound like theres no argument against theism. I don't mean to hijack this thread, but there is one trump card atheists have: the theodicy question. And don't give me that " God just hasn't got around to stomping out evil" crap. :rolleyes:

Wrong. We are commanded to go and preach to those who are erring. Anyone who cares for another person would reprove them, for their soul's sake. Do YOU care for someone in sin? Or do you just want them to live their lives the way they want and go to Hell? Do not try to claim moral superiority to me, at least I care about others' fate.

And, of course...not have the strength or guts to admit to our own selves when WE are erring. We just go around pointing out OTHERS who are erring.

I understand.

And at least WE care about people's joy and happiness in the here and nopw...not in some mythincal, promised and never proved supposed Paradise in the afterlife.

If the only way to that Paradise (if it even really exists) is to have a shitty, miserable life here first...well, you know what...I think we should all let people be grown up enough to decide for themselves which one they want.

Leave others alone!

You can keep your fire-and-brimstone wrathful, hateful, Nathiel Hawthorne inspired God out of MY life, okay?

You keep your God. I'll take mine.

Maybe you've heard of Him? The one who advocates universal, unconditional love, peace, joy, forgiveness, charity, non-judgementalism...any of this sound familiar??

I believe in Jesus, but, Neo, please, you make it sound like theres no argument against theism. I don't mean to hijack this thread, but there is one trump card atheists have: the theodicy question. And don't give me that " God just hasn't got around to stomping out evil" crap.


There have been many challenges to theism and all have been resolved at one point in time. People just keep reposing the question as if nobody ever presented a solution. As for theodicy, God created free will. He did not create evil, we did. He permits it to exist so that he can seperate those who truly seek to follow His will from those who could care less. Evil will be abolished on the Judgement Day.

www.apologeticsindex.com

Let that solve any qualms you have with it not being the true religion.

Have you ever read any C.S. Lewis?

In his apologetic essays, he pointed out that claiming Christianity to be 100% correct, while other religions were completely incorrect would be outrageous.

The fact that the heterosexual act is not condemned in the passage, but the homosexual one is.

The heterosexual act of doing the same thing is condemned in many, many other passages.

But I am glad that you finally admitted that you think you are infallible. Good to know that you think you are equal to God.

And, of course...not have the strength or guts to admit to our own selves when WE are erring. We just go around pointing out OTHERS who are erring.

I understand.

And at least WE care about people's joy and happiness in the here and nopw...not in some mythincal, promised and never proved supposed Paradise in the afterlife.

If the only way to that Paradise (if it even really exists) is to have a shitty, miserable life here first...well, you know what...I think we should all let people be grown up enough to decide for themselves which one they want.

Leave others alone!

You can keep your fire-and-brimstone wrathful, hateful, Nathiel Hawthorne inspired God out of MY life, okay?

You keep your God. I'll take mine.

Maybe you've heard of Him? The one who advocates universal, unconditional love, peace, joy, forgiveness, charity, non-judgementalism...any of this sound familiar??



I know that I err, and I expect others to have the kindness to rebuke me when I do. Much like me having the love for you to rebuke you, for the sake of your soul.

The fact that the heterosexual act is not condemned in the passage, but the homosexual one is.


A lot of God's reasoning is incomprehesible to us. But some of it is not. This could be one of those cases. Have you considered the situation at the time "God" issued this statement? After all, at the time, He was trying to get us to populate the world - I think most of us can see how homosexuality would have been contrary to that goal since artificial insemination was certainly non-existant. Now may be different.

According to your bible (Old Testament), God originally told his chosen people (the Jews) that they had to pray through a priest and offer blood sacrifices in order to earn a place in heaven. He must have had a change of heart at some point since in the New Testament we are instructed that the only way to heaven is through belief in Christ as God's son.

So you see, according to your own Bible, you don't know what God wants and you don't know if He still wants what he wanted more than 2,000yrs ago.

You claim that. You believe that. However, if you are at all honest, you have to admit the fact that you might be wrong. It is either that or claim infallibility.

Meanwhile, going back to the original texts, the Bible's view on homosexuality (which wasn't even a concept back then) is very, very hazy.

Nah. Neo can't claim infallibility. I took care of that. Why ELSE do you think I wanted...even more than an apology...was to have her say, in print "I was mistaken."

Why else did you think I wanted it?

Because for those who think they are better than everyone else...and who think they are superior to everyone else...I know that...to them...nothing is more painful than for them to have to say "I was wrong."

Look, Neo, I think you're wrong about religion. I think Judaism is the true religion. Why? It's my personal, individual faith - no one else has to share it. I'm not passing laws against you eating cheeseburgers, because you don't happen to share my religion's belief against eating meat and milk together. Well, my religion doesn't share your belief about homosexuality being immoral, so we'd appreciate it if you could extend us the same courtesy as we extend you. Thanks!

I know that I err, and I expect others to have the kindness to rebuke me when I do. Much like me having the love for you to rebuke you, for the sake of your soul.

And yet, when others think you are erring, and point it out, you claim that you are the only one who cares about other people and that you are absolutely right, so they need to simply follow whatever you say.

The more you talk, the more of a hypocrite you seem to be.

Have you ever read any C.S. Lewis?

In his apologetic essays, he pointed out that claiming Christianity to be 100% correct, while other religions were completely incorrect would be outrageous.



Yes, and I disagree with him on several points. However, the religion which has the most amount of verifiable evidence and whose supposed "contradictions" can all be easily explained would be the one to follow. Especially when it has very specific prophecies that are always fulfilled, and miracles performed that had witnesses.

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...
So, you think that the slaves shouldn't have been freed, then? Or that the lynchings should have stopped?
There are some things, such as equal rights, that are codified into law so that things like that get fixed, even though there is often a determined opposition.

Fine, just don't be suprised when, on Judgement Day, you are suprised to learn that justice is an aspect of holiness.

Fine with me. We'll still see which of us gets the apartment with the better view.

Even the Bible says (paraphrase) many will come before me saying, "But, Lord, I did this for you...I did that for you..." and He will say unto them, "turn away from me, for I knew you not."

And yet, when others think you are erring, and point it out, you claim that you are the only one who cares about other people and that you are absolutely right, so they need to simply follow whatever you say.

The more you talk, the more of a hypocrite you seem to be.



You've claimed I'm erring, and have I utterly disregarded your claims? No, I have disproven them. How many times do I have to say that I base my view on that of the Bible before you stop claiming that "I always think I'm right"? It is not I who speak in the Bible but Christ and God and their ordained ministers.

Yes, and I disagree with him on several points. However, the religion which has the most amount of verifiable evidence and whose supposed "contradictions" can all be easily explained would be the one to follow. Especially when it has very specific prophecies that are always fulfilled, and miracles performed that had witnesses.

Wow, you've just described just about every religion that exists. Congratulations.

www.apologeticsindex.com


Let that solve any qualms you have with it not being the true religion.

You completely missed the sarcasm.

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

Ahura Mazdah has done no such thing.

You've claimed I'm erring, and have I utterly disregarded your claims? No, I have disproven them.

No, you haven't. You have provided more opinion, and then threw out random insults at me.

How many times do I have to say that I base my view on that of the Bible before you stop claiming that "I always think I'm right"? It is not I who speak in the Bible but Christ and God and their ordained ministers.

How many times do I have to say that I base my view on that of the Bible and of God before you stop claiming that only your interpretation can possibly be right?

Do remember, or if you didn't already know, know that there has never been a single unified Christian belief. There have always been disputes, from the moment the church was started. The fact that you claim to have the end-all be-all in interpretation is ludicrous.

Either you are infallible or you are not. What you have been saying is "I am not infallible, I am just always right!"

The fact that the heterosexual act is not condemned in the passage, but the homosexual one is.

Hmm...I may have the numbers slightly off...but, I believe the Bible has exactly six passages relating to homosexuality, and admonishions about it...and over 360 admonishions against various heterosexual acts. Seems God musta thought heteros needed more supervision!

Say what you will about me, I've already told you I am completely and totally asexual.

Fine with me. We'll still see which of us gets the apartment with the better view.

Even the Bible says (paraphrase) many will come before me saying, "But, Lord, I did this for you...I did that for you..." and He will say unto them, "turn away from me, for I knew you not."




(D) 15"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.



(E) 21"Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'


Homosexuality is lawlessness in God's eyes.

[snip]

Tell me Neo-rogolia, have you ever lied? If so, you are not allowed into the kingdom of heaven, as indicated by Revelations 22:14 and 22:15. Lying is clearly a sin.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
I think it's pretty clear that your god would like you to stop being so judgemental now.

Homosexuality is lawlessness in God's eyes.

There you go trying to claim the authority to speak for God again.

Hmm...I may have the numbers slightly off...but, I believe the Bible has exactly six passages relating to homosexuality, and admonishions about it...and over 360 admonishions against various heterosexual acts. Seems God musta thought heteros needed more supervision!

Say what you will about me, I've already told you I am completely and totally asexual.



Boy, does that quote ever get old :rolleyes:


Homosexuality is forbidden. Heterosexuality is strongly regulated. Of course He would speak about something that is regulated more than something that is intrinsically sin. You only have to say something is wrong once, you have to say many things to show the exact conditions under which something is right.

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.

Thank you. This is one of the first (not the first, but they're fairly rare) good posts by someone on your side of the issue, namely "I think gay marriage is wrong because my Bible tells me so".
You explain why you are against it, but leave open the possibility that others disagree.
My understanding of Soddom and Gomorrah (which is limited, I'll defer to you on this one) was that the people were guilty of a multitude of things, one of the many being homosexuality. The way I understand it, they weren't destroyed for being homosexuals, it was only one of a litany of complaints that God had against the cities. But again, I'm sure you know it much better than I do.

I know that I err, and I expect others to have the kindness to rebuke me when I do. Much like me having the love for you to rebuke you, for the sake of your soul.

you know...I don't really recall ever ASKING you...or WANTING you to look out for MY soul. I think I'm adult enough to look out for my own soul. Why don't you worry a bit more about your OWN soul...and a little bit less about everyone else's?

Or are you so convinced that, since you are obviously so much better than everyone else...that your soul needs no looking after?

There you go trying to claim the authority to speak for God again.



Grrrr.....do you ignore half of what I say? Paul condemned it, Paul speaks for God, therefore God condemns it!

Thank you. This is one of the first (not the first, but they're fairly rare) good posts by someone on your side of the issue, namely "I think gay marriage is wrong because my Bible tells me so".
You explain why you are against it, but leave open the possibility that others disagree.
My understanding of Soddom and Gomorrah (which is limited, I'll defer to you on this one) was that the people were guilty of a multitude of things, one of the many being homosexuality. The way I understand it, they weren't destroyed for being homosexuals, it was only one of a litany of complaints that God had against the cities. But again, I'm sure you know it much better than I do.

According to other passages of the Bible, the main sin of Soddom in the story was being inhospitable.

(D) 15"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.



(E) 21"Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'


Homosexuality is lawlessness in God's eyes.



We all know what is written in the current version of both the protestant and catholic versions of the Bible (interesting that the "true word of God" has more than one official version). BUT, do you know HOW it was written?? All the books of the Bible were originally seperate manuscripts written by men who claimed to have been inspired by God - then there was a huge meeting of religious men several hundred years later who read all these seperate manuscripts and THEY decided what all got put in to be considered by all as "The True Word of God".

I'm sorry to let you in on the secret, but your "infallible" word was put together by man, not God and, therefore, is quite subject to fallibility.

you know...I don't really recall ever ASKING you...or WANTING you to look out for MY soul. I think I'm adult enough to look out for my own soul. Why don't you worry a bit more about your OWN soul...and a little bit less about everyone else's?

Or are you so convinced that, since you are obviously so much better than everyone else...that your soul needs no looking after?



Why would I spend time posting a log of my own introspection? Would you expect me to make a new topic saying: Sins I've Committed and My Prayers for Forgiveness? You are assuming I do not look after my own soul, and that assumption is erroneous.

You've claimed I'm erring, and have I utterly disregarded your claims? No, I have disproven them. How many times do I have to say that I base my view on that of the Bible before you stop claiming that "I always think I'm right"? It is not I who speak in the Bible but Christ and God and their ordained ministers.

If you base your views on the Bible...obviously you have a different version of the bible than I do.

Because we seem to be, in our views, diametrically opposed to one another.

And, while I have not so stated before in this thread...I am a Unitarian Christian.

According to other passages of the Bible, the main sin of Soddom in the story was being inhospitable.
According to the story of Sodom, the sin was inhsopitality. It never even mentions homosexuality. We wouldn't be in this situation with that passage had translators not decided to translate the word meaning "have sex with" as "know", thus causing confusion between that word and word that actually means "know".

We all know what is written in the current version of both the protestant and catholic versions of the Bible (interesting that the "true word of God" has more than one official version). BUT, do you know HOW it was written?? All the books of the Bible were originally seperate manuscripts written by men who claimed to have been inspired by God - then there was a huge meeting of religious men several hundred years later who read all these seperate manuscripts and THEY decided what all got put in to be considered by all as "The True Word of God".

I'm sorry to let you in on the secret, but your "infallible" word was put together by man, not God and, therefore, is quite subject to fallibility.



And do you think God would have allowed them to distort the only source of His will? Do you really underestimate God in such a manner? It would only be logical to assume He guided the process, or else we're all damned with no hope for salvation.

Grrrr.....do you ignore half of what I say?

No, I just don't think you are infallible. I have already pointed out the problems with this, but here goes again.

Paul condemned it,

You believe. Never mind that the passage can very rationally be interpreted otherwise. Neo Rogolia is always right!

Paul speaks for God,

As do the preachers today. As did all of the apostles, some of whom disagreed with much of what Paul said. However, we don't claim them to be infallibly correct on everything.

Preachers for generations told women to go home and let their husbands beat them to a pulp because of the "turn the other cheek" passage. Of course, if you interpret that passage in light of the society in which Jesus lived, it is clear that it is a form of passive resistance, not an order to let someone continue abusing you. But, by your logic, those preachers had to be absolutely right, since they were ordained and given authority by God.

There have always been disagreements within the church. There will always be. Anyone foolish enough to claim that they have absolute answers beyond the ideals of Christ's teachings are either misled, or incredibly arrogant.

(D) 15"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.



(E) 21"Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'


Homosexuality is lawlessness in God's eyes.


And hatred, bigotry, and oppression aren't?
Failing to love your fewllow human beings isn't?
Judging your fellow human beings isn't?

Did I miss something?

If you base your views on the Bible...obviously you have a different version of the bible than I do.

Because we seem to be, in our views, diametrically opposed to one another.

And, while I have not so stated before in this thread...I am a Unitarian Christian.


We must have....what do you use? By default, I use NIV and NKJV.

Tell me Neo-rogolia, have you ever lied? If so, you are not allowed into the kingdom of heaven, as indicated by Revelations 22:14 and 22:15. Lying is clearly a sin.



I think it's pretty clear that your god would like you to stop being so judgemental now.

Great list. May I add my personal Favorite??


Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye know no murderer hath eternal life abiding within him

And do you think God would have allowed them to distort the only source of His will? Do you really underestimate God in such a manner?

That is laughable. You are the one placing restrictions upon God, my dear.

It would only be logical to assume He guided the process, or else we're all damned with no hope for salvation.

Guided and personally wrote are two very different things.

Meanwhile, do you really think that God is not still providing guidance? Do you think God provided guidance up until the big group of politicians decided which books were the most important and then decided to sit back and watch and have no more involvement with those that followed?

Grrrr.....do you ignore half of what I say? Paul condemned it, Paul speaks for God, therefore God condemns it!

why don't you read up some on what Paul of Tarsus REALLY was?

http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.org

Follow the links. Read up on Paul of Tarsus.

and, mind, the person who put this website together speaks on the authority of being an ordained Roman Catholic priest.

Why would I spend time posting a log of my own introspection? Would you expect me to make a new topic saying: Sins I've Committed and My Prayers for Forgiveness? You are assuming I do not look after my own soul, and that assumption is erroneous.

well, with all the time and energy you seem to spend looking after the souls of others (many of whom did not ASK you to...and in fact, would probably ask the likes of you NOT to) how on Earth would you have TIME to look after your own soul?

See, you never acknowledge any fallibity, or of being wrong..you claim such smug superiority...why ELSE do you think I was so insistent that you post "I was wrong" when you made your inaccurate and foul accusation against me?

And do you think God would have allowed them to distort the only source of His will? Do you really underestimate God in such a manner? It would only be logical to assume He guided the process, or else we're all damned with no hope for salvation.


Why would I not believe He would allow it????? YOU admit God allows evil to exist in the world in order to help with the weeding out process - false prophets have existed in large numbers all along, God allowed that. Of course I believe He may have allowed them to distort it, any idiot can follow a step-by-step instruction manual - maybe God alllowed it so that only true believers would understand the real message - I don't know WHY but I do know that God has allowed all sorts of evils and temtations to exist and to continue to exist.

Oh and I have a question - if humans were the only creations that God gave free will and Lucifer was originally an angel (not human) then how did he rebel and disobey God? Or was he actually doing God's will when he corrupted the Earth?

And you say all the discrepencies in the Bible are easily explained?????? ROFLMAO
If it was all truly and only God's word there wouldn't BE any discrepencies since any creation of His is, by definition, perfect.

Darnit - I have to go just when it was getting good!

Wonderful to meet you all - thanks for the mental stimulation :)

Peace to you all

And hatred, bigotry, and oppression aren't?
Failing to love your fewllow human beings isn't?
Judging your fellow human beings isn't?

Did I miss something?


I've already shown how I am not a hater and a bigot many times throughout this thread, I'm not doing it again. I will leave you with these passages:


1 Timothy 5:17-24 17Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,"[c] and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."[d] 19Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. 20Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.
21I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. 22Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure.

23No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities.

24Some men's sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later. 25Likewise, the good works of some are clearly evident, and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden.





2 Timothy 4:1-5 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at[a] His appearing and His kingdom: 2Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.





Titus 1:10-16 10For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. 12One of them, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." 13This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth. 15To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. 16They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.






Titus 2:1-15 1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things-- 4that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. 6Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded, 7in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility,[a] 8sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you. 9Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back, 10not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things. [B]11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. 15Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.



Revelation 3:19 19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.


(Emphasis mine)

We must have....what do you use? By default, I use NIV and NKJV.
Well, I use the Gospels and Acts forward - the New Testament...as is printed in the King James Version.

Also, as a backup, I use "The Jefferson Bible" which is a sacred text in the Unitarian church.

The Jefferson Bible is a work by Thomas Jefferson, a scholar fluent in six different languages.
what Jefferson attempted to do with his book was to go back to the oldest texts he could find...many in the original Greek...and he managed to compile the four Gospels into one book, "The Life And Times of Jesus of Nazareth" which is known to us as "The Jefferson Bible."

The Jefferson Bible attempted to deal with some inconsistencies in the four Gospels...omitted the miracles, and concentrated on the LIFE and the TEACHINGS of Jesus of Nazareth.

Try reading it sometime. You might have your eyes opened a bit if you concentrated more on the TEACHINGS OF JESUS....instead of on the rule book of don'ts inspired by that world-class bigot and hater, Paul of Tarsus.

Why would I not believe He would allow it????? YOU admit God allows evil to exist in the world in order to help with the weeding out process - false prophets have existed in large numbers all along, God allowed that. Of course I believe He may have allowed them to distort it, any idiot can follow a step-by-step instruction manual - maybe God alllowed it so that only true believers would understand the real message - I don't know WHY but I do know that God has allowed all sorts of evils and temtations to exist and to continue to exist.

Oh and I have a question - if humans were the only creations that God gave free will and Lucifer was originally an angel (not human) then how did he rebel and disobey God? Or was he actually doing God's will when he corrupted the Earth?



Perhaps he wouldn't allow it because it would contradict Christ's purpose which was to save as many as possible? If we could not know and follow God's will because we had a corrupted Bible, then we would all be damned...as for the whole fall of Lucifer issue, I remember hearing that it was referring to a Babylonian king and not Lucifer himself. Or else, Jesus would be sharing the name Morning Star with Satan, and that would be rather akward ;)


And you say all the discrepencies in the Bible are easily explained?????? ROFLMAO
If it was all truly and only God's word there wouldn't BE any discrepencies since any creation of His is, by definition, perfect.


It is perfect, which is why those discrepencies aren't really what they appear to be ;)

[snip]

Oh, Neo Rogolia, don't you see? The bible can be used to support/debunk any belief you could possibly imagine. It is flawed, self-contradictory, and ultimately, irrelevant.