NationStates Jolt Archive

but it would save me a lot of time correcting misinformed atheists :(

Translation: Neo: ...but it would save me a lot of time blathering on about my beliefs to people who could care less..and it would save me a lot of time correcting people who do not hold EXACTLY MY BELIEFS.

"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.
Highly arrogant? Me? Never. (A real bright one on our hands...)

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

Honestly, the government should get out of marriage, allow legal unions for those who don't want to be married religiously, and leave marriage to religion.
Language isn't static! Words mean what we say they mean. Gay marriage is marriage if it's defined as such.

Many people recognize it [gay marriage] as such[marriage]. There's no authoritative definition of the word marriage, as if there was, we wouldn't be having this argument.

Which would then be discriminatory because it was already admitted that there was no non-religous basis for no gay marriage.

Religous place =/= Christian God

a large number of weddings don't take place inside a church, speaking of which churches aren't holy places, they are buildings.they are also referred to as God's House. they are places of worship and prayer. and if you note: I did not equate Religous Places with Christian God, but kept it as religous places.

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

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

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

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.

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.
Thank you for proving MY point on the matter of the roots of the word marriage. You are proving most useful.

Second half of that, i've already shot down in another post. The law IS religious value, therefore to say religion has "NO" place in the government... it's not correct.

Language isn't static! Words mean what we say they mean. Gay marriage is marriage if it's defined as such.

Many people recognize it [gay marriage] as such[marriage]. There's no authoritative definition of the word marriage, as if there was, we wouldn't be having this argument.

Again, you missed my point.

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

Simple solution, really.

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.

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

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

That last part... Gragh. I've dealt with it ALREADY. You guys need new points, rather than simply restating your old ones... again... and again... and again... and again just to make sure I heard you.

Well then it is probably a good thing that I haven't done any such thing, isn't it?

Wouldn't be the first time Neo accused someone of doing...or saying...something they didn't.

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.
Dealt. With. This. Seperation of church and state is only there to please people like you that are too... 'clouded' to see that it's IMPOSSIBLE to do so.

Go back and read what I said already.

And thus the original statistic was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, as I was trying to prove. Thank you.


If you need me to prove to you that there were less 'socially demented' inhumane acts 100 or 200 years ago.... haha, let me put it this way. "Good luck" proving otherwise. Also, since when has denying gays the right to "marry" because of religious freedom principles qualified as "religious domination of the government"...? You do enjoy overdramatizing things.


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

You don't get it, do you? These basic principles our government works upon are BASED on religion. They are based on the 'code of conduct' standard that the earliest religions set up so long ago. Murder is bad, steailng is bad... You think all of that just 'appeared' out of nowhere? The concept of government CAME from religion. That is why I laugh every time I read a post like that, and read attempts to seperate church and state. Without the church, the state would not exist. Government, morale standards... LAW, all of it began with the original religion which stated everything in nature had a spirit. Animism, it was called. It gave people a conscience, a sense of "look out for your fellow man"... as religion became more complex, government went with it.

Government without any religious 'interference' (as you would call it) is not simply unlikely, it's downright impossible.

Great post.

Some things aren't up to interpretation.

And you personally decide which things those are?

Two of the things I mentioned in there necessitate the rejection of Paul's infallibility in order for them to be disregarded.

Incorrect. None of them actually necessitate that.

However, rejecting the idea that a human being, one who even admits his own fallibility, is infallible is in no way inconsistent with Christ's teachings or anything in Scripture.

However, on the obvious things Paul mentions....no. Rejection of them is nothing short of blatant apostasy...and it is not just I who say this.

As has been pointed out, many of the things you call "obvious" aren't so obvious. It isn't our fault that you don't actually consider anything and simply go with your knee-jerk reaction to someone else's interpretation of what Paul said.

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

As for the post... I've dealt with this mocki-... er... responding to another one of your posts. It involves the fact that it is infringing on my own religious freedoms by making me live under a system that goes directly against my religion in giving blatant sinners the right to undergo a religious ceremony... and ALL of it's benefits.
Actually no it doesnt. Your religion doesnt have to accept gay marriages. Your religion doesnt have to preform gay marriages. However the government does and it has to give gay couples the same rights given to straight couples. What we are doing is trying to make sure a minority is given all the rights garunteed to them by the constitution. You are trying to impose your religious beliefs on others through government legislation. Guess what you cant do that. Its tanamount to having a state sponsered religion and guess what Seperation of Church and State doesnt allow that.

And that proves that a rabbi is more versed in Biblical knowledge than a Christian scholar how? I never said the layman retains more knowledge than the rabbi. I disagreed, though, when you said the average atheist knows more about the subject than the person who specializes in Christian studies.

When did ANYONE ever say that??

I recall something about "your average rabbi knows more about the subject than your average Christian"

I don't recall that claim ever being made for an atheist...unless, of course, you define "athiest" as anyone who doesn't share your exact beliefs.

Wouldn't be the first time Neo accused someone of doing...or saying...something they didn't.

Please drop the issue, she apologized twice... you would think she stabbed you in the heart (She didn't, don't say she did in any theoretical way).

Translation: Neo: ...but it would save me a lot of time blathering on about my beliefs to people who could care less..and it would save me a lot of time correcting people who do not hold EXACTLY MY BELIEFS.


A professed "Christian" in support of atheism? Charming.

As for the post... I've dealt with this mocki-... er... responding to another one of your posts. It involves the fact that it is infringing on my own religious freedoms by making me live under a system that goes directly against my religion in giving blatant sinners the right to undergo a religious ceremony... and ALL of it's benefits.
This is the most ass-backward interpretation of religious freedom I've ever heard in my life. I'll go line-by-(non ad-hominem)line:

It is infringing on my own religious freedoms by making me live under a system that goes directly against my religion
If that's true, then there's no state that could have religious tolerance because some religion's beliefs wouldn't be enshrined in the Constitution.

To me, your anti-gay prejudice is a sin against God. That's right, I'll say it again for dramatic effect - a SIN. If we believed in Hell, this would be one of the offenses that would send someone there. As it is, you'll be spending a lot of time in the purgatory-type thing that does exist. Treating other people like they don't deserve the same rights you do is horrific - tantamount to Pharoah's treatment of the Jews in ancient Egypt. Any system that doesn't have gay marriage goes DIRECTLY AGAINST MY RELIGION. So we're in a bit of a bind here, aren't we? Whose religion takes precedence?

Religious freedom means the government stays out of religion, and religion stays out of the government. Which means that gays can enter into government (NOT religious) marriages because doing otherwise is taking a stance on religion.

in giving blatant sinners the right to undergo a religious ceremony... and ALL of it's benefits.
That's where you're wrong. Government marriages DO NOT GIVE GAY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO GET RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES. PERIOD. We're not going to make your church marry gays.

Class dismissed.

If God's guidance contradicts God's will in the Bible, wouldn't that imply that the guidance came from a different source? I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you, but have you considered that?

Of course I have considered it. Like I said, I admit my own fallibility. However, I believe that Christ allowed us to have a personal relationship with God, so I pray for that guidance and believe I receive it.

Of course, I could say the same thing. It is:

If what is described to be God's will in the Bible contradicts God's guidance, wouldn't that imply that the will described in the Bible came from a different source? I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you, but have you considered that?

Yes, apparently people like you agreed when they nailed Christ to a tree.

You know how you had a quote from Luke way earlier in this thread about how Jesus sent out seventy men saying something about them teaching his will? One of those men was Judas!

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.
Yup that's EXACTLY what I said. [/SARCASM]

Equal rights? I think gays have those. They just can't undergo a religious ceremony when it insults a large group... or in your terms "any group".

The fact is, allowing gay 'marriage' insults my religion, and in doing so, infringes on my rights. THAT is true, and I would like to see YOU argue that (not anybody else, this... person that finds it necessary to quote everything I say... I want them to try).

The other fact is that gays should not be given priority over a group that is not only LARGER than the entire gay population, because that would be a democratic value and SURELY we aren't democratic, and that is just what you would be doing by giving them the right to gay 'marriage.' Putting them in a priority over us.

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

As for the post... I've dealt with this mocki-... er... responding to another one of your posts. It involves the fact that it is infringing on my own religious freedoms by making me live under a system that goes directly against my religion in giving blatant sinners the right to undergo a religious ceremony... and ALL of it's benefits.
It is not a religious ceremony. You make it one by choosing to marry in a church, but it isn't by law. The benefits that would be granted are legal benefits, again, nothing to do with religion.
As for living in a system that goes against your religion, you already are living in such a system. Homosexuality is allowed in the USA.

Umm...logic would dictate that only one interpretation could be correct. If I regarded mine and hers as correct, then there would be a contradiction.

No one is asking you to regard my view as correct.

All I am asking is for the same respect I accord you - the admission that it is posisble that you are incorrect. In other words, the admission that you are fallible.

All you have said thus far is "I am fallible, but I'm always correct!"

Does anybody else feel like we're getting nowhere?

I don't expect Lyric to say

"Yes you are correct. Gay "marriage" is not a practice that should be accepted anywhere on this earth"

anymore than she would expect me to say the opposite. I don't see what we're accomplishing other than insults back and forth, which, granted, I love... and apparently we all do.

But still... I don't see an end in sight for this topic.

As has been pointed out, many of the things you call "obvious" aren't so obvious. It isn't our fault that you don't actually consider anything and simply go with your knee-jerk reaction to someone else's interpretation of what Paul said.


I don't consider anything? *Draws another mark on the tally of false presumptions made by Dem*

My religion ONLY believes in gay marriages and wants to ban straight marriages as they are an insult to gay marriages. Response?

Does anybody else feel like we're getting nowhere?

I don't expect Lyric to say

"Yes you are correct. Gay "marriage" is not a practice that should be accepted anywhere on this earth"

anymore than she would expect me to say the opposite. I don't see what we're accomplishing other than insults back and forth, which, granted, I love... and apparently we all do.

But still... I don't see an end in sight for this topic.
There is no end in sight. But that doesn't make the discussion uninteresting. By the way, read my post.

Does anybody else feel like we're getting nowhere?

I don't expect Lyric to say

"Yes you are correct. Gay "marriage" is not a practice that should be accepted anywhere on this earth"

anymore than she would expect me to say the opposite. I don't see what we're accomplishing other than insults back and forth, which, granted, I love... and apparently we all do.

But still... I don't see an end in sight for this topic.


She's claimed that she will have the last word, and I'm certainly not going to allow it. So the only end will come when we all die :(

She's claimed that she will have the last word, and I'm certainly not going to allow it. So the only end will come when we all die :(

*grabs some coffee*

We're in for a long night.

How DARE you compare me to them! If I could give a cyberslap, you would be getting one right now! They twist the will of their God to serve their own purposes! At least I follow the will of mine!

They are just as convinced that they are following God's will as you are.

You believe it is twisting. Guess what! They believe the same thing about you!

And the comparison is valid. You wish to force your own religion upon others just as they wish to force theirs upon others.

If you don't like the comparison, stop trying to govern others by your personal religion.

It is not a religious ceremony. You make it one by choosing to marry in a church, but it isn't by law. The benefits that would be granted are legal benefits, again, nothing to do with religion.
As for living in a system that goes against your religion, you already are living in such a system. Homosexuality is allowed in the USA.
Legal benefits which orginated BECAUSE of a religious ceremony... because of religion.

As did the USA. As did, again, government in the first place. Face up, there isn't such a line between "legal benefits" and the church as you would to convince yourself... and for good reason.

Homosexuality alone is a sin, but sinners should be mourned for and given our support in that they can move away from it. We live in a society of sin no matter where we go, however giving them benefit of a religious ceremony, whether those benefits be in the eyes of God or in the eyes of the law, is wrong. Simple as that.

Of course I have considered it. Like I said, I admit my own fallibility. However, I believe that Christ allowed us to have a personal relationship with God, so I pray for that guidance and believe I receive it.

Of course, I could say the same thing. It is:

If what is described to be God's will in the Bible contradicts God's guidance, wouldn't that imply that the will described in the Bible came from a different source? I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you, but have you considered that?




I'll take the word of God, Christ, and the apostles over what I perceive to be God's guidance. At least we can all agree they might not be of Satan.

She's claimed that she will have the last word, and I'm certainly not going to allow it. So the only end will come when we all die :(
lol. Well I won't allow it either. I was going to let it go until I was told that people were still mocking me despite the fact I had left the topic.

Now i'm on a mission.

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

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

One of the various reasons why Eskertania is wrong about the Church/State argument. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9156030&postcount=2016)

If so, then we might as well throw out the entire Christian religion as we won't know a thing. Congratulations, that was a brilliant suggestion :rolleyes:

Actually, considering some of it's "followers" maybe that really WAS a brilliant suggestion!

I'd say fully 90% of those who claim to be Christian are actually not. Because they are not behaving or acting in a manner in accordance with the teachings of JESUS.

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

You know, lying is a bad thing. And leaving out information just to make a point you know you can't back up is lying.

From Mirriam-Webster:

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>


Meanwhile, remember that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Fine, if you want to reject the evidence of eyewitnesses of miracles then how about another suggestion: Let us see him make a prophecy, not a vague one that has a 50% chance of occuring, but a very specific one...and let us see it come to pass :)

Well, I dunno...Nostradamus was pretty good at that, now, wasn't he? So are you saying perhaps Nostradamus has a claim on Divinity?

Legal benefits which orginated BECAUSE of a religious ceremony... because of religion.

Read a history book. Marriage was originally a secular institution. It became associated with religion because priests were the only literate people around.

I'll take the word of God, Christ, and the apostles over what I perceive to be God's guidance. At least we can all agree they might not be of Satan.

Actually I dont agree with you. The word of God, Christ, and the apostles could have just been inventions of the devil to cause division amoungst humans. You assume alot Neo and you really shouldnt do that.

Yup that's EXACTLY what I said. [/SARCASM]

Equal rights? I think gays have those. They just can't undergo a religious ceremony when it insults a large group... or in your terms "any group".

The fact is, allowing gay 'marriage' insults my religion, and in doing so, infringes on my rights. THAT is true, and I would like to see YOU argue that (not anybody else, this... person that finds it necessary to quote everything I say... I want them to try).

The other fact is that gays should not be given priority over a group that is not only LARGER than the entire gay population, because that would be a democratic value and SURELY we aren't democratic, and that is just what you would be doing by giving them the right to gay 'marriage.' Putting them in a priority over us.

Hey, Ignatius is back! Geuss what! The goverment can't force religions to perform gay marriages! Instead they can provide legal unions that offer the exact same legal and monetary benefits. Then all the union has to do to make it a "religous marriage" is find a priest/whatever of any religion recognized by the US goverment and have them perform a marriage ceremony if that priest/whatever wants to. No forcing gay marriage on anybody!

Still don't like it? Gouge out your eyes! Then you won't see any sin!

Edit: BAM! Homosexua animals (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm)

So you're saying humans are unique only in the way a pig is unique to a bird. Perhaps you should understand a concept "humanity" before you try and say that sort of thing.

"Humanity" is a philosophical concept, not a biological one.

You asked a biological question. It was answered.

One of the various reasons why Eskertania is wrong about the Church/State argument. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9156030&postcount=2016)
You can read almost every single one of my posts to see why all of those reasons are wrong. But nice try.

Yes, Lord knows we risk persecution, chagrin, personal attacks, hatred from others, and the denigration of our ego to boost our ego :rolleyes: I think Paul had something to say about those who lack the courage to preach in the face of persecution and.....oh wait, I forgot. You don't acknowledge Paul's authority but only Jesus' authority even though Jesus gave Paul the authority to speak for Him. So much for that :rolleyes:

You're damn right I don't acknowledge Paul's authority. Because he turned around and preached in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus!

The only thing I acknowledge about Paul is the utter waste of skin he was.

No one is asking you to regard my view as correct.

All I am asking is for the same respect I accord you - the admission that it is posisble that you are incorrect. In other words, the admission that you are fallible.

All you have said thus far is "I am fallible, but I'm always correct!"


It's possible that I'm incorrect, but if I am incorrect then the Bible is incorrect. In that case, we all have no hope.

You can read almost every single one of my posts to see why all of those reasons are wrong. But nice try.
No, you never explicitly rebut any of those arguments. In fact, I believe there to be no answer to most of them. Prove me wrong.

Lol, I think you misinterpreted me. I did not mean God was actually sitting on the throne in the capitol, it would be a leader who was following God's will. In the ideal theocracy they would be anyway.

And everyone else would just have to have faith in that person, that they are correctly interpreting God's will?

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

Yes, they do, if all the rights included unions were equal to those of a marriage.

Again, you're forgetting seperation of church and state.

Legal benefits which orginated BECAUSE of a religious ceremony... because of religion.

As did the USA. As did, again, government in the first place. Face up, there isn't such a line between "legal benefits" and the church as you would to convince yourself... and for good reason.

Homosexuality alone is a sin, but sinners should be mourned for and given our support in that they can move away from it. We live in a society of sin no matter where we go, however giving them benefit of a religious ceremony, whether those benefits be in the eyes of God or in the eyes of the law, is wrong. Simple as that.
Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It was around long before christianity. Besides, I doubt the current marriage law says that marriage is sanctified by God. That says a lot about the governments intent.
What are the legal benefits anyway when you are married in the USA? Isn't it that you automatically inherit your spouses possessions when they die etcetera? And then how is that related to which religion, exactly?

Read a history book. Marriage was originally a secular institution. It became associated with religion because priests were the only literate people around.
Amazing...

But not relevant. It was still quickly associated with religion, and became a religious ceremony. Simple as that.

They are just as convinced that they are following God's will as you are.

You believe it is twisting. Guess what! They believe the same thing about you!

And the comparison is valid. You wish to force your own religion upon others just as they wish to force theirs upon others.

If you don't like the comparison, stop trying to govern others by your personal religion.


Do I advocate killing homosexuals or beating another woman because she accidentally has her face show? Puh-lease, this is like comparing a demon to an angel or black to white.

If so, then one of us is going to die of old age in her computer chair, because I'm certainly not giving up either.

this was in response to my quote which follows...



Because everyone feels like they have to get in the last word.

and I will make sure OUR SIDE gets the last word.

And that is why these threads go on for so long. I'm damn well DETERMINED that MY SIDE is gonna get the last word in.

1. Civil unions do not grant the same rights as marriage, as has been explained to you before.
2. Even if they did, ever heard of the ruling in Brown v Board of Education? Seperate but equal institutions are illegal.and who grants the rights of Civil unions. Who defines their legal rights and responsibilites. the Government. so why can't they be given the same rights?


and Brown vs. the BOE is a different matter altogether. Brown vs. the BOE is physically keeping them apart. by allowing civil unions and marriage, you cannot discriminate against one or the other since the only difference is the Religious connotations one would have that the other won't. it's like saying that right now, Private Schools and Public Schools are Illegal or that weddings performed by Religious Leaders and Weddings performed by non-religious leaders are also illegal.

Yes. Yes it is a defect. And since you supplied no "scientific facts" on the subject in this paragraph, and instead just decided to say something "just 'cause"... that's really all I have to say in response.

Pot, meet kettle.

You have yet to supply a single scientific fact or scientific study. So why do you expect that from others?

Meanwhile, you could get plenty of studies by doing a search on Pubmed. The studies in macaques and bighorn sheep are especially interesting. If you simply want a summary of homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual behavior in animals, pick up a copy of Biological Exuberance. It is very well organized and exceptionally well-researched.

Yes, all government systems have their downsides, but at least if I were the head of a theocracy, that wouldn't happen.

There is no way that you or any woman could rule in a theocracy based on your interpretation of Christianity! Why!? BECAUSE WOMEN CAN'T TALK IN CHURCH! If they can't talk in church which is the basis of your goverment they can't talk in the goverment either!

Yes, they do, if all the rights included unions were equal to those of a marriage.

Again, you're forgetting seperation of church and state.

Your forgeting that the marriage that is being talked about is the state variety not the religious kind. So the government making laws concerning state marriages isnt violating seperation of church and state. Now if they made a law saying that all religious churches couldnt refuse to marry gay couples I would agree that that is a violation of the seperation of church and state. But as I said before this is the government institution we are talking about so it isnt a violation.

It's possible that I'm incorrect, but if I am incorrect then the Bible is incorrect. In that case, we all have no hope.

We all have no hope? LISTEN TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

Hey, Ignatius is back! Geuss what! The goverment can't force religions to perform gay marriages! Instead they can provide legal unions that offer the exact same legal and monetary benefits. Then all the union has to do to make it a "religous marriage" is find a priest/whatever of any religion recognized by the US goverment and have them perform a marriage ceremony if that priest/whatever wants to. No forcing gay marriage on anybody!

Still don't like it? Gouge out your eyes! Then you won't see any sin!

Edit: BAM! Homosexua animals (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm)
I never denied homosexual animals so I don't know what that was for.

Marriage IS religious, the benefits in the law and the religous aspects are both benefits OF a religious ceremony. Therefore it IS forcing it upon us.

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

"Humanity" is a philosophical concept, not a biological one.

You asked a biological question. It was answered.
Not neccessarily. The ability to go above and beyond instinct, biologically speaking, could be called humanity.

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

Strawman alert!

No one has ever suggested, in any way, forcing any churches to are against same sex marriage to perform them.

Meanwhile, civil unions would be fine, so long as it was all the government offered and they were offered equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Well, I dunno...Nostradamus was pretty good at that, now, wasn't he? So are you saying perhaps Nostradamus has a claim on Divinity?


Nostradamus did not have a 100% success rate.

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

Marriage IS religious, the benefits in the law and the religous aspects are both benefits OF a religious ceremony. Therefore it IS forcing it upon us.

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

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

Again, you missed my point.

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

Simple solution, really.

That solution is already enacted. Religious institutions have their version of marriage, and the law has its version. The legal version is offered equally to the religious and the non-religious. The only problem is that it is offered in a discriminatory manner clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The ideal government would follow God's will, regardless of what the majority or minority wanted.

No, let's clear this up...

Time for another Lyric's Translations!!


Neo: MY ideal government would follow MY INTERPRETATION of God's Will, to the exclusion of all other interpretations, and tough shit if anyone else doesn't like it.

You're damn right I don't acknowledge Paul's authority. Because he turned around and preached in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus!

The only thing I acknowledge about Paul is the utter waste of skin he was.


Paul was an ordained minister of Christ. Way to reject Christ.

Your forgeting that the marriage that is being talked about is the state variety not the religious kind. So the government making laws concerning state marriages isnt violating seperation of church and state. Now if they made a law saying that all religious churches couldnt refuse to marry gay couples I would agree that that is a violation of the seperation of church and state. But as I said before this is the government institution we are talking about so it isnt a violation.

Yes, but what I'm saying is, why not seperate the two? Why not let the government set up civil partnerships for anyone who doesn't want to be joined religiously, and let those who want to be married religiously, do so. Not that hard to comprehend.

Dealt. With. This. Seperation of church and state is only there to please people like you that are too... 'clouded' to see that it's IMPOSSIBLE to do so.

Go back and read what I said already.

You don't have a single shred of evidence that our laws originated in religion. You claim that legal institutions borrowed from religion. However, it could have been the other way around.

How DARE you compare me to them! If I could give a cyberslap, you would be getting one right now! They twist the will of their God to serve their own purposes! At least I follow the will of mine!

And you twist it to suit YOUR purposes. Your posts demonstrate this.

You really want to go there?

And everyone else would just have to have faith in that person, that they are correctly interpreting God's will?


Actually, a ruling council of elder and bishops from every church would be a better idea. I had forgotten that I'd thought about that earlier when thinking over the ideal theocracy :)

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

And just so you know, I'm not saying that gay marrige is bad, just that it resulted in a decrease of marrige in Amsterdam and it's neighbor the Netherlands.
Someone's probably already mentioned this, and if so sorry for the repeat, but:
Amsterdam's neighbor, the Netherlands? Amsterdam is one of the two capitals of the Netherlands. It's like saying that Washington D.C. is a neighbor of the U.S. Or, rather, maybe New York City would be a better comparison. NYC is the economic capital of the country, pretty much. Just like Amsterdam... except that Amsterdam has official recognition for it, and it may have part of the government as well... even though most of it is in Den Haag (the Hague).

Yes, but what I'm saying is, why not seperate the two? Why not let the government set up civil partnerships for anyone who doesn't want to be joined religiously, and let those who want to be married religiously, do so. Not that hard to comprehend.

It is already seperate. There are religious marriages for those who want them and there are state marriages for those who want those. The problem is that gays are not given all the rights given to straight married couples in the state marriages. Thats what people are trying to change.

I don't consider anything? *Draws another mark on the tally of false presumptions made by Dem*

You have made it quite clear. To anything that disagrees with you, you promptly answer "THAT IS SIMPLY WRONG! MY VIEW IS OBVIOUS!"

This is the most ass-backward interpretation of religious freedom I've ever heard in my life. I'll go line-by-(non ad-hominem)line:

If that's true, then there's no state that could have religious tolerance because some religion's beliefs wouldn't be enshrined in the Constitution.

To me, your anti-gay prejudice is a sin against God. That's right, I'll say it again for dramatic effect - a SIN. If we believed in Hell, this would be one of the offenses that would send someone there. As it is, you'll be spending a lot of time in the purgatory-type thing that does exist. Treating other people like they don't deserve the same rights you do is horrific - tantamount to Pharoah's treatment of the Jews in ancient Egypt. Any system that doesn't have gay marriage goes DIRECTLY AGAINST MY RELIGION. So we're in a bit of a bind here, aren't we? Whose religion takes precedence?

Religious freedom means the government stays out of religion, and religion stays out of the government. Which means that gays can enter into government (NOT religious) marriages because doing otherwise is taking a stance on religion.

That's where you're wrong. Government marriages DO NOT GIVE GAY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO GET RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES. PERIOD. We're not going to make your church marry gays.

Class dismissed.

Dealt with this. You put it PERFECTLY...

"Religious freedom means the government stays out of religion, and religion stays out of the government"

Although I would deny the second half as being possible, the first half is indeed possible... and it is being broken. Marriage is a religious practice. The fact that it's called gay "marriage" means, it is a religious practice as well.

That means, when the government decides who can and cannot get "married", they are not staying out of religion.

Class dismissed... and boy, was that an elementary class. Hopefully you all understood.

Strawman alert!

No one has ever suggested, in any way, forcing any churches to are against same sex marriage to perform them.

Meanwhile, civil unions would be fine, so long as it was all the government offered and they were offered equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Ah.. but by making Same Sex Marriages Legal it does put a Legal pressure on the church. But that is not the point of this thread so (light's strawman and hands out marshmellows)
Civil unions would be the Non-religious Union that would not be anyway (real or imagined) tied to any religion. thus it should be open to anyone. Marriage (traditional, held in a church and/or performed by a religious leader) can still proclaim the sanctity of such union and not force or be forced to do something the congregation/religion is against. basically two institutions sharing everything but the word God. thus the religious can stay on their high horse, and the Same Sex couples (and their supporters) can celebrate their victory and freedom.

I'll take the word of God, Christ, and the apostles over what I perceive to be God's guidance. At least we can all agree they might not be of Satan.

You really are very convinced of your own infallibility, aren't you? You are talking about what you perceive to be the word of God, Christ, and the apostles. There is no more evidence to suggest that what you perceive as being such is any less from Satan than the guidance I receive from God.

But, of course, it is impossible for you to even consider anything other than "I AM RIGHT AND THE BIBLE AGREES WITH ME EVEN IF IT MIGHT BE LOOKED AT A DIFFERENT WAY!"

It beats having a government endorsement of evil. At least it would be easier to raise my kids to conform to a Christian lifestyle in an enviroment with less open sin.

What? Teach 'em to be good little bigots?

You know...my brother has taught my niece and nephew to be good little bigots, just like Daddy. And as a result, there exist, right now, in Atlanta Georgia...a 15-year old girl (my niece) and a 13-year old boy (my nephew) who I have seen all but twice in my entire life...who believe that I am some sort of Grendel, because I am some sort of evil, horrible, despicable monster, because of who and what I am.

If only they knew REAL monsters...like my brother. Born-again christian, yet he teaches his kids to hate and fear me. and in fact, they reallly ought fear HIM, after all, my brother is an ex-child molester!! Wanna know who the child was that my brother molested??

Yours truly!

some fucking christian, eh?

You don't have a single shred of evidence that our laws originated in religion. You claim that legal institutions borrowed from religion. However, it could have been the other way around.
It's about time you put yourself in a situation where you are completely wrong.

Tell me, dear friend, which came first, religion or 'legal institution'? I think you know the answer to that... on a less philosophical scale, you seem like an intelligent person.

That would seem to indicate that religion would be the independant variable, and the government the dependant. It did not, no, it COULD NOT exist until a rough draft of 'humanity' was constructed by religion.

You're welcome.

It's possible that I'm incorrect, but if I am incorrect then the Bible is incorrect. In that case, we all have no hope.

Wrong again, and still not admitting your own fallibility. Is it really so hard for you?

Here, I'll correct it for you:

It's possible that I'm incorrect, but if I am incorrect then my interpretation of the Bible is incorrect. In that case, I have no hope.

See, now it is a true admission of fallibility. Would you like to try?

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

Marriage IS religious, the benefits in the law and the religous aspects are both benefits OF a religious ceremony. Therefore it IS forcing it upon us.

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

Atheists marry! Guess how much they care about religous aspects? NONE!

People can be married by Judges of the Peace! Does the judge invoke God's blessing? NO!

Again: Get out of my country! You obviously hate it here so get out!

Yes, they do, if all the rights included unions were equal to those of a marriage.

Again, you're forgetting seperation of church and state.

No, darling, you are forgetting separation of church and state. The marriage license offered by the governemnt is already non-religious. If it were religious, then separation of church and state wouldn't exist.

What? Teach 'em to be good little bigots?

You know...my brother has taught my niece and nephew to be good little bigots, just like Daddy. And as a result, there exist, right now, in Atlanta Georgia...a 15-year old girl (my niece) and a 13-year old boy (my nephew) who I have seen all but twice in my entire life...who believe that I am some sort of Grendel, because I am some sort of evil, horrible, despicable monster, because of who and what I am.

If only they knew REAL monsters...like my brother. Born-again christian, yet he teaches his kids to hate and fear me. and in fact, they reallly ought fear HIM, after all, my brother is an ex-child molester!! Wanna know who the child was that my brother molested??

Yours truly!

some fucking christian, eh?

Your brother does not speak for all Christians, and you should not try to claim that he does. None of the true Christians I know are bigots, nor do they hate anyone.

Atheists marry! Guess how much they care about religous aspects? NONE!

People can be married by Judges of the Peace! Does the judge invoke God's blessing? NO!

Again: Get out of my country! You obviously hate it here so get out!
Are you kidding? I LOVE this country! I consider myself a patriot and would gladly give my life for it.

It's your kind that ruin it... and if you're unhappy with the gay situation, perhaps you should be the one 'getting out'.

And regarding that first sentence...

Guess how many times i've answered that comment! Once! READ!

Do I advocate killing homosexuals or beating another woman because she accidentally has her face show? Puh-lease, this is like comparing a demon to an angel or black to white.

No, it is like comparing a demon to a slightly worse demon.

You advocate treating homosexuals as second-class citizens. The fact that you don't advocate killing them just makes it slightly less horrifying.

Meanwhile, you have stated that you "wouldn't mind" if homosexuals were arrested and jailed for expressing their love for one another.

What? Teach 'em to be good little bigots?

You know...my brother has taught my niece and nephew to be good little bigots, just like Daddy. And as a result, there exist, right now, in Atlanta Georgia...a 15-year old girl (my niece) and a 13-year old boy (my nephew) who I have seen all but twice in my entire life...who believe that I am some sort of Grendel, because I am some sort of evil, horrible, despicable monster, because of who and what I am.

If only they knew REAL monsters...like my brother. Born-again christian, yet he teaches his kids to hate and fear me. and in fact, they reallly ought fear HIM, after all, my brother is an ex-child molester!! Wanna know who the child was that my brother molested??

Yours truly!

some fucking christian, eh?




What an ironic post from someone who has an infatuation with quoting Matthew 7:1. Is it fun flushing your own credibility down the toilet?

You still didn't answer the first part of my post, about how other religion's think what you're doing is sin. That's the part I don't think is answerable.

Dealt with this. You put it PERFECTLY...

"Religious freedom means the government stays out of religion, and religion stays out of the government"
Thank you. Agreement :D.

Although I would deny the second half as being possible, the first half is indeed possible... and it is being broken. Marriage is a religious practice. The fact that it's called gay "marriage" means, it is a religious practice as well.
Status quo legal definitions (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm) say you're wrong. Unless you advocate the government ceasing to issue marriage licenses AT ALL. And then you're in a whole different ballpark.

That means, when the government decides who can and cannot get "married", they are not staying out of religion.
That would support my argument. Legalize marriage for everyone! No more government decisions.

Class dismissed... and boy, was that an elementary class. Hopefully you all understood.
Thanks for making my arguments for me. And conceeding the best one!

Not neccessarily. The ability to go above and beyond instinct, biologically speaking, could be called humanity.

In that case, the vast majority of apes seem to be exhibiting humanity. Babies, on the other hand, are inhuman.

Paul was an ordained minister of Christ. Way to reject Christ.

My Mom is an ordained pastor of the Methodist Church and guess what!? She talks in Church!

Dealt with this. You put it PERFECTLY...

"Religious freedom means the government stays out of religion, and religion stays out of the government"

Although I would deny the second half as being possible, the first half is indeed possible... and it is being broken. Marriage is a religious practice. The fact that it's called gay "marriage" means, it is a religious practice as well.

Actually the second half is possible. Communism much? The fact of the matter is you have have the right to believe in your religion. You dont have the right to force those beliefs on to others. By trying to have gay marriage banned under the context of god says its wrong you are violating other people's religious freedom. Not only that it is introducing state sponsered religion which will never happen in the US.

That means, when the government decides who can and cannot get "married", they are not staying out of religion.

Class dismissed... and boy, was that an elementary class. Hopefully you all understood.

The people who want to have gay marriage legalized do not want to force churches to marry people. They want a group of people to be given equal rights under the law which is denied to them with civil unions. Marriage is never always just a religious practice. Ever been to vegas. 24 hour marriage chapples with elvis as the person presiding over the ceremony. And if your going to debate you dont have to act in an insulting manner. Have some common decency.

It's about time you put yourself in a situation where you are completely wrong.

Tell me, dear friend, which came first, religion or 'legal institution'? I think you know the answer to that... on a less philosophical scale, you seem like an intelligent person.

That would seem to indicate that religion would be the independant variable, and the government the dependant. It did not, no, it COULD NOT exist until a rough draft of 'humanity' was constructed by religion.

You're welcome.

Hmmmm.

What came first, chickens or electric toasters? Chickens! Therefore, chickens somehow led to toasters.

First off, i'm not trying to 'bait' anybody into flaming me, nor am I trying to anger anybody intentionally. It happens when different points of view come into contact, if you're taking this personally than perhaps you have an idea of how I feel about gay 'marriage'. I take it personally that something against my religion so much could even be considered to be legally and socially acceptable. The very idea is repulsive.
I speak for myself, but I believe others agree, that it was not what you said that was offensive, but rather how you said it. Look at your first post... the one under the different name... and then see how that attitude continued. People tend to take things personally when they are stated in that way. Also, as has been said many times, your religion has nothing to do with what is legally acceptable. Other churches are fine with it, and the Constitution bars you from interfereing beyond protest.

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

Now let's see who else has quoted me...
The comparison is a metaphor, I'm sure you've heard of them.
And you got it rather wrong.
The intent, it seems to me, was to compare white slaveowners (who found biblical support for their beliefs, and thus continued the practice of slavery because it made them filthy rich) with the Christian base who opposes same-sex marriage (who find biblical support for their beliefs, and thus attempt to stop the practice because it makes them uncomfortable).
However, there were other slavery metaphors, that went something like this:
White slaveowners (who were the majority, and used this to make sure that slavery stayed legal, even though it goes against equal rights and the Constitution) are compared to the Christian base who opposes same-sex marriage (who are the majority, and use this to attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal, even though stopping gay marriage goes against equal rights and the Constitution).
Please, do not mis-quote people, or quote them correctly and completely twist what they were saying.
Note: I haven't had a chance to catch up yet. The thread's quadrupled in size in a couple days! If people have since changed their attitudes, I apologize for bitching about your past posts. This goes for everyone.

No, darling, you are forgetting separation of church and state. The marriage license offered by the governemnt is already non-religious. If it were religious, then separation of church and state wouldn't exist.

They should call it something different, then, because it's not the same thing, and should not be confused with religious marriage.

I didn't realize that you were a christian...

What denomination are you? Not that it matters, just interested....

Actually, a ruling council of elder and bishops from every church would be a better idea. I had forgotten that I'd thought about that earlier when thinking over the ideal theocracy :)

Every church? Even those that disagree with you?

Meanwhile, that "ruling council" would be just like the councils that bickered for hundreds of years over points of Christianity. Their decisions often changed with whatever seemed popular at the time, or, better yet, with whowever happened to be the emporer at the time.

What an ironic post from someone who has an infatuation with quoting Matthew 7:1. Is it fun flushing your own credibility down the toilet?
It's not credible for them to say that fundamentalist religion had done more harm than homosexual marriage? That seems totally in character (and, if you look at the Crusades and 9/11, true).

No, it is like comparing a demon to a slightly worse demon.

You advocate treating homosexuals as second-class citizens. The fact that you don't advocate killing them just makes it slightly less horrifying.

Meanwhile, you have stated that you "wouldn't mind" if homosexuals were arrested and jailed for expressing their love for one another.



It's wonderful how you like to reduce the significance of an act by calling it "expressing their love for one another". How about we call it for what it is? SODOMY. Is it not possible to love a person without having intercourse? Of course, you obviously don't believe in the concept of self-control. Why do I even bother?

Yes, all government systems have their downsides, but at least if I were the head of a theocracy, that wouldn't happen.

This replaces above-deleted post as it says the same thing, but with less inflammatory language...

You sure about that?

When religion and politics ride in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stop them. Their forward motion faster and faster and faster. They do not realize the precipice does not reveal itself to the man in a blind rush until it is too late.

Basically, what Frank Herbert is saying here is that, when religion and politics ride in the same cart...many atrocities can occur, because it becomes like a mental epidemic. I suspect that is what feuled the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials...among other things.

I'm sure all the theocracies involved believed it couldn't happen there, either. But once it happens...and a theocracy start to devalue anyone, it becomes akin to a mental epidemic. And the next thing you know, atrocities are being committed in the name of the chosen God.

You still didn't answer the first part of my post, about how other religion's think what you're doing is sin. That's the part I don't think is answerable.


Thank you. Agreement :D.


Status quo legal definitions (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm) say you're wrong. Unless you advocate the government ceasing to issue marriage licenses AT ALL. And then you're in a whole different ballpark.


That would support my argument. Legalize marriage for everyone! No more government decisions.


Thanks for making my arguments for me. And conceeding the best one!
That head of yours is thick.

The government is, for all intents and purposes, a religious institution in itself. The entire concept of government is, in itself, a religious concept. USING religious values but set up to enforce it to the masses... and to limit sin. Therefore the government has every right to issue marriage licenses... in accordance to the church, ESPECIALLY in a matter that is religious. Like, say, marriage.

Ah.. but by making Same Sex Marriages Legal it does put a Legal pressure on the church. But that is not the point of this thread so (light's strawman and hands out marshmellows)
Civil unions would be the Non-religious Union that would not be anyway (real or imagined) tied to any religion. thus it should be open to anyone. Marriage (traditional, held in a church and/or performed by a religious leader) can still proclaim the sanctity of such union and not force or be forced to do something the congregation/religion is against. basically two institutions sharing everything but the word God. thus the religious can stay on their high horse, and the Same Sex couples (and their supporters) can celebrate their victory and freedom.

This is exactly what we already have. The difference is that "civil unions" are called "civil marriages".

They should call it something different, then, because it's not the same thing, and should not be confused with religious marriage.

So should they call marriages that occur at justices of the peace something other then marriage?

Your brother does not speak for all Christians, and you should not try to claim that he does. None of the true Christians I know are bigots, nor do they hate anyone.

So they don't want to deny two strangers the right to get married because they love them?

Tell me, dear friend, which came first, religion or 'legal institution'? I think you know the answer to that... on a less philosophical scale, you seem like an intelligent person.

That's a wonderful question - and one that is thoroughly impossible to answer without a time machine and an understanding of how early human beings interacted with each other.

It's not credible for them to say that fundamentalist religion had done more harm than homosexual marriage? That seems totally in character (and, if you look at the Crusades and 9/11, true).



It's nice how you lump individuals into the same category, regardless of their actions. It makes it a lot easier to condemn them, doesn't it? Of course, perhaps I could say that athiests such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong murdered far more people than any "Christian". It doesn't feel nice being associated with them does it? Then stop doing it to others.

The writers of the Bible never said the earth was flat. The four-corners reference was a metaphorical term.

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

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

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

Your brother does not speak for all Christians, and you should not try to claim that he does. None of the true Christians I know are bigots, nor do they hate anyone.

Neither does Neo, but I don't see you rebuking her.

Hmmmm.

What came first, chickens or electric toasters? Chickens! Therefore, chickens somehow led to toasters.
Perhaps the aspect of this discussion I was speaking of was a little too advanced for you. Why don't you try ... hmm... Oh! That's right... thinking about what I was saying before you post on it.

So they don't want to deny two strangers the right to get married because they love them?



You seem to forget that bigotry and hatred require....well.....bigotry and hatred.

That head of yours is thick.

The government is, for all intents and purposes, a religious institution in itself. The entire concept of government is, in itself, a religious concept. USING religious values but set up to enforce it to the masses... and to limit sin. Therefore the government has every right to issue marriage licenses... in accordance to the church, ESPECIALLY in a matter that is religious. Like, say, marriage.

Really I thought the purpose of the government was to make sure we arent in the state of nature? It didnt have anything to do with religion. It merely took away certain abilities of people in order to make sure the people who agreed to participate in it were safe. And if governments are founded off of religious values how do you explain say Greece or Rome. They had religions with gods raping mortals and killing people. They never said anything about not killing in their religions and yet they formed a government that was incredibly effective and lasted for quite some time.

It's wonderful how you like to reduce the significance of an act by calling it "expressing their love for one another". How about we call it for what it is? SODOMY. Is it not possible to love a person without having intercourse? Of course, you obviously don't believe in the concept of self-control. Why do I even bother?
Err... sorry Neo, you just lost me there... I always thought that sodomy was an act of a very specific nature that if done (even by a man to a womman) in a public place would lead to arrest. infact if a man and woman were to participate in the bibically accepted posistion in public they would still be arrested.

two men kissing on the lips makes my skin crawl... so I just don't watch.
A man and a woman kissing in public? I offer some form of privacy by not watching.

the result, I don't watch.... period.

They should call it something different, then, because it's not the same thing, and should not be confused with religious marriage.

So your problem is with the English language?

I didn't realize that you were a christian...

What denomination are you? Not that it matters, just interested....

No particular denomination.

It's nice how you lump individuals into the same category, regardless of their actions. It makes it a lot easier to condemn them, doesn't it? Of course, perhaps I could say that athiests such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong murdered far more people than any "Christian". It doesn't feel nice being associated with them does it? Then stop doing it to others.

You know there was another famous christian who started some sort of Holocaust. I wonder who that was?

That's a wonderful question - and one that is thoroughly impossible to answer without a time machine and an understanding of how early human beings interacted with each other.
Ha! It's also "thoroughly impossible" to prove that the American Revolution ever happened without a time machine, isn't it? Oh wait, that's what historians are for. They use historical information and discoveries and make conclusions on them.

Likewise, it IS generally accepted that the first examples of religion, like animism and polytheistic religions that never really lasted so I am unfamiliar with their names... came before the first examples of law like Justinian and Hammurabi's code.

The government is, for all intents and purposes, a religious institution in itself. The entire concept of government is, in itself, a religious concept.
I need a warrant for this absurd claim. Because there isn't one. Read the first amendment. It explicitly says that the government cannot "make an establishment on religion," meaning the government takes no religious stances. Meaning government and religion should have nothing to do with each other. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who's lived in a country without a state religion. They'll readily tell you that their government is not a religious organization. You got this idea into your head God knows how, because I don't know of any political theorist or historian who will back you up on this one.

USING religious values but set up to enforce it to the masses... and to limit sin. Therefore the government has every right to issue marriage licenses... in accordance to the church, ESPECIALLY in a matter that is religious. Like, say, marriage.
Again, from what literature do you get your laughable ideas about the purpose of government? The Taliban's mission statement? Because the ex-government of Afghanistan, and Iran, are just about the only countries around (along with a few other fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia who behead homosexuals in the street) who agree with you on this one.

But, marriage isn't religious according to US law. It's a civil agreement between two individuals. Read the Constitution and a history book before you comment on the foundations of the government. It'll help some, I promise.

YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY COMPETING RELIGION ARGUMENT! I CAN'T SEE ANYONE COMING UP WITH ONE!

Yes, apparently people like you agreed when they nailed Christ to a tree.

And unless I'm mistaken...people like you did, too.

Because Pontius Pilate said he could find no guilt in this man (referring to Jesus) but offered the public (which included many Christians) either Barabbas or Christ...and the crowd asked for Barabbus.

Even Peter denied Christ in the end.

So plenty of people like you agreed, too.

so, your point is what, exactly?

This is exactly what we already have. The difference is that "civil unions" are called "civil marriages".
So should they call marriages that occur at justices of the peace something other then marriage?

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

It's wonderful how you like to reduce the significance of an act by calling it "expressing their love for one another". How about we call it for what it is? SODOMY.

Sodomy isn't the scary word you make it out to be. It basically describes anything involving genitals that isn't penis-vagina sex. And it is something that heterosexuals (even in marriage, *gasp*) engage in much more often than homosexuals.

Is it not possible to love a person without having intercourse? Of course, you obviously don't believe in the concept of self-control. Why do I even bother?

Of course it is possible to love someone without having intercourse. However, intercourse is the highest expression of romantic love.

Thanks again for demonstrating your views with unfounded personal attacks though. It really is quite amusing, and demonstrates your true character.

Perhaps the aspect of this discussion I was speaking of was a little too advanced for you. Why don't you try ... hmm... Oh! That's right... thinking about what I was saying before you post on it.

Lol. Perhaps you should post something worth thinking about. Your post did little to prove what basis goverment has from religion but simply stated that religion was around first. Let alone did it show any reason why one particular religion should be the basis for laws in a country that has a large range of different religious beliefs.

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

But why do gays have to be lumped in a different category for something when it is the same thing as the other side?

It's nice how you lump individuals into the same category, regardless of their actions. It makes it a lot easier to condemn them, doesn't it? Of course, perhaps I could say that athiests such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong murdered far more people than any "Christian". It doesn't feel nice being associated with them does it? Then stop doing it to others.

Why do you assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you must, out of necessity, be an atheist?

true, but a priest/Rabbi santicfies the wedding for God. A Justice of the Peace leagalizes it for the law. that is why for weddings done by teh Justice of the Peace, its "with the power vested in me by the City/State/County of (location) I pronounce this couple man and wife (or whatever they would say for Same sex marriages) while weddings performed by a religous figure is proclaimed through god.

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

It's nice how you lump individuals into the same category, regardless of their actions. It makes it a lot easier to condemn them, doesn't it? Of course, perhaps I could say that athiests such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong murdered far more people than any "Christian". It doesn't feel nice being associated with them does it? Then stop doing it to others.
1. I'm not an atheist, so that doesn't really matter.

2. Factually incorrect. Check the Crusades, pogroms, and the Black Plague (where cats who could have killed the rat carriers were killed because they were the spawn of Satan)..

3. I'm pointing out a reason why theocracy is bad. I'm doing it to point out a logical inconsistency in your argument. They think their religion was the only true one. So do you. Who was right? Let's have a genocidal war about it!

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

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

That would be fine with me, as long as HETEROS were also only granted "legal unions" by the government.

Ha! It's also "thoroughly impossible" to prove that the American Revolution ever happened without a time machine, isn't it? Oh wait, that's what historians are for. They use historical information and discoveries and make conclusions on them.

Yes, but there are recorded historical documents pertaining to them. There are no such documents pertaining to the first government system (which may have simply been a patriarchal "father knows best" system) or the first religious system.

Likewise, it IS generally accepted that the first examples of religion, like animism and polytheistic religions that never really lasted so I am unfamiliar with their names... came before the first examples of law like Justinian and Hammurabi's code.

No historian claims that those were the first examples of law. They are the first known examples of encoded and written law. There is a rather large difference.

Sorry I was confused it was Scandinavia.

Source: The Weekly Standard

The “conservative case” for same-sex marriage collapses

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

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

This is not how the situation has been portrayed by prominent gay marriage advocates journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr. Sullivan and Eskridge have made much of an unpublished study of Danish same-sex registered partnerships by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher with an undergraduate degree who visited Denmark in 1996 on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite evidence that since then, marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent. Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale’s study had exposed the “hysteria and irresponsibility” of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage. Andrew Sullivan’s Spedale-inspired piece was subtitled, “The case against same-sex marriage crumbles.”
<giant snip>
While it may, theoretically (how, though???) be the case, there is no evidence of causality between allowing same-sex marriage and the declining marriage rate. As it said, the marriage rate had already been decreasing before the institution of same-sex marriage, and they're blaming legalizing marriage for making it so that it "didn't fix itself". Well! Perhaps the new generation of Scandinavians does not feel that marriage is necessary for them? Or, perhaps, they're all dirty liberal hippies who want gays to get married while they go around shagging everyone they can see while never settling down. [/sarcasm]

Are you kidding? I LOVE this country! I consider myself a patriot and would gladly give my life for it.

It's your kind that ruin it... and if you're unhappy with the gay situation, perhaps you should be the one 'getting out'.

And regarding that first sentence...

Guess how many times i've answered that comment! Once! READ!

"Your kind"? What does that mean? People who believe in equality? Also You say that there can be no seperation of Church and State going against one of the founding principles of our country! So no, you get out.

"I'M A PATRIOT! I THINK THAT FREE SPEECH SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!"

You responded by... saying they didn't count or something, which is bullshit because they get the same legal rights as religous couples. Also, how about the second sentence? You know the one where religion and don't have anything to do with marriages?

Also, which came first Judaism or Christianity? Which came first Christianity or Islam?

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

...which, as I have pointed out, would be fine - and in accordance with the Constitution, if and only if the newly named union was the only thing the government offered.

The government would only offer civil unions - to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Any religion could offer marriage ceremonies to those they believed it was correct to offer them to. Of course, this would still result in some homosexual couples getting married - since some religions sanctify such unions.

No historian claims that those were the first examples of law. They are the first known examples of encoded and written law. There is a rather large difference.
Yes! Yes there is!

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

First off i'd like to thank you for your kind tone. However, the values of my religion should be implemented into the law not just in my religious institutions. History has shown us, even if you want to go as extreme as during the Middle Ages, that when religious values have a place in society (unfortunately due to people like i've been arguing with, they are losing that place) order is above all and justice is served completely and not halfway.
Huh. So, your prime example of how life should be was the Dark Ages?
You're proposing a theocracy. One that doesn't exist, but could come to be, in theory, with a single amendment to the Constitution.
You do realize, of course, that what you would wind up with would be along the lines of Iran and much of the rest of the Middle East? And just think! If we went to a theocratic form of government, who would be there to ... er.... liberate us?


But through it all there is always a truth that society clings on to. Nobody would DARE say that, in fact, the bible says slavery was correct. That's because the law says slavery has been outlawed. As such, it should outlaw homosexual 'marriage.' This would assure that society would view the bible's interpretation as against gay 'marriage' and not for it, much in the same way making laws against slavery solidified the view that the bible is in fact against slavery.
I sort of get what you're saying here, in broad terms, but to me this paragraph itself makes very little sense. Please explain further. So far all I've come up with is that somehow mortal laws change what the Bible says, and the Bible always support moral laws even when they change. I know this can't be quite right, because it seems to be against what you stand for.

Yes! Yes there is!

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

Proof please. Its one thing to show a connection between two points with facts. Its another thing to assert a claim without any proof backing it up.

Sure...but those who were wedded by the Justice of the Peace are still considered to be (drumroll, please) M-A-R-R-I-E-D!!!!!I never said they wern't. I just stated that by changing the name and leaving Marriage to be a religous institution, and having the Government changing Civil Unions to have everything but the religiuos connotation, it would probably pacify alot of people. It would probably be cheaper to.

and that actually would be viable since now the constitution defines marriage as to be a man and a woman. so instead of butting heads against the government and the will of the majority... why not outflank em. before they deny civil unions to same sex couples as well.

A professed "Christian" in support of atheism? Charming.
Nope. A professed Christian in support of other's rights to practice athiesm, if they so desire...and a professed Christian in opposition to YOUR INTERPRETATION of Christianity.

That clear that up?

Sheesh.

Lesson number one...never use sarcasm with a literalist. They never recognize sarcasm, even when it slaps 'em between the eyes!

"Your kind"? What does that mean? People who believe in equality? Also You say that there can be no seperation of Church and State going against one of the founding principles of our country! So no, you get out.
lol... I think i've explained what I meant by that already, you just don't want to listen. Government itself is based off of religious principles in the first place, so yes, I believe it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a complete seperation of Church and State.

"I'M A PATRIOT! I THINK THAT FREE SPEECH SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!"
Free speech? What? Since when does gay 'marriage' have anything to do with free speech?

You responded by... saying they didn't count or something, which is bullshit because they get the same legal rights as religous couples. Also, how about the second sentence? You know the one where religion and don't have anything to do with marriages?

Also, which came first Judaism or Christianity? Which came first Christianity or Islam?
Religion does have EVERYTHING to do with Marriage. That's just a fact.

...which, as I have pointed out, would be fine - and in accordance with the Constitution, if and only if the newly named union was the only thing the government offered.

The government would only offer civil unions - to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Any religion could offer marriage ceremonies to those they believed it was correct to offer them to. Of course, this would still result in some homosexual couples getting married - since some religions sanctify such unions.that's right... The government will recognize Marriage as well as the Unions with equal validity. giving one no more weight in the eyes of the law than the other.

More smores?
*tosses more straw on the buring strawman.*

Does anybody else feel like we're getting nowhere?

I don't expect Lyric to say

"Yes you are correct. Gay "marriage" is not a practice that should be accepted anywhere on this earth"

anymore than she would expect me to say the opposite. I don't see what we're accomplishing other than insults back and forth, which, granted, I love... and apparently we all do.

But still... I don't see an end in sight for this topic.

Neither do I. Until you all agree with me or shut up, anyway.

Religion does have EVERYTHING to do with Marriage. That's just a fact.

I could get married today without religion playing a part in it one bit. Isnt that contrary to what you just said?

Yes! Yes there is!

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

You can suggest that all you like, but you can't really show evidence for it.

The fact is, we don't really know what human life was like before at least some sort of written history. We can kind of guess, by what kind of pots they had and such, but that's about it.

Of course, in the end, it doesn't really matter. You can claim that all morals come from religion, because you believe it to be so. However, our government makes a point of not establishing any specific religion. It is neutral on the question. Thus, the types of "moral" things encoded into law are those that are held common in every, or nearly every religion. They are even held as being right by those who have no religion at all.

The definition of marriage, as well as who should get married, is highly disputed across religions. Thus, the government cannot choose one and say "This is it, we're going with this one!" Instead, it has created its own institution, separate from any given religion. By the 14th Amendment, this institution must, if it is to be offered at all, be applied equally to all citizens, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, gender, or sexual orientation. In truth, the reason for government-sanction marriage is simple - it's own convenience. When two people entwine their lives in the way that any long-term couple does, the ideas of ownership, debt, legal authority, etc. get rather hazy. Thus, the government recognizes marriage, which stipulates exactly what to do in those hazy situations.

Neither does Neo, but I don't see you rebuking her


Maybe because I'm not a bigot? I'm saying what God said in the Old and New Testament. If you call me bigot, then you're calling God a bigot because he said the same thing...and if you call God a bigot, don't be too optimistic about you're destiny.

She's claimed that she will have the last word, and I'm certainly not going to allow it. So the only end will come when we all die :(

and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow Neo to have the last word. And so round we go again!

This topic dies when OUR SIDE gets the last word or
When everyone here agrees with MY side or
when everyone who disagrees with MY side shuts up or
When a mod comes to lock this thread.

and that actually would be viable since now the constitution defines marriage as to be a man and a woman. so instead of butting heads against the government and the will of the majority... why not outflank em. before they deny civil unions to same sex couples as well.

You are horribly ill-informed. The Constitution does not define marriage to be a man and a woman. At least, the US Constitution does not. Some state constitutions do, but any challenge to them would find them squarely in contradiction to the 14th Amendment, and generally, the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

There is a federal law known as DOMA, but it is equally in contradiction to the 14th Amendment and the full faith and credit clause.

Proof please. Its one thing to show a connection between two points with facts. Its another thing to assert a claim without any proof backing it up.
Ha! An unwritten morale code. Common sense would say that sounds more like a religion than a government... Oh... Oh i'm sorry. I forgot. Governments... LAW... have written documents that make sure there is no loose ends.

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

Unwritten law and code is, unless you can give me an example of where it is not, known as religion.

You know there was another famous christian who started some sort of Holocaust. I wonder who that was?



The deaths of Stalin alone are far more than any from Hitler. Try again.

lol... I think i've explained what I meant by that already, you just don't want to listen. Government itself is based off of religious principles in the first place, so yes, I believe it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a complete seperation of Church and State.


Free speech? What? Since when does gay 'marriage' have anything to do with free speech?


Religion does have EVERYTHING to do with Marriage. That's just a fact.

No, you've just gone about calling people minorities, whether or not they are doesn't matter because they disagree with you.

Goverment is not based off religous principles. The only forms of goverment based off religous principles are theocracies, "divine right" monarchies, and caste systems. None of which is the form of goverment America has! I believe it is possible for their to be a complete separation of Church and State.

The quote was poking fun at you for saying your are a patriot while saying Seperation of Church and State was stupid but it flew over your head.

If religion had EVERYTHING to do with marriage then why can Judges of the Peace marry people without invoking God's name or blessing?

You know, lying is a bad thing. And leaving out information just to make a point you know you can't back up is lying.

From Mirriam-Webster:

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>


Meanwhile, remember that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.


HOORAY, Dem!! You nailed 'em!!

BADDA-BING, BADDA-BOOM!!

As soon as a man with a torch comes to a gay person's house and shoots them to death and is acquited because he claims that he had Majority rights, you can claim Tyranny of the Majority. We are still ALLOWING them to live here, and do their ... business legally. Making all of us watch, and know about it, however, is insulting.
You don't need to go around shooting people to be denying them civil rights. You have a very strange understanding of the terms we're using, and so I suggest you actually do some research and figure out what they mean, instead of thinking of an interpretation you'd like.
Also, sex in public is illegal. For everyone. So be quiet.
As for people who are flambuoyant? Well, guess what, there are plenty of straight people like that. Know about it? Oh, sure, you can have your civil rights as long as I don't know you have your civil rights? Sheesh, how is it up to you what people are allowed to tell you???

that's right... The government will recognize Marriage as well as the Unions with equal validity. giving one no more weight in the eyes of the law than the other.

More smores?
*tosses more straw on the buring strawman.*

No.

If marriage is to be the purview of religion only, then the government will not recognize it AT ALL. The government will only recognize unions, and it is all it will grant.

and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow Neo to have the last word. And so round we go again!

This topic dies when OUR SIDE gets the last word or
When everyone here agrees with MY side or
when everyone who disagrees with MY side shuts up or
When a mod comes to lock this thread.
That's IT. I'm on your side, but this "last word" stuff is bullshit. This post has convinced me that this has become more of a personality contest than a rational argument. I'm departing, and hoping to let this thread die on it's own. I encourage everyone on it to do the same. Agree to disagree, and let it go. We're getting nowhere but anger and sadness.

I could get married today without religion playing a part in it one bit. Isnt that contrary to what you just said?
Ahh but you're wrong. Perhaps "God" won't be said in the ceremony, and it will not be performed by a religious man... but the actual practice IS religious.

lol... I think i've explained what I meant by that already, you just don't want to listen. Government itself is based off of religious principles in the first place, so yes, I believe it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a complete seperation of Church and State.


Free speech? What? Since when does gay 'marriage' have anything to do with free speech?


Religion does have EVERYTHING to do with Marriage. That's just a fact.
An individuals religious beliefs may have a great deal to do with that individual's marriage. No specific religion has anything to do with ALL marriages. Christianity has nothing to do with a marriage between two muslims nor two athiests for example. People should be free to express their marriage in accordance with their own individual religious beliefs, including if those beliefs are of no religion at all. They can also choose which religion's moral guide lines they adhere to or ignore.

The deaths of Stalin alone are far more than any from Hitler. Try again.

so could you give me the number of deaths stalin caused?

Maybe because I'm not a bigot?

Is context really that hard for you?

Go back and read what I replied to again. It had nothing at all to do with bigotry.

Edit: Or rather, it mentions bigotry, but bigotry is not the main point of the statement. The statement was that Lyric's brother does not speak for all Christians, and should not claim to.

And, once again:

I'm saying what I believe God said in the Old and New Testament. If you call me bigot, then you're calling my perception of God a bigot because, according to my view, he said the same thing...and if you call God a bigot, don't be too optimistic about you're destiny.

Corrected

Ahh but you're wrong. Perhaps "God" won't be said in the ceremony, and it will not be performed by a religious man... but the actual practice IS religious.

Not really. The practice will have nothing to do with god or any other religion whatsoever. I fail to see how a state marriage is religious especially when done by a justice of the peace and is not done in a church. If you say it is religious just because of the termanology used you have to acknowledge that marriages were occuring far before the Christian god came about. Christianity in no way has a monopoly on marriages.

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

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

Unwritten law and code is, unless you can give me an example of where it is not, known as religion.

Wow, way to oversimplify and generalize Native Americans there Ignatius. A number of Native American tribes were matriachal! Also chieftanship wasn't necessarily religous as they also had Shamen and such who were their spiritual leaders!

Also Hammurabai's Code ring a bell?

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

Marriage IS religious, the benefits in the law and the religous aspects are both benefits OF a religious ceremony. Therefore it IS forcing it upon us.

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

Well, you know...you wouldn't have to read anything else from him if you just poked your eyes out. Why should he have to cut off his hands, when you poking your eyes out would have the same result? You're the one who doesn't want to read what he said.

Just a little Devil's advocate here...

Nostradamus did not have a 100% success rate.

but, your only qualification, at the time you made the challenge...was "over 50 percent."

I believe Nostradamus qualifies.

No.

If marriage is to be the purview of religion only, then the government will not recognize it AT ALL. The government will only recognize unions, and it is all it will grant.then you are back to square one with this.
basically what I am offering is a compromise. one that will make everyone equally happy.

the arguments for Same Sex marriage is one of equality and the right to pursue happines.

the arguments against Same Sex Marriage is that it's an abomination against God.

you can either let it stew untill the boiling point. or you draw the line at the seperation. GOD. Let the Religious have their "Marriage" and let them be happy that they won a victory against the sinners. Let the Same Sex Advocates have their civil unions and let them be happy that they have all the rights/responsibilities/freedom that everyone is suppose to have.

and all the government has to do is give civil unions the same rights/responsibilites/freedoms as marriages. which would be quicker and easier than getting the definition of Marriage out of the constitution now.

Nostradamus did not have a 100% success rate.

Lesson Number 2 - Never use sarcasm with a literalist. They will miss it every time.

The statistics prove other wise, but I don't care, I'm American.
No, the statistics prove that both are happening. There isn't necessarily a causal relationship OF ANY KIND.

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

Paul was an ordained minister of Christ. Way to reject Christ.

Nope. I only reject Paul.

Lessee...a number of those child-molesting priests I believe, were ALSO ordained ministers of Christ. Does it follow that rejecting them is rejecting Christ?

Nope. A professed Christian in support of other's rights to practice athiesm, if they so desire...and a professed Christian in opposition to YOUR INTERPRETATION of Christianity.

That clear that up?

Sheesh.

Lesson number one...never use sarcasm with a literalist. They never recognize sarcasm, even when it slaps 'em between the eyes!


It's hard to tell what is and what isn't sarcasm with you.

then you are back to square one with this.
basically what I am offering is a compromise. one that will make everyone equally happy.

the arguments for Same Sex marriage is one of equality and the right to pursue happines.

the arguments against Same Sex Marriage is that it's an abomination against God.

you can either let it stew untill the boiling point. or you draw the line at the seperation. GOD. Let the Religious have their "Marriage" and let them be happy that they won a victory against the sinners. Let the Same Sex Advocates have their civil unions and let them be happy that they have all the rights/responsibilities/freedom that everyone is suppose to have.

and all the government has to do is give civil unions the same rights/responsibilites/freedoms as marriages. which would be quicker and easier than getting the definition of Marriage out of the constitution now.


You know what while we are at it lets let all the KKK and racist people seperate blacks and whites into different schools. They will have the same schools for each color. Lets draw the line in at the speration. Skin Color. Let the racists have their seperation. It will make everyone happy. I dont suppose you would support this Junii?

Ahh but you're wrong. Perhaps "God" won't be said in the ceremony, and it will not be performed by a religious man... but the actual practice IS religious.

Which is why certain animals have life-long mates?

Also, what if two people don't even say any vows? What if they just write their names on lcontracts saying they are no, for legal purposes, married? Also, what about marriages of convenience and divorces!

then you are back to square one with this.
basically what I am offering is a compromise. one that will make everyone equally happy.

...except for those who actually care about keeping the law to following the Constitution.

you can either let it stew untill the boiling point. or you draw the line at the seperation. GOD. Let the Religious have their "Marriage" and let them be happy that they won a victory against the sinners. Let the Same Sex Advocates have their civil unions and let them be happy that they have all the rights/responsibilities/freedom that everyone is suppose to have.

That is exactly what I am saying. The only difference is that I am actually drawing the line at the separation and making sure that the government offers whatever it offers (regardless of what it calls it) equally. If we are going to state that marriage is purely religious, then the government cannot grant marriage. Period. It can only grant unions.

and all the government has to do is give civil unions the same rights/responsibilites/freedoms as marriages. which would be quicker and easier than getting the definition of Marriage out of the constitution now.

There is no definition of marriage in the Constitution. Try again.

Wow, way to oversimplify and generalize Native Americans there Ignatius. A number of Native American tribes were matriachal! Also chieftanship wasn't necessarily religous as they also had Shamen and such who were their spiritual leaders!

Also Hammurabai's Code ring a bell?
Yes Native Americans aren't my specialty, but you understood the point... for your sake, I hope you did.

Also, it's nice how you skipped the entire origin of the discussion i'm having on this subject and you brought up Hammurabai. I already talked about that earlier. Not too long ago at all. I was told not to consider it because it was after the original religion(s), as are ALL forms of law and government... that being my point.

Your brother does not speak for all Christians, and you should not try to claim that he does. None of the true Christians I know are bigots, nor do they hate anyone.

I hear ya.
My point was 90% of those who claim to be Christian are anything BUT Christian, because thewy do not follow the teachings of JESUS!!!

Which is why certain animals have life-long mates?

Also, what if two people don't even say any vows? What if they just write their names on lcontracts saying they are no, for legal purposes, married? Also, what about marriages of convenience and divorces!
What if what if and what... Niiice.

Make your point more obvious, I don't have the interest to sit and dwell on what you COULD mean.

Lesson Number 2 - Never use sarcasm with a literalist. They will miss it every time.

You know there is another term you could use instead of literalist...

OK, here are the facts about gay marriage in Canada
1) it was already legal in 7 provinces (out of 10+3)
2) the new law makes civil marriage across Canada, in all provinces and territory; gay unions will be reflected in the passports and official papers as well
3) it means that any gay couple requesting a CIVIL UNION should be granted the right to unite
4) it also means that if SOME churches or recognized religious authorities want to practice gay marriage, they are free to do so
5) up to now, the only church that has expressed interest in performing gay weddings is the United Church of Canada (3 million members, or 10% of the population)
6) other groups such as the Catholics totally reject the idea (there are 12 million Caholica in Canada, or 40% of the population)
7) there are already 34,000 married gay couples in Canada, and the number will likely double during the year
8) only 2 other countries have legalized gay unions: Belgium and the Netherlands
9) according to polls, a comfortable majority of the Canadians were FOR gay unions; in the US, it is exactly the opposite
10) gay marriages performed in Canada won't be recognized by the American authorities; even married gay Canadians will have a hard time when they travel in the US, do business, or move to the US

Judging and recognizing potential threats to the rights to MY religion are two different matters. Homosexuality is not acceptable in the eyes of oh-so-many christians, and yet you would have them legally getting 'married'? That is incorrect, and even moreso because, we have the political power that the majority should enjoy in any form of fair government and no minority should be allowed to take that away.
Have you been listening, at all, to what other people are saying?
Blarg, I'll go through the list again.

1. It's not a threat to your religion. Your church can't be required to marry gays. Stop it already with the Christian persecution complex, you guys have been the dominant religion in the West for the past millenium and a half or so.
2. Religion cannot create law. It's against the very core of what America stands for. Separation of church and state.
3. Christians didn't invent marriage, it was around long before even the Jews. Also, there is marriage in the Far East, people who had never heard of any of the Western religions in their lives were getting married. The Native Americans married, and they weren't exactly monotheists either. Other faiths (and some Christians) accept homosexuality as what it is, a natural part of the population. You can't claim a monopoly.
4. Actually, there's this thing called "justice" that prevents the strong from imposing their will on the weak. The majority rules... but only within bounds. It's not a minority who's taking that "right" away. It's the Constitution. Don't like it? Either leave, or deal with it, or push for an amendment.

What an ironic post from someone who has an infatuation with quoting Matthew 7:1. Is it fun flushing your own credibility down the toilet?

Did I ever once say in there that I HATED my brother?

NO!!!

I have said that I hate what my brother did...what he has done...and what he is doing!

If my brother came to my door right now...and finally, after six years, decided to accept the forgiveness I alreqady offered him for his transgressions against me...I'd welcome him with open arms.

My point was many people who claim to be Christian really AREN'T...because they are not following the most basic teachings of JESUS...among them, to love unconditionally all your fellow human beings.

Sure, I did a report on him once so let me go check.


Edit: It varies, but the estimates are from 25-40 million.

What if what if and what... Niiice.

Make your point more obvious, I don't have the interest to sit and dwell on what you COULD mean.

A legal marriage is something like a contract. Therefore two people could sit down at a table with A Judge of the Peace and sign a legal document declaring them wed. There would be nothing religous about that!

A marriage of convenience, like ig a guy and a girl marry each other for tax purposes and don't love each other or have sex.

Or how about the Las Vegas drive-thru weddings. I'm sure there's a whole lot of religion to getting drunk and thinking it would be a good idea.

and that actually would be viable since now the constitution defines marriage as to be a man and a woman. .

Since when? No such Amendment to the Constitution has yet been passed by 2/3 of the house and Senate...let alone then sent out to be ratified by 2/3 of all the states!

In fact, it even failed in the House to get the 2/3 majority it needed.

So, again, WHERE in the Constitution is marriage thusly defined??

Try taking a few civics classes.

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

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

Now, Incidentally... that sounds like another 'couple' example that I could think of.
Well, guess what? Homosexuals who want to get married are consenting adults. They're not small children who "don't really know what they want". They're in love. Some homosexual couples are together all of their lives, with complete fidelity. Then, when one has to go to the hospital, the other can't visit because they aren't legally "married". Comparing gays to children as far as love is concerned is offensive.
As for the fact that you don't believe that, for example, two men can truly love one another. Well, isn't that for them to decide? Being in love isn't a legal requirement for marriage. Hell, look at all of the young gold-diggers marrying old geezers who are rich! And yet those marriages are allowed.
Your argument does not hold.

Religion cannot create law. It's against the very core of what America stands for. Separation of church and state.
Well, i'm tired and there is a thunderstorm outside which helps me sleep anyway, so i'll be going. I WOULD leave the topic alone to die if it wasn't for people like you that keep going through quoting me just for the hell of it, even when what you are saying is either repeating yourself or others using facts I have already argued against.

Anyway. This line. Religion cannot create law. I enjoy that. Where do you think law came from? Why is murder illegal? Why isn't that socially acceptable? Where did the general idea of what is and what is not "socially acceptable" come from?

It came from the first religions. Religion can't create law. Haha... very, very uninformed statement, that is. I'll have to read through the flames when I get up in a few hours.

To all on my / the right side, keep up the good fight! Especially Neo, for the record, you're great.

Go Canada!

Alright all, I must go to bed for the night.

Neo, it seems to be hard for you to understand, but I am not attacking your viewpoint as impossible, or even as wrong. I believe that you are wrong on many points, but I would hardly claim to know that for sure. This is the basis of fallibility. I know what I have faith in and you know what you have faith in. I ask only that you extend the same respect to me that I extend to you. If you cannot admit your own fallibility, and truly admit it, not simply pay it lip service, I fear that you have no faith at all.

Eskertania, please remember that you don't know everything. You have personally made an assertion that religion came before and completely controls government. You have yet to provide any conclusive evidence for this claim.

Lyric, I know you get upset about these things, but please do your best to keep from using insults and attacks. It really doesn't help your point any more than it helps Neo when she does the same thing.

Juni, I understand what you are suggesting. However, you fail to see the logical contradiction. You can't say "Let the government offer civil unions instead and leave marriage to the religions" and then follow it with "Let the government offer marriages to some people, but only if certain religions agree with it, and offer civil unions to the other people, regardless of what relgions agree with granting them marriage." It is a logical contradiction. If government is to stay out of marriage, then it is to stay out of marriage. It can do as it does now, which would be to offer civil unions when someone gets a religious marriage (which is done only for the convenience of the people involved). However, the only thing the government would ever grant would be civil unions.

Del, well, as far as I can tell you're pretty cool.

Everyone else, carry on. I'm sure this thread will be insanely long by morning.

It's hard to tell what is and what isn't sarcasm with you.

I grant it can be difficult in my case, since my sarcasm is very subtle.

Well, i'm tired and there is a thunderstorm outside which helps me sleep anyway, so i'll be going. I WOULD leave the topic alone to die if it wasn't for people like you that keep going through quoting me just for the hell of it, even when what you are saying is either repeating yourself or others using facts I have already argued against.

Argued against != disproved.

Anyway. This line. Religion cannot create law. I enjoy that. Where do you think law came from? Why is murder illegal? Why isn't that socially acceptable? Where did the general idea of what is and what is not "socially acceptable" come from?

It came from the first religions. Religion can't create law. Haha... very, very uninformed statement, that is. I'll have to read through the flames when I get up in a few hours.

That is one possibility.

It also may have come from pack instinct. Most social animals have prohibitions against killing other members of the society. Most social animals have a set of things that are "socially acceptable" and a set of things that are not. Looking at apes, we can see much of what is "socially acceptable" and what is not in our own society mirrored in theirs. Do they have religion?

Nope. I only reject Paul.

Lessee...a number of those child-molesting priests I believe, were ALSO ordained ministers of Christ. Does it follow that rejecting them is rejecting Christ?



To reject Paul is to reject Christ. Also, were they directly ordained by Christ? Or were they ordained by a church claiming the authority of Christ? Consider that.

You know there is another term you could use instead of literalist...

Like what??

To reject Paul is to reject Christ. Also, were they directly ordained by Christ? Or were they ordained by a church claiming the authority of Christ? Consider that.

Now, that is all a matter of faith, isn't it?

Ok, for real, off to bed...

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

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

You made a completely unsupported claim (nothing in those "statistics" to suggest causality, not one bit) and then demand that s/he change your mind?

Well, as long as we're playing this game: this sentence started with a "w", so that means your face is on fire!!!. Oh, you don't think so? Well, then, prove me wrong! And it has to be your face, not anybody else's face. What? You don't want to prove me wrong? Why, are you afraid of the results?
[/mock]
Sorry that I had to resort to that, but that's seriously what you were doing.

Eskertania, please remember that you don't know everything. You have personally made an assertion that religion came before and completely controls government. You have yet to provide any conclusive evidence for this claim.
No comment on the first line. The rest of it, I have only to go upon what historians and what we believe to be true. Animism was discovered centuries before law was written. Religion came first, law was just a way of writing it down and keep valuable religious values constant within a possible multi-religion society, and a way to change these values if the situation arose where it was neccessary rather than change the entire religion.

Anyway... sleep... yes... good.... i'll read through the rest of this mess in the morning....

Did I ever once say in there that I HATED my brother?

NO!!!

I have said that I hate what my brother did...what he has done...and what he is doing!

If my brother came to my door right now...and finally, after six years, decided to accept the forgiveness I alreqady offered him for his transgressions against me...I'd welcome him with open arms.

My point was many people who claim to be Christian really AREN'T...because they are not following the most basic teachings of JESUS...among them, to love unconditionally all your fellow human beings.



Oh, you're not getting off that easily. You said many bad things about him, and isn't that judging? Who is the hypocrite now?.....wait, why am I even saying that....you were a hypocrite the second you posted your first flame.

To reject Paul is to reject Christ. Also, were they directly ordained by Christ? Or were they ordained by a church claiming the authority of Christ? Consider that.
I beg to differ. I reject Paul because what he taught is in direct contradiction, in many places, to what JESUS taught.

Among other things, Paul was a misogynist. Jesus wasn't.

I have my relationship with God. You have yours. In my relationship, i'm allowed to reject Paul because I find him repugnant. His teachings almost universally contradict Jesus's teachings.

Sleep for me. I'm thinking upwards of 2250 by the time I check NS again.

Oh, you're not getting off that easily. You said many bad things about him, and isn't that judging? Who is the hypocrite now?.....wait, why am I even saying that....you were a hypocrite the second you posted your first flame.

As were YOU!!

Your attitude is really PISSING ME OFF, Neo.

I'm go0ing to bed for now.

Rest assured you won't get the last word, though, because I will be back.

Oh, you're not getting off that easily. You said many bad things about him, and isn't that judging? Who is the hypocrite now?.....wait, why am I even saying that....you were a hypocrite the second you posted your first flame.

One day Mr. Pot got particularly riled up and wrote a note to Miss Kettle starting off: "Miss Kettle I feel I must inform you about you particular hue..."

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

*wakes up in shock*

This thing's gone 800 posts over the lim-- *mouth covered by NSers*

Sleep for me. I'm thinking upwards of 2250 by the time I check NS again.Oh, at least. The last time I checked it was 1300, and that was just 7 hours ago. :eek:

I beg to differ. I reject Paul because what he taught is in direct contradiction, in many places, to what JESUS taught.

Among other things, Paul was a misogynist. Jesus wasn't.

I have my relationship with God. You have yours. In my relationship, i'm allowed to reject Paul because I find him repugnant. His teachings almost universally contradict Jesus's teachings.



Paul? Misogynist? You're making a mountain out of a molehill! He taught submission, but did he tell husbands to hate their wives? No! He taught husbands to love their wives and cherish them as they would cherish their own flesh! Paul does not contradict Christ, in fact, he's the most ardent of Christ's apostles! Three cheers for Paul, he endured more persecution than any Christian could ever fathom and never once faltered!

Gay 'marriage' and the decay of society are intertwined if you were even reading what I was saying before, and that affects my opinion, and should affect other's opinions on the matter as well. So it was perfectly on topic.
Ok... a strange stance, but I'll hear you out...

I have attempted to argue with logic and example in history that the legalizing of public homosexuality, and therefore, the further distancing from the church's morales from the law is only speeding up the downfall of everything we know as right and wrong. As soon as we take that element out of our judicial system, it becomes even more messed up than it already is today.
Psst! It's already out of the legal system! Has been since the late 1700s!

So much wrong in today's world and it's because of people, minorities, that claim oppression when there is simply none.
How do people, exercising their right to free speech, undermind a society?

Gay 'marriage' being the topic at hand that's what i've been focusing on. I'll say it again, for the type of reason a man can't go in a woman's bathroom, Gays should not be allowed a marriage, or legal binding of any kind.
Men are not allowed in women's bathrooms, because that would violate the privacy of the women. Gays getting married doesn't affect you personally, beyond grossing you out, because you think gay marriage is disgusting. Well, some people think eating snails is disgusting. Yet I don't see any laws against escargot.

What they do sexually (for fun and perverse pleasure exclusively, too) is their business, but if they are not even going to have a possibility of actually reproducing, than there is no purpose in it, or the relationship itself. It does not make sense that they should be known as a couple when, biologically, they are not one... spiritually, they are not one, and yet legally, they should be one? I see no logic in this whatsoever.
By your definition of "biologically", as well as by your personal "spirituality". And yes. Legally, their legal status should have nothing to do with spirituality. See separation of church and state (which you don't seem able to grasp).

It would appear i'm simply outnumbered here, and I think i've responded to everybody that was actually presenting a point worth noticing. 3 in the morning and I suppose i'll have to see how many people take potshots at me while i'm asleep. Thanks for the discussion everybody... it proved interesting.
Hey, I'm only on page 69 (hehe) and this thread's up to what, 145? I'm feeling outnumbered myself, just having to read through all of this.
You claim to be arguing through logic. Please sit down and work out the logic behind it, in logical terms, and I'll see if I can help you refine your ideas. I'm no master of logic, but I've taken an excellent course, and wrote a rather large (for me) paper on it.

It came from the first religions. Religion can't create law. Haha... very, very uninformed statement, that is. I'll have to read through the flames when I get up in a few hours.

To all on my / the right side, keep up the good fight! Especially Neo, for the record, you're great.

Actually, there is a theory in history that religion was founded so that people could enforce laws upon others. Which sounds better: "Don't do this because I say it is wrong" or "Don't do this because if you do, then after you die, you will suffer for eternity"?

Anyway, if religion created law:

You could still possess slaves (Leviticus 25:44)
You could sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)
You would not be allowed to touch a woman during menstration (Lev.15: 19-24)
We would be required to burn a bull to the Lord (Lev.1:9)
If we did work on the Sabbath, we would be executed (Exodus 35:2)
We could not eat shellfish(Lev.11:10)
All people with contacts or eyeglasses could not go to church(Lev. 21:20 )
There would be no haircuts allowed (Lev.19:27)
You would not be allowed to play football(Lev. 11:6-8)
Cotton/Polyester shirts would be a no-no(Lev.19:19)

Actually, there is a theory in history that religion was founded so that people could enforce laws upon others. Which sounds better: "Don't do this because I say it is wrong" or "Don't do this because if you do, then after you die, you will suffer for eternity"?

Anyway, if religion created law:

You could still possess slaves (Leviticus 25:44)
You could sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)
You would not be allowed to touch a woman during menstration (Lev.15: 19-24)
We would be required to burn a bull to the Lord (Lev.1:9)
If we did work on the Sabbath, we would be executed (Exodus 35:2)
We could not eat shellfish(Lev.11:10)
All people with contacts or eyeglasses could not go to church(Lev. 21:20 )
There would be no haircuts allowed (Lev.19:27)
You would not be allowed to play football(Lev. 11:6-8)
Cotton/Polyester shirts would be a no-no(Lev.19:19)

Note that all of those came from the old testament, written years and years before the new.

Anyway, if religion created law:

You could still possess slaves (Leviticus 25:44)
You could sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)
You would not be allowed to touch a woman during menstration (Lev.15: 19-24)
We would be required to burn a bull to the Lord (Lev.1:9)
If we did work on the Sabbath, we would be executed (Exodus 35:2)
We could not eat shellfish(Lev.11:10)
All people with contacts or eyeglasses could not go to church(Lev. 21:20 )
There would be no haircuts allowed (Lev.19:27)
You would not be allowed to play football(Lev. 11:6-8)
Cotton/Polyester shirts would be a no-no(Lev.19:19)



I noticed everything you listed was of Mosaic law......*snickers* Does anyone else wanna tell him the news?

I noticed everything you listed was of Mosaic law......*snickers* Does anyone else wanna tell him the news?

*cues twighlight zone music*

I noticed everything you listed was of Mosaic law......*snickers* Does anyone else wanna tell him the news?You mean that things ch-- *mouth covered*

I'm getting kind of tired of this you know... :D

See, what you didn't realize that what I was using was a little thing people like to call sarcasm.

No shit things change. That was the entire point of listing it.

See, what you didn't realize that what I was using was a little thing people like to call sarcasm.

No shit things change. That was the entire point of listing it.Of course I realized that. I am teh Sarcazm Master of NS General. (You, being the n00b that you are, wouldn't know that, so I forgive you. This time.) Practically every single post I make is sarcastic, and I can invariably recognize sarcasm when I see it. ;)

I noticed everything you listed was of Mosaic law......*snickers* Does anyone else wanna tell him the news?
Yeah god got a sudden change of heart and relized he messed up on the first set of rules and changed them

What I like is that Neo alludes to that things change, yet is standing by his idea that because homosexuality is supposed to be bad according to the Old Testament, that it is supposed to be bad now.

Heh, i'm a noob in name only. I was on NS months ago, but because of various reasons, was not on for awhile and my account was deleted.

...and if it hasn't been posted already

http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20050628

just bringing some amusement to the topic, and this comic is pretty much exactly what a few people have already said :)

To reject Paul is to reject Christ. Also, were they directly ordained by Christ? Or were they ordained by a church claiming the authority of Christ? Consider that.

Paul says he is not a servant of Christ:

In Galatians 1:10 Paul says, "If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

YET

In 1 Corinthians 10:33 Paul says, "Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved."

So basically, he is saying he is not a servant of Christ, right?

...and if it hasn't been posted already

http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20050628

just bringing some amusement to the topic, and this comic is pretty much exactly what a few people have already said :)

I'm pretty sure homosexuality is NOT okay with Jesus.

But he loves them and forgives them, like he would anyone else. :)

I'm pretty sure homosexuality is NOT okay with Jesus.

But he loves them and forgives them, like he would anyone else. :)

Well, you know...since JESUS Himself never said one way or another, I think it's better to assume that He was okay with them.

After all, if He really had such a big problem with them you'd think He'd have said SOMETHING about them.

I mean, he was preaching for like, what...three years?!?!? Yyou'd think somewhere in all that time, if He'd said something about it...or made such a huge issue of it...one of the Gospel writers woulda mentioned it...dont'cha think??

Or do you say that just because you wanna hold on to your comfy little bigotries?

What I like is that Neo alludes to that things change, yet is standing by his idea that because homosexuality is supposed to be bad according to the Old Testament, that it is supposed to be bad now.

Heh, i'm a noob in name only. I was on NS months ago, but because of various reasons, was not on for awhile and my account was deleted."His", huh. Neo is a girl. I hope anyway. ;)

And you are technically a n00b, since you don't know who I am, and I don't know who you are. :)

Well, you know...since JESUS Himself never said one way or another, I think it's better to assume that He was okay with them.

After all, if He really had such a big problem with them you'd think He'd have said SOMETHING about them.

I mean, he was preaching for like, what...three years?!?!? Yyou'd think somewhere in all that time, if He'd said something about it...or made such a huge issue of it...one of the Gospel writers woulda mentioned it...dont'cha think??

Or do you say that just because you wanna hold on to your comfy little bigotries?

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

That, in itself, is bigotry.

Well, you know...since JESUS Himself never said one way or another, I think it's better to assume that He was okay with them.
Jesus has respected and saved a prostitute... so it's fairly safe to say He would accept most people, even politicians and professional wrestlers.

Oh. And how about homosexuals? Hmmm... no big deal.

Well, you know...since JESUS Himself never said one way or another, I think it's better to assume that He was okay with them.

After all, if He really had such a big problem with them you'd think He'd have said SOMETHING about them.

I mean, he was preaching for like, what...three years?!?!? Yyou'd think somewhere in all that time, if He'd said something about it...or made such a huge issue of it...one of the Gospel writers woulda mentioned it...dont'cha think??

Or do you say that just because you wanna hold on to your comfy little bigotries?


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

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

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

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.

As I stated earlier, I don't mind them having equal rights as long as the government does not equate their union to a marriage, which is sanctified by God. They can call it a "lifelong partnership" or something else, but marriage? I don't think so.

First of all, I'd like to remind you (and everybody who needs to be reminded) that marriage did not originate from Christianity. I posted information about this earlier; I can re-post if needed.

To be clear, the Bible defines its standards on marriage, but it does not have a copyright, so to speak, on the act of (or name) marriage itself. Nobody is trying to force your churches to expand the Bible's definition of marriage, just as nobody is trying to force all Christians to accept any other religion's idea of God (same word, different connotations).

Think of it this way: Currently, there are two different groups of people who celebrate Christmas in their own ways. There's the group that celebrates it for what it originally was (well, the Christian Christmas, anyway), and the group that celebrates the "commercialized" aspect of it (non-religious households, etc...). A prime example would be school decorations; they can't have nativity scenes, but they can have Santa Claus and elves.

Okay, well there are two (roughly) different ideas of marriage. The religious kind that sanctifies it under whichever God/Goddess/deities you worship, and the non-religious, just-because-I-love you kind. This is key.

Okay, to my main point, which is to ask you this: Would you vote for or against granting gay citizens the right to a secular union, with all the same rights that heterosexual unions have, and completely separate from religion?

Murder is irrelevant, is it not? They committed a crime, where is a crime being committed here? That is, if voting according to my beliefs is suddenly a crime...

I also want to point out that voting for granting homosexuals equal rights is not going against your beliefs. Let me explain.

My personal belief is that it is wrong to judge, discriminate, or exclude anybody based on their differences. Granted, those that hurt others need to be isolated, etc. But you know what I mean.

Anyway, I believe that it is mean-spirited, wrong, and also pointless. If, for some reason, there was a radical new bill that wanted to force all religions to accept anybody, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference, I would NOT vote for it, despite the fact that I believe it is wrong not to accept anybody that wants to practice your religion.

Do you see what I mean? Yes, I believe in freedom of religion, and no, I don't think you or your church should ever have to accept homosexuality if you/it doesn't want to (even if I wish you/it would). But at least let them have equal rights under the law.

Stopping gay people from getting married isn't going to "save" them. They are still going to be gay, and they are still going to have their own, private weddings, even if they aren't "official." Honestly, I would think you'd get brownie points for doing the nice thing and at least letting them be happier in the time that they're here. Like you mentioned before, let them be judged by God when the time comes.

Also, if you would vote for allowing gays to have legal unions, I applaud you and respect you. :)

If not, please think about it. I am not asking you to change your beliefs; just allow people with differing beliefs to enjoy the same dignity and rights that you do.

2200+ replys on a thread about a website that made fun of anti-gay marriage views. The mind boggles.
I still find it funny that christians think they own marriage :D

First of all, I'd like to remind you (and everybody who needs to be reminded) that marriage did not originate from Christianity. I posted information about this earlier; I can re-post if needed.

To be clear, the Bible defines its standards on marriage, but it does not have a copyright, so to speak, on the act of (or name) marriage itself. Nobody is trying to force your churches to expand the Bible's definition of marriage, just as nobody is trying to force all Christians to accept any other religion's idea of God (same word, different connotations).

Think of it this way: Currently, there are two different groups of people who celebrate Christmas in their own ways. There's the group that celebrates it for what it originally was (well, the Christian Christmas, anyway), and the group that celebrates the "commercialized" aspect of it (non-religious households, etc...). A prime example would be school decorations; they can't have nativity scenes, but they can have Santa Claus and elves.

Okay, well there are two (roughly) different ideas of marriage. The religious kind that sanctifies it under whichever God/Goddess/deities you worship, and the non-religious, just-because-I-love you kind. This is key.

Okay, to my main point, which is to ask you this: Would you vote for or against granting gay citizens the right to a secular union, with all the same rights that heterosexual unions have, and completely separate from religion?



I also want to point out that voting for granting homosexuals equal rights is not going against your beliefs. Let me explain.

My personal belief is that it is wrong to judge, discriminate, or exclude anybody based on their differences. Granted, those that hurt others need to be isolated, etc. But you know what I mean.

Anyway, I believe that it is mean-spirited, wrong, and also pointless. If, for some reason, there was a radical new bill that wanted to force all religions to accept anybody, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference, I would NOT vote for it, despite the fact that I believe it is wrong not to accept anybody that wants to practice your religion.

Do you see what I mean? Yes, I believe in freedom of religion, and no, I don't think you or your church should ever have to accept homosexuality if you/it doesn't want to (even if I wish you/it would). But at least let them have equal rights under the law.

Stopping gay people from getting married isn't going to "save" them. They are still going to be gay, and they are still going to have their own, private weddings, even if they aren't "official." Honestly, I would think you'd get brownie points for doing the nice thing and at least letting them be happier in the time that they're here. Like you mentioned before, let them be judged by God when the time comes.

Also, if you would vote for allowing gays to have legal unions, I applaud you and respect you. :)

If not, please think about it. I am not asking you to change your beliefs; just allow people with differing beliefs to enjoy the same dignity and rights that you do.
... I love you. I want to have your babies. (If you're female that is. If you're male... well, um... pardon me. :p )

Anyways, thank you. Thank you for being so intelligent on this issue.

P.S. I'm not TOTALLY serious on the "I want your babies thing" :P ...

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

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

You want religion out of your marrage, don't get married in a church. simple.


You're missing the point. This isn't about gay people getting married in churches, this is about gay people getting legal marriage licenses from a justice of the peace.

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

Your ideal government. And luckily for those of us who want religious freedom, we don't have your ideal government.

I'll leave the other comment alone, since I've obviously just posted about the fact that marriage doesn't belong to religion. :)

P.S.

... I love you. I want to have your babies. (If you're female that is. If you're male... well, um... pardon me. :p )

Anyways, thank you. Thank you for being so intelligent on this issue.

P.S. I'm not TOTALLY serious on the "I want your babies thing" :P ...
Thanks, I am female, but I'm taken. :p
Really? 'Cause I if I watched them in the mornings, I don't think my boyfriend would find out. :P

Thanks, I am female, but I'm taken. :p
Really? 'Cause I if I watched them in the mornings, I don't think my boyfriend would find out. :P
LOL

Ah. Okies then. I'll let you be and stalk... I mean ask out some other girl who is intelligent like you. :p (Ok, for real now. I'll stop.)

Anyways... um... Gay Marriage is fine and quite frankly none of your business. Yeah...

*Sits down and eats a cookie*

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

how about the "you may now kiss the bride"

how about "i now proclaim you husband and wife"


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

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

how about the "you may now kiss the bride"

how about "i now proclaim you husband and wife"


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

We are talking about the legal concept of marriage, with its certain advantages.
Its only abnormal in your eyes, but whats so abnormal that two people love eachother and want to spend the rest of their lives together?
Britney's 55 hour marriage was questioning the sanctity of marriage these days. I mean you can divorce someone within a week?
Could you explain "gay marriages is 180 degrees from perfection"?

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

how about the "you may now kiss the bride"

how about "i now proclaim you husband and wife"


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

The church can adapt. The government can adapt. The people can adapt. YOU can adapt. One of the most useful traits about human beings that got us through 3 million years is adaptation. So why deny our religions, governments, and people that important trait?

Also, what you said is your opinion. That does not make it right, because it is not a solid fact.

Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
Read a history book. Marriage was originally a secular institution. It became associated with religion because priests were the only literate people around.Amazing...

But not relevant. It was still quickly associated with religion, and became a religious ceremony. Simple as that.
What is your definition of relevant?!

You claim that marriage belongs to Christianity, which is the entire backbone of your argument against gays getting married. You just admitted that religion adopted marriage, proving our point that marriage is an entity all its own, belonging solely to no religion or group!

Therefore, your chief argument against gay marriage has been thrown out.

Do you concede, or do you have another reason not to let gays get married up your sleeve?

Point of order: Before the Christian priests were performing marriages, Jewish rabbis were performing them. Since Christianaity made its rise, Muslum (forgive any misspellings please, short on time) religious leaders have performed marriages. Before, during, and after these periods, throughout the world, religous leaders have performed marriages.

Now, I will admit that I have not read this whole thread, just the first couple of pages and the last page (so far), but if anyone is claiming that only the Christian concept of marriage is valid then they need to also step up and denounce any other religions versions of it.

My 2 cents: Yes homosexuality is abnormal, i.e. not the normal. However it is NOT unnatural as there are many documented examples of animals engaging in homosexual activities. Since God created animals and they do not have free will in the same sense we do, only God could have allowed such activities to occur.

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

how about the "you may now kiss the bride"

how about "i now proclaim you husband and wife"


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


We are not debating the social value of one persons marriage or anothers. We are debating the constitutionality of defining marriage as being only between a man and woman from a LEGAL standpoint. As far as the government and our laws are concerned, the main point of being legally married is that the two people involved have decided to become one entity and want the government to treat them as such. Thus the tax status, joint ownership issues and etc. From a legal standpoint, marriage is nothing more than a business partnership.

As far as the 180 degrees from perfection - the divorce rate in this country for heterosexuals is over 70% - that's about 240 degrees from perfection, you do the math.

Ahh but you're wrong. Perhaps "God" won't be said in the ceremony, and it will not be performed by a religious man... but the actual practice IS religious.
You say that no matter what, marriage is religious. Well, let's say you're right, and that the government intruding is wrong.

Okay, well that means that the Mormons who still practice polygamy are having their rights trampled, because polygamy is illegal.

Either you're wrong, and marriage isn't religious under the definition of the law (which is the case, incidentally), or the government has to step away from marriage and allow anybody to marry anybody they want, to avoid infringing on religious rights.

Respond, please.


P.S. Unless I missed it, you haven't responded to my post yet. I've re-posted it here so that you don't have to wade back through all the pages:

Warning: Long!



Intolerant has such a negative connotation with it... would you allow a poisonous spider to crawl up your arm untouched? You'd flick it away, wouldn't you? Would you be called intolerant for that? It WOULD be a type of intolerance, yes.
If you don't like the word that accurately describes you, than take a look in the mirror and re-evaluate your stance. First of all, arachnids are not human beings with feelings. Second, flicking a spider off my arm is much different than trying to get rid of all spiders in general (or just the poisonous kind).

There are times where intolerance is perfectly acceptable, and indeed, the more intelligent choice. Were we 'tolerant' of Nazi soldiers slaughtering Jews?
Comparing gays getting married to the Holocaust is incredibly insulting to anybody who went through that. How could you compare people being tortured and starved to death to same-sex marriage?!

No, I don't believe we were. Should all who fought back then be known as "intolerant Christians"?
Are you taking credit on behalf of your religion for the end of the Holocaust? If so, you are mistaken; it was the American army that showed up and freed them, not the church.

I am not intolerant in general, but like everybody, I do have intolerances for something completely rediculous and harmful for society. Unfortunately due to my religion this is blown up all out of proportion, and like gay 'marriage' itself, that fact sickens me.
Gay marriage is an IDEA that you don't like. The actual act does NOT affect you in ways other than forcing you to realize that you can't have your perfect Utopia of Christian values. It is NOT harmful to society; that is your OPINION. Just because there are other closed-minded bigots out there who agree with you does NOT make it so.

You are intolerant, because you don't want a class of people that you don't like to have rights which will make them happy. I noticed that you haven't addressed the possibility of the tables turning. How would you feel if there was a group of people out there (much worse, a big group of people) who wanted to take away your right to marry the person you love. Sure, you could hold your own ceremony, but legally speaking, you're just living together; nothing more. It would suck, wouldn't it?

This has been blown out of proportion, but not by the gay people wanting equal rights; if the homophobic bigots hadn't objected, this would all be over and people would be happily living their own lives.

People are not opposed to you because of your religion, they're opposed because you refuse to live and let live. That disclaimer at the top of my other post was for the Christians that I have respect for, and it's because they're keeping an open mind. If I ever come across a person of a different faith spouting anti-gay crap, or an atheist for that matter, I will give them the same treatment I am giving you. It just so happens that so far, every person I've heard/read argue against gay marriage has a religious reason.

Nothing I can do about it, but luckily ones who agree with me are in power. Therefore, i'm sorry you're not comfortable with THAT. But, thankfully, there's nothing you can do about it.
You did notice the fact that I am a girl, right? So you're saying that you think that the people in power are going to outlaw marriage for anybody who isn't a Christian? You do know that would be discrimination, right? Oh, wait; so is not allowing gays to marry. Well, it would also be establishing a religion, which is unconstitutional. Or do you have no problem with that, either?

As for not being comfortable with whether or not you are willing to acknowledge my marriage to my husband, I couldn't care less. We will still be legally married, and since I don't socialize with religious zealots like you, I won't have to worry about proving whether or not my marriage is "valid."

Yes, I read through your nice little passage and nothing seems relevant but the last paragraph. In that, I see "Gay marriage is rare in history" and I remind myself that it should be kept that way. Nothing more to say about that at all.
"Nothing seems relevant?"

The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

How is that "not relevant?!" You are claiming that marriage is a Christian invention, which is a major point in your argument about not letting homosexuals in on it. How is proving that you are wrong "not relevant?" Were you hoping no one else read it?

Yes, it does. It insults my religion, and my freedom to practice my religion without this sort of blatant public defiance toward certain aspects of it. I don't have a right not to be insulted, but I believe there is some "stuff" in there about me being able to choose my faith without having to worry about the basic principles of it, and it's leaders being infringed upon by the law.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is trying to force you to stop practicing your religion. However, many people are trying to use a religious justification for a law, which is dangerously close to establishing a religion, which is as I said before and proved just now, unconstitutional.

Also, I found some interesting facts about the pursuit of happiness:

Although the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution, it is set forth in several state Constitutions. The state Constitutions, in their Declaration of Rights, provide that "all men are created equally free and independent; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I challenge you to look up your state's constitution (this goes for everybody). Here is a snippet of Colorado's:

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 4. Religious freedom. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

Outlawing gay marriage on the basis of a religious belief would be giving preference to said religion! And it says nothing about your "right not worry" about principles of your religion. Gay marriage will not prevent you from going to church whenever you like, talking about your faith whenever you like, or doing anything pertaining to your faith that doesn't infringe on others' rights. You have no point! You will not be affected unless you choose to keep dwelling on things that you have no business dwelling on!

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).

YOU are infringing on homosexuals' rights to pursue happiness, which is unconstitutional. If you can't see that, it's because you don't want to.

Note: If I were you, I'd stay away from bringing the constitution into this, since it explicitly forbids the establishment of religion, which is what you are essentially arguing for. You will not win an argument this way.

If and when the government makes any law that is directly against what my religion believes than it is going against many, many rights of free religion. Not to mention we are the majority, and it is especially rediculous to see the majority's rights INFRINGED upon by a minority.
Again, your rights are not being infringed upon. Allowing gay marriage will not in turn outlaw Christianity. They can co-exist.

Again with the slavery comparison. GAYS ARE NOT BEING BEATEN, ENSLAVED, TORTURED, FORCED TO WORK, OR CAPTURED BY ANYBODY. This arguement is flawed and apparently you aren't smart enough to see that. The day a gay is "lynched" by a mob and the police do nothing, this point will be valid, until then, I would submit that it is not relevant whatsoever.
Actually, the part you quoted me on there had nothing to do with slavery. Blacks weren't slaves anymore when it was an issue as to whether or not they could vote. So it's a simple comparison of discrimination. Just as there were (and still are, though not as many - I hope) racists who didn't want blacks to vote, there are fundamentalist Christians who don't want gays to marry. It is a valid point, since you brought up your belief that majority rules, regardless of how wrong it is.

Is that still your stance?

Does it infringe on your rights of free religion? No? Good. That's all.
No, and gay marriage doesn't keep you from practicing your religion freely (which is what freedom of religion is). So it's a simple case of what disgusts you, which is not a good enough reason to discriminate against others.


Blacks and women are not even comparable to gays. They are biologically ineffecient and are nature's way of thinning the population. THAT is fact.

You are so cold. You're not thinking of them as human beings with feelings, which is what they are. Where is your human compassion? These are real people with real contributions to society. Human beings are not breeding machines. That's what makes us different from animals.

>straight< Blacks and >straight< women can reproduce, raise their children, teach them what they know, do good for the genepool.
So can gays. Women can get artificial insemination, and men can either make arrangements with surrogate mothers, or adopt. Both can raise children and teach them what they know, which will be tolerance and love.

And since you brought the gene pool up, how many unplanned pregnancies do you think gay couples will have compared to unintelligent, irresponsible couples who don't use protection? I'm obviously not saying all accidental pregnancies are irresponsible or brought about by unintelligent people, but I'm sure all of you have been around at least one couple who SHOULDN'T be breeding, but ARE, because they don't plan ahead and take proper precautions.

Children had by gay parents are going to be brought about by careful planning and after lengthy preparations, resulting in more responsible parenting, which in turn results in better children.

My religious arguement aside, biologically there is no reason for any of this.

If you took away our human intelligence, we'd be like apes. Okay, so how often do you see apes (in the wild or otherwise) performing wedding ceremonies? Biologically, men should be having sex with as many women as he wants, while we stay at home in the cave, taking care of the babies.

Science AND Religion both back this up, and that's hard to come by. Yet you would pull reasons from society. Society changes, values change... 300 years ago to have this discussion would be laughable on your part. However, 300 years ago it was still unnacceptable by the Church AND by Science to even imagine it. You do see what I mean, don't you?
Religion IS society. Without people, there would be no religion. And religions evolve. Take the Mormons, for example. Heck, take your own religion! Religion is not immune to change, either. People keep bringing up blacks and women because they are prime examples of a class of society that USED to be discriminated against.

Yes, there were opponents who screamed bloody murder, but society as a whole is better for the changes. People are happier, and we get along better. If the government says being gay is acceptable, then less homosexuals will be beaten in the streets. How is that bad?

And as for "Science" backing you up; how do you mean? "Love" is a human emotion, unique to us. We don't get married out of biological necessity; we get married for love (religious extremists and gold-diggers excluded). We are not required to produce children, so your "reproduction" argument is irrelevant. Science is what it is; it's how you interpret the rules of science to dictate your life (if that's what you're doing; sounds silly to me) that makes the difference.

For example: Scientifically, it's true that two gay men can't reproduce. That only means something if you care whether or not a couple can reproduce.

There is a constant in my side of the arguement where yours just happened to come up in the past 10 years. Gays can attend school, they can get jobs, they can do everything that I can do do, but like anybody else, they cannot infringe on my religious freedoms.

Gays have been present throughout history, but the reason they're fighting for their rights now is because society has come a long way with accepting them. I'm sure years ago gay people would have risked getting beaten up or worse by standing up for themselves. I also think the media helps with "de-sensitizing" people to the concept, which I think is a good thing.

But, I digress.

You say that gays can "do anything you can do," but you are wrong. They can't get married to the person they love and cherish. You can. That is infringing on their right to pursue happiness (which we have established includes marriage).

And you're also right about them not being able to infringe on your religious freedoms, which are to practice whatever religion you please. This would not be affected by allowing gays to marry (remember, your church would not be forced to recognize their union; we're talking strictly in the eyes of the GOVERNMENT).

And yet they worked for thousands of years?
You didn't answer my question. I want a list of the "religious values" you are referring to, and how they "worked." You aren't backing up your claims, so I can't take them seriously until you do.

Perhaps there was an exploited minority at times, but we have gotten past that already. Blacks are equal, other religions we have tolerance for, witches aren't burned, women have rights... we have come a long way.
You know how we got past that? Abolishing radical religious laws! Yes, it's progress, but not the kind your "religious values" can take credit for.

And as for tolerating other religions, which practice things like worshipping false idols, why is that so different from tolerating homosexuals? Both are doing things you detest. Oh, maybe it's because you don't have to look at people worshipping in public, so it's easy to ignore. Have I hit the nail on the head?

Indeed, we are finished. The only problem now lies in minorities waiting to upset the order that was working for about half a century. All humans already have equal natural rights, blacks, asians, whites, women, men... they have them. Homosexuals, however, are not going to be infringing on my rights anytime soon with this disgusting practice.
Oh, so you've reached your perfect Utopia, and there's nothing anybody can do to ruin it for you. Homosexuals are people, too. They are not asking if they can have sex with you.

You know, straight men have sex with women up the butt at times, as well as receive blow jobs from straight women. Everybody does things in private that are viewed as "disgusting" by some. It's none of your business, so stop dwelling on it.

And, I'll say it for the bazillionth time: THEY ARE NOT INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS!!!

I'm saying that the government, and society for that matter has always been the "final sayso" on any matter. When women were inferior, the government changed it's policy and so did society's interpretation of the bible. When blacks were inferior, same thing. These were good moves. However... as long as the government maintains it's current position on things society will come to believe as I do. If a a few generations grow up under these current laws it will just be a matter of time before my 'side' vastly outnumbers your side, because of the way society works. This, I am saying, is a good thing.
Well, many generations grew up under the laws that said slavery was okay, yet they used their own logic to ascertain that it was wrong. Despite how you may have been brought up, people are able to think for themselves. This will not go away.

Even if gay marriage is outlawed for now, people are not going to stop standing up for what is right, regardless of how many of them there are.

(And no, I'm not equating slavery to gay rights; I'm saying people can think for themselves. That is the point; don't miss it.)


Sarcasm. Great.
Yes. Sarcasm that proves a point. Care to comment on that point? (In case you missed it, I meant that nobody has suffered or sacrificed by "letting" gay people live among us. On the contrary, gay people have suffered from homophobic extremists.)

I believe i've already shown you how it 'affects my life' in that it violates certain religious freedoms, in my opinion. If we outlawed "leaving the house on sundays", there would be some angry christians... likewise, we have this situation.

Unfortunately for you, and for all of your side, we are the, I say again, majority. We are the ones who appoint our representatives, and therefore it is my side that decides the laws.
If leaving the house on Sundays was outlawed, it would actually change something in your life; you would have to stay at home. If gay people got married, you would still be able to go to church on Sunday or any other day you want.

In fact, if you went into a coma and woke up after gay marriage was legalized, the only way you would find out about it would be if somebody told you. If you didn't find out about it in the media or otherwise, YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW ABOUT IT. Your church would continue to function as it always has (as in not accepting gays, etc.), and your life would remain untouched.

You really don't think you're being selfish?!


I don't believe it's been 'tore apart' yet, but I applaud you for trying.
Then you obviously weren't fully understanding the other posts.

Fine then, let's say they're ten. The point wasn't to get technical and whine about how it would be damaging to engage in sexual activity, the point is to say that, you like all who aren't lying, don't think they should be able to get into a legal commitment. And there you have my point, if gays can have a 'marriage' than why can't they?
CHILDREN are not legally allowed to marry, for good reason. That kind of a relationship is damaging, which is WHY it is illegal. A gay union between two ADULTS (which is what is being discussed) is NOT harmful to either party.

You would cry about me discriminating and yet you would discriminate yourself based on age. It's because 'intolerance' CAN be used with a good reason at times, isn't it? Oh, why yes, it is. In both the 5 / 79 year old case and in the gay 'marriage' case, it is.
No, the child can get married when he/she is older, and of LEGAL age. True intolerance of children would be society treating them like garbage. As for the 79 yr-old's rights, he/she has none when it comes to being a pedophile. Again, that is illegal because it is VERY damaging to children, therefore infringing on their rights.

When it comes to protecting the rights of others, you're right. We will not tolerate damaging behaviors. But you are trying to say that gay marriage will damage your religion freedoms, which is just plain wrong. You can scream it until you are hoarse, but it won't make it so.

I'd rather not read about gay penguins, but that's just me. Yes, nature is doing what it can to control the out-of-control population spike that is occurring, now isn't it?
Yeah, that's essentially my theory, anyway. :)

Gays are biologically inefficient, some by choice, some by nature. Either way, it still stands that they don't perform the entire PURPOSE of life, that is, to reproduce. Completely biologically speaking, people are born to have sex, to pass on their genes, to increase the genepool, to better the chances of survival for the species. Do they do this? No.
Who gave you the say of what our purpose in life is? And even if you were right, this argument doesn't work. Like mentioned before, gay couples can have children. Even if they're not passing on their genes, they are still taking care of others' children, which still contributes. Someone needs to take care of the babies with no parents.

Yes they will still do it for awhile, but the outlawing of the gay marriage will be a huge victory for my side of things, and perhaps start us down a road that we should have been on in the first place.
Gay people are not going to go away. The sooner you get used to the idea, the happier you'll be.

History would prove you wrong on your second point. My "out-dated" views were the things that kept peace for hundreds of years in numerous situations, social order was established by these "out-dated" views,
Examples in history, please.

and you woud mess with them purely to serve your own selfish WANTS, not needs, WANTS.
And how would you describe your desire to not have to think about the fact that gay marriage is legalized? Will you die or become injured/ill if that happens? No. Yours is a want, also, so your point has no validity.

And before you scream religious rights, ALL PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY have a right to pursue happiness, which has been recognized by the Supreme Court to include marriage. Gays can be awarded that right without affecting you or your church's right to hate gay people, or refuse to marry them under God.

It is things like gay 'marriage' that contribute to the decay of society,
That is your opinion! A lot of us strive for a society that is tolerant of others, and which doesn't restrict the freedoms of people who are different. That we view as a GOOD thing. Not everybody strives for a world that is "good" in the eyes of YOUR God.

and you need to GET OVER the fact that some of us aren't willing to let this happen.
That's what you want us to do, isn't it? Nobody with a conscience is going to lie limp while religious fundamentalists like you try to trample those you don't like.

Things do change, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. Sometimes we must change with it (black / women's rights) sometimes we must remain firm on where we stand because we see that without CONSTANTS in society, we are just a bunch of aimless liberals changing to every whim of every individual.
You have chosen the wrong constant. This is not a whim, this is a demand of equal rights, which is long overdue. The constants you speak of are things like outlawing murder, rape, pedophilia, theft, etc.... Without your religious reasoning, there is no reason why gays shouldn't be married.

Which brings me to....

I've dealt with both your claim that I have nothing but religion to back up my arguement, and the rest of that garbage up above.
Okay, well tell me what you told them. Do you have other reasons other than your warped view on the "purpose of life," which I suspect also has ties to religion?

And do you admit that your majority is abusing its power and oppressing the gay community?

As for what is wrong in the world... haha. Celebraties sexually abusing small boys,
How is this a result of a minority claiming oppression? Pedophilia is NOT legal. Michael Jackson (and almost every other pedophile) was abused as a child, along with other things that contributed to him not having a normal, healthy childhood. That, and I'm sure there is some faulty wiring in his brain.

And as far as his getting off, I believe he did because other greedy parents out there saw an opportunity to cash in on this, which planted "reasonable doubt." If it had been one trial at a time, maybe they could have weeded out the fake allegations from the real ones.

Are you trying to tell me that there is a movement of pedophiles that is claiming that we are trampling on their rights to have sex with young children? Even if there was, it wouldn't be taken seriously (because for reasons specified earlier, it's WRONG).

terrorist preying on convoys of female soldiers,
Are the terrorists claiming oppression? Is that why they're doing bad things? I thought it was because their religion says that we're evil, and that they need to wipe us out. Please clarify.

three dead boys being found in a trunk of a car in New Jersey,
Are murderers claiming oppression now? Are they lobbying for the right to kill people? How is this a result of a minority claiming oppression and not just a horrible person doing horrible things?

Kidnappings with dead bodies being found a week later in Florida, ...
So kidnappers want rights too, now? This is the first I've heard about this.

The list goes on.
You stated that "So much wrong in today's world and it's because of people, minorities, that claim oppression when there is simply none." Please back that up with actual examples that apply.

The fact is, if you DIDN'T see anything wrong in the world than you are the confused one.
I never said I didn't think there were bad things happening in the world. I asked you for examples of bad things happening as a result of minorities claiming oppression. So far you haven't convinced me.

Oh... perhaps that example was too deep for you. My apologies. Sometimes things are just plain OBVIOUS, like when men shouldn't walk into women's restrooms, that's what I was intending to say. Sorry you couldn't understand that... i'll simplify by comparisons in the future.
Okay, well the reason I didn't understand (along with others) is that it isn't a good comparison. Keeping gays from the right to marriage is NOT "obvious" to anybody outside of your way of thinking. In fact, it's the opposite. Why in the world would anybody care whether or not gays get married (other than gays themselves)? Whose business is it but theirs? To me, it's OBVIOUS to let them have that right, as it's not hurting anybody.


Sterile people at least have a certain correctness about them that gay people do not have. A sterile man marries a fertile woman, it is a tragic situation, however at least they are joined as nature, and as God intended it to be. A gay couple, again, is against both of these.
Where in the law books does it say that we have to strictly follow nature? Invetro fertilization isn't natural; do you think that should be outlawed? The COMPUTER your are typing on wasn't made in nature, so are you sure you should be using it?

And again, not everybody follows your God. You can do as "He" says, fine. But stop expecting others who couldn't care less about "Him" and his rules to do as "He" says. It's like me expecting all parents to raise their kids the way mine raised me. It's ridiculous.

In the forum, perhaps, I am the minority. However I do enjoy a good... discussion with anybody, and especially on something I believe so passionately about. However, my logic applies to society in general not neccessarily to a forum... and I would have assumed that you figured that out, but apparently not. So let's just have this little paragraph to clear that up, hm?
I like how you take every stab at my intelligence that you can. Does it make you feel better about yourself? Unfortunately, while doing so, you risk making yourself sound foolish, since everybody else understood that I was poking fun at you.

You're missing the point. This isn't about gay people getting married in churches, this is about gay people getting legal marriage licenses from a justice of the peace.
Exactly … they have the right to the same civil contract the rest of us do. (and I would argue they have they have a right to get “married” by their choice in faith as well as long as that faith accepts their lifestyle)

It is things like gay 'marriage' that contribute to the decay of society,

Is it just me or have I not seen a concrete argument in this thread that shows gay marriage leading to the decay of society???

Is it just me or have I not seen a concrete argument in this thread that shows gay marriage leading to the decay of society???
I have not seen one either

I have not seen one either

Then why do people keep bringing it up? I mean if your going to claim something will lead to the degradation of society (Damn you MTV) you might want to use something to back that claim up, am I right?

I noticed everything you listed was of Mosaic law......*snickers* Does anyone else wanna tell him the news?

So? Are you suggesting that there are no Jewish people in the world?

2200+ replys on a thread about a website that made fun of anti-gay marriage views. The mind boggles.
I still find it funny that some christians think they own marriage :D

Corrections in bold.

What I like is that Neo alludes to that things change, yet is standing by his idea that because homosexuality is supposed to be bad according to the Old Testament, that it is supposed to be bad now.

Heh, i'm a noob in name only. I was on NS months ago, but because of various reasons, was not on for awhile and my account was deleted.


First of all, I'm not a he :mad:

Secondly, it is also condemned in the New Testament, but I really don't want to start that argument again.

Paul says he is not a servant of Christ:

In Galatians 1:10 Paul says, "If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

YET

In 1 Corinthians 10:33 Paul says, "Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved."

So basically, he is saying he is not a servant of Christ, right?


Context :D

Context :D

Pot, meet kettle. Have you heard about the color black?

Well, you know...since JESUS Himself never said one way or another, I think it's better to assume that He was okay with them.

After all, if He really had such a big problem with them you'd think He'd have said SOMETHING about them.

I mean, he was preaching for like, what...three years?!?!? Yyou'd think somewhere in all that time, if He'd said something about it...or made such a huge issue of it...one of the Gospel writers woulda mentioned it...dont'cha think??

Or do you say that just because you wanna hold on to your comfy little bigotries?



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

Jesus has respected and saved a prostitute... so it's fairly safe to say He would accept most people, even politicians and professional wrestlers.

Oh. And how about homosexuals? Hmmm... no big deal.



But remember what He said after saving the prostitute? "Go now and sin no more."

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

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

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




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


That was referring to church sessions. These are not church sessions, at least...unless there's something you know and I don't :confused:

With all this discussion about whether or not christianity prohibits homosexual relationships, I'm getting VERY concerned that people are missing the point. This country is based on seperation of church and state. We have NO business enacting any law whose only basis is the moral judgments of a particular religion.

You may think it's cool to have laws based on religious beliefs NOW because the current president and congress happen to be of the same religion as you - why not spend some time thinking about the precedent that sets. I mean, if we happen to elect a president and congress who are mostly fundamentalist Moslems in a few years, will you be equally happy with a law requiring women to wear veils?

Context :D
Ok context … its in book that has no proven accuracy or authenticity (at least for devinly inspired authorship) :p

One word: "adaptation".

The church can adapt. The government can adapt. The people can adapt. YOU can adapt. One of the most useful traits about human beings that got us through 3 million years is adaptation. So why deny our religions, governments, and people that important trait?

Also, what you said is your opinion. That does not make it right, because it is not a solid fact.



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

God does not change, he is from age to age the same. Adapting one's teachings to the whims of modern society is anything but holy.
Except he changed his mind about paths to salvation

And managed to change from ye ole smiting angry god to one that does not directly interfere

We are not debating the social value of one persons marriage or anothers. We are debating the constitutionality of defining marriage as being only between a man and woman from a LEGAL standpoint. As far as the government and our laws are concerned, the main point of being legally married is that the two people involved have decided to become one entity and want the government to treat them as such. Thus the tax status, joint ownership issues and etc. From a legal standpoint, marriage is nothing more than a business partnership.

As far as the 180 degrees from perfection - the divorce rate in this country for heterosexuals is over 70% - that's about 240 degrees from perfection, you do the math.



It's at 50%....over 70% would be too insane to permit...not that divorce without just cause should be permitted anyway, but seriously....70%? We're not THAT bad off.

I have not seen one either


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

So? Are you suggesting that there are no Jewish people in the world?



The point of his claim was directed towards Christians.

It's at 50%....over 70% would be too insane to permit...not that divorce without just cause should be permitted anyway, but seriously....70%? We're not THAT bad off.
It is a legal contract … it should absolutely be allowed to terminated just like a legal contract (with all the stipulations of a non fulfilled contract)

The church has a right to not acknowledge the divorce (at least the RC church does not recognize it)
But as a legal aspect it is ridiculous
And forcing people to stay together against their will … silly

Pot, meet kettle. Have you heard about the color black?



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

You will never admit your own fallibility, will you?

You really know nothing about the way I view the Bible do you? He chose the apostles to spread His will...and I believe this means that they were infallible in their teachigns when possessed by the Holy Spirit, despite the fact that they themselves never claimed infallibility and in fact claimed that all human beings have fallen short of the glory of God, you know that. If Christ had an issue with anything they said (which would not be possible in the first place, since they had a perfect Being in them which would not permit imperfect things to be taught) then he would have removed their capacity to perform miracles, just like the ability to perform miracles was not removed from Moses when he sinned.

Corrections in bold.

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

And got to love how this interacts with the free will of humans. Making a clear well edited book that we could see having a divine hand would be breaking free will … but meddling in national affairs is not too far for god to stoop



:rolleyes:

(also amazing these MASIVLY long standing countries such as china or Japan …) They are not very Christian and they have lasted a LONG time
Maybe you should convert to one of their beliefs ... it is obviously the better choice

Except he changed his mind about paths to salvation

And managed to change from ye ole smiting angry god to one that does not directly interfere



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

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

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

Then, you say that God does not condone slavery.

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

He was, at the time, fulfilling His plan. Remember, plans coming to fruition does not equate to a change in character. He was preparing the world for the coming of Christ. Christ has come and perished for our sins, now God has a hands-off policy until the Judgement Day.
Preparing them by killing them off … what a loving guy
(got to love a plan that is set up to kill off all the humans on the planet except for one family)

It is a legal contract … it should absolutely be allowed to terminated just like a legal contract (with all the stipulations of a non fulfilled contract)

The church has a right to not acknowledge the divorce (at least the RC church does not recognize it)
But as a legal aspect it is ridiculous
And forcing people to stay together against their will … silly




Matthew 19:6 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate

It's at 50%....over 70% would be too insane to permit...not that divorce without just cause should be permitted anyway, but seriously....70%? We're not THAT bad off.

I believe the 50% number is specific to divorces with a few years of the wedding. The numbers generally don't count those who divorce after long marriage. 70%? I don't know, but the numbers are pretty high.

Back to topic.
Religious debate can be much more fulfilling in a new thread I think.

Here we discussed the concept of gay marriages, not wether god loves all of humankind or not.

You will never admit your own fallibility, will you?



The apostles, in their teachings....and for the last time, WERE infallible! It is implied, lest you call the Holy Spirit and Christ fallible.

The point of his claim was directed towards Christians.

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

Preparing them by killing them off … what a loving guy
(got to love a plan that is set up to kill off all the humans on the planet except for one family)




As if they didn't deserve it?