NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8413036/
This makes three countries with gay marriage.
1) Netherlands
2) Belgium (aka German wannabe)
3) Spain

and Canada will have these rights very soon.

But hey, at least the US has Massachusets. I dare you to find another country where gay marriage is legal in 1/200 of the territory of the country.

Didn't Canada pass the bill a few days ago?

As this horse has been dead for many moons, I shall not beat it. Instead, I will make the observation that your post count is the same number as a type of airliner.

How can a newly made law be a dead horse already? Oh because you don't want to hear how you are losing the battle to make everyone in the world live by your personal beliefs?

Yay Spain! Congratulations!

Didn't Canada pass the bill a few days ago?

Yes it did. They just have to have the law proof read before it gets the rubber stamp to make sure there are no loopholes, or spelling mistakes basically.

How can a newly made law be a dead horse already? Oh because you don't want to hear how you are losing the battle to make everyone in the world live by your personal beliefs?

Yay Spain! Congratulations!



1. We've already discussed gay marriage to death for over a week now

2. Expect to see some other countries ban gay marriage in retaliation. Just don't start whining when you lose several battles in several countries because pious citizens do not support the "right" to sin ;)

1. We've already discussed gay marriage to death for over a week now

2. Expect to see some other countries ban gay marriage in retaliation. Just don't start whining when you lose several battles in several countries because pious citizens do not support the "right" to sin ;)

1. I don't believe that this is about debating gay marriage.

2. I don't find it necessary that every other country conforms to what I personally believe, but I can still be happy when they do.

1. I don't believe that this isn't about debating gay marriage, that much should be obvious.

2. I don't find it necessary that every other country conforms to what I personally believe, but I can still be happy when they do.



I have no response but only a question: am I the only one who has the forums running EXTREMELY slowly for her?

nope happening to me too

2. Expect to see some other countries ban gay marriage in retaliation. Just don't start whining when you lose several battles in several countries because pious citizens do not support the "right" to sin ;)

No, it will not surprise most of us I assume, as it is no secret that not all countries respect human rights as much as some others do. As well, many countries don't have anti-discrimination laws, and if they do and ban it, well that just makes them hypocrites now doesn't it.

Lets not forget it was not very long ago when inter-racial marriage was illegal too.

Gay marriage will sooner or later be excepted as the "norm" every where eventually except in maybe theocracies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8413036/
This makes three countries with gay marriage.
1) Netherlands
2) Belgium (aka German wannabe)
3) Spain

and Canada will have these rights very soon.

But hey, at least the US has Massachusets. I dare you to find another country where gay marriage is legal in 1/200 of the territory of the country.

I wonder which country will be next though.

No, it will not surprise most of us I assume, as it is no secret that not all countries respect human rights as much as some others do. As well, many countries don't have anti-discrimination laws, and if they do and ban it, well that just makes them hypocrites now doesn't it.

Lets not forget it was not very long ago when inter-racial marriage was illegal too.

Gay marriage will sooner or later be excepted as the "norm" every where eventually except in maybe theocracies.



Human rights do not apply to sin.

Human rights do not apply to sin.

No, you're right they don't. Human rights supersede sin in secular governments. Only in a theocracy would sin hold more weight than that of human rights. I suggest perhaps you might want to move to Saudi Arabia or Iran?

No, you're right they don't. Human rights supersede sin in secular governments. Only in a theocracy would sin hold more weight than that of human rights. I suggest perhaps you might want to move to Saudi Arabia or Iran?



Better yet, how about I use my right to vote to advance my beliefs? :D

Human rights do not apply to sin.
And i would argue sin does not apply to human rights

Nonono, I'm saying that sin itself is not a right.

I wonder which country will be next though.

italy.

just to fuck with the nazi pope.

And i would argue sin does not apply to human rights



And I would disagree. Apparently, the majority of Americans would too :D

Sin is an almost purely Christian idea. There is sin in Judaism and Islam, but no really in most other religions. If you are suggesting that people shouldn't have the right to do this, you are enforcing your religion on them as if it is law.

italy.

just to fuck with the nazi pope.



I thought we had already settled the issue of the pope not being nazi? He was forced into the Hitler Youth and abandoned it at the risk of death. Doesn't sound very nazi to me :(

Sin is an almost purely Christian idea. There is sin in Judaism and Islam, but no really in most other religions. If you are suggesting that people shouldn't have the right to do this, you are enforcing your religion on them as if it is law.




It all depends on how you view it. I'm not forcing them to adapt my religion, I'm just preventing them from committing certain sins condemned by my religion.

And I would disagree. Apparently, the majority of Americans would too :D
Maybe(though the polls say otherwise for civil unions) ... a majority of americans supported slavery and segragation too ... that has changed over time as well

I thought we had already settled the issue of the pope not being nazi? He was forced into the Hitler Youth and abandoned it at the risk of death. Doesn't sound very nazi to me :(

whether or not he actually enjoyed being an actual nazi, it sure hasn't stopped him from acting like one currently. i'd call him 'fascist pope', but it just doesn't have the same ring to it.

nazi pope
nazi pope
nazi pope, fuck off!

It all depends on how you view it. I'm not forcing them to adapt my religion, I'm just preventing them from committing certain sins condemned by my religion.
Which is defacto forcing your beliefs on them

With as bad as it is I wonder what it will be like when Islam overtakes Christianity (their growth is massive)

It all depends on how you view it. I'm not forcing them to adapt my religion, I'm just preventing them from committing certain sins condemned by my religion.

you are aware, of course, that my religion holds that disallowing gay marriage is one of the deadly sins. i vote we prevent you from sinning. for the good of humanity, ya know.

Nonono, I'm saying that sin itself is not a right.

Please look up the word "tangible"

For all any of us know, sin is nothing than a word made up by some nut job a few thousand years ago to get people to follow what he believed or wanted to sucker everyone else into believing. If you want to live in the past (2000 years ago) fine. But I'd like to live in the present and future where things are tangible and we can reach out and see it. Human rights are tangible, sin could be nothing more than a fable. Sin is not tangible! End of Story! Sin is irrelevant unless you want to live in a theocracy, it's that simple.

Oh by the way.. sin is a right. I don't see anyone getting arrested for cheating on their husband or wife, do you? I don't see anyone getting arrested for taking your lords name in vain do you?

Anyway, it's a moot point. Sin is irrelevant in a free society.

It all depends on how you view it. I'm not forcing them to adapt my religion, I'm just preventing them from committing certain sins condemned by my religion.


Hi-ho-diddly-oh neighbour!

The thing is, that according to our Lordy-wordy - the sin is in the act of copu-lopu-lation, not in the bounds of matrimony. I read the bible several times, and nowhere did I find a prohibition on gay marriage, but rather only on gay sex. Seems to me that focussing on the marriage issue while ignoring the sexy-wexy is going after exactly the wrong thing!


Besides, if you are truly interested in protecting the world from sin, I think that the number of people likely to enter the bounds of gay marriage is miniscule compared to some other things. I mean, gosh-darn it! the bible still explicitely forbids the eating of shellfish, and yet those heathen-weathen's at Red Lobster STILL served over 144 million people in 2003 alone.

144 million itsy-diddly-dee-bitsy abominations!!!

Should we not go after all the sins and start pressing for a constitutional ammendment against Seafood Restaurants? I mean - doesn;t the lord want us to stop the larger volume of sins?


Golly-diddly-dee it makes my blood boil sometimes how people get so focussed on ONE teeny-weeny issue that doesn't directly affect them, when there are so many others out there .... that also maybe don't affect them.

*sigh*

How unneighbourly of me getting all worked up like that.



Think I'll head down to the church clam-bake and talk to the Reverend about this.... I'm sure HE can make sense of it.

you are aware, of course, that my religion holds that disallowing gay marriage is one of the deadly sins. i vote we prevent you from sinning. for the good of humanity, ya know.
I would vote for that

you are aware, of course, that my religion holds that disallowing gay marriage is one of the deadly sins. i vote we prevent you from sinning. for the good of humanity, ya know.

You wouldn't happen to be running for any offices I could vote for could you? ;)

Golly-diddly-dee it makes my blood boil sometimes how people get so focussed on ONE teeny-weeny issue that doesn't directly affect them, when there are so many others out there .... that also maybe don't affect them.

Yes! I do-diddly-do agree, Ned. It's not like men are forced to marry other men.

Hi-ho-diddly-oh neighbour!

The thing is, that according to our Lordy-wordy - the sin is in the act of copu-lopu-lation, not in the bounds of matrimony. I read the bible several times, and nowhere did I find a prohibition on gay marriage, but rather only on gay sex. Seems to me that focussing on the marriage issue while ignoring the sexy-wexy is going after exactly the wrong thing!


Besides, if you are truly interested in protecting the world from sin, I think that the number of people likely to enter the bounds of gay marriage is miniscule compared to some other things. I mean, gosh-darn it! the bible still explicitely forbids the eating of shellfish, and yet those heathen-weathen's at Red Lobster STILL served over 144 million people in 2003 alone.

144 million itsy-diddly-dee-bitsy abominations!!!

Should we not go after all the sins and start pressing for a constitutional ammendment against Seafood Restaurants? I mean - doesn;t the lord want us to stop the larger volume of sins?


Golly-diddly-dee it makes my blood boil sometimes how people get so focussed on ONE teeny-weeny issue that doesn't directly affect them, when there are so many others out there .... that also maybe don't affect them.

*sigh*

How unneighbourly of me getting all worked up like that.



Think I'll head down to the church clam-bake and talk to the Reverend about this.... I'm sure HE can make sense of it.



Wait...did you just use Tarutaru speech? (By the way, I missed the showing of Return of the Sith, so I'm going to wait until 5:40 to go to the movies :( )

As far as I know, Civil Unions between same-sex couples are possible in Germany as well, that was missing from that list there.

As far as I know, Civil Unions between same-sex couples are possible in Germany as well, that was missing from that list there.
Civil unions are NOT the same thing.

For Spain (and Canada), at least they are doing it through their government and legislation processes instead of trying to 'back-door' (every pun intended) the concept through the court system and bypassing the people's rights to voice their opinions, like the gay-agenda movement is doing in America...

The other countries can open their doors to the Trojan horse willingly if they want, but I will resist because it's the right thing to do.

For Spain (and Canada), at least they are doing it through their goverment and legislation processes instead of trying to 'back-door' (every pun intended) the concept through the court system and bypassing the people's rights to voice their opinions, like the gay-agenda movement is doing in America...

The other countries can open their doors to the trojan horse willingly if they want, but I will resist because it's the right thing to do.
We are trying … but “the land of the free” seems to not put freedom first … maybe we should move that moniker up to Canada , they seem to be doing more for freedom then we are lately

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8413036/

But hey, at least the US has Massachusets. I dare you to find another country where gay marriage is legal in 1/200 of the territory of the country.

OK, I'll take your dare. ;) I seem to recall reading that a state in Brazil had legalized same sex marrage. I'm not sure about the current status of it though.

For Spain (and Canada), at least they are doing it through their government and legislation processes instead of trying to 'back-door' (every pun intended) the concept through the court system and bypassing the people's rights to voice their opinions, like the gay-agenda movement is doing in America...

The other countries can open their doors to the Trojan horse willingly if they want, but I will resist because it's the right thing to do.

You mean the same way civil rights for blacks had to be pushed through "the back door" (the courts) because at the time the majority were opposed to them? When it comes to civil rights, the majority isn't always right. Our system is set up to protect the rights of minorities form tyranical whims of the majority. The Majority rules. But NOT at the expence of the minority.

I do not think that this is something to celebrate.

It is such a shame that this Spanish government has taken such a bad decision. Spain was once such a good and obediant Catholic country. What happened?

I do not think that this is something to celebrate.

It is such a shame that this Spanish government has taken such a bad decision. Spain was once such a good and obediant Catholic country. What happened?
They decided fairness and equality was important to them

I do not think that this is something to celebrate.

It is such a shame that this Spanish government has taken such a bad decision. Spain was once such a good and obediant Catholic country. What happened?

They decided to hold equality over religious doctrine?

They decided fairness and equality was important to them

This is not fairness and equality. It makes a mockery of marriage. It's disgraceful.

This is not fairness and equality. It makes a mockery of marriage. It's disgraceful.

So homosexuals don't deserve the same rights given to heterosexuals under marriage?

Spain was once such a good and obediant Catholic country. What happened?

franco didn't engage in quite enough mass murder to undo all of the groundwork laid by the earlier social revolutions?

They decided to hold equality over religious doctrine?




More like they decided to embrace sin.

You mean the same way civil rights for blacks had to be pushed through "the back door" (the courts) because at the time the majority were opposed to them? When it comes to civil rights, the majority isn't always right. Our system is set up to protect the rights of minorities form tyranical whims of the majority. The Majority rules. But NOT at the expence of the minority.

Actually, the majority DID support them, the majority American opinion was sometimes the minority opinion in resistant states...

I do not think that this is something to celebrate.

It is such a shame that this Spanish government has taken such a bad decision. Spain was once such a good and obediant Catholic country. What happened?

Yeah, those glorious days of the Spanish Inquisiton... those were the days, eh? Burn the lot and leave the deciding to the Lord... [/sarcasm]

They became a just, fair, rational, admirable counrty. I think they can be proud of themselves for this step.

So homosexuals don't deserve the same rights given to heterosexuals under marriage?

Exactly right, they don't with regards to marriage.

So homosexuals don't deserve the same rights given to heterosexuals under marriage?



No. A gay marriage is not a marriage, it's a travesty. Gay marriage is an oxymoron.

Exactly right, they don't with regards to marriage.

So you're against equality?

Spain was once such a good and obediant Catholic country. What happened?


Just a thought good neighbour-o, but maybe they just came to the silly-willy idea that they actually DID run their own doo-dum-diddly country!


If the Pope want that nifty-wifty job instead of the one he's got, I think perhaps he should give up his fantabulous hat collection and run for public office instead.....

You mean the same way civil rights for blacks had to be pushed through "the back door" (the courts) because at the time the majority were opposed to them? When it comes to civil rights, the majority isn't always right. Our system is set up to protect the rights of minorities form tyranical whims of the majority. The Majority rules. But NOT at the expence of the minority.


Honestly both sides are right about this issue. I can see the reasoning for gays as well as religious people. A comprimse should be done instead of one side basically 'winning' raming their idealogly down the throats of the other.

But i ask you this...how many times now is the minority going to rule at the expense of the majority? The road goes both ways, if you rule with the minority you are oppressing the majority.

No. A gay marriage is not a marriage, it's a travesty. Gay marriage is an oxymoron.

Okay, don't know if I would go that far but you are quite correct when you say it is not marriage.

No. A gay marriage is not a marriage, it's a travesty. Gay marriage is an oxymoron.

Rant all you want, gays finally have equal human rights in Spain and I for one am happy for them :)

No. A gay marriage is not a marriage, it's a travesty. Gay marriage is an oxymoron.
To you … to me it is an awesome step forward

Just a thought good neighbour-o, but maybe they just came to the silly-willy idea that they actually DID run their own doo-dum-diddly country!


If the Pope want that nifty-wifty job instead of the one he's got, I think perhaps he should give up his fantabulous hat collection and run for public office instead.....

I never said the Pope should run Spain, and traditionally Spain and the Papacy have never got on (not quite to the extent of France though).

You're right, folks.

Theocracy for today's hedonistic and corrupt world, because mixing religion and government works SO well.

Rant all you want, gays finally have equal human rights in Spain and I for one am happy for them :)



They already had equal human rights. Gay marriage is not a right, it's simply sin. Nothing more, nothing less.

Honestly both sides are right about this issue. I can see the reasoning for gays as well as religious people. A comprimse should be done instead of one side basically 'winning' raming their idealogly down the throats of the other.

But i ask you this...how many times now is the minority going to rule at the expense of the majority? The road goes both ways, if you rule with the minority you are oppressing the majority.

True, but I don't think wanting equal rights is oppressing the majority.

They already had equal human rights. Gay marriage is not a right, it's simply sin. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well to you anyway. Not everyone believes this.

They already had equal human rights. Gay marriage is not a right, it's simply sin. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's their right in Spain, now. :)

Why does that bother you, anyway? It's not you who's "sinning".

They already had equal human rights. Gay marriage is not a right, it's simply sin. Nothing more, nothing less.
Gay marriage is a sin? From what I understand, the common christian belief is the "act of homosexuality" is the sin.

But i ask you this...how many times now is the minority going to rule at the expense of the majority? The road goes both ways, if you rule with the minority you are oppressing the majority.

There is something called tyranny by majority, I believe...

Well to you anyway. Not everyone believes this.

Doesn't matter if everyone believes it or not, that is what it is.

Some people think cannibalism and even paedophilia are acceptable.

It's their right in Spain, now. :)

Why does that bother you, anyway? It's not you who's "sinning".



I worry for their souls, and I worry for a world that loves to push God's buttons.

I worry for their souls, and I worry for a world that loves to push God's buttons.

Do you think that they will live life any different now? All they gained was legal protection, nobody is going to change their everyday life because of that. They'll just go on loving each other and living together and having sex, just as they did before. Only now, their love and devotion to each other is publicly recognised.

In what way does that change the situation of their souls?

I worry for their souls, and I worry for a world that loves to push God's buttons.

I don't know, if God exists I'd say it pushes our buttons more then we push its'.

Doesn't matter if everyone believes it or not, that is what it is.

Some people think cannibalism and even paedophilia are acceptable.

"That's what it is"...nice to see religion is fact now.

Comparing what consenting adults prefer to do to each other in sex acts to harming kids and eating people, nice.

Doesn't matter if everyone believes it or not, that is what it is.

Some people think cannibalism and even paedophilia are acceptable.
Homosexuality harms none; who are you to judge another?

Gay marriage is a sin? From what I understand, the common christian belief is the "act of homosexuality" is the sin.



Let's be honest with ourselves: What homosexual couple would ever get married and not have sexual relations? If there is a couple somewhere out there that does so, the kudos to them. But I doubt there is.

"That's what it is"...nice to see religion is fact now.

Comparing what consenting adults prefer to do to each other in sex acts to harming kids and eating people, nice.

Well, I didn't say they were on the same level, buy they're all sin anyway.

And, furthermore, I just said that gay marriage was wrong. Didn't say homosexuality was.

Doesn't matter if everyone believes it or not, that is what it is.

Some people think cannibalism and even paedophilia are acceptable.

Everything is acceptable that doesn't infringe upon the right and liberty of other persons.
If you rape a child, you hurt it immensly. That will never ever be right.
If you kill and eat somebody, you take away his right to life and his dignity. It will never be right either.

So, in what way do you hurt any other person by allowing gays the same rights you would give to heteros?

Homosexuality harms none; who are you to judge another?
How am I judging? Please enlighten me as to how I am judging.

Spain was once such a good and obediant Catholic country. What happened?

(Bold added by me.)

See if you use that word as a good thing in your sentence, you know right off the bat there is something wrong with your argument. "obediant" give us a break! What do you view people as? Dogs? Obediant, please!

Everything is acceptable that doesn't infringe upon the right and liberty of other persons.
If you rape a child, you hurt it immensly. That will never ever be right.
If you kill and eat somebody, you take away his right to life and his dignity. It will never be right either.

So, in what way do you hurt any other person by allowing gays the same rights you would give to heteros?

No, that is wrong and just shows the arrogance and evil of individualism. Even if people consent to it, if it is a sin its not acceptable, regardless.

There is something called tyranny by majority, I believe...



This runs contrary to the very concept of democracy (I know I know....representative republic....my point remains valid though!). If the majority want something, then they get it. Otherwise, anyone who uses the argument of the people getting to decide whether or not to sin loses all credibility, because the people would decide to ban gay marriage given the option according to polls.

(Bold added by me.)

See if you use that word as a good thing in your sentence, you know right off the bat there is something wrong with your argument. "obediant" give us a break! What do you view people as? Dogs? Obediant, please!
When I say obediant I mean, they do as the Church says and follow the Church and believe.

How am I judging? Please enlighten me as to how I am judging.

You're judging by saying that gay people don't deserve the exact same rights as straight people. Are you even married? I am, and I'm straight and I welcome this act of finally treating ALL humans as equals as it should be. It's a human rights issue and it's about time!

How am I judging? Please enlighten me as to how I am judging.
You judge homosexuality as evil and a sin, am I correct? Yet, it is not your job; as I understand it, it is something for your god to sort out on Judgement Day.

No, that is wrong and just shows the arrogance and evil of individualism. Even if people consent to it, if it is a sin its not acceptable, regardless.



See, this is why I love the Catholic. We may differ on certain doctrines, but at least they stand firm in their beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may be.

No, that is wrong and just shows the arrogance and evil of individualism. Even if people consent to it, if it is a sin its not acceptable, regardless.

Just think of me as Buddhist for a moment... it's not sin in my religion, so I could marry a girl, right?

Btw, you didn't answer me in what way gay marriage is hurting anybody?

This runs contrary to the very concept of democracy (I know I know....representative republic....my point remains valid though!). If the majority want something, then they get it. Otherwise, anyone who uses the argument of the people getting to decide whether or not to sin loses all credibility, because the people would decide to ban gay marriage given the option according to polls.

So if the majority of people wanted to ban say Christianity you wouldn't protest that?

When I say obediant I mean, they do as the Church says and follow the Church and believe.

The Catholic church nor any religion "owns" marriage. It's NOT a religious issue. It's a human rights issue. Why don't people get that?

You judge homosexuality as evil and a sin, am I correct? Yet, it is not your job; as I understand it, it is something for your god to sort out on Judgement Day.



We are to follow God's word, and God's word condemns homosexuality, therefore it is not us judging but God. Try again please.

You judge homosexuality as evil and a sin, am I correct? Yet, it is not your job; as I understand it, it is something for your god to sort out on Judgement Day.
No, you are not correct. I say that gay marriage is evil and sinful.

See, this is why I love the Catholic. We may differ on certain doctrines, but at least they stand firm in their beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may be.

*lol

Just a bit of information here, I'm Catholic myself.

See, this is why I love the Catholic. We may differ on certain doctrines, but at least they stand firm in their beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may be.
Lol, that made me chuckle!

Yeah, I suppose us Catholics don't budge. We stay firm on what we believe.

The Catholic church nor any religion "owns" marriage. It's NOT a religious issue. It's a human rights issue. Why don't people get that?



But it's NOT a human right's issue, it's a moral issue.

This runs contrary to the very concept of democracy (I know I know....representative republic....my point remains valid though!). If the majority want something, then they get it. Otherwise, anyone who uses the argument of the people getting to decide whether or not to sin loses all credibility, because the people would decide to ban gay marriage given the option according to polls.

So you are saying it's ok to step on minority rights as long as the majority thinks it's ok? And pure democracy is a terribly inefficient system--can you imagine all citizens voting on all laws?

They already had equal human rights. Gay marriage is not a right, it's simply sin. Nothing more, nothing less.

One thing that has not been mentioned in these threads yet that I've seen... Connecticut has passed legislation that as of October, civil unions between same-sex couples are allowed but marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. As to the rights of the joined same-sex couples, they have all rights accorded to them by the state (they don't have the jurisdiction to do anything with federal tax law I believe, though). The one shortcoming is that businesses do not have to recognize and provide benefits for same-sex partners.

Now, the major difference in the way that CT set up their legislation is it's neither here nor there. It doesn't encroach on the long-honored traditional definition of marriage, but it does uphold that gay couples should be recognized and given rights and benefits.

I do have a question, though, to those who feel it's their job to outlaw any kind of homosexual recognition. If God forbids it, and no one is harmed as the couple consents to their own actions, then shouldn't the judgement be left to God, and you stay out of it? I'm quite sure if he's displeased with homosexuality, as you say, then they will be punished. It is your job to warn, as I see it, but why should you meddle if there's no harm being done? I would like to point out that 'sin' is perceived harm, and that goes right back to the fact that it is God who would decide that, not man. In short, let God handle it if no harm's being done to fellow man.

We are to follow God's word, and God's word condemns homosexuality, therefore it is not us judging but God. Try again please.

No, no...I don't really care about sexuality. You haven't been reading correctly.

Please, ignore this fool. God Party Program loves everyone!

We are to follow God's word, and God's word condemns homosexuality, therefore it is not us judging but God. Try again please.

No exactly, now.
Either you follow the Mosaic law, in which case you would have to wear tassles on your clothes and would be forbidden to leave your house when you menstruate. Then you would be following the word of god.

Or else you follow somebody who claimed the authority to speak for god after seriously hitting his head when falling of a horse. That's not exactly god's words....

We are to follow God's word, and God's word condemns homosexuality, therefore it is not us judging but God. Try again please.

I don't recall when God ever came down to "condemn" gay marriage. I believe you're referring to the bible which was written by men, not god. Besides, find me one passage that says gay people can't or should not get married? I don't want a laying down, or sex passage I want you to show me where in any bible it says that gay people can't get married. Chapter and verse please. There is a whole lot more to marriage than sex! If you have a good marriage that is.

But it's NOT a human right's issue, it's a moral issue.

Exactly. And, furthermore, marriage is religious in its very nature, being and creation.

Exactly. And, furthermore, marriage is religious in its very nature, being and creation.

Marriage is actually a legal document, not a religious one. Sorry.

What about two atheists getting married?

I don't recall when God ever came down to "condemn" gay marriage...

I actually came down to taste Jerusalem's famous lemon meringue. It was so good I died and came back again!

Marriage is actually a legal document, not a religious one. Sorry.

No it's not. What 'created' marriage? Religion. So what if the secular forces in the world have taken it over, doesn't mean that it isn't religious because it is. Accept it.

What about two atheists getting married?

Good point. :)

What about two atheists getting married?
Still religious, even if the 'participants' aren't.

Exactly. And, furthermore, marriage is religious in its very nature, being and creation.

It's not. Religious marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church, that much is true. But none of them are trying to get married in a Catholic ceremony.
So, apart from that, marriage is a strictly secular idea. It was around a LONG time before Christianity came around, it exists in Buddhist countries, in Hindu countries and in Muslim countries. Secular marriage has NOTHING to do with religion.

Still religious, even if the 'participants' aren't.
But its not a union sanctified by god … with two atheists it is purely a social contract.

Please, ignore this fool. God Party Program loves everyone!

god are fucking dead

Still religious, even if the 'participants' aren't.

...which makes no sense.

Marriage is basically a legal document, as said before.

I have no response but only a question: am I the only one who has the forums running EXTREMELY slowly for her? Well, in this case it's a him, but it amounts to the same thing. Occasionally I have to swear very loudly, quit the browser and start it up again, by which time people have posted lots of debunkings of my lame arguments. :(

No it's not. What 'created' marriage? Religion. So what if the secular forces in the world have taken it over, doesn't mean that it isn't religious because it is. Accept it.

Religion didn't create marriage, it assimilated it.
Marriage was around ages before religion came up.

god are fucking dead

Wassa matter, Free Soviets? Don't you believe in me? :(

But its not a union sanctified by god … with two atheists it is purely a social contract.

God is omnipresent. God is going to be at an atheists marriage regardless.

Well, in this case it's a him, but it amounts to the same thing. Occasionally I have to swear very loudly, quit the browser and start it up again, by which time people have posted lots of debunkings of my lame arguments. :(
Getting the same thing today

No it's not. What 'created' marriage? Religion. So what if the secular forces in the world have taken it over, doesn't mean that it isn't religious because it is. Accept it.


And who created the phone? Bell, But his family doesn't own the company anymore. And religion doesn't own marriage anymore either. It's a legal document now, it is no longer a religious one. Marriage is governed by the government, not the church. You get married in the Catholic church you still have to sign legal documents for it to be recognized! It's not a religious document, it's a legal one and that is a fact!

Granted in 3rd world countries this may not be the case.

Also, my (admittedly somewhat vague) point was skipped over: isn't two atheists getting married supposed to be a "sin" too, considering atheists are fodder for hellfire? Why isn't anyone condemning atheist marriage?

No exactly, now.
Either you follow the Mosaic law, in which case you would have to wear tassles on your clothes and would be forbidden to leave your house when you menstruate. Then you would be following the word of god.

Or else you follow somebody who claimed the authority to speak for god after seriously hitting his head when falling of a horse. That's not exactly god's words....



They're God's words if the individual in question was ordained an apostle by Christ and the other apostles accepted him as one. They're also God's words if Christ himself said Paul was to speak for him :p

a more clear title wud have been : Gays gain rights in spain... not spain gains rights for gays..

neway. because its a huge controversal issue. we cant just change the whole outlook of over 50% of americans who thinks gay marraige is wrong.. btw.. gays have all the rights of any american, its just some BENEFITS of marriage that they dont have, so dont try and twist it so that it sounds like America is oppressing gays and turning them into slaves or something. ITs best right now to let individual states have control over the gay marriage (there should be no congressional actions). In 50 years when the liberal youth will be in power in govt, we can change it around... but before then your just asking for major problems.

...which makes no sense.

Marriage is basically a legal document, as said before.

You don't get it because you obviously are spiritually lacking.

God is omnipresent. God is going to be at an atheists marriage regardless.
But that does not mean he sanctifies it … unless god is doing it against their will. That is a possibility

God is omnipresent. God is going to be at an atheists marriage regardless.

And which god would be present at a Hindu ceremony? Shiva? Krishna?
What god was there when two people in ancient Rome signed a marriage contract? Or two Egyptians?
Get real....

Wassa matter, Free Soviets? Don't you believe in me? :(

don't mind me, i'm just expressing myself in loud and fashionable ways.

And who created the phone? Bell, But his family doesn't own the company anymore. And religion doesn't own marriage anymore either. It's a legal document now, it is no longer a religious one. Marriage is governed by the government, not the church. You get married in the Catholic church you still have to sign legal documents for it to be recognized! It's not a religious document, it's a legal one and that is a fact!

Granted in 3rd world countries this may not be the case.

You're just repeating your argument. I've already rebutted it.

But its not a union sanctified by god … with two atheists it is purely a social contract.



Then don't call it marriage.

And who created the phone? Bell, But his family doesn't own the company anymore. And religion doesn't own marriage anymore either. It's a legal document now, it is no longer a religious one. Marriage is governed by the government, not the church. You get married in the Catholic church you still have to sign legal documents for it to be recognized! It's not a religious document, it's a legal one and that is a fact!

Granted in 3rd world countries this may not be the case.

Exactly my point. If it really was a purely religious matter, I would be saying the government should stay out of it.

And which god would be present at a Hindu ceremony? Shiva? Krishna?
What god was there when two people in ancient Rome signed a marriage contract? Or two Egyptians?
Get real....

Well, I don't wanna get into that because people will get the wrong idea of me.

They're God's words if the individual in question was ordained an apostle by Christ and the other apostles accepted him as one. They're also God's words if Christ himself said Paul was to speak for him :p

Jesus was DEAD by the time Paul hit his head... and I think we already had this discussion. Everybody can claim to be an apostle and have visions, but if their message is so drastiacally different from the original, I for one think they are lying.

Then don't call it marriage.

Exactly, and I wouldn't consider them to be married anyway.

And which god would be present at a Hindu ceremony? Shiva? Krishna?
What god was there when two people in ancient Rome signed a marriage contract? Or two Egyptians?
Get real....



God.

They're God's words if the individual in question was ordained an apostle by Christ and the other apostles accepted him as one. They're also God's words if Christ himself said Paul was to speak for him :p

Gee and to think of all those Jews getting married before "Christ" showed up. Give it up. It's a lost argument.

Jesus was DEAD by the time Paul hit his head... and I think we already had this discussion. Everybody can claim to be an apostle and have visions, but if their message is so drastiacally different from the original, I for one think they are lying.



Jesus arose from the dead, therefore he wasn't dead :D

Jesus arose from the dead, therefore he wasn't dead :D

Amen!

God.

Liar! I only visit Soho these days. So unless all weddings happen in Soho, I'm not going to be there.

Gee and to think of all those Jews getting married before "Christ" showed up. Give it up. It's a lost argument.



Legitimate marriages have always been sanctified in the eyes of God. Where did I deny that?

You don't get it because you obviously are spiritually lacking.

So? I don't need to believe in a magical pie in the sky to validate my points. I'm not even sure if I *don't* believe in a magical pie in the sky.

Jesus arose from the dead, therefore he wasn't dead :D

Then why didn't he speak for himself? And why did "his" message suddenly change from love, acceptance and tolerance to fire, brimstone, hatred and discrimination?

Honestly both sides are right about this issue. I can see the reasoning for gays as well as religious people. A comprimse should be done instead of one side basically 'winning' raming their idealogly down the throats of the other.

But i ask you this...how many times now is the minority going to rule at the expense of the majority? The road goes both ways, if you rule with the minority you are oppressing the majority.

How in the world does legal gay marriage oppress you or anyone else? Let me guess: it oppresses your ability to tell other people how to live their lives (lives that affect you in no way shape or form)

You're just repeating your argument. I've already rebutted it.

I keep saying it because it's true, what do you want me to say? You want me to lie to you? Would that make you feel better? And you've rebutted nothing, well maybe in your mind you think you did. I beg to differ.

Then why didn't he speak for himself? And why did "his" message suddenly change from love, acceptance and tolerance to fire, brimstone, hatred and discrimination?



His message originally was full of condemnation for sinners, read the NT and you will see. Also, his message never changed from love to hatred. The Bible has condemned hatred, but does enforce a strict set of rules. God punishes those who break the rules, not because he "hates" them, but because he is just. Those who have sin marring their essence cannot be in the presence of God, for he cannot coexist with sin.

Also, his message never changed from love to hatred.

Oh, I see so it was only "his" followers who changed to hate for those who don't believe as they do. Nice! :rolleyes:

His message originally was full of condemnation for sinners, read the NT and you will see. Also, his message never changed from love to hatred. The Bible has condemned hatred, but does enforce a strict set of rules. God punishes those who break the rules, not because he "hates" them, but because he is just. Those who have sin marring their essence cannot be in the presence of God, for he cannot coexist with sin.
Then let god punish us … you can leave us alone till then

Oh and they can not ? are you saying god is not strong enough to keep us safe in a coexisting relationship?

How in the world does legal gay marriage oppress you or anyone else? Let me guess: it oppresses your ability to tell other people how to live their lives (lives that affect you in no way shape or form)



It's as the old saying goes "Don't condone what God condemns." Any Christian who supports what God says is a sin basically sins themself. Also, homosexuality is an abomination unto God, therefore it must not be tolerated.

It's as the old saying goes "Don't condone what God condemns." Any Christian who supports what God says is a sin basically sins themself. Also, homosexuality is an abomination unto God, therefore it must not be tolerated.

So is shellfish, what's your point?

Oh, I see so it was only "his" followers who changed to hate for those who don't believe as they do. Nice! :rolleyes:



Umm...no.....since when has condemning the sin meant hating the sinner? Your statement is a prime example of error.

So is shellfish, what's your point?



My point is, the old law was abolished with Christ's death, and a new law was established. A new law which, too, condemned homosexuality. ;)

2. Expect to see some other countries ban gay marriage in retaliation. Just don't start whining when you lose several battles in several countries because pious citizens do not support the "right" to sin ;)
No country has ever banned gay marriage in "retaliation" against another country. Even if it's your biggest issue (well, after abortion), most governments have more important things to work on.

France-Civil Unions!!!

Umm...no.....since when has condemning the sin meant hating the sinner? Your statement is a prime example of error.

Umm, there is zero proof of what you even believe. How can there be an error? It's all based on "faith" isn't it? How can faith have an error? I have faith that the sun will rise blue someday.. am I wrong? What if I have faith that it will? No way to prove the sun will never rise blue is there?

Umm, there is zero proof of what you even believe. How can there be an error? It's all based on "faith" isn't it? How can faith have an error? I have faith that the sun will rise blue someday.. am I wrong? What if I have faith that it will? No way to prove the sun will never rise blue is there?



Zero proof? Read the Bible. It's that simple.

My point is, the old law was abolished with Christ's death, and a new law was established. A new law which, too, condemned homosexuality. ;)

Well then your whole argument just went down the drain, given the passage that says that men should not lay down with a man like he would with a woman is in the same book that eating shellfish is a sin is in.

Zero proof? Read the Bible. It's that simple.

The bible has no proof, where is the proof in the bible that there is a god? If there was proof, trust me, it would be front page news and on every network right now.

Harry Potter is a book too... does that mean that Harry Potter is real too?

Zero proof? Read the Bible. It's that simple.

Oh, haven't we been there before? Nobody can prove that the bible is right. Not possible.

It's as the old saying goes "Don't condone what God condemns." Any Christian who supports what God says is a sin basically sins themself. Also, homosexuality is an abomination unto God, therefore it must not be tolerated.

Your response made no sense in accordance to what I posted. Lets try it again: How does legal gay marriage oppress you or anyone else? You still have the right to condemn those that don't follow your personal religious rules. You still have the right to marry a woman and not have those dirty gays get married in yoru church. You are not being oppressed is the answer.

It's as the old saying goes "Don't condone what God condemns." Any Christian who supports what God says is a sin basically sins themself. Also, homosexuality is an abomination unto God, therefore it must not be tolerated.

Great job you guys are doing with getting rid of murder, theft, ect... like you are with gay marriage. :rolleyes:

It's as the old saying goes "Don't condone what God condemns." Any Christian who supports what God says is a sin basically sins themself. Also, homosexuality is an abomination unto God, therefore it must not be tolerated.

You guys better listen to Neo Rogolia, she knows what shes talking about. Im a Christian and every day god tells me that gay is a sin.

Zero proof? Read the Bible. It's that simple.

I call troll. This is the most ludicrous statement made in this thread yet.

The Bible was a book written by Humans, therefor parts of it are corrupt. Many passages in the Bible were made by 'people' as a way to control the population through religion. Have you ever swore? Have you ever thought bad about your parents? Then you're breaking a Commandment. Religious Fanatics don't deserve to order others around, if you think that the gay's will go to hell then let them.

You guys better listen to Neo Rogolia, she knows what shes talking about. Im a Christian and every day god tells me that gay is a sin.
Wow aren't you special, God talks to you? Wow, what do you talk about? The Weather? Can you tell him to zap some people for me? What do you have against Gay? I've never heard of the person so why do you hate Gay so.

The bible has no proof, where is the proof in the bible that there is a god? If there was proof, trust me, it would be front page news and on every network right now.

Harry Potter is a book too... does that mean that Harry Potter is real too?


Harry Potter is God.

It's as the old saying goes "Don't condone what God condemns." Any Christian who supports what God says is a sin basically sins themself. Also, homosexuality is an abomination unto God, therefore it must not be tolerated.
Too bad ... as we speek more and more people are seeing the rightness of treating others how they wish to be treated themselfs

I call troll. This is the most ludicrous statement made in this thread yet.
She has tried to feed us this BS before ... she is a long lived troll if she is one.

Wow aren't you special, God talks to you? Wow, what do you talk about? The Weather? Can you tell him to zap some people for me? What do you have against Gay? I've never heard of the person so why do you hate Gay so.

I think he's being sarcastic there.

Yes it did. They just have to have the law proof read before it gets the rubber stamp to make sure there are no loopholes, or spelling mistakes basically.
Just like a bunch of goddamn pot-smoking liberals to make spelling mistaks on their laws!

Better yet, how about I use my right to vote to advance my beliefs?
Go ahead, but don't expect to get anywhere with that in America. In the USA your beliefs are really at the lunatic fringe of the spectrum. Neither of the two parties support Christian Reconstructionism. Not even the Constitutional Party support that.

And I would disagree. Apparently, the majority of Americans would too
You are not in the majority. Most Americans agree with their Bill of Rights.

It all depends on how you view it. I'm not forcing them to adapt my religion, I'm just preventing them from committing certain sins condemned by my religion.
That is imposing your religion.

More like they decided to embrace sin.
Not embrace, tolerate.

No. A gay marriage is not a marriage, it's a travesty. Gay marriage is an oxymoron.
I think that any marriage which has love is good.

They already had equal human rights. Gay marriage is not a right, it's simply sin. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sin is not legally relevant. Find a Spanish law which includes it as a word.

I worry for their souls, and I worry for a world that loves to push God's buttons.
We already live in one, dear.

If the majority want something, then they get it.
Not always the case. Majority does rule, except when the civil rights of minorities are trampled upon.

Which is defacto forcing your beliefs on them

With as bad as it is I wonder what it will be like when Islam overtakes Christianity (their growth is massive)Islam allow some form of poligamy...doestn it?

I like that.

Islam allow some form of poligamy...doestn it?

I like that.

Islam only allows a man to marry several women. I don't like that. I want to be able to marry several men... or men and women ;)

Harry Potter is God.
No, J.K. Rowling is. I worship her. I believe she exists and I have a book that says she does, therefore, she does. I believe that she has created 6 miracles and will soon create her 7th. In my heart, J.K. Rowling is immortal. She is God. :D

Islam only allows a man to marry several women. I don't like that. I want to be able to marry several men... or men and women ;)

I like teh way you think. I was just telling my fiancee that I wanted to have several wives and one husband.

Islam only allows a man to marry several women. I don't like that. I want to be able to marry several men... or men and women ;)my friends neighbor wants to marry her cat.

what if you go to international waters?

maybe in the lawless high seas you marry all those men and women you love...and he can marry cats and dogs, etc

No, J.K. Rowling is. I worship her. I believe she exists and I have a book that says she does, therefore, she does. I believe that she has created 6 miracles and will soon create her 7th. In my heart, J.K. Rowling is immortal. She is God. :D


You are God! :fluffle:

You are God! :fluffle:
Thank you, thank you. *Bows, very un-ladylike*

I like teh way you think. I was just telling my fiancee that I wanted to have several wives and one husband.would save rent money for sure...

Thank you, thank you. *Bows, very un-ladylike*


Thats okay, God can do whatever God wants.

would save rent money for sure...

I was thinking that they could all get jobs and I would be the house-husband.

Thats okay, God can do whatever God wants.
Damn crooked! :p

The Bible was a book written by Humans, therefor parts of it are corrupt. Many passages in the Bible were made by 'people' as a way to control the population through religion. Have you ever swore? Have you ever thought bad about your parents? Then you're breaking a Commandment. Religious Fanatics don't deserve to order others around, if you think that the gay's will go to hell then let them.


Wow aren't you special, God talks to you? Wow, what do you talk about? The Weather? Can you tell him to zap some people for me? What do you have against Gay? I've never heard of the person so why do you hate Gay so.




Actually, no I've never sworn and I don't recall having disobeyed/dishonored my parents. Call me goody two-shoes, but it's the truth :D

where's my respsonses!

I was thinking that they could all get jobs and I would be the house-husband.
thats my boy !

*proud vader voice*

thats my boy !

*proud vader voice*


dad, can I borrow the deathstar for a big party this weekend?

Human rights do not apply to sin.



Religion doesn't apply to me so get the fuck off my porch before I shoot you.

Religion doesn't apply to me so get the fuck off my porch before I shoot you.
She's "sinning" (I despise objective morality, and this word) by hating gays, and hence, we should deny her her human right to practise her hateful religion.

This is not fairness and equality. It makes a mockery of marriage. It's disgraceful.


And that's your opinion. Wait, what the crap? You're Catholic and don't even know what your church used to advocate?

Read all of this, http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/unions.html

Kudos to Spain! :D

Honestly both sides are right about this issue. I can see the reasoning for gays as well as religious people. A comprimse should be done instead of one side basically 'winning' raming their idealogly down the throats of the other.
Exactly! The compromise would be allowing secular marriages in the eyes of the LAW, and allowing religions to reject the idea (keeping with the freedom of religion).

Of course, this wouldn't technically be a compromise, since nobody is trying to force churches to perform same-sex marriages. So neither side would be giving up anything.

But i ask you this...how many times now is the minority going to rule at the expense of the majority? The road goes both ways, if you rule with the minority you are oppressing the majority.
However, ruling with the minority does not infringe upon any of the majority's rights. Anti-gay religions (and all religions, for that matter) will still be able to practice the exact same way they have been. Like I said above, they will not be forced to perform or recognize any marriages they find "sinful."

And they are not being forced to attend these "sinful" weddings, either, so it's not like they'll have to see more "sinful" activities, either. Gay people will still be affectionate in public, regardless of their marital status.


Okay, don't know if I would go that far but you are quite correct when you say it is not marriage.
It is in the eyes of the law (when they eventually get the right, that is). As far as religion goes, however, any church/religion has the right to reject the idea. Nobody is trying to force churches to marry or accept gays.

They already had equal human rights. Gay marriage is not a right, it's simply sin. Nothing more, nothing less.
From the Colorado State Constitution (since the "inalienable rights" thing is only in the state constitutions):

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.

The Supreme Court officially recognized marriage as a fundamental right:

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).

Also, if it was illegal to sin, Americans wouldn't be so fat.

Let's be honest with ourselves: What homosexual couple would ever get married and not have sexual relations? If there is a couple somewhere out there that does so, the kudos to them. But I doubt there is.
You be honest with yourself. Do you really think that keeping gays from getting married is going to keep them from having sex? Obviously, if they've *dared* be homosexual, they're not going to follow the "no sex before marriage" rule.

...I just said that gay marriage was wrong. Didn't say homosexuality was.
Well, do you think homosexuality is "wrong?"


No it's not. What 'created' marriage? Religion. So what if the secular forces in the world have taken it over, doesn't mean that it isn't religious because it is. Accept it.
You seem to be conveniently "missing" the other posts that are informing you that you are incorrect on this point.

Here is an excerpt from an article on the origins of marriage; I can post the whole thing, if you wish:

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. 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.

Marriage was adopted by religion.

Moreover, even if religion did create marriage, it is undeniable that there are two different "ideas" of marriage, one of which is purely legal. (Much like the Christian Christmas vs. the "Commercialized" Santa Claus Christmas, and the Christian Easter vs. The Easter Bunny.)

If this were not so, polygamy would be legal. It is still practiced by some Mormons, but those marriages are not considered legitimate in the eyes of the law. Therefore, there is a difference between secular and religious marriage, and the law recognizes it.
Then don't call it marriage.
They have every right to call it marriage if they want to; legally, they are married.

Exactly, and I wouldn't consider them to be married anyway.
Then don't consider gays married. They don't care, as long as the law does. (Not churches!)

Legitimate marriages have always been sanctified in the eyes of God. Where did I deny that?
You have no way of knowing that, but even if you did, wouldn't homosexual marriages be illegitimate in the eyes of your god? If so, it wouldn't matter whether or not they were getting "fake" marriages in the courthouse, which happen to be recognized by the government. The government is not God.

By adding "legitimate" in there, you just proved our point that some marriages are not sanctioned by God, and therefore are not religious.

How in the world does legal gay marriage oppress you or anyone else? Let me guess: it oppresses your ability to tell other people how to live their lives (lives that affect you in no way shape or form)
It doesn't even do that! They can speak out against gays all they want; it doesn't change!

You're just repeating your argument. I've already rebutted it.
Main Entry: re·but
Pronunciation: ri-'b&t
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): re·but·ted; re·but·ting
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French reboter, from re- + boter to butt -- more at BUTT
transitive senses
1 : to drive or beat back : REPEL
2 a : to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof b : to expose the falsity of : REFUTE
intransitive senses : to make or furnish an answer or counter proof
- re·but·ta·ble /-'b&-t&-b&l/ adjective

No, you need to find a new rebuttal. Yours did not disprove the point that marriage is not religious by default. You only said that "God is omnipresent. God is going to be at an atheists[sic] marriage regardless."

Marriage was not invented by religion (see point above), so it does not have a copyright on the word or act of "marriage." As for you claiming your God is everywhere, that is irrelevant. Using that to say that marriage is purely a religious act is like saying that pooping is purely a religious act. If he's everywhere, he's everywhere.

Also, homosexuality is an abomination unto God, therefore it must not be tolerated.
In YOUR religion; you've said yourself in a different thread the Christianity isn't for everybody.

It's as the old saying goes "Don't condone what God condemns." Any Christian who supports what God says is a sin basically sins themself.
I have a question for you. Would you vote to support religious freedom? If you did, you would be allowing different religions to practice things that are abominable (polygamy, for example), which would be "condoning what God comdemns."

Would you just not vote on the issue (which, by the way, is an option for those who are opposed because they "don't want to get in trouble")?

Zero proof? Read the Bible. It's that simple.
Not that I'm trying to disprove your religion (I have every respect for one's personal belief in the religion of their choosing), but the Bible wouldn't hold up in court, so you're going to have to come up with another way of convincing skeptics.

You guys better listen to Neo Rogolia, she knows what shes talking about. Im a Christian and every day god tells me that gay is a sin.
Yeah, well my god tells me every day that wearing pants is a sin, so I'm going to lobby for a pants ban. :rolleyes:

Edit: I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were probably being sarcastic. If that's the case, I'm sorry. I'll leave the comment, though, since it supports your point. :p

my friends neighbor wants to marry her cat.

what if you go to international waters?

maybe in the lawless high seas you marry all those men and women you love...and he can marry cats and dogs, etc
Wow, I didn't realize that there are new breeds of cats and dogs out there that are able to speak, write, and sign legal documents. You learn something new every day...

And one more note: For those of you playing the Religious Freedom card in regards to secular same-sex marriage, you'd better be willing to accept all other types of marriages endorsed by religions different than yours, including polygamy. It works both ways.

It all depends on how you view it. I'm not forcing them to adapt my religion, I'm just preventing them from committing certain sins condemned by my religion.

That sounds very much like "Fine, believe what you like, but you'd better not do anything that my religion doesn't agree with even though you don't proscribe to it. Even if your own religion says nothing about it, my rules must apply to all."

Can you say hypocrite?

It all depends on how you view it. I'm not forcing them to adapt my religion, I'm just preventing them from committing certain sins condemned by my religion.

So.... even though Muslims don't force us to adapt their religion, we should all wear headscarfs so we don't commit sins condemned by their religion?

When I say obediant I mean, they do as the Church says and follow the Church and believe.

Oh, so you mean the Church should say what a Government should and should not do eh? I guess that means the Church should rule the world then? Guess what? They don't. And I'd rather they not.

The Church has given humanity enough headaches when it had nigh total ruling power in Europe. Keep the Church and the State seperate please.

My point is, the old law was abolished with Christ's death, and a new law was established. A new law which, too, condemned homosexuality. ;)

How convenient that laws can be taken out and replaced with the current fads of the day hmmm? And in a religious document as well.

Tell you what. Let me get a copy of the bible and I can write you a whole new scripture, probably I knock myself on the head. It will definitely be more interesting to read than that boring old tome.

I'll say it was a vision and the world will have no choice but to abide by me. *evil laughter*

Oh, and Sumamba Buwhan, the death star doesn't belong to your dad. It belongs to his boss, Palpatine. Besides, after you personally wrecked the first one, I don't think he's going to let you take the other one out on a spin.

Civil unions are NOT the same thing.
Well, in a way they are. See, Germany has the seperation of church and government taken a step farther in regards to this. Religious communities have the right to wed couples, but there are no rights coming with that. In order to be recognised as a married couple they have to go to a government agency which registers marital status. A couple that is married by church alone is not recognised as such by law. The civil union of gays is in all respects legally the same as a marriage, our supreme court made that sure, providing for the future by ruling that any right and duty in regard to married heterosexual couples has to be transferred to homosexuals in civil unions as well. The only difference is the word. And they gay community isnt that much transfixed on having their union called marriage, as long as they have the same legal standing.

Spaniards can now marry whichever gender they please?

¡Olé! ¡Celebremos!

So.... even though Muslims don't force us to adapt their religion, we should all wear headscarfs so we don't commit sins condemned by their religion?
Yes, and dont you dare eat cows and pigs or any non-kosher food, shave your head, not shave your head, forget to sacrifice the first sip of wine, not offer the innards of any animal you eat, miss your annual sacrifice of a human heart, talk back to a priest...
All those things could condemn you to Hell, Yomi, Helheim, Tartaros, get your soul eaten by Aman etc.
Who is so arrogant to claim he is right in a question that cannot be answered. You guys believe you are right, but you dont know.

I keep saying it because it's true, what do you want me to say? You want me to lie to you? Would that make you feel better? And you've rebutted nothing, well maybe in your mind you think you did. I beg to differ.

What you are saying is not the truth. It's utter nonsense that has been pumped into you by atheists and militant secularists.

What you are saying is not the truth. It's utter nonsense that has been pumped into you by atheists and militant secularists.

On the other side of the coin, we could say what your saying is actually nonsense that was pumped into you by militant fundamentalists.

If you want to debunk something, you better damn well have a better argument than the "its nonsense by this side" method.

Well done spain!

I applaud Spain. And here I thought that Spain was stupid. :)

I'm really glad that my country after the dark night of the 40 years of Natonal-Catholic dictatorship, Has become one the first countries in the world to adopt a legislation allowing equal rights to everyone disregardding "their Sexual Identity".

By the way I don't even think of beliving in or worshiping YOUR god. So just don't piss us with his sins.


And to last things.

Si eres un Obispo Jodete, Jodete
Si eres un Homofobo que te den, Que te den

What you are saying is not the truth. It's utter nonsense that has been pumped into you by atheists and militant secularists.

Surely it's not too much to ask that even a non-secular Christian/Jew/Muslim keep their "morals" to themselves and leave other people alone. If you want to live by the most rigid religious rudiments then go right ahead, what do I care? However irrational, archaic, deluded and self-immolatory I personally think your practices might be (being a diehard atheist myself) I respect your right to hold your belief, but don't think for a second that you are in any position to tell me what to do or say or that I shouldn't be allowed to healthily express my sexuality just because you don't agree with it. As the cliche goes, IT'S NONE OF YOUR FRIGGING BUSINESS.

Can I also emphasise that there are some religious sects such as Methodists, liberal quakers and reform jews whose own religious freedom you have no respect for, given their own support for gay marriage and desire to wed gay couples. Should the state deny them that right too?

You are the worst kind of bigot. Like any fascist you think your personal beliefs somehow make you special, just because they're yours, and entitle you to have your own "morals" forcibly imposed on vulnerable minorities by the government. If you had even a shred of decency, you'd be ashamed.

What you are saying is not the truth. It's utter nonsense that has been pumped into you by atheists and militant secularists.
Yes, it is accepted as the truth (well, accepted by people who don't deny facts just because they clash with their precious beliefs); it's history.

The only way you can prove us false is by providing proof to the contrary. Find proof that religion invented marriage. Until then, you won't have any credibility if you keep denying the facts.

...Or are you going to conveniently "miss" this post of mine, also? Why is it that you and Neo are ignoring my pertinent questions? I mean, if you were right (as you claim), and you had valid reasons for wanting to outlaw secular gay marriage, you could tear my arguments to pieces. And yet you refrain.

Oh, wait; I get it. You know you don't have anything to back up your reasons. I guess that's not as satisfying as having you admit that you're wrong, but I guess it'll have to do.

Lack of response = I win :)

Yes, it is accepted as the truth (well, accepted by people who don't deny facts just because they clash with their precious beliefs); it's history.

The only way you can prove us false is by providing proof to the contrary. Find proof that religion invented marriage. Until then, you won't have any credibility if you keep denying the facts.

...Or are you going to conveniently "miss" this post of mine, also? Why is it that you and Neo are ignoring my pertinent questions? I mean, if you were right (as you claim), and you had valid reasons for wanting to outlaw secular gay marriage, you could tear my arguments to pieces. And yet you refrain.

Oh, wait; I get it. You know you don't have anything to back up your reasons. I guess that's not as satisfying as having you admit that you're wrong, but I guess it'll have to do.

Lack of response = I win :)

*holds arm up and everyone cheers*

On the other side of the coin, we could say what your saying is actually nonsense that was pumped into you by militant fundamentalists.

No, because I pumped all this into myself by myself. No one else did it. I chose to go looking for the information and take it in.

Yes, it is accepted as the truth (well, accepted by people who don't deny facts just because they clash with their precious beliefs); it's history.

The only way you can prove us false is by providing proof to the contrary. Find proof that religion invented marriage. Until then, you won't have any credibility if you keep denying the facts.

...Or are you going to conveniently "miss" this post of mine, also? Why is it that you and Neo are ignoring my pertinent questions? I mean, if you were right (as you claim), and you had valid reasons for wanting to outlaw secular gay marriage, you could tear my arguments to pieces. And yet you refrain.

Oh, wait; I get it. You know you don't have anything to back up your reasons. I guess that's not as satisfying as having you admit that you're wrong, but I guess it'll have to do.

Lack of response = I win :)

Well, I'm sorry if I have a life outside of NS!

And, I will answer your questions if you tell me what they were again.

It's a human rights issue. Why don't people get that?
But it's NOT a human right's issue, it's a moral issue.
No! It's a civil rights issue!

No! It's a civil rights issue!

Well, that's subjective. Some people, such as myself, believe it to be a moral issue.

No, because I pumped all this into myself by myself. No one else did it. I chose to go looking for the information and take it in.

Then how can you say it is a militant secularist that pumped this information into the others rather than the possibility that they looked for it themselves?

Then how can you say it is a militant secularist that pumped this information into the others rather than the possibility that they looked for it themselves?

Because I can.....and I did.

LOL!

Well, that's subjective. Some people, such as myself, believe it to be a moral issue.
If it were a moral issue you should be debating whether to outlaw homosexuality entirely, or not.

But that's what banning gay marriae is about isn't it? Sending a subtle message to the gays that what they do is still virtually illegal.

The rain in spain falls mainly on the rectal-pain.

If it were a moral issue you should be debating whether to outlaw homosexuality entirely, or not.

But that's what banning gay marriae is about isn't it? Sending a subtle message to the gays that what they do is still virtually illegal.

Not in my opinion. To me, it's just telling them that they can't marry and that is that.

Not in my opinion. To me, it's just telling them that they can't marry and that is that.
So it is a definition-of-marriage issue and not a moral issue.

If it were a moral issue you should be debating whether to outlaw homosexuality entirely, or not.

But that's what banning gay marriae is about isn't it? Sending a subtle message to the gays that what they do is still virtually illegal.

Its about taking away the rights of the minority, nothing new.

So it is a definition-of-marriage issue and not a moral issue.

No, gay marriage is a moral issue. Gay marriage is the issue, not homosexuality in general, which you seem to keep going on at me about.

No, gay marriage is a moral issue. Gay marriage is the issue, not homosexuality in general, which you seem to keep going on at me about.
I think it's immoral to decide what two consenting adults choose to do with their own life without harming anybody else.

No, gay marriage is a moral issue. Gay marriage is the issue, not homosexuality in general, which you seem to keep going on at me about.

Ok, so in what way is gay marriage a moral issue, if homosexuality as such isn't?

Ok, so in what way is gay marriage a moral issue, if homosexuality as such isn't?

I never said that homosexuality was not a moral issue. Please read what I wrote.

I think it's immoral to decide what two consenting adults choose to do with their own life without harming anybody else.

Well, as I said earlier in this thread, that's the product of selfish and arrogant individualism.

I never said that homosexuality was not a moral issue. Please read what I wrote.

Well, you said homosexuality wasn't the issue. But that's beside the point, anyway.
You didn't yet state in what way gay marriage is a moral issue.

Well, you said homosexuality wasn't the issue. But that's beside the point, anyway.
You didn't yet state in what way gay marriage is a moral issue.


Homosexuality isn't the issue at hand, gay marriage is the issue of this thread.

Anyway, gar marriage is a moral issue because marriage itself is a moral issue and, furthermore, it's about what your morals are on this issue as to whether gay marriage is right or not.

Well, as I said earlier in this thread, that's the product of selfish and arrogant individualism.

Deciding your own life and happiness without hurting anybody else is arrogant and selfish individualism? You lost me there...

Deciding your own life and happiness without hurting anybody else is arrogant and selfish individualism? You lost me there...

People claim that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else you can do what you like. Therefore that means that doing drugs is fine, such as heroin, and other such things which are not fine but are wrong.

This attitude is the product of selfish and arrogant individualism. It makes the individual believe that they are the most important person in their world and can do what they like, regardless of whether it is sinful or not.

Homosexuality isn't the issue at hand, gay marriage is the issue of this thread.

Anyway, gar marriage is a moral issue because marriage itself is a moral issue and, furthermore, it's about what your morals are on this issue as to whether gay marriage is right or not.

So, in what way is marriage a moral issue?
And as you seem to be the one with the moral problem concerning gay marriage, what ARE your morals?

So, in what way is marriage a moral issue?
And as you seem to be the one with the moral problem concerning gay marriage, what ARE your morals?

Is marriage in our modern world still defined as a religious union? Or has it been watered down into a simple legal term when two people want a legitimate view on their relationship and enjoy lower taxes? Depending on the answer to this could in my opinion answer any moral questions towards gay marriage.

People claim that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else you can do what you like. Therefore that means that doing drugs is fine, such as heroin, and other such things which are not fine but are wrong.

This attitude is the product of selfish and arrogant individualism. It makes the individual believe that they are the most important person in their world and can do what they like, regardless of whether it is sinful or not.

As long as they don't hurt anybody else, they can do whatever they want. Taking heroin or hard drugs of any kind is very likely to hurt others in the process, as the addiction will in many cases lead to criminal acts in order to afford the next shot, medical treatment will be required when trying to get off the drug and the individual will not be able to keep his/her job, thus ending up costing society.

The individual is not the most important person in the world, as we are all equaly important. And in that light, how can we deny the right to a married life to one group, while offering it to another?
And how can the concept of sin apply to a person who doesn't believe in sin?

Is marriage in our modern world still defined as a religious union? Or has it been watered down into a simple legal term when two people want a legitimate view on their relationship and enjoy lower taxes? Depending on the answer to this could in my opinion answer any moral questions towards gay marriage.

One question: Do you live in a secular nation, were government and churches are seperated? If yes, how can a secular union be religious in any way?

If you live in a theocracy, where the government forces you to adhere to a specific religion, that religion will of course have a say in the legislation and therefore in marriages.

One question: Do you live in a secular nation, were government and churches are seperated? If yes, how can a secular union be religious in any way?

If you live in a theocracy, where the government forces you to adhere to a specific religion, that religion will of course have a say in the legislation and therefore in marriages.

Cincinnati is an American city. As I think on it through this you can get married by judges or the captain of a ship! Perhaps religion is already not neccessary when thinking of marriage. After all they have the power vested in them by "the state of Ohio". Mentioning God is most likely not required though I admit I haven't been to many weddings.

Cincinnati is an American city. As I think on it through this you can get married by judges or the captain of a ship! Perhaps religion is already not neccessary when thinking of marriage. After all they have the power vested in them by "the state of Ohio". Mentioning God is most likely not required though I admit I haven't been to many weddings.
I've been to two. One where the groom was wearing a kilt! (Scottish weddings are so cute!) Marriage, in my opinion, isn't really a religious thing. It's a celebration and recognition that two people will (well, supposedly) love each other and be together for the rest of their lives. If the couple is religious, then, obviously, they'll want to be married by a priest. Traditionally, marriage is all about love and dedication. Religion only sometimes has something to do with it. ;)

Well, as I said earlier in this thread, that's the product of selfish and arrogant individualism.
Yes it's individualism, but gay marriage doesn't harm anyone else.

Cincinnati is an American city. As I think on it through this you can get married by judges or the captain of a ship! Perhaps religion is already not neccessary when thinking of marriage. After all they have the power vested in them by "the state of Ohio". Mentioning God is most likely not required though I admit I haven't been to many weddings.

I would frankly be surprised and shocked if mentioning god in the ceremony was a requirement, and if I was atheist, Hindu or Pagan, I would regard it as an insult to my own beliefs.
As marriage is secular (at least in the states of the western world), why would people quote the bible to refuse homosexuals that right?

As marriage is secular (at least in the states of the western world), why would people quote the bible to refuse homosexuals that right?
Because they refuse to accept that marriage is secular, despite all the evidence that it is.

Yes it's individualism, but gay marriage doesn't harm anyone else.

Marriage is always individualism. It's always just two people making something official that concerns only themselves, it's never anybody else's business.

Unless you consider it a good and wise tradition that the family (that's to say the male members only, of course) chooses who will marry whom in order to profit from the wealth/status/power/name of the other family...

Because they refuse to accept that marriage is secular, despite all the evidence that it is.

Has it BECOME secular? I'm sure it wasn't a hundred years ago. The suggestion that marriage has nothing to do with religion? Blasphamy!!

Has it BECOME secular? I'm sure it wasn't a hundred years ago. The suggestion that marriage has nothing to do with religion? Blasphamy!!


*lol You BET it was secular 100 years ago.
A religious marriage is not recognised by the state, you have to have a secular marriage. If you fancy that, you can have a religious marriage in addition to that, but on its own that's not recognised anywhere.

Homosexuality isn't the issue at hand, gay marriage is the issue of this thread.

Anyway, gar marriage is a moral issue because marriage itself is a moral issue and, furthermore, it's about what your morals are on this issue as to whether gay marriage is right or not.


if there was a vote to make a law banning homosexual acts, would you vote in favor of that law?

Has it BECOME secular? I'm sure it wasn't a hundred years ago. The suggestion that marriage has nothing to do with religion? Blasphamy!!
Marriage was secular when it was originally conceived. It only became associated with religion in the Dark Ages, when the only literate people where the priests, so they performed marriages. By the way, they performed marriages between members of the same sex.

Okay, Catholic Europe, I apologize for automatically grouping you in with Neo (who still hasn't replied to me on a couple threads); I appreciate your offering to answer my questions.

Neo's behavior is quite common, though; that's why I posted what I did. :p

Here's what I posted previously:

Honestly both sides are right about this issue. I can see the reasoning for gays as well as religious people. A comprimse should be done instead of one side basically 'winning' raming their idealogly down the throats of the other.
Exactly! The compromise would be allowing secular marriages in the eyes of the LAW, and allowing religions to reject the idea (keeping with the freedom of religion).

Of course, this wouldn't technically be a compromise, since nobody is trying to force churches to perform same-sex marriages. So neither side would be giving up anything.

But i ask you this...how many times now is the minority going to rule at the expense of the majority? The road goes both ways, if you rule with the minority you are oppressing the majority.
However, ruling with the minority does not infringe upon any of the majority's rights. Anti-gay religions (and all religions, for that matter) will still be able to practice the exact same way they have been. Like I said above, they will not be forced to perform or recognize any marriages they find "sinful."

And they are not being forced to attend these "sinful" weddings, either, so it's not like they'll have to see more "sinful" activities, either. Gay people will still be affectionate in public, regardless of their marital status.


Okay, don't know if I would go that far but you are quite correct when you say it is not marriage.
It is in the eyes of the law (when they eventually get the right, that is). As far as religion goes, however, any church/religion has the right to reject the idea. Nobody is trying to force churches to marry or accept gays.

They already had equal human rights. Gay marriage is not a right, it's simply sin. Nothing more, nothing less.
From the Colorado State Constitution (since the "inalienable rights" thing is only in the state constitutions):

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.

The Supreme Court officially recognized marriage as a fundamental right:

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).

Also, if it was illegal to sin, Americans wouldn't be so fat.

Let's be honest with ourselves: What homosexual couple would ever get married and not have sexual relations? If there is a couple somewhere out there that does so, the kudos to them. But I doubt there is.
You be honest with yourself. Do you really think that keeping gays from getting married is going to keep them from having sex? Obviously, if they've *dared* be homosexual, they're not going to follow the "no sex before marriage" rule.

...I just said that gay marriage was wrong. Didn't say homosexuality was.
Well, do you think homosexuality is "wrong?"


No it's not. What 'created' marriage? Religion. So what if the secular forces in the world have taken it over, doesn't mean that it isn't religious because it is. Accept it.
You seem to be conveniently "missing" the other posts that are informing you that you are incorrect on this point.

Here is an excerpt from an article on the origins of marriage; I can post the whole thing, if you wish:

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. 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.

Marriage was adopted by religion.

Moreover, even if religion did create marriage, it is undeniable that there are two different "ideas" of marriage, one of which is purely legal. (Much like the Christian Christmas vs. the "Commercialized" Santa Claus Christmas, and the Christian Easter vs. The Easter Bunny.)

If this were not so, polygamy would be legal. It is still practiced by some Mormons, but those marriages are not considered legitimate in the eyes of the law. Therefore, there is a difference between secular and religious marriage, and the law recognizes it.
Then don't call it marriage.
They have every right to call it marriage if they want to; legally, they are married.

Exactly, and I wouldn't consider them to be married anyway.
Then don't consider gays married. They don't care, as long as the law does. (Not churches!)

Legitimate marriages have always been sanctified in the eyes of God. Where did I deny that?
You have no way of knowing that, but even if you did, wouldn't homosexual marriages be illegitimate in the eyes of your god? If so, it wouldn't matter whether or not they were getting "fake" marriages in the courthouse, which happen to be recognized by the government. The government is not God.

By adding "legitimate" in there, you just proved our point that some marriages are not sanctioned by God, and therefore are not religious.

How in the world does legal gay marriage oppress you or anyone else? Let me guess: it oppresses your ability to tell other people how to live their lives (lives that affect you in no way shape or form)
It doesn't even do that! They can speak out against gays all they want; it doesn't change!

You're just repeating your argument. I've already rebutted it.
Main Entry: re·but
Pronunciation: ri-'b&t
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): re·but·ted; re·but·ting
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French reboter, from re- + boter to butt -- more at BUTT
transitive senses
1 : to drive or beat back : REPEL
2 a : to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof b : to expose the falsity of : REFUTE
intransitive senses : to make or furnish an answer or counter proof
- re·but·ta·ble /-'b&-t&-b&l/ adjective

No, you need to find a new rebuttal. Yours did not disprove the point that marriage is not religious by default. You only said that "God is omnipresent. God is going to be at an atheists[sic] marriage regardless."

Marriage was not invented by religion (see point above), so it does not have a copyright on the word or act of "marriage." As for you claiming your God is everywhere, that is irrelevant. Using that to say that marriage is purely a religious act is like saying that pooping is purely a religious act. If he's everywhere, he's everywhere.

Also, homosexuality is an abomination unto God, therefore it must not be tolerated.
In YOUR religion; you've said yourself in a different thread the Christianity isn't for everybody.

It's as the old saying goes "Don't condone what God condemns." Any Christian who supports what God says is a sin basically sins themself.
I have a question for you. Would you vote to support religious freedom? If you did, you would be allowing different religions to practice things that are abominable (polygamy, for example), which would be "condoning what God comdemns."

Would you just not vote on the issue (which, by the way, is an option for those who are opposed because they "don't want to get in trouble")?

Zero proof? Read the Bible. It's that simple.
Not that I'm trying to disprove your religion (I have every respect for one's personal belief in the religion of their choosing), but the Bible wouldn't hold up in court, so you're going to have to come up with another way of convincing skeptics.

You guys better listen to Neo Rogolia, she knows what shes talking about. Im a Christian and every day god tells me that gay is a sin.
Yeah, well my god tells me every day that wearing pants is a sin, so I'm going to lobby for a pants ban. :rolleyes:

my friends neighbor wants to marry her cat.

what if you go to international waters?

maybe in the lawless high seas you marry all those men and women you love...and he can marry cats and dogs, etc
Wow, I didn't realize that there are new breeds of cats and dogs out there that are able to speak, write, and sign legal documents. You learn something new every day...

And one more note: For those of you playing the Religious Freedom card in regards to secular same-sex marriage, you'd better be willing to accept all other types of marriages endorsed by religions different than yours, including polygamy. It works both ways.



That's what I posted before. *points up* I have more to add:

People claim that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else you can do what you like. Therefore that means that doing drugs is fine, such as heroin, and other such things which are not fine but are wrong.
Heroin and other hard drugs aren't illegal because they're drugs, they're illegal because they are harmful. And they sure as heck aren't illegal because they're morally "wrong." Beer, caffiene, nicotine, and other medicinal drugs aren't illegal, and they are all classified as drugs.

Two gay people marrying one another doesn not hurt ANYBODY, including themselves.

This attitude is the product of selfish and arrogant individualism. It makes the individual believe that they are the most important person in their world and can do what they like, regardless of whether it is sinful or not.
The only people claiming they are important are the anti-gay fundamentalists like you who say that you know better, and gays shouldn't be allowed equal rights because YOU say your God says it's "wrong."

NOT EVERYBODY IS A CHRISTIAN/CATHOLIC, AND NOT EVERYBODY IS A GAY-HATING CHRISTIAN/CATHOLIC. Your rules do NOT apply to everybody, and even though I know you think they do (your religion being the "right" one and all), you cannot force people into following your rules.

Sin is not illegal.

Religious people, how does Gay marriage affect YOU?

Not your church or your beliefs, you yourself, do they walk into your home bragging that they are married? Do they try and make you gay? Do they do any sort of thing that, other than ruin your religious bubble of hiding from the world in safety, harm you?

Can you make a reason OTHER than religion why Gay marriage is wrong? As said in some website, if I was a lawmaker and you told me to Ban Gay marriage because of 'God' I'd make you spend one Week of forced employment at a Gay bar.
By breaking the "None of your damn business law"

And I'm sick of all you Fundimentalists, I see no difference between you and those Muslim terrorists, except you don't kill people. You still try to order people to act YOUR way. Religion has been the one thing that has repeatly held back mankind, if YOUR religion had your way we the Rennisance would have never happened (The church tried to stop all of them you know.) We wouldn't have had religious reforms we wouldn't have inventions we wouldn't have even crossed the ocean.

If it was YOUR way we'd still be a bunch of uneducated idiots kissing the ass of the local Bishop, ignorant to progress and remaining in the dark ages forever. Yeah YOUR way is the best indeed.

Homosexuality isn't the issue at hand, gay marriage is the issue of this thread.

Anyway, gar marriage is a moral issue because marriage itself is a moral issue and, furthermore, it's about what your morals are on this issue as to whether gay marriage is right or not.
Marrige in the fassion we speek of is not a moral issue ... it is a legal and social contract
Nothing more

Nooo! Jesus never wanted equal rights! He hates gays and black people and evolution and Jews and contraceptives and sex! Aaaargh! None of this was supposed to happen! I'm threatened by the unfamiliar! My dogma is clashing with my empirical judgement!!

Religious people, how does Gay marriage affect YOU?

Not your church or your beliefs, you yourself, do they walk into your home bragging that they are married? Do they try and make you gay? Do they do any sort of thing that, other than ruin your religious bubble of hiding from the world in safety, harm you?

Can you make a reason OTHER than religion why Gay marriage is wrong? As said in some website, if I was a lawmaker and you told me to Ban Gay marriage because of 'God' I'd make you spend one Week of forced employment at a Gay bar.
By breaking the "None of your damn business law"

And I'm sick of all you Fundimentalists, I see no difference between you and those Muslim terrorists, except you don't kill people. You still try to order people to act YOUR way. Religion has been the one thing that has repeatly held back mankind, if YOUR religion had your way we the Rennisance would have never happened (The church tried to stop all of them you know.) We wouldn't have had religious reforms we wouldn't have inventions we wouldn't have even crossed the ocean.

If it was YOUR way we'd still be a bunch of uneducated idiots kissing the ass of the local Bishop, ignorant to progress and remaining in the dark ages forever. Yeah YOUR way is the best indeed.

Can anyone top this? Because I don't see anyway to defend against it. Saipea if that was your attempt then you failed.

Can anyone top this? Because I don't see anyway to defend against it. Saipea if that was your attempt then you failed.
Dude that saipea guy was being sarcastic...are you American or something?

Pity, another nation falls under the homosexual curse.

Pity, another nation falls under the homosexual curse.

Exactly. The homosexual world conspiracy is planning to overthrow the good, rightful christian nations, that so far withstood the immorality and communist ideas of free thought and choice of lifestyle. They formed an alliance with Al-Quaeda and Fidel Castro and if you should ever elect the Democrats back into the Whit House, they'll come to your homes, turn your wifes into feminist lesbians and take away your kids to have them sign the Kyoto treaty.... :rolleyes:

Oh boy...

Exactly. The homosexual world conspiracy is planning to overthrow the good, rightful christian nations, that so far withstood the immorality and communist ideas of free thought and choice of lifestyle. They formed an alliance with Al-Quaeda and Fidel Castro and if you should ever elect the Democrats back into the Whit House, they'll come to your homes, turn your wifes into feminist lesbians and take away your kids to have them sign the Kyoto treaty.... :rolleyes:

Oh boy...

haha, hurrah for you being alive.

Pity, another nation falls under the homosexual curse.

There there, the nurse will be there shortly with your medication.

No, because I pumped all this into myself by myself. No one else did it. I chose to go looking for the information and take it in.

That's what *they* want you to believe.

This is not fairness and equality. It makes a mockery of marriage. It's disgraceful.

You are a mockery of a sapient lifeform, and should not be tolerated.

You are a mockery of a sapient lifeform, and should not be tolerated.And I'm sick of all you Fundimentalists, I see no difference between you and those Muslim terrorists, except you don't kill people. You still try to order people to act YOUR way. Religion has been the one thing that has repeatly held back mankind, if YOUR religion had your way we the Rennisance would have never happened (The church tried to stop all of them you know.) We wouldn't have had religious reforms we wouldn't have inventions we wouldn't have even crossed the ocean.

If it was YOUR way we'd still be a bunch of uneducated idiots kissing the ass of the local Bishop, ignorant to progress and remaining in the dark ages forever. Yeah YOUR way is the best indeed.Dude that saipea guy was being sarcastic...are you American or something?
The flamebaiting and personal attacks need to stop NOW, or warnings and forumbans will follow. Clear?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

So, in what way is marriage a moral issue?
And as you seem to be the one with the moral problem concerning gay marriage, what ARE your morals?

Marriage is a moral issue because it is a religious issue. Gay marriage, even more than straight marriage, is a moral issue because we have to decide whether it is right or wrong.

My morals are are based on my religious belief and the Cathechism and other Church teachings, doctrine and dogma.

As long as they don't hurt anybody else, they can do whatever they want. Taking heroin or hard drugs of any kind is very likely to hurt others in the process, as the addiction will in many cases lead to criminal acts in order to afford the next shot, medical treatment will be required when trying to get off the drug and the individual will not be able to keep his/her job, thus ending up costing society.

The individual is not the most important person in the world, as we are all equaly important. And in that light, how can we deny the right to a married life to one group, while offering it to another?
And how can the concept of sin apply to a person who doesn't believe in sin?

That is wrong. God is and should be the most important 'thing' in all our lives. By allowing individuals to think that they are supreme and the most important we get evil, sin and degradation in our societies.

We need to strike a balance and have to draw the line somewhere because unrestrained individualism allows evil and sin to prosper.

Marriage is a moral issue because it is a religious issue. Gay marriage, even more than straight marriage, is a moral issue because we have to decide whether it is right or wrong.

My morals are are based on my religious belief and the Cathechism and other Church teachings, doctrine and dogma.

Marriage is NOT an religious issue. If it was, how would atheists ever get married? Or are you planning on denying the mmarriage as well?
marriage is a secular, legal issue. If the individual chooses, a religious element can be added, but it is not the basis of a marriage.

That is wrong. God is and should be the most important 'thing' in all our lives. By allowing individuals to think that they are supreme and the most important we get evil, sin and degradation in our societies.

We need to strike a balance and have to draw the line somewhere because unrestrained individualism allows evil and sin to prosper.

No, he shouldn't be.

God gave us free will to choose to make him important or not. Who are you to take that god-given right away from people???
Christianity is above all about individualism and choice, in case you hadn't noticed. Each individual has to decide himself/herself what life to live and how to live it, what commandments to follow and how to live with the possible consequences.

No, he shouldn't be.

God gave us free will to choose to make him important or not. Who are you to take that god-given right away from people???

God should be because we should all make that choice to make God the most important thing in our lives.

Otherwise, it will only harm us in the end.

Christianity is above all about individualism and choice, in case you hadn't noticed. Each individual has to decide himself/herself what life to live and how to live it, what commandments to follow and how to live with the possible consequences.

Which is why I said we need to strike a balance because unrestrained individualism leads to direct contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Church.

God should be because we should all make that choice to make God the most important thing in our lives.

Otherwise, it will only harm us in the end.

So you actually place yourself above god's desicion to give us free will?
On what authority, pray?

Marriage is a moral issue because it is a religious issue. Gay marriage, even more than straight marriage, is a moral issue because we have to decide whether it is right or wrong.

My morals are are based on my religious belief and the Cathechism and other Church teachings, doctrine and dogma.

*sigh* I think I'll go out on a limb here and say the following: Wow, so prior to the advent of Christianity, there was no such thing as marriage? I'm pretty sure that the Chinese, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Phoenicians and about 90% of the rest of the world at that time period had marriages, and without the usual invocation of Christianity.

So according to you, they were all shams since they didn't happen under the auspices of a pastor?

That sirrah, is nothing more than intolerance and and in a way anti-anyone not a Christian bigotry.

Which is why I said we need to strike a balance because unrestrained individualism leads to direct contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Church.

That is exactly what it is about.

We have the free will to choose to accept those teachings or to refuse them. They are not supposed to be forced on us in any way.
If you take away the alternative, you take away the right to choose, thus actively destroying Jesus' message and the message of the bible.

So you actually place yourself above god's desicion to give us free will?
On what authority, pray?

Please tell me how I have done that.

So according to you, they were all shams since they didn't happen under the auspices of a pastor?

Well, my marriage will be a sham if it happens in front of a pastor! ;)

That is exactly what it is about.

We have the free will to choose to accept those teachings or to refuse them. They are not supposed to be forced on us in any way.
If you take away the alternative, you take away the right to choose, thus actively destroying Jesus' message and the message of the bible.

it also stops you choosing the "rightious path" like me and CE have chosen

That is wrong. God is and should be the most important 'thing' in all our lives. By allowing individuals to think that they are supreme and the most important we get evil, sin and degradation in our societies.

Odd. I have never believed in God in any way, shape, or form, and I have not degenerated into evil and degradation. Indeed, I believe my lack of God-belief is one of the most important factors in making me the person I am today, and that it would be impossible to be a truly moral and decent person if I believed in God. My parents have never believed in God in any way, shape, or form, and they are just about the greatest people you could ever hope to meet. In fact, to the best of my knowledge none of my living first-degree relatives have ever been religious, and they're all very responsible, kind, honorable, intelligent, productive members of society.

Odd, also, that religious persons are OVER-represented in prison populations when compared to atheists and agnostics. Odd, that self-described "strong religiosity" in parents is the second leading factor in predicting abuse of children (the first is alcoholism). Odd, that children of self-described "very religious" families are nearly 30% more likely to be directly involved with a teen pregnancy (either as the mother or father).

Is it possible that your disgusting generalization might be in some way incorrect?


We need to strike a balance and have to draw the line somewhere because unrestrained individualism allows evil and sin to prosper.
Funny, I was going to say the same thing about self-righteous ignorance and superstition. Only my claim is actually supported by that funny thing we call "fact."