NationStates Jolt Archive

In every anti-gay thread, we see people whining, "It isn't about equal protection -that's ok. We just don't want them using our word for our unions - marriage."

And yet, when a state tries to extend many of the protections associated with marriage to domestic partnerships, the anti-gay people are all up in arms. "Hey, we said no marraige. We meant nothing even resembling it!"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/domestic.partners.ap/index.html

Edit: Luckily, the courts are a bit smarter than that.

In every anti-gay thread, we see people whining, "It isn't about equal protection -that's ok. We just don't want them using our word for our unions - marriage."

And yet, when a state tries to extend many of the protections associated with marriage to domestic partnerships, the anti-gay people are all up in arms. "Hey, we said no marraige. We meant nothing even resembling it!"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/domestic.partners.ap/index.html

Edit: Luckily, the courts are a bit smarter than that.
Disgusting … they try to take the word … when it is given to them they try to keep the discrimination

Calling the partnerships different and having different legislation for each is just asking for abuse and change.

I realise that the situation in the US is slightly more complicated because there is the belief that the state should not interfere in things like that, but may I point out several things?

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.
2. People do not have a "right" to engage in active sin (which is what homosexual acts are), and whereas, dependent on the circumstance, the state does not have the right to stop all sins from occurring it cannot create laws to encourage it.

I do not say this to be pedantic, but it would be a great wrong if the legislators of the US passed laws to promote an intrinsically immoral state of affairs.

First of all, the threads on this forum, while somewhat representative, are not fully representative of real life. If you think that you're fucking nuts. Secondly, assholes abound.

Firstly, it's not marriage. So that argument is gone. And secondly, seperation of church and state, all that jazz. Bottom line, God can't make laws. (thanks DC for that neat mental image. :D)

I realise that the situation in the US is slightly more complicated because there is the belief that the state should not interfere in things like that, but may I point out several things?

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.


People were pair bonding long before religion came around.

You can get married without a church(ie captain of a ship, justice of the peace).


2. People do not have a "right" to engage in active sin (which is what homosexual acts are), and whereas, dependent on the circumstance, the state does not have the right to stop all sins from occurring it cannot create laws to encourage it.

Not everybody views it as a sin. Just because the Christians don't like it, doesn't mean people have to do what they say.


I do not say this to be pedantic, but it would be a great wrong if the legislators of the US passed laws to promote an intrinsically immoral state of affairs.

Hardly. S and G weren't destroyed simply because of homosexuality.

Society existed with them. Society will still exist if they are married.

I would rather have them marrying each other then being forced back into the closet and marrying my sister or daughter.

I realise that the situation in the US is slightly more complicated because there is the belief that the state should not interfere in things like that, but may I point out several things?

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.
2. People do not have a "right" to engage in active sin (which is what homosexual acts are), and whereas, dependent on the circumstance, the state does not have the right to stop all sins from occurring it cannot create laws to encourage it.

I do not say this to be pedantic, but it would be a great wrong if the legislators of the US passed laws to promote an intrinsically immoral state of affairs.
1. Marriage was invented a long ass time before God was. It was a civil affair with "legal" implications only. Google is your friend, and Magical Ponies is as well.
2. People have every right to engage in active sin in America. Their government is secular. It is not a throcrazy. The government and the states can create any law they want within the limits of their constitutions.

Being homo- or bi- sexual is a sin to you. Other religions consider being a Christian (any) a mortal sin. And that's not mentioning some Christian Churches doesn't consider homosexuality a sin at all, and infact willingly perform same-sex marriages with God's blessing.

Three cheers for the "Icky ikcy poo!" factor

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.
Marriage was documented long before the worship of the judeo-christian God spread. Marriage is the word for an exclusive partnership, traditionally between man and woman, but the concept is not copyrighted by Jahwe.

I realise that the situation in the US is slightly more complicated because there is the belief that the state should not interfere in things like that, but may I point out several things?

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.
2. People do not have a "right" to engage in active sin (which is what homosexual acts are), and whereas, dependent on the circumstance, the state does not have the right to stop all sins from occurring it cannot create laws to encourage it.

I do not say this to be pedantic, but it would be a great wrong if the legislators of the US passed laws to promote an intrinsically immoral state of affairs.

1: Not everyone believes in God
2. Thats your opinion
3. The legistlative branch of the federal and state governments always pass stupid laws.

Basically I don't care one way or another. They are not bothering me so meh.

I realise that the situation in the US is slightly more complicated because there is the belief that the state should not interfere in things like that, but may I point out several things?

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.


2. People do not have a "right" to engage in active sin (which is what homosexual acts are), and whereas, dependent on the circumstance, the state does not have the right to stop all sins from occurring it cannot create laws to encourage it.

I do not say this to be pedantic, but it would be a great wrong if the legislators of the US passed laws to promote an intrinsically immoral state of affairs.
1) Marrige is not only a religous ceramony but also a civil contract which carries legal and socia. Discriminating in a legal contract on the part of the government is absolutly not acceptable

2) objectivly prove it is a sin ... my beliefs and morals say no ... prove yours are better then mine

but the concept is not copyrighted by Jahwe.

Or patented ;)

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.

Or you Catholic, or some other type of Christian?

Do you think only Catholics/Christians can get married?

Firstly, it's not marriage. So that argument is gone. And secondly, seperation of church and state, all that jazz. Bottom line, God can't make laws. (thanks DC for that neat mental image. :D)

Well, He has made laws... unfortunately, we don't follow many of them here... myself included.

However, many of our laws were borrowed from English Common Law... and much of English Common Law is based on Scripture.

So indirectly, God does write laws. hehe

I realise that the situation in the US is slightly more complicated because there is the belief that the state should not interfere in things like that, but may I point out several things?

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.
2. People do not have a "right" to engage in active sin (which is what homosexual acts are), and whereas, dependent on the circumstance, the state does not have the right to stop all sins from occurring it cannot create laws to encourage it.

I do not say this to be pedantic, but it would be a great wrong if the legislators of the US passed laws to promote an intrinsically immoral state of affairs.

If you want to bring God into it, then consider that God gave man free will. Effectively man has the right to do anything he pleases, regardless of whether or not he'll be punished. As a Christian you are not supposed to physically restrict the free will of others, are you?

Well, He has made laws... unfortunately, we don't follow many of them here... myself included.

However, many of our laws were borrowed from English Common Law... and much of English Common Law is based on Scripture.

So indirectly, God does write laws. hehe

write =/= written.


Present tense & past tense

:p

I realise that the situation in the US is slightly more complicated because there is the belief that the state should not interfere in things like that, but may I point out several things?

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.
2. People do not have a "right" to engage in active sin (which is what homosexual acts are), and whereas, dependent on the circumstance, the state does not have the right to stop all sins from occurring it cannot create laws to encourage it.

I do not say this to be pedantic, but it would be a great wrong if the legislators of the US passed laws to promote an intrinsically immoral state of affairs.



My point exactly. Right now, we're seeing the dark side of the representative republic. Of course, this is all being decided by a few lefties in the courts instead of the majority of the populace.

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.

wrong on both counts.

firstly, a person's ability to make their own decisions about marriage is held in the u.s. to be either a fundamental right in itself or a fundamental aspect of the right to privacy (zablocki v. redhail, loving v. virginia, griswold v. connecticut, and probably a few others).

secondly, marriage existed before there were any christians around, before there were any hebrews around, before there waas any monotheism at all. marriage today exists outside of christianity, and even outside of religion in general.

or were you trying to be normative rather than descriptive? if so, next time don't use 'is', use 'ought to be'. that position would still be stupid, but at least it would be arguable.

I realise that the situation in the US is slightly more complicated because there is the belief that the state should not interfere in things like that, but may I point out several things?

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.
2. People do not have a "right" to engage in active sin (which is what homosexual acts are), and whereas, dependent on the circumstance, the state does not have the right to stop all sins from occurring it cannot create laws to encourage it.

I do not say this to be pedantic, but it would be a great wrong if the legislators of the US passed laws to promote an intrinsically immoral state of affairs.
I don't know how long it took you to type that or how much effort you put into it, but all you deserve is a

AHAHAHAHAHAH ... HAHAHAHAH

That is so full of Christian elitism and superiority it is enough to make me physically ill. Since when did only CHRISTIAN churches marry people? No wait, since when did Christianity have a monopoly on the ability to marry? There are 1001 and marriage ceremonies that have jack shit to do with Christianity.

Sin != law of a real government. If you want sins outlawed become a priest and petition to live in Vatican city.

My point exactly. Right now, we're seeing the dark side of the representative republic. Of course, this is all being decided by a few lefties in the courts instead of the majority of the populace.

Never mind that the majority of the populace (about 60%) are perfectly fine with providing equal rights to homosexuals. The only problem is that some of them are queazy about using the word marriage.

Of course, it is all fine and dandy if we make the government stop using the word marriage for the legal institution. We'll just call it civil union or whatever - and any couple, gay or straight, can go get a civil union license. Works out just fine.

Never mind that the majority of the populace (about 60%) are perfectly fine with providing equal rights to homosexuals. The only problem is that some of them are queazy about using the word marriage.

Of course, it is all fine and dandy if we make the government stop using the word marriage for the legal institution. We'll just call it civil union or whatever - and any couple, gay or straight, can go get a civil union license. Works out just fine.
Deffinatly whatever it is as long as its the same regardless

Ihatevacations']I don't know how long it took you to type that or how much effort you put into it, but all you deserve is a

AHAHAHAHAHAH ... HAHAHAHAH

That is so full of Christian elitism and superiority it is enough to make me physically ill. Since when did only CHRISTIAN churches marry people? No wait, since when did Christianity have a monopoly on the ability to marry? There are 1001 and marriage ceremonies that have jack shit to do with Christianity.

Sin != law of a real government. If you want sins outlawed become a priest and petition to live in Vatican city.





But we can petition to outlaw sin, because the same vote you use against us can be used by us against you. :p

Never mind that the majority of the populace (about 60%) are perfectly fine with providing equal rights to homosexuals. The only problem is that some of them are queazy about using the word marriage.

Of course, it is all fine and dandy if we make the government stop using the word marriage for the legal institution. We'll just call it civil union or whatever - and any couple, gay or straight, can go get a civil union license. Works out just fine.

More like:

Approve 37%
Neutral 11%
Disapprove 50%
Unsure 2%

http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Or this one:

"Which of the following arrangements between gay or lesbian couples do you think should be recognized as legally valid: same-sex marriages, civil unions but not same-sex marriages, or neither same-sex marriages nor civil unions?"

Marriages 20
Civil Unions 27
Neither 45
Unsure 8

I think you over state the public's support...



[EDIT: whoah, I tried to like just a copy and paste part from that poll site and the whole post was spammed lol]

It's sad. Religion has been used for thousands of years to help the weak minded justify their hate and bigotry (i.e.: slavery, racism), and give them a sense of superiority in an insecure world. You'd think that some day this would end, but I guess there is a limitless supply of these people.

I'm happy Canada and Spain have enacted civil laws to protect gays & lesbians from the tyranny of Christians.

As noted, marriage as a civil, economic and/or political agreement has long preceded this new fangled religious union (which only became important when the priests started grabbing secular power.) Since I don't share your religion, kindly keep your grubby paws off my marriage (FYI, straight and married for 14yrs this summer) which is based on love and legal obligations, NOT god(s).

Since I'm an atheist, arguments of sin are pointless as most "sins" are relevant only to a small (or large) religious group to which I don't belong.

More like:

Approve 37%
Neutral 11%
Disapprove 50%
Unsure 2%

Where are these numbers from?

http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Or this one:

"Which of the following arrangements between gay or lesbian couples do you think should be recognized as legally valid: same-sex marriages, civil unions but not same-sex marriages, or neither same-sex marriages nor civil unions?"

Marriages 20
Civil Unions 27
Neither 45
Unsure 8


Ok, so about 50% are in favor of at least civil unions by that poll.

From an earlier poll on your own site:
"Do you think same-sex couples should be allowed legally to marry, should be allowed legally to form civil unions but not to marry, or should not be allowed to obtain legal recognition of their relationships?"

Marriage: 27%
Civil Unions: 29%
None: 40%
Unsure: 4%

56% in favor of recognition - and this is most likely the poll I was talking about.

However, the good news is that you just supported what I was saying. The majority in this country actually support legal recognition of homosexual unions.

Never mind that the majority of the populace (about 60%) are perfectly fine with providing equal rights to homosexuals. The only problem is that some of them are queazy about using the word marriage.

Of course, it is all fine and dandy if we make the government stop using the word marriage for the legal institution. We'll just call it civil union or whatever - and any couple, gay or straight, can go get a civil union license. Works out just fine.

Wait a minute....

I said I have no problem with that exact same scenario the other day, and yet you still rejected it. :confused:

Wait a minute....

I said I have no problem with that exact same scenario the other day, and yet you still rejected it. :confused:

No, your statement was that the government should give heterosexuals marriage and give homosexuals civil unions.

I pointed out that this was still not allowable. If the government is going to offer civil unions, civil unions must be the only union offered, and it must be equally offered to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

This is the United States we're talking about here. We could care fuck all what the majority wants ... even when electing a President. Remember, kids, we're not a democracy ... we're a representative republic. Never in the history of this country has any law been made that panders to the tyranny of the majority that has not been subsequently killed (such as the Volstead Act or Jim Crow laws, both desired by the majority).

A poll of 1,000 inmates at a trailer park does not a consensus make.

Nah, they don't support the idea, not really...

"Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?"

Favor 53%
Oppose 44%
Unsure 3%

Nah, they don't support the idea, not really...

"Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?"

Favor 53%
Oppose 44%
Unsure 3%

Go back and read what I said again.

Note that I specifically said some sort of legal recognition.

In fact, I even specifically pointed out that many in favor of recognition DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE CALLED MARRIAGE.

I agree that there are many that don't want the word marriage used. Now, can you get back on topic - which is how many people support legal recognition?

Go back and read what I said again.

Note that I specifically said some sort of legal recognition.

In fact, I even specifically pointed out that many in favor of recognition DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE CALLED MARRIAGE.

I agree that there are many that don't want the word marriage used. Now, can you get back on topic - which is how many people support legal recognition?

You can't use the results of one question to answer a different question...

This is the United States we're talking about here. We could care fuck all what the majority wants ... even when electing a President. Remember, kids, we're not a democracy ... we're a representative republic. Never in the history of this country has any law been made that panders to the tyranny of the majority that has not been subsequently killed (such as the Volstead Act or Jim Crow laws, both desired by the majority).

A poll of 1,000 inmates at a trailer park does not a consensus make.

True, we are not.

However, I am talking with people who think the majority should always get the last say.

In this case, all of the polls, even the ones linked by the opposition themselves, demonstrate that, if the majority really got the last say, homosexual couples would already have legal recognition - albeit it would likely be called something other than marriage.

You can't use the results of one question to answer a different question...

I didn't.

I used a question specifically asking what type of recognition homosexual unions should receive.

Almost 60% thought that it should receive some sort of recognition.

I didn't.

I used a question specifically asking what type of recognition homosexual unions should receive.

Almost 60% thought that it should receive some sort of recognition.

If that was right, why did 53% want to ban it? The numbers don't work if you use them to answer something the pollster didn't ask...

If that was right, why did 53% want to ban it? The numbers don't work if you use them to answer something the pollster didn't ask...

Is English really this hard for you?

53% want to ban marriage. You have no poll saying that 53% want to ban all recognition. I, on the other hand, from your source demonstrated that 50-60% of people are in favor of some sort of recognition.

Not everybody views it as a sin. Just because the Christians don't like it, doesn't mean people have to do what they say.
Ummm... not to be pedantic... but it's not just Christians (as most Christian-bashers would like you to believe) that believe homosexual acts are a sin. Nearly every major religion (Christianity, Islam...even Buddhism) have tennets against homosexual acts.

Considering that the overwhelming majority of people in the world subscribe to one of the major religions, it's true that not everyone views homosexual acts as a sin...but the VAST majority do...if they follow their religion truthfully.

Ummm... not to be pedantic... but it's not just Christians (as most Christian-bashers would like you to believe) that believe homosexual acts are a sin. Nearly every major religion (Christianity, Islam...even Buddhism) have tennets against homosexual acts.

Considering that the overwhelming majority of people in the world subscribe to one of the major religions, it's true that not everyone views homosexual acts as a sin...but the VAST majority do...if they follow their religion truthfully.

Religion is a personal thing. While the governing councils of a given church may decide something, that hardly means that all people within that church believe it.

If they believed it just because some person told them to, that would be going against their religion, not following it.

Is English really this hard for you?

53% want to ban marriage. You have no poll saying that 53% want to ban all recognition. I, on the other hand, from your source demonstrated that 50-60% of people are in favor of some sort of recognition.

You can get as mad as you want... You can not answer a new question with the poll results of a different question. It's how it done.

"What about civil unions between gay or lesbian couples that would give them some, but not all, of the legal rights of married couples? Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry in your state?"

Yes 46%
Neutral 7%
No 41%
unsure 7%

No, your statement was that the government should give heterosexuals marriage and give homosexuals civil unions.

I pointed out that this was still not allowable. If the government is going to offer civil unions, civil unions must be the only union offered, and it must be equally offered to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Wrong.

My statement was to give civil unions to anyone who did not want to be married religiously, regardless of sexual orientation, and leave marriage to the religious.

You can get as mad as you want... You can not answer a new question with the poll results of a different question. It's how it done.

"What about civil unions between gay or lesbian couples that would give them some, but not all, of the legal rights of married couples? Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry in your state?"

Yes 46%
Neutral 7%
No 41%
unsure 7%

hmm, perhaps the bolded part is the issue. i know i'd say no to that. between civil unions with lesser rights, civil unions with full rights, and straight up marriage, your own damn numbers put support at over 50%. time to surrender and move on.

Ummm... not to be pedantic... but it's not just Christians (as most Christian-bashers would like you to believe) that believe homosexual acts are a sin. Nearly every major religion (Christianity, Islam...even Buddhism) have tennets against homosexual acts.

Considering that the overwhelming majority of people in the world subscribe to one of the major religions, it's true that not everyone views homosexual acts as a sin...but the VAST majority do...if they follow their religion truthfully.

There is the operative word. Truthfully.

How many people truthfully follow their religion?

You can get as mad as you want... You can not answer a new question with the poll results of a different question. It's how it done.

"What about civil unions between gay or lesbian couples that would give them some, but not all, of the legal rights of married couples? Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry in your state?"

Yes 46%
Neutral 7%
No 41%
unsure 7%

And note that this question would be answered with a no by those who think that marriage is the only possible way to go, and is thus not applicable to what I said. Try again.

Darling, it is you who is trying to answer a question with the poll results of another question. The question I used was clear - and demonstrated that a majority believe that either marriage or civil unions should be provided.

You can get as mad as you want... You can not answer a new question with the poll results of a different question. It's how it done.

"What about civil unions between gay or lesbian couples that would give them some, but not all, of the legal rights of married couples? Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry in your state?"

Yes 46%
Neutral 7%
No 41%
unsure 7%

Wow that is a horribly worded poll /answers

As noted, marriage as a civil, economic and/or political agreement has long preceded this new fangled religious union (which only became important when the priests started grabbing secular power.) Since I don't share your religion, kindly keep your grubby paws off my marriage (FYI, straight and married for 14yrs this summer) which is based on love and legal obligations, NOT god(s).

Since I'm an atheist, arguments of sin are pointless as most "sins" are relevant only to a small (or large) religious group to which I don't belong.

...unless, of course, there IS a God who has His laws/rules... in which case, being so brazen is a no-no.

man proposes

God disposes

Wrong.

My statement was to give civil unions to anyone who did not want to be married religiously, regardless of sexual orientation, and leave marriage to the religious.

Which is still a problem, as it involved the government offering a different institution to those who are religious.

To be Constitutional, the government could only grant civil unions. If you wished to be "married", that would be the sole domain of religion and would be separate from what the government would offer - civil unions.

The government can't say "For religious people, we'll call this marriage, and for non-religious people, we'll call it civil unions." That is discrimination on the basis of creed - thus unconstitutional. What they can say is "We will give civil unions which have the following protections to couples who apply. We don't deal with marriage at all - that is a religious thing."

Of course, no one has addressed the obvious problem with this which would come up - and that is that, if we did this, other countries (even those we have treaties with that mandate it) would no longer have to recognize unions performed in the US, as they wouldn't legally be called marriage.

There is the operative word. Truthfully.

How many people truthfully follow their religion?
Well, since everything has become polluted with moral relativism, I'd say not many. Some of us still do the best we can to follow our religions truthfully, though, without the taint of moral relativism.

Ihatevacations']I don't know how long it took you to type that or how much effort you put into it, but all you deserve is a

AHAHAHAHAHAH ... HAHAHAHAH

That is so full of Christian elitism and superiority it is enough to make me physically ill.Borderline flamebait. Knock it off.

Dempublicents1 and Greenlander: Chill!

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I do find the idea of not using the word "marriage" kinda silly.

I mean ... ok ... let's call it "fleeblemassapuzmiganzo" ... it's still the same damn thing. A rose by any other name, people, a rose by any other name.

"Marriage" is also defined as "A close union", such as in the wonderful marriage of talent and beauty that is Jennifer Connely. Would you assume "talent" to be the man and "beauty" to be the woman?

Come on, folks ... it's English. Every word in English has a thousand definitions.

Stop being so fucking black and white.

Well, since everything has become polluted with moral relativism, I'd say not many. Some of us still do the best we can to follow our religions truthfully, though, without the taint of moral relativism.

Of course, based off of what you said above, "follow our religions truthfully" seems to mean "Take for granted whatever someone else tells us our religion says."

The most lamentable aspect of this capmaign against homosexual marriage is the extreme legislation passed by opponents of same-sex marriage. In my home state of Kentucky the voters passed an amendment to our state constitution illegalizing gay marriage and any contract similar to marriage (other thatn marriage itself, of course). A major problem with this amendment is that several siblings in the baby-boomers generation are likely to sign contracts somewhat similar to marriage after they retire in order to save money on housing etc. Retirement could vey well be more difficult for the baby-boomers than any other generation before them. Illegalizing any contract similar to marriage will prove very costly to these citizens. That fact, however, does not matter to the supporters of this legislation given the blind homophobia of these individuals.

Well, since everything has become polluted with moral relativism, I'd say not many. Some of us still do the best we can to follow our religions truthfully, though, without the taint of moral relativism.

Moral relativism? I always like that excuse.

You can hardly find anybody at anytime that has followed the religion fully. Remember usery was once bad? The Crusades and the inquisition. Lynching. Slavery....

Worry about your own sins rather then others.

But I can understand why Relgion finds gays icky. Means no more followers from that bonding.

In over 2000 years, the Religions have made no dent in homosexuality. It's time they rethink things.

I must say I am still proud to live in the state of Massachusetts.

I must say I am still proud to live in the state of Massachusetts.

Yea but you guys need to finish that damn airport! :p

Yea but you guys need to finish that damn airport! :p

What's wrong with Logan Airport?

(snip)

A poll of 1,000 inmates at a trailer park does not a consensus make.

lmmfao
:p

The most lamentable aspect of this capmaign against homosexual marriage is the extreme legislation passed by opponents of same-sex marriage. In my home state of Kentucky the voters passed an amendment to our state constitution illegalizing gay marriage and any contract similar to marriage (other thatn marriage itself, of course). A major problem with this amendment is that several siblings in the baby-boomers generation are likely to sign contracts somewhat similar to marriage after they retire in order to save money on housing etc. Retirement could vey well be more difficult for the baby-boomers than any other generation before them. Illegalizing any contract similar to marriage will prove very costly to these citizens. That fact, however, does not matter to the supporters of this legislation given the blind homophobia of these individuals.

In some cases, it wasn't necessarily completely up to the voters.

In GA, the amendment bans recognition of marriage, any contract that would provide the rights of marriage (ie. civil unions), and recognition of same-sex unions of any sort from another state.

On the ballot, all it said was "Should the Constitution be amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman?"

This is clearly misleading, but they wouldn't change it - despite it being pointed out during General Assembly voting on the issue. At the moment, there is a case filed before the GA Supreme Court to throw out the approval of the ballot for this very reason. Interestingly, those bringing the suit include religious leaders who are opposed to gay marriage, but approve of civil unions.

Ummm... not to be pedantic... but it's not just Christians (as most Christian-bashers would like you to believe) that believe homosexual acts are a sin. Nearly every major religion (Christianity, Islam...even Buddhism) have tennets against homosexual acts.

Considering that the overwhelming majority of people in the world subscribe to one of the major religions, it's true that not everyone views homosexual acts as a sin...but the VAST majority do...if they follow their religion truthfully.

Buddhism is not against homosexuality, do your homework. The 3rd precept of Buddhism says that one should not engage in improper sexual activity. Their idea of improper sexual activity is different from yours. From the traditional Buddhist standpoint, the only improper sexual activities from which a lay Buddhist are prohibited are adultry, rape, child molestation, and beastiality. They aren't even prevented from sex without marraige.

Why does Buddhism feel this way? Because buddhists do not see any god or gods as responsible for the creation of the universe. So, the do not feel that homosexuality is a crime against some greater plan, they just don't give a shit.

Learn what another religion actually believes, not what you THINK they believe from a 10 second glance.

Buddhism is not against homosexuality, do your homework. The 3rd precept of Buddhism says that one should not engage in improper sexual activity. Their idea of improper sexual activity is different from yours. From the traditional Buddhist standpoint, the only improper sexual activities from which a lay Buddhist are prohibited are adultry, rape, child molestation, and beastiality. They aren't even prevented from sex without marraige.

Why does Buddhism feel this way? Because buddhists do not see any god or gods as responsible for the creation of the universe. So, the do not feel that homosexuality is a crime against some greater plan, they just don't give a shit.

Learn what another religion actually believes, not what you THINK they believe from a 10 second glance.

I love beatdowns like this. :D

What's wrong with Logan Airport?


I flew there a few years back and they were building on it so I got delayed. I flew there a year ago and they were will building on the same spot so I got delayed. :)

I flew there a few years back and they were building on it so I got delayed. I flew there a year ago and they were will building on the same spot so I got delayed. :)

Ah. That's not actually the airport. That's the Big Dig. They're building a tunnel or a bridge from the city to the airport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

Enjoy the corruption that is Massachusetts.

Ah. That's not actually the airport. That's the Big Dig. They're building a tunnel or a bridge from the city to the airport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

Enjoy the corruption that is Massachusetts.

Ahhh never looked into it; just assumed. Hmmmmm now I understand the reason for taxes. ;)

Ahhh never looked into it; just assumed. Hmmmmm now I understand the reason for taxes. ;)

That's what you get when you have a Republican governor and a Democrat legislature for the past 25 years.

Learn what another religion actually believes, not what you THINK they believe from a 10 second glance.

Back at ya ...

http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm

Not implicitly against it, no, but still denies them ordination (well, the flamers anyway). It's a toss up. No clear answer. Very Buddhist, that.

It is as I stated, the religion is not against homosexuality, however that does not mean all people who follow that religion are. Buddha said that one should be cautious about such activities, but not because of their inherent wrongness, simply because they will bring about embarassment.

It is as I stated, the religion is not against homosexuality, however that does not mean all people who follow that religion are. Buddha said that one should be cautious about such activities, but not because of their inherent wrongness, simply because they will bring about embarassment.

So where do you find some decent info on Buddism?

Originally posted by The Black Forrest:
People were pair bonding long before religion came around.

You can get married without a church(ie captain of a ship, justice of the peace).

On the first point, religion is totally unimportant to me, I am talking about God. He has existed before man, and will exist after man. I will admit that marriage has "evolved" over time, but it has always been the joining of one man and one woman into "One Flesh", other cultures may have thought otherwise but it is God-defined.

On the second point you may need to read what I said more carefully, I talked of "the Church", the Church is the body of Christ and humanity, not one person has got married outside of this: it is impossible.


Not everybody views it [homosexual acts] as a sin. Just because the Christians don't like it, doesn't mean people have to do what they say.


I will also admit that not everybody thinks homosexual acts are a sin, they are wrong. I say this not to be judgemental, but in order that people may reassess their views. I do not demand that people follow the teachings of Christ because I am a Christian, I do it because it is right.

God did give us free will, but he also gave us senses, reason, a conscience, and the Church: all of which exist in order that we may exercise this free will in the correct direction. Modern society places to much emphasis on choice, and not enough on responsibility.

Originally posted by The Similized world
People have every right to engage in active sin in America. Their government is secular. It is not a throcrazy [sic.]. The government and the states can create any law they want within the limits of their constitutions.


I did state that the situation in America is different from here in the UK because some Americans like to think their governing is secular. We, in the UK, do not suffer from that specific affliction. Nonetheless, no person has the "right" to enagage in active sin. I couldn't care less if they live in: America, Iraq, France, or Yemen! We have duties that are more important than those of the almighty State.

On the second point, a legislature can create any law they want, in theory, they could declare green yellow. 2 plus 2 could equal 5, yet it wouldn't change the fact of the matter. The fact is that certain things are defined by God, and thus cannot be changed by man. No matter how much he may try.

I do apologise for the length of my post, I had a lot to say.

Firstly, it's not marriage. So that argument is gone. And secondly, seperation of church and state, all that jazz. Bottom line, God can't make laws. (thanks DC for that neat mental image. :D)

i'm anti-christian and still anti-homosexuality. but the country i live in also doesn't have this issue(though i do think there should be stronger penelties against homosexuals), so this arguement doesn't concern me much.

So where do you find some decent info on Buddism?

i knew one an odd buddhist who had told me the reason he was against homosexuality was that they were crippled. in buddhism we believe that if someone is crippled you shouldn't help them at all because if people are crippled it's because they have been bad in their past life(s).(i'm buddhist, just a really horrible one, heheh, but i'm completely against homosexuality for non-religious matters)

This religion (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_jref.htm) thinks it's a sin to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

On the first point, religion is totally unimportant to me, I am talking about God. He has existed before man, and will exist after man. I will admit that marriage has "evolved" over time, but it has always been the joining of one man and one woman into "One Flesh", other cultures may have thought otherwise but it is God-defined.

Uttery untrue. Read a book, for pete's sake...life-long pair bonds have existed for much longer than organized God-belief, and such pair bonds have existed in many cultures that do not in any way associate them with God, gods, or other supernatural forces.

And, to make matters even clearer, my own parents have been married for more than a quarter century, and God has never had any place in their marriage whatsoever. If marriage MUST be under God, then why are my parents allowed to be wed?


On the second point you may need to read what I said more carefully, I talked of "the Church", the Church is the body of Christ and humanity, not one person has got married outside of this: it is impossible.

Ahh, I see...you are employing circular falacy in your thinking. Lovely.

Just because you choose to recognize only those marriage that follow your religious tennets does not mean a damn thing, to be frank. Our government does not restrict marriage to your vision of God/Christ/religion/etc. Get over yourself.


I will also admit that not everybody thinks homosexual acts are a sin, they are wrong. I say this not to be judgemental, but in order that people may reassess their views. I do not demand that people follow the teachings of Christ because I am a Christian, I do it because it is right.

You're cute.


God did give us free will, but he also gave us senses, reason, a conscience, and the Church: all of which exist in order that we may exercise this free will in the correct direction. Modern society places to much emphasis on choice, and not enough on responsibility.

And your beliefs place too much emphasis on sticking penises into vaginas, and not enough emphasis on love, honor, and mutual respect.


I did state that the situation in America is different from here in the UK because some Americans like to think their governing is secular. We, in the UK, do not suffer from that specific affliction. Nonetheless, no person has the "right" to enagage in active sin. I couldn't care less if they live in: America, Iraq, France, or Yemen! We have duties that are more important than those of the almighty State.

Odd, then, that the British House of Lords passed the Civil Partnership Bill last year, granting gay couples virtually all the rights enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Odd, also, that 47% of the UK support gay MARRIAGE (not just "civil partnership") according to EOS Gallup Europe. Seems like a great many of your countrymen and women fully support the right to choose this "sinful" lifestyle.


On the second point, a legislature can create any law they want, in theory, they could declare green yellow. 2 plus 2 could equal 5, yet it wouldn't change the fact of the matter. The fact is that certain things are defined by God, and thus cannot be changed by man. No matter how much he may try.

Your imaginary friend's opinion of marriage is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. We are speaking about the laws of human beings. If you choose to ignore or deride those laws then that's your business, and I honestly don't think most people care what you think. Equality is coming, and you're simply going to have to realize that most humans aren't as petty and pathetic as your diety.


I do apologise for the length of my post, I had a lot to say.
Not really. You pretty much seem to have only one thing to say: "I don't like homosexuality, so I have chosen to misinterpret a text that was compiled by a secular political leader almost 2000 years ago in such a way as to convince myself that an all-powerful being agrees with my personal prejudice." We've all heard it before.

*PWN!!!!!*

:D

*applause* *conducts award ceremony*


(BTW, nice thread, Dem. :) )

:D

*applause* *conducts award ceremony*

Wish I could pat myself on the back, but he honestly just makes it too easy. Until the 'phobes come up with new material, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. We see all the same "arguments" spit by all the same religious bigots, and we've got plenty of opportunity to hone our responses.

They all think they are sharing such powerful and original opinions, when they're actually just recycling the same tired lines we've heard through centuries of history:
"God says black people are inferior, and that's just the Truth!"
"God says women are inferior, and that's just the Truth!"
"We all know that white male landowning Christians are the ones God likes best, and only white male landowning Christians should have full rights under the law!"
"God says it's okay to discriminate because being gay/black/Jewish/female is inherently sinful!"
"If we let people of the same race/gender enter into marriage, it will be the end of society! The Bible condemns such unions, and the Bible is always right about sexual matters! Well, except for the bits where it encourages polygamy, rape, incest, and pedophilia...but those are the bits we choose to ignore!"
"You should all give a shit about my beliefs because I tell you that God agrees with me! No, that's not a falacious appeal to authority, it's FACT! Yes it is! Shut up! YOU SECULARISTS ARE OPPRESSING ME!!!!!"

I think the 'phobes may end up stopping me from criticizing after all. It won't be because they convince me, or because they are at all right, but rather because pointing out their errors feels like beating a quadrapalegic at soccer; the victory is empty.

(BTW, nice thread, Dem. :) )
Indeed!

On the first point, religion is totally unimportant to me, I am talking about God.

Unless you are claiming to be God, you cannot talk about God outside of religion. Whatever you think of God is your religion. You believe that God defined marriage this way. You could be wrong, unless you actually are God, which I highly doubt.

On the second point you may need to read what I said more carefully, I talked of "the Church", the Church is the body of Christ and humanity, not one person has got married outside of this: it is impossible.

The word marriage is an English word. It encompasses more than Christian marriage. If you want a word that is specific to Christianity, you'll have to make one up.

I will also admit that not everybody thinks homosexual acts are a sin, they are wrong. I say this not to be judgemental, but in order that people may reassess their views. I do not demand that people follow the teachings of Christ because I am a Christian, I do it because it is right.

I find this highly insulting. Being Christian and following the teachings of Christ doesn't not require one to believe that homosexual couples are sinful. In fact, Christ never once said anything about homosexuality.

God did give us free will, but he also gave us senses, reason, a conscience, and the Church: all of which exist in order that we may exercise this free will in the correct direction.

And do you claim that you always exercise it in the right direction?

If not, how do you know that your use of free will and your conscience aren't pushing you to condemn homosexuals when you shouldn't?

Nonetheless, no person has the "right" to enagage in active sin.

And you personally decide what constitutes sin?

The fact is that certain things are defined by God, and thus cannot be changed by man. No matter how much he may try.

And you claim to know the mind of God?

You know, I'm getting really sick and tired of this gay marriage issue. But you know what I'm more annoyed at? I'm annoyed with the people that will not tolerate another human being's sexual preferences.

I say to these Christians, on behalf of many(if not all) gay and lesbian couples, to mind your own business. Ok? Can you do that? Mind your own freaking business.

Now on to my opinion. Personally, I think that going around preaching that what these people are doing are wrong and they must repent and all that crap, is wrong. Other people's sin is NOT your problem Christans. That's between God and said sinner. Let THEM work it out ok? Considering God is an all powerful being, I would think he doesn't need your help in getting sinners to repent. He can do that himself, in his own, mysterious ways.

Also, last I checked, this is the United States of America, a democratic republic, NOT a theocracy. Unless gays and lesbians REALLY hurt you (and I'm not talking spiritually. I'm talking physically) and interfere with your rights, YOU have no right to deny these people equality that is guarenteed to them by the idea that America is a free country.

While we're on the subject, let's talk about America. America is a pretty damn good place. Aside from it's stumbles and falls here and there, America has been a shining beacon of hope and freedom to the world. Everyone(well... MOST everyone) says "Go to America" because that's where you can go to escape religious, political and economic tyranny, and while you may barely have any money coming in, if you're a good worker, you can make a real life for yourself here in America.

My point? Denying homosexuals this light of religious equality, is contradicting America's image, which is a safe haven for those people. At least, it's supposed to be...

And one last thing. The Bible. I do NOT want to see that book used as an argument AGAIN. Let's think about this people. What is the Bible? It's a book. That's ALL that it is. True, it MAY be the Word of God, but also consider this; it was written by human hands. No matter how you look at it, because we're not perfect, there are BOUND to be flaws and misreadings in the Bible. Not to mention the fact we have NO idea who the true author is, because that author probably lived over 2000 freaking years ago. Now, to me anyway, that's a LONG time ago. Again, because of human nature, there are BOUND to be flaws and misreadings and edits. My point? The Bible is not perfect people. It's not a trump card you play when you're on the ropes. It's just a book, written by flawed human hands, thus making it flawed and, to me, it does not make a good arguement any more. So please, do my sanity(and other's) a favor, and stop using the Bible please. Not all of us agree with it. Thank you.

I say to these Christians, on behalf of many(if not all) gay and lesbian couples, to mind your own business. Ok? Can you do that? Mind your own freaking business.

Most of us do mind our own business. Well, except when we're asking our friends about their love-life, but that's allowed, right?

Don't stereotype all of a group by a vocal minority.

Most of us do mind our own business. Well, except when we're asking our friends about their love-life, but that's allowed, right?

Don't stereotype all of a group by a vocal minority.
I said, "to these Christians" not "to all Christians".

I realise that the situation in the US is slightly more complicated because there is the belief that the state should not interfere in things like that, but may I point out several things?

1. Marriage is not a right, marriage is the union of man and woman before God before the Church.
2. People do not have a "right" to engage in active sin (which is what homosexual acts are), and whereas, dependent on the circumstance, the state does not have the right to stop all sins from occurring it cannot create laws to encourage it.

I do not say this to be pedantic, but it would be a great wrong if the legislators of the US passed laws to promote an intrinsically immoral state of affairs.

First off, it doesn't promote anything, it only recognizes something that already occurs.

Secondly, in the US we don't recognize sin. In fact, our rights specifically say that you are permitted to engage in 'active' sin (worshipping an alternative to God is a sin, no?). If you can show a emperical source that shows that homosexuality is in fact a detriment to society then you may have a case. The Bible tells me so really isn't an argument, nor should it be. In fact, many parts of the Bible specifically points out that religion and government should not mix for the good of both.

I said, "to these Christians" not "to all Christians".

You're right, I missed that.

Looks like I'm getting a bit of the martyr complex.

I apologize.

But we can petition to outlaw sin, because the same vote you use against us can be used by us against you. :p

Except you'll have to get a hell of a lot more votes in order for the constitution to ever say that all people (including homosexuals) do not deserve equal rights. Currently the Constitution protects their rights which is just now being upheld by the courts.

First off, it doesn't promote anything, it only recognizes something that already occurs.

Secondly, in the US we don't recognize sin. In fact, our rights specifically say that you are permitted to engage in 'active' sin (worshipping an alternative to God is a sin, no?).
Here's a short list of some of the "sins" that are condoned by law:

-Wearing of pants by female citizens (Deut 22:5), or enjoyment of gold jewelry by females (1 Pe 3:3)
-Any male with a vasectomy or penile injury entering a church or place of worship (Deuteronomy 23:2)
-Marriage between individuals of different ethnicities (Deuteronomy 7:3-4)
-Construction of sculptures or representations of God/gods/spirits/icons (the Macy's Day Parade is in so much trouble...)
-Religious freedom..."Thou shalt have no other gods before me" seems pretty clearly opposed to religious freedom, don't it?
-Choosing not to read the Bible every single day (Ps 1:2; Acts 17:11; 1Pe 2:2; 1 Tim 4:13)
-Covetting (re: 10 Commandments)...is it just me, or does American culture seem to be 90% based on covetting one thing or another?
-Wearing of cotton-poly blends (Leviticus 19:19)
-Astrology (penalty for writing a horoscope column is death, according to Deut 17:7)
-Refusing to be baptized in the name of Jesus (Lk 7:29,30)
-Eating a really rare steak (Acts 15:20).
-Participating in a comic roast (Eph 5:4 NIV)...straight to hell with Steve Martin!
-Sex outside of marriage (1 Cor 5:11; 6:18,20; Ex 22:16,17)
-Tattooing (Lev 19:28; Deut 14:1)
-Thinking something nasty about your rotten boss, even if you never say it or act upon it in any way (Mt 15:19; Mk 7:21)
-Loving one's life (Jn 12:25)
-Being snarky to your parents, bragging, gossiping (Ro 1:32)
-Thinking about what you feel like wearing to work this morning, or thinking about what you might like to have for lunch (Mt 6:25)

But perhaps the one that our good Christian homophobes should be happiest about is Eph 5:11,12. If the government actually passed laws based on what the Bible defines as sin, then it would be illegal to speak out about other people's evils, and what would the 'phobes do in their free time?


Oh, and a side note: the citations usually given as Bible references for God's dislike of homosexuality are Lev 18:22; Ro 1:24-28; 1 Cor 6:9. If you check my list, you will find other "sins" from these books that are NOT encoded in our laws. I would love if a Christian could explain to me why some rules from these books of the Bible should be encoded into law while others are ignored.

You can get as mad as you want... You can not answer a new question with the poll results of a different question. It's how it done.

"What about civil unions between gay or lesbian couples that would give them some, but not all, of the legal rights of married couples? Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry in your state?"

Yes 46%
Neutral 7%
No 41%
unsure 7%
Can you not see that this is an unclear question? I could say no because I think they should be allowed to marry. I could say no because they should be allowed an recognized union at all. I could say no because they should get all rights and not some ("some, but not all, of the legal rights" clause opens the question. It's a very inaccurate poll. What it does tell you is that at least 46% want some form of recognition and at least fourteen percent don't care. By that vote, you still lose.

More importantly, the poll from the same site listed earlier by Dem is much clearer in the wording of the question. It asks clearly should their be recognized unions for same-sex couples and what form should those unions take. 56% voted that some form of union should be allowed. Again, your side loses.

What argument are you actually trying to make and can you do while also reading your source, please?

Back at ya ...

http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm

Not implicitly against it, no, but still denies them ordination (well, the flamers anyway). It's a toss up. No clear answer. Very Buddhist, that.

It's not a toss up. Ordination requires no entry into the openings of others (sorry if that's graphic but it explicitly says that). Your own source says that only promiscuous homosexuals would be denied ordination (in other words, homosexuals and heterosexuals would be treated equally).

"The term pandaka therefore probably does not refer to homosexuals in general but rather to the effeminate, self-advertising and promiscuous homosexual."

As far as the regular follower, there is no restriction on homosexuals that is not also placed on heterosexuals.

"As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is."

Your source does not agree with you.

bump

Originally posted by Bottle
Uttery untrue. Read a book, for pete's sake...life-long pair bonds have existed for much longer than organized God-belief, and such pair bonds have existed in many cultures that do not in any way associate them with God, gods, or other supernatural forces.


I will make an assumption, this is that you are an agnostic, or atheist. From this position the view that you state is completely understandable, but I am not. God has witnessed and sanctified "pair-bondings" since they existed. At various points throughout history they may nothave realised, or said this.

Originally posted by Bottle
And, to make matters even clearer, my own parents have been married for more than a quarter century, and God has never had any place in their marriage whatsoever. If marriage MUST be under God, then why are my parents allowed to be wed?


I do not desire to comment on any specific circumstances on your family; however, I do hope that God did sanctify the marriage of your parents. Some would say that unless they were married in a church they are not truly married, I would not like to say.

Originally posted by Bottle
Just because you choose to recognize only those marriage that follow your religious tennets does not mean a damn thing, to be frank. Our government does not restrict marriage to your vision of God/Christ/religion/etc. Get over yourself.


I will not only refer you to my previous comment, but I recognise any marriage in which the partners live as married people. Actually, your government does restrict marriage to my vision of "God/Christ/religion/etc.": it does not allow polygamy, incestual marriage, marriage in which one person is below a certain age.

I do take exception to the tone your comments, I was stating what I said it the spirit of the free exchange of ideas. That you have to defer to a pseudo-bon mot, hollow quip, and rude comments pains me.

Orignally posted by Bottle
your beliefs place too much emphasis on sticking penises into vaginas, and not enough emphasis on love, honor, and mutual respect.


My beliefs put emphasis on marality, and this morality influences every aspect of life. Love, honour, and mutual respect are of great impoiratance within a marriage, the point is that this would be impossible in a homosexual union; homosexual acts are inherently disordered acts, and thus a law that promotes them is wrong.

Originally posted by Bottle
Seems like a great many of your countrymen and women fully support the right to choose this "sinful" lifestyle.


If you had read what I said you would have seen that the "particualr affliction" of what I speak was the view that the Government is secular. The Civil Partnerships Bill was passed, and in my view is wrong, the fact that "my fellow countrymen" support homosexual marriages does trouble me.

Originally posted by Bottle
You pretty much seem to have only one thing to say: "I don't like homosexuality, so I have chosen to misinterpret a text that was compiled by a secular political leader almost 2000 years ago in such a way as to convince myself that an all-powerful being agrees with my personal prejudice."


It is not a matter of not liking homosexuality, that is immaterial. That you think my view is a misinterpretation of the teachings of the Holy Bible says to me that you know nothing of it, and was Jesus "a secular political leader", is it possible that a 1st Century Palestinian Jew could have been secular. Yet I shall not get into a theological debate.

Yours in Christ,
NVay

It is not a matter of not liking homosexuality, that is immaterial. That you think my view is a misinterpretation of the teachings of the Holy Bible says to me that you know nothing of it, and was Jesus "a secular political leader", is it possible that a 1st Century Palestinian Jew could have been secular. Yet I shall not get into a theological debate.

Yours in Christ,
NVay

Um, Jesus didn't compile the bible. It's not a theological debate. It's a historical one.

I will not only refer you to my previous comment, but I recognise any marriage in which the partners live as married people.

Ah, good, then you have no problem with same-sex marriage. After all, the partners in that case live as married people.

My beliefs put emphasis on marality, and this morality influences every aspect of life.

So anyone who doesn't think that homosexuality is immoral doesn't count?

Love, honour, and mutual respect are of great impoiratance within a marriage, the point is that this would be impossible in a homosexual union;

That is the most idiotic comment I have ever heard. There is no reason at all to believe that two homosexuals cannot love, honor, and mutually respect each other. In fact, there are a great number of homosexual couples who do just that.

homosexual acts are inherently disordered acts, and thus a law that promotes them is wrong.

Again, this makes no sense. First off, what the heck are "disordered acts"? Second, what makes homosexual sex "inherently disordered"?

It is not a matter of not liking homosexuality, that is immaterial.

Yes, but actually understanding what homosexuality is not immaterial. You have made it exceedingly clear that you don't have a clue.

That you think my view is a misinterpretation of the teachings of the Holy Bible says to me that you know nothing of it,

Funny. There are quite a few of us who have that viewpoint - after quite a bit of study. Are you infallible, and thus able to state with absolute certainty that we are wrong?

I will make an assumption, this is that you are an agnostic, or atheist. From this position the view that you state is completely understandable, but I am not. God has witnessed and sanctified "pair-bondings" since they existed. At various points throughout history they may nothave realised, or said this.


Ahh so now you come around and admit I am right.


I do not desire to comment on any specific circumstances on your family; however, I do hope that God did sanctify the marriage of your parents. Some would say that unless they were married in a church they are not truly married, I would not like to say.

Gee I think we can already guess you answer. :rolleyes: You can't hide a mean heart. It always comes out in other ways.

Worry about your own soul. We can worry about ours.


I will not only refer you to my previous comment, but I recognise any marriage in which the partners live as married people. Actually, your government does restrict marriage to my vision of "God/Christ/religion/etc.": it does not allow polygamy, incestual marriage, marriage in which one person is below a certain age.

Oh come on. Do tell us what you really think.


I do take exception to the tone your comments, I was stating what I said it the spirit of the free exchange of ideas. That you have to defer to a pseudo-bon mot, hollow quip, and rude comments pains me.

For some reason I doubt that. Judgemental people tend to ignore such comments.


My beliefs put emphasis on marality, and this morality influences every aspect of life. Love, honour, and mutual respect are of great impoiratance within a marriage, the point is that this would be impossible in a homosexual union; homosexual acts are inherently disordered acts, and thus a law that promotes them is wrong.


Really? Do you even read what you write? I know gay couples and guess what? They love one another. They honor one another. They have mutal respect for one another.


If you had read what I said you would have seen that the "particualr affliction" of what I speak was the view that the Government is secular. The Civil Partnerships Bill was passed, and in my view is wrong, the fact that "my fellow countrymen" support homosexual marriages does trouble me.

Ahh theres that dirty word again. Can somebody give me a religious definition of secularism and why they present it as almost vulgar?


It is not a matter of not liking homosexuality, that is immaterial. That you think my view is a misinterpretation of the teachings of the Holy Bible says to me that you know nothing of it, and was Jesus "a secular political leader", is it possible that a 1st Century Palestinian Jew could have been secular. Yet I shall not get into a theological debate.


From your comments it is indeed a case of not liking gay people. Again; a mean heart.....

Ummm... folks, you DID notice that NVay neatly highjacked the thread about if the oposition to gay marriage was based more upon granting civil rights equally to gay couples and turned it into yet another thread arguing about the religious grounds, or lack thereof, in disaproving of gay marriage?

In a way, we've just done his job.

Ummm... folks, you DID notice that NVay neatly highjacked the thread about if the oposition to gay marriage was based more upon granting civil rights equally to gay couples and turned it into yet another thread arguing about the religious grounds, or lack thereof, in disaproving of gay marriage?

In a way, we've just done his job.
Yeah, but we've got to argue about something, and if he won't oblige us by staying on topic..... :D

I will make an assumption, this is that you are an agnostic, or atheist. From this position the view that you state is completely understandable, but I am not. God has witnessed and sanctified "pair-bondings" since they existed. At various points throughout history they may nothave realised, or said this.

Talk about circular reasoning... "Maybe they didn't know God was involved, but he was, provided they agreed with me. But if they did things I don't approve of, then he wasn't." :rolleyes:

I do not desire to comment on any specific circumstances on your family; however, I do hope that God did sanctify the marriage of your parents. Some would say that unless they were married in a church they are not truly married, I would not like to say.

Some would say that framing comments in this way is just a rather sleazy way to insult someone while disclaiming responsibility; I would not like to say.

My beliefs put emphasis on marality, and this morality influences every aspect of life. Love, honour, and mutual respect are of great impoiratance within a marriage, the point is that this would be impossible in a homosexual union; homosexual acts are inherently disordered acts, and thus a law that promotes them is wrong.

My homosexual friends would be surprised to learn that they are incapable of loving and respecting others. What about homosexuality, specifically, would make that true? I'd really like to hear your answer.

It is not a matter of not liking homosexuality, that is immaterial. That you think my view is a misinterpretation of the teachings of the Holy Bible says to me that you know nothing of it, and was Jesus "a secular political leader", is it possible that a 1st Century Palestinian Jew could have been secular. Yet I shall not get into a theological debate.

Not that it's terribly relevant, but yes, I'd say it's entirely possible that a first century Palestinian Jew could be secular. Aren't all things possible with God, anyway? So I've heard people tell me.

Secondly, what on earth gives you the authority to state that your reading of the Bible is perfect and that anyone who disagrees with you must have misread or misinterpreted it? Whether the Bible is perfect or not, unless you're secretly Jesus, I have a feeling you won't claim to be perfect yourself. Isn't it possible that you could, in fact, be wrong about a thing or two?

Yeah, but we've got to argue about something, and if he won't oblige us by staying on topic..... :D
:D Great, now I've got a lot of my fellow teachers looking at me and wondering why the crazy American is laughing. ;)

<Snipped veiled insults and uninformed bull>
You're in a dilemma.

Marriages was a thing invented by god whether people knew or not you say...
So.. Logically, monogamous relationships is something God invented, right?
...Then tell me, why did your God make homo's & bi's monogamous?

Anyway, you're dead wrong. Marriage was a secular thing. It started out as people selling their children for stuff. It's still that way some places in the world. Marriage just got hijacked by religion along the way. BEsides, that loving, respecting, blah blah is a pretty new thing. 100 years ago people didn't marry for love. They did it for sex, money and offspring. If that's your god's doing, then I honestly think he's a bastard that should be killed.

People have been married outside religious communities and without God for aeons. Church weddings is a pretty newfangled idea. So all the people who weren't married before God weren't married at all, is that what you're getting at?

Perhaps the United Bluff doesn't recognise polygami per se, but it does allow polygami to take place. Besides, what's wrong with polygami? You're the one who wants to stick to 2000 year old rituals & laws. Polygami is in the bleeding bible. Why aren't you championing it? Yee-haaw for good old christian moral relativism.
Besides, untill a couple of hundred years ago, it was common practice all over the world to marry off one's daughters when they were 10-13 years old. Read up on it. Christian societies back then thought getting married at 15 was exceedingly late.

Pray tell, what the fuck is a disorderly sexual act?! I can't even guess...
You do realize granting people equal rights isn't encouraging them to do something. Or did you think black males started raping and killing when the whiteys stopped killing them regardless of the crime?
Do you think a single straight person will have a same-sex marriage just because s/he can? Man you're going so far above and beyond the call of duty trying to be weird, you really deserve a Darwin Award. I promise I'll vote for you ;)

I gotta ask: Why don't you like the bill of rights? I bet you're scared Christianity is going out of fashion, aren't you? So who's gonna protect your rights to be a venom-spitting, ill-informed, oppressive, praticing Christian when the majority turns against you?
You planning on taking up arms or what?

Anyway, as far as I know, Jesus never did mention homosexuals one way or the other. He didn't write the bible either. Perhaps he was secular. We can't know for sure. Especially if the guy was actually the bastard of a roman soldier...

Whatever... Your religion really has no place in this debate. Christians like yourself have no problem with gays and will perform church weddings for them. Since that's the case, you're in the situation where you either champion outlawing marriages entirely or suck it up and vote for it.
But you're prolly too daft to realize your harming your own religious community.