NationStates Jolt Archive

Gay Marriage and unions legalizing in Spain and Canada, how horrifying is this?? I hope that it never becomes legal in th US, luckily the conservative party is in control for the time being and hopefully this so called "right" will not become a reality

Feel Free to voice you opinion about this issue.

I'd like to know in what tangible way you would be affected if any gay couple got married.

It's a wonderful step forwards for minority rights, and I hope the rest of the world eventually follows suit.

Unfortunately, I think it will take quite a while before we here in the US accept it.

I too would like to have it explained why not, I still havent worked this out without involving outdated religious trash.

And it's already legal in Massachusetts.

Well, the world isn't destroyed yet, maybe france will accept homosexuality and the world will implode because third time is the charm

I'd like to know in what tangible way you would be affected if any gay couple got married.


It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

I pissed my pants. :D

Wanna touch them?

What horrifies you, exactly? It's not like they're suddenly going to force people to do it. It's less important than RELIGION, ffs, and I don't give a flying fuck about religion.

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

Alright. I said "tangible" and "you".

I pissed my pants. :D

Wanna touch them?


does this have any thign to deal with the topic Colodia?

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.
Fortunately, this isn't Iran, and our Constitution isn't called "The Holy Bible."

does this have any thign to deal with the topic Colodia?
It is kind of gay...

does this have any thign to deal with the topic Colodia?
I was THAT horrified.

I'd like to take seperation of church and state for 1000 Alex.

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

Okay its kinda arbitrary isn't it? And its YOUR god not theirs? If YOUR god says gay marriage is wrong then YOU don't gay marry simply enough isn't it? see the jewish/muslim god says don't eat pork, but I eat it anyway? Why isn't it against the law? Becuase I AM NOT JEWISH/MUSLIM my friend. I reconize and somewhat respect your beliefs but you cannot hold others rights from them because of it, its just wrong, wrong I SAY. You have done a disservice to us all today B.J.

Religion is THE most important thing about living on this Earth that the Lord gave us to follow his word, and to try our hardest to live by it. Legalizing it would bring incentive to do the opposite.

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

And what is your Religion? If it's Christianity, read your New Testament again, Jesus said to love you neighbor as yourself, not just your straight, Christian, fundamebtalist neighbor.

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.
Time for a hypthetical tangent!:
My religion says wearing pants is wrong. Wearing pants disgraces God, as God clearly gave us legs so that they could be seen, and covering them up would be hiding His creation from others. It is quite a disturbing thought to wear pants.
Because of this, it is quite obvious that wearing pants should be outlawed!

See how that line of reasoning goes?

Anyway, it doesn't particularly matter, because we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the US. I am quite free to 'disgrace your God and your religion' if I so choose, as is anybody else here.

And what is your Religion? If it's Christianity, read your New Testament again, Jesus said to love you neighbor as yourself, not just your straight, Christian, fundamebtalist neighbor.

Sorry about the kinda of crude remarks,I was on a anger fueled rampage, your right,, I shouldn't treat gays any different than someone who isn't, I just would just disagree with them.

You know, he won't change his mind. No real point trying to do so. If he isn't just trolling, then he obviously believes in God and religous...stuff...and he won't switch opinions.

I mean, c'mon. Let's not shove our own opinions down his own throat. Kill the snake at the head.

Religion is THE most important thing about living on this Earth that the Lord gave us to follow his word, and to try our hardest to live by it. Legalizing it would bring incentive to do the opposite.

Gee. I thought stuff like breathing and eating were more essential than having faithwhen it came to living. Guess you can stop doing those two things; they're not that important.

Religion is THE most important thing about living on this Earth that the Lord gave us to follow his word, and to try our hardest to live by it. Legalizing it would bring incentive to do the opposite.

wow, ahh lets see, its your right to think that, but it isn't your right to hold others down for it. You see not everyone is christian my friend(If your not christian I am sorry) and you cannot force your believes upon others, its just wrong sorry, I think you were trying to flamebait or troll, But I could be wrong.

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.
So does eating lobster. Or women wearing pants.

Religion is THE most important thing about living on this Earth that the Lord gave us to follow his word, and to try our hardest to live by it. Legalizing it would bring incentive to do the opposite.

No, it wouldn't. In the end, it is the individual who sins through their own fault and weakness to temptation. One should hold to their faith and morals reagrdless of society or the world around them. Look at Noah, or Job, or even Jesus. They all were tempted by sin around them but resisted it. Have faith in God that you will resist sin, and don't try to blame others for it.

You know, he won't change his mind. No real point trying to do so. If he isn't just trolling, then he obviously believes in God and religous...stuff...and he won't switch opinions.

I mean, c'mon. Let's not shove our own opinions down his own throat. Kill the snake at the head.

good point I am going to leave this thread...

Oh my god, them homosexuals in Canada can get their sinful hands on a marriage license, and legally. This is horrifying. Our world is doomed to eternity and stuff.

... That's what you sound like to me.

I am not trying to flamebait or troll, and if I am correct this is a forum, a place to express your opinions and I am. I hope that you respect my opinion as I do yours even though I may disagree with it.

So with the ppl who think gays should be able to marry, I think that we can agree to disagree, am i right?

So does eating lobster. Or women wearing pants.

Lobster?? lol Since when is lobster a sin??

Gee. I thought stuff like breathing and eating were more essential than having faithwhen it came to living. Guess you can stop doing those two things; they're not that important.

Sdaeriji, you know what I mean and you know it as well.

Lobster?? lol Since when is lobster a sin??
Never read Leviticus, have you.

Lobster?? lol Since when is lobster a sin??

Levitivus 11:9-12

"'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you. "

Lobster fits this perfectly, and with good reason actually (shellfish can contain cholera bacteria, and eating them uncooked as they likely would be at the time would lead to epidemic)

I am not trying to flamebait or troll, and if I am correct this is a forum, a place to express your opinions and I am. I hope that you respect my opinion as I do yours even though I may disagree with it.

So with the ppl who think gays should be able to marry, I think that we can agree to disagree, am i right?

Yea thats perfectly fine. You can think gays shouldnt be able to marry and people can think that gays should. Thats all fine and dandy. But when you go around trying to base the limitation of people's rights on a religion that not everyone agrees on then there is a problem.

Levitivus 11:9-12

"'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you. "

Lobster fits this perfectly, and with good reason actually (shellfish can contain cholera bacteria, and eating them uncooked as they likely would be at the time would lead to epidemic)

Interesting, I want to look that up, ne ver actually had lobster i don't think, that is very interesting.

Interesting, I want to look that up, ne ver actually had lobster i don't think, that is very interesting.

Leviticus is loaded with dietary laws, many of which make sense when you consider the fact that the ancient Israelites didn't have any knowledge of germ theory and these laws help protect them from food and waterborne illnesses.

However, these laws apply only to Jews, and even more specifically the Levite priests. So eating lobster is ok for non-Jews. :)

Yeah, nowadays many Jews do not keep it Kosher as many of them are reform.

I think you have a deep seated need to proclaim your heterosexuality.
You've used this board as your own personal soap box to proclaim it.

Your willingness to inform leaves me suspicous, at best, of your so-called identity.
This probably stems from deep-seated guilt you harbor for several sweaty homoerotic experiments you engaged in during your adolescence. I'm guessing definitely mutual masturbation, perhaps a blowjob or two as well.

It's okay. It happens. Get on with your sexual identity without harshing anyone else's mellow.


:p

Leviticus is loaded with dietary laws, many of which make sense when you consider the fact that the ancient Israelites didn't have any knowledge of germ theory and these laws help protect them from food and waterborne illnesses.

However, these laws apply only to Jews, and even more specifically the Levite priests. So eating lobster is ok for non-Jews. :)
Ahh no it doesn't they technically apply to anyone who is Jeduo/christian Its just most christians faiths don't pay attention to it...

Yes, Judism is an interesting religion as well. The services are interesting and are similar in ways to Christian services, except new testament readings and nicene creed and such.

It's a wonderful step forwards for minority rights, and I hope the rest of the world eventually follows suit.

Unfortunately, I think it will take quite a while before we here in the US accept it.

What I think is unfortunate is that the land that is literally synonymous with religous persecution (Spanish Inquisition) has now overtaken the "land of the free" in the arena of civil rights.

seperation of church (or whatever) and state. and this is why i belive nothing that has no proof- because everybody thinks they're right. the only think i belive is science

Do all citizens deserve the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

If you are a true patriot you will say "Yes"

Gay citizens deserve the exact same rights as everyone else.

I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but I believe almost 10% of the US population is homosexual or bisexual.
How can you ignore the human rights of this many people?

Gay Marriage and unions legalizing in Spain and Canada, how horrifying is this?? I hope that it never becomes legal in th US, luckily the conservative party is in control for the time being and hopefully this so called "right" will not become a reality

Feel Free to voice you opinion about this issue.

Lighten up, dude. You can't except everyone to do what you want. Get over it, if it's any consolation to you, the godless sodommites will rot forever in hell. :rolleyes:

Gay Marriage and unions legalizing in Spain and Canada, how horrifying is this?? I hope that it never becomes legal in th US, luckily the conservative party is in control for the time being and hopefully this so called "right" will not become a reality

Feel Free to voice you opinion about this issue.
Ontario, Quebec and BC may have it legalized but the rest of the country, particulairly the prairie provinces are still fighting. We recognize the fact that homosexuality becoming legal is one of the later stages in the decline of a civilization.
So if we are allowing gay marriages what is next? The polygimists are already preparing a motion to get their lifestyle legalized. But what about the other perverts? Beastiality? public nudists? Man boy love? It is immpossible to stop an avalanche once it starts but it can be controlled before it begins!

What I think is unfortunate is that the land that is literally synonymous with religous persecution (Spanish Inquisition) has now overtaken the "land of the free" in the arena of civil rights.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Ontario, Quebec and BC may have it legalized but the rest of the country, particulairly the prairie provinces are still fighting. We recognize the fact that homosexuality becoming legal is one of the later stages in the decline of a civilization.
So if we are allowing gay marriages what is next? The polygimists are already preparing a motion to get their lifestyle legalized. But what about the other perverts? Beastiality? public nudists? Man boy love? It is immpossible to stop an avalanche once it starts but it can be controlled before it begins!



Canada: Just like ancient Greece and Rome before the barbarians :D


Really though, this is opening lots of avenues for the legalization of many more sins than are already legal.

Ontario, Quebec and BC may have it legalized but the rest of the country, particulairly the prairie provinces are still fighting. We recognize the fact that homosexuality becoming legal is one of the later stages in the decline of a civilization.
So if we are allowing gay marriages what is next? The polygimists are already preparing a motion to get their lifestyle legalized. But what about the other perverts? Beastiality? public nudists? Man boy love? It is immpossible to stop an avalanche once it starts but it can be controlled before it begins!
To everyone else: This is almost certainly sarcasm.

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.
God gave everyone free will. Pray tell, how does homosexuality "disgrace" YOUR God and/or YOUR religion?

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

Then don't think about it. It's not like two gay people who have just been married are going to come skipping down the street throwing flowers and spontaneously have sex on your front lawn.

and didn't God also say, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

God never wanted people to have christianity forced on them. That only makes them not want to accept it. If someone were to say, "from now on everyone must wear red on Friday or else, no one would do it.

Lobster?? lol Since when is lobster a sin??
I think I'm going to have to break out the Simpsons quotes here.
Have you ever actually sat down and read this thing, Marge? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom.

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

so what. just because other people sin doesn't mean you go to hell.

Judism is a disgrace to Jesus and Christianity do you think that Judism should be illegal too?

Frankly i don't care if Gay People get married, it is their life and they can do with it what they want. just because they are gay doesn't mean that they are not human. and God is willing to forgive. if he forgives a murderer why can't he forgive a homosexual?

I think it's great that gay rights are begining to prevail in so many places. I can't wait until the US finally gives up on it's prejudice and embraces equality.

Judism is a disgrace to Jesus and Christianity do you think that Judism should be illegal too?

That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted on this forum. If you read the Bible, you will find that Jesus himself was a Jew, and that the Jews are "God's chosen people."

Meh. Gay marriage? That's fine by me. Just don't a) expect me to believe it's either "normal" or "right" (because I believe neither, for reasons I can't quantify; I think it's called gut feeling, which admittedly isn't worth anything in legal terms, and rightly so) or b) shove it in my face - unless you want me to organise some "hetero pride" marches. ;)

In answer to the thread question: Not me, I think it's peachy, thanks.

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

You mean Anglicanism, started by Henry the Eighth because he kept shooting Girl Rounds while aiming for a boy and wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon.. and couldn't because Catholicism doesn't allow divorces?

:rolleyes:

Gay Marriage and unions legalizing in Spain and Canada, how horrifying is this?? I hope that it never becomes legal in th US, luckily the conservative party is in control for the time being and hopefully this so called "right" will not become a reality

Feel Free to voice you opinion about this issue.
Get over it.

The Conservative Party of Canada won't get into power because they committed political suicide by embracing neo-conservatism and threatening to use the notwithstanding clause...

GAy marriage doesn't change what or who you are, nor does it change your life. Stop whining and find something better to spend your time on.

I still think that it's not so much a "Because God said so" reason as much as it's a "Dawn of the Gay" nightmare scenario that the Religious Right dreads, where legalized gay marriage means homosexuality spreads like a zombie virus.

I still think that it's not so much a "Because God said so" reason as much as it's a "Dawn of the Gay" nightmare scenario that the Religious Right dreads, where legalized gay marriage means homosexuality spreads like a zombie virus.
WEll, they've got a cure for Small Pox; homosexuality is next...if not for that gosh darned AIDS... :D

Gay Marriage and unions legalizing in Spain and Canada, how horrifying is this?? I hope that it never becomes legal in th US, luckily the conservative party is in control for the time being and hopefully this so called "right" will not become a reality

Feel Free to voice you opinion about this issue.

You wanted my opinion? :upyours: <---there it is.

I'll dance on your grave when you die of a curable disease because it was 'Gods will' that you die. Because if god's that important to you then you better not take any medicines. The bible didn't quote them so it must be wrong.

I dub this FLAME BAIT THREAD.

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

but does it affect your everyday life?


and how is love a disturbing thought? love is incredible, it's beautiful, and it should not be denied to anyone. love. man, love is it.

and as far as your god and your religion (assuming you are christian), doesn't your god love everyone? doesn't he tell you to love everyone?

my brain is not functioning. but yeah.

Ontario, Quebec and BC may have it legalized but the rest of the country, particulairly the prairie provinces are still fighting.

Actually, same sex marriage is legal in the following provinces and territory:

Yukon
BC
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Newfoundland

The only holdouts at this point are Alberta, PEI, NWT, and Nunavut. And Alberta already has same sex civil unions.

The only province/territory likely to try to fight the federal law when it is passed this summer is Alberta. Although chances are good that the frowning going on there is all Conservative posturing. They really aren't all that likely to wield the notwithstanding clause, or abolish the provincial Marriage Act (so that the only marriages in Alberta would be religious ones, no civil ones). Besides there are a number of churches that would perform same sex religious marriages in Alberta anyway, so its not worth the time, money, and lawyers required to abolish civil marriage in Alberta over a provincial tantrum.

I'd like to know in what tangible way you would be affected if any gay couple got married.

I'd like to know in what tangible way you would be affexted if a woman was raped in a dark ally

I'd like to know in what tangible way you would be affexted if a woman was raped in a dark ally

Gee, what a logical comparison that was. :rolleyes:

Gee, what a logical comparison that was. :rolleyes:

he didn't ask me about the morality of the act, the only argument that he listed was the I wouldn't be affected by it

he didn't ask me about the morality of the act, the only argument that he listed was the I wouldn't be affected by it

Ahh, I see.

*shakes fist at people who have developed a knee-jerk reaction* Throg people too....

Meh. Gay marriage? That's fine by me. Just don't a) expect me to believe it's either "normal" or "right" (because I believe neither, for reasons I can't quantify; I think it's called gut feeling, which admittedly isn't worth anything in legal terms, and rightly so) or b) shove it in my face - unless you want me to organise some "hetero pride" marches. ;)
I really appreciate people who are logical enough to realize that personal feelings shouldn't play a part in this issue. :) I wish there were more people out there like you.

I really appreciate people who are logical enough to realize that personal feelings shouldn't play a part in this issue. :) I wish there were more people out there like you.

Oh, there's lots of us. Please view the results of the poll. ;)

Meh. Gay marriage? That's fine by me. Just don't a) expect me to believe it's either "normal" or "right" (because I believe neither, for reasons I can't quantify; I think it's called gut feeling, which admittedly isn't worth anything in legal terms, and rightly so) or b) shove it in my face - unless you want me to organise some "hetero pride" marches. ;)

A "Pride March" by an accepted and mainstream majority group aimed at a minority that may or may not be just as accepted in public is dumping salt into a gut wound, much the way an Illinois Nazi march through Skokie or a KKK Rally in Harlem would be.

A "Pride March" by an accepted and mainstream majority group aimed at a minority that may or may not be just as accepted in public is dumping salt into a gut wound, much the way an Illinois Nazi march through Skokie or a KKK Rally in Harlem would be.

Yes, because God forbid that heterosexual white males be proud of their identity the way blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, and various other groups are. :rolleyes:

Yes, because God forbid that heterosexual white males be proud of their identity the way blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, and various other groups are. :rolleyes:

And what do heterosexual white males in America have culturally to celebrate?

:rolleyes:

And what do heterosexual white males in America have culturally to celebrate?

:rolleyes:

Wow, aren't we prejudiced.

Wow, aren't we prejudiced.

Wow, aren't we copping out by trying to play the Race Card?

Wow, aren't we copping out by trying to play the Race Card?

That's probably the single dumbest statement I've ever read. Do you operate exclusively in cliches?

And what do heterosexual white males in America have culturally to celebrate?

:rolleyes:

Um, war parades, veterans day, union rallies all those manly things.

Um, war parades, veterans day, union rallies all those manly things.

....the 4th of July....

And what do heterosexual white males in America have culturally to celebrate?

:rolleyes:
What don't they have to celebrate culturally?

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

Don't take this personally, but it does not involve you, your god or your religion, unless both you an the gay in question are of the same faith.
Hence, it is none of your or my business. I agree it gay marriage is a disturbing thought, They should have the right to it. While you have freedom of thought, religion and lifestyle, so does everyone else.

Quoting British Jimmy:
Gay Marriage and unions legalizing in Spain and Canada, how horrifying is this?? I hope that it never becomes legal in th US, luckily the conservative party is in control for the time being and hopefully this so called "right" will not become a reality

Yes, luckily the Republicans control the two electorate branches, and conservatives control the Supreme Court. Oh wait... the same party that says, in effect, if you don't have anything, too bad? The same party that didn't want to do anything about the Great Depression? But hey, at least they'll fight against gays, eh?

Quoting British Jimmy:
It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

In your own opinion. Who do you think gives a damn about your disturbing thoughts?

Quoting British Jimmy:
Religion is THE most important thing about living on this Earth that the Lord gave us to follow his word, and to try our hardest to live by it. Legalizing it would bring incentive to do the opposite.

In your own opinion.

Quoting Squornshelous:
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted on this forum. If you read the Bible, you will find that Jesus himself was a Jew, and that the Jews are "God's chosen people."

Maybe it's not just his QUOTE that's stupid.

I'm not going to provide my opinion here, because I don't think it would matter. I voted and thats what counts.
Here is my issue though. Why is it prefectly ok for someone to talk trash about a religion (Christianity in particular) by saying that it is irrelevant or worthless or something? When as soon as somebody else says the word "fag" or "queer" everyone gets all up in arms about how un-PC that is. A person can call another a "bible thumper" and mean it in a completely derogatory way, but they get offended at the word fag. When someone asks one of my friends if he is gay, he says "yeah I'm a fag." So forgive me if my usage of the word offends you..anyways I digress... I simply don't understand at all. Holy hell, I'm not as articulate as normal...sorry folks I'm 21 today...I'll be back to normal tomorrow..
Like I said though, I won't tell you my opinion because I don't want to explain myself, I'm straight and this is a really slippery slope. There is no real tangible reason why gay marriage should be illegal except for a pride issue on the part of our government. I think they see it as un-American or something.

You know what? After extensive thought (like 10 seconds) on the issue, I could give a shit if gay marriage was legal or not. Who the hell cares in my opinion. More power to ya..have fun. I will stick to women though. heh stick..

While I disagree with BJ on allowing gay marriage, I think everyone is being too hard on him. He is entitled to his opinion and his is more tolerant than many others.

I've noticed that whenever someone comes out (pun intended) against gay marriage, the first responses are usually along the lines of "Please, tell me why you oppose gay marriage -- oh, but don't give me any of that hokey religious crap." I hate to break it to y'all, but saying that you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds is just as valid as opposing it for any other reason. You'll have to get it through your heads that there are people who take their religion very seriously, and actually try to follow it faithfully (shock!).

In the future, please take your religious intolerance elsewhere (that's right, I'm talking to the liberal anti-religionists here), and leave the rest of us to enjoy a civil discussion on these boards.

I'd like to know in what tangible way you would be affexted if a woman was raped in a dark ally
In no way. But the woman would be.

My opinion is probably due to the fact that I am an atheist, but I say if they want to get married, let them...really how would the normal everyday life of straight people be affected by this?

Why is it prefectly ok for someone to talk trash about a religion (Christianity in particular) by saying that it is irrelevant or worthless or something?
Because in legal issues, which gay marriage is, any religion is irrelevant per default.

I hate to break it to y'all, but saying that you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds is just as valid as opposing it for any other reason. You'll have to get it through your heads that there are people who take their religion very seriously, and actually try to follow it faithfully (shock!).

The thing is though that most of us live in secular societies. So, although his opinion is perfectly valid as his personal choice of thought, it is not a valid argument to oppose a political/legal decision by the government. It is exactly because we don't all share the same god (I am sure that I have a different god than BJ and I'm a christian) and don't feel obliged by the same rules that discussions which have mostly civil ramifications (e.g. the right to see your partner in hospital) that a religious pseudo-moral argument is disregarded by most.

Somehow this wasn't as coherent as I hoped, but tough, I had a hard night and my mind's scrambled

Gay Marriage and unions legalizing in Spain and Canada, how horrifying is this?? I hope that it never becomes legal in th US, luckily the conservative party is in control for the time being and hopefully this so called "right" will not become a reality

Feel Free to voice you opinion about this issue.

As usually, the land of the free takes a long time to recognize that freedom is for everyone but you're sure that's a paradise of liberty from July the 4th, 1776. Women rights, black people rights, gay and lesbians rights......
As a spaniard i'm proud of being one of the first in the whole world int his way, and i'm not used to. Unfortunately, I agree with you about the posibilities of a change in your country. Like many other things like Kyoto

That's probably the single dumbest statement I've ever read. Do you operate exclusively in cliches?

Even dumber than bringing up the mythological Oppression of the WASPs in a thread denouncing gay marriage as a bad idea? Oh please.

What don't they have to celebrate culturally?

America itself has no original culture. Everything is a derivative and amalgamation of other cultures from Europe, Asia, Africa and the rest of the Americas.

Why Marriage?
Why cant the Liberal Countries allow a BS Civil union?
Marriage is more religous and shouldnt be mucked about with by the state.
Unconstitional or not or whatever.

If they dont want to hinder Human Rights then make up a BS union thing.

If Gays want it for the financial stability it brings thats one thing but because they want to walk down the isle of a Church(YEs im against Gumby Registras aswell)and be known as Man and Wife thats completly different.

Stupid Liberal Decadence(Whole Society)

Gays don't disgrace you or your god. You do that yourself by judging them. Who do you think you are?

Gays don't disgrace you or your god. You do that yourself by judging them. Who do you think you are?
?
Woden Hates Gays deal with it. :rolleyes:

"God said it's an abomination" usually means one of two things:

1) "Please don't stick your penis in my rectum nevermind the fact that you probably don't find me attractive, I'm just self-centered enough to think you want to."

2) "Please don't touch me or I might get the Q-Virus and turn into a drooling mindless homosexual."

?
Woden Hates Gays deal with it. :rolleyes:

This, from the god who comes up with the concept of an eternal beer hall where fallen warriors live together, fight each other to a sweaty, bloody pulp every day, and at the end of the day they all get miraculously patched up and throw parties together.

Oh the irony.

This, from the god who comes up with the concept of an eternal beer hall where fallen warriors live together, fight each other to a sweaty, bloody pulp every day, and at the end of the day they all get miraculously patched up and throw parties together.

Oh the irony.
*Taps nose* :D

Just cos it disgraces your god and your religion doesn't mean other ppls can't accept it. In every religion god or gods have given us free choice so we don't have to go around obeying the intolerant oppressiveness of the Church and the State. If that means we're damned, so be it.


Anyway, most of the anti-gay material in Christianity (not sure about others) came from the old testament, a series of scriptures not even strictly applicable to christians and giving lots of advice on how to slay innocents, rape, sell prisoners and sex slaves and what-not.

Why Marriage?
Why cant the Liberal Countries allow a BS Civil union?
Marriage is more religous and shouldnt be mucked about with by the state.
Unconstitional or not or whatever.

If they dont want to hinder Human Rights then make up a BS union thing.

If Gays want it for the financial stability it brings thats one thing but because they want to walk down the isle of a Church(YEs im against Gumby Registras aswell)and be known as Man and Wife thats completly different.

Stupid Liberal Decadence(Whole Society)

Thats one of the most conceited things I've ever heard. Marraige is religious? So what, atheists and agnostics don't get married?

Everybody should be able to get married, each culture has a different way of marrying and so forth but everybody should still have the right to marry, with overpopulation today and what-not, I'm all for gay people reducing the population and bit, taking an adoption here or there.

Just cos it disgraces your god and your religion doesn't mean other ppls can't accept it. In every religion god or gods have given us free choice so we don't have to go around obeying the intolerant oppressiveness of the Church and the State. If that means we're damned, so be it.


Anyway, most of the anti-gay material in Christianity (not sure about others) came from the old testament, a series of scriptures not even strictly applicable to christians and giving lots of advice on how to slay innocents, rape, sell prisoners and sex slaves and what-not.
They are some very god points and it is a shame its always Christians vs Sinners.

I realise its Old Testament law/lore but why is it always Ch vs Sin why never someone sledging a Jew(They followed the law in the first place) or Muslims?

State should butt out of Church/religous bussines and Church should be preaching against State bussiness state dosent have to listen to Church but it shouldnt make the first step of interference.

1. Marriage isn't a solely religious institution, and never have been.

2. A religion should not dictate what everyone can and cannot do.

3. Severel branches of Christian religions do perform same-sex marriages, and advocate equal rights. This makes other religions attempts at outlawing same-sex marriages an attack on peoples freedom of religion.

Untill someone can actually come up with a reason why it's a good idea to base legislation on the creeds of one religion, but not others, I cannot see how citing religious reasons can be relevant. It's pure prejudice, nothing more.
Further, if religious people have any interest in protecting their institutions, they should be fighting for equal rights. Their own institutions are protected by minority rights. Undermining them is undermining their own continued existence.
Debating the finer points of whether a given religion is actually against homosexual behaviour is not relevant in this discussion.

It's perfectly fine to be nausiated by homosexual behaviour. Many people are equally nausiated by something else you do. That doesn't mean any of us have any right to limit eachothers freedom, unless our actions harm others.
Unless you can prove beyond all doubt that homosexual behaviour harms anyone, your own feelings on the subject is irrelevant. And in the interest of not having your own freedoms limited in the future, you should fight hard to ensure all have equal rights.

Now did I miss any possible argument against same-sex marriages?

Thats one of the most conceited things I've ever heard. Marraige is religious? So what, atheists and agnostics don't get married?

Everybody should be able to get married, each culture has a different way of marrying and so forth but everybody should still have the right to marry, with overpopulation today and what-not, I'm all for gay people reducing the population and bit, taking an adoption here or there.
Is ive said whether before or after your rant registra marriages are crap.

They 'may'(take both senses of the word) get married but should they?

I say no.

I dont care what religeon 'you' are whether it be Christen,Jew,Muslim Quaker* or Budhist im sticking with Marriage being Religous just because Society changes dosent mean society should change and if it changes it shouldnt drag** others with it.

**Almost a pun

1. Marriage isn't a solely religious institution, and never have been.

2. A religion should not dictate what everyone can and cannot do.

3. Severel branches of Christian religions do perform same-sex marriages, and advocate equal rights. This makes other religions attempts at outlawing same-sex marriages an attack on peoples freedom of religion.

Untill someone can actually come up with a reason why it's a good idea to base legislation on the creeds of one religion, but not others, I cannot see how citing religious reasons can be relevant. It's pure prejudice, nothing more.
Further, if religious people have any interest in protecting their institutions, they should be fighting for equal rights. Their own institutions are protected by minority rights. Undermining them is undermining their own continued existence.
Debating the finer points of whether a given religion is actually against homosexual behaviour is not relevant in this discussion.

It's perfectly fine to be nausiated by homosexual behaviour. Many people are equally nausiated by something else you do. That doesn't mean any of us have any right to limit eachothers freedom, unless our actions harm others.
Unless you can prove beyond all doubt that homosexual behaviour harms anyone, your own feelings on the subject is irrelevant. And in the interest of not having your own freedoms limited in the future, you should fight hard to ensure all have equal rights.

Now did I miss any possible argument against same-sex marriages?
1:I say it has and i dont care how many pieces of rope you have to prove it or the closer ties of Secular life and religeous that came in the 11th century.
2:No it shouldnt but you should do it as a free choice.
3:Several banches of Christianity are crap and why must it alway be Christianinty?-Other Religeons are Religeons no matter how Heritical they are declared.

Equal rights bah thats a sham next youll be criticising Serfdom.

Is ive said whether before or after your rant registra marriages are crap.

They 'may'(take both senses of the word) get married but should they?

I say no.

I dont care what religeon 'you' are whether it be Christen,Jew,Muslim Quaker* or Budhist im sticking with Marriage being Religous just because Society changes dosent mean society should change and if it changes it shouldnt drag** others with it.

**Almost a pun
If I understand you correctly, we should go back to how marriage was traditionally?

Please reveiw your history books mate. Marriage was traditionally not religious, and certainly not christian. It predates all the major monotheisms by far.
As far as anyone knows, it was a pratical arrangement, used to barter women. About as secular as it gets. Religions just hijacked the concept because all potential followers practiced it.

So yea, fuck marrying for love. Fuck getting married in the eyes of (insert some divine thingy). Barter off your 12 year old daughter to someone in return for a new car instead.

If I understand you correctly, we should go back to how marriage was traditionally?

Please reveiw your history books mate. Marriage was traditionally not religious, and certainly not christian. It predates all the major monotheisms by far.
As far as anyone knows, it was a pratical arrangement, used to barter women. About as secular as it gets. Religions just hijacked the concept because all potential followers practiced it.

So yea, fuck marrying for love. Fuck getting married in the eyes of (insert some divine thingy). Barter off your 12 year old daughter to someone in return for a new car instead.
Like i said i dont want to hear no crap about ropes!-Used to tie to the womens finger and so the man could lead her around.
I aint for that see my History aint too bad.

Once again why must this always be a Christian thing?

So that would make your other points null and void.

My Daughter isnt worth a lowly car shed be worth at least 40 Camels! ;)

Ill tell you what we should take Abortion to the next level too kill it anytime you want and if you dont want it just reject it and leave it in the gutter!

Im all for Love but you dont need to call a Gay add word here Marriage.

Gays probably didnt get married in the old days although the Greeks had their boytoys so whats you point?

Like i said i dont want to hear no crap about ropes!-Used to tie to the womens finger and so the man could lead her around.
I aint for that see my History aint too bad.

Once again why must this always be a Christian thing?

So that would make your other points null and void.

My Daughter isnt worth a lowly car shed be worth at least 40 Camels! ;)

Ill tell you what we should take Abortion to the next level too kill it anytime you want and if you dont want it just reject it and leave it in the gutter!

Im all for Love but you dont need to call a Gay add word here Marriage.

Gays probably didnt get married in the old days although the Greeks had their boytoys so whats you point?
My point is that marriage traditionally isn't religious. If you argue from the premise that marriage is a religious ceremony, you're wrong. And I'll argue you should be against all marriage, not just same-sex ones. BEcause traditionally, marriage is a blatant breach of womens rights.

Same-sex marriages was performed waaay back in history. They weren't called anything other than marriage (obviously not that very same word). Read up on roman history if you doubt me, or look elsewhere here. Magical Ponies posted some good info about this a week or two ago.

I mentioned all religions and underlined the Christian faiths. I did it because there's an overwhelming number of Christians on this forum, and most of them argue their nonsense from their religion's point of veiw. Not from the point of veiw of all religion.

About your abortion argument... How is this related or valid? Do you see any connection in the following?

I want equal rights.

I want to kill people.

1:I say it has and i dont care how many pieces of rope you have to prove it or the closer ties of Secular life and religeous that came in the 11th century.
2:No it shouldnt but you should do it as a free choice.
3:Several banches of Christianity are crap and why must it alway be Christianinty?-Other Religeons are Religeons no matter how Heritical they are declared.

Equal rights bah thats a sham next youll be criticising Serfdom.
You're nothing but a troll are you?

1. Blah blah blah! I don't wanna hear any evidence that everything isn't how I imagine it

2. My religion shouldn't force you to do anything. You should follow it unquestioningly

3. Freedom of religion is shit. I have mine, and if others disagrees, kill 'em. Let god sort 'em out. Yee-Haaw

Don't worry. I won't post again. It's pointless writing to a blind.

I personally believe that gays should be allowed to wed. After all, doesn't the Declaration of Independence say that 'All men are created equal"? 'Men" referring to mankind, as in the human race. Gays and lesbians just happen to lean the other way. It's not like they can help it, really. They just are attracted to the same sex. If it doesn't hurt you, and it benefits them, why not let it be?

Heck, by the same logic of religion dictacting the gay marriage should be illegal, I suppose women shouldn't be allowed to vote, either. After all, wasn't Eve created from one of Adam's ribs? And if you want to look at if from the political (non-religious) POV, I suppose that blacks should not be considered citizens, either?

I always assumed that God was an loving, all-knowing omniprescent force throughout... existance. Emphasis on 'loving." Heck, didn't Jesus Christ, the Son of God and God in the flesh die on the cross for our sins? Our was that a publicity stunt by the Jewish High Priests and the Romans? Isn't that, and also 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" the main point(s) of the Holy Bible? That's what my parents and family always told me.

But in the long run, after all, is one gay couple getting married, even just for the benefits, really going to make your life that much harder? If it does/will, then I sugest you seek serious medical attention. *coughISANITY*cough

Addition: 'Treat others as you would like them to treat you" is one of the foundations for many other 'religions," including Confuscianism.

Even dumber than bringing up the mythological Oppression of the WASPs in a thread denouncing gay marriage as a bad idea? Oh please.

What mythological oppression did I site? Oh wait, I didn't. WASPs? Oh I see, you think that all white people are Anglo-Saxon Protestants. You've outdone yourself with the dumb cliched statements. Bravo.

/claps

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.
I disgrace your God and your religion, because I don't believe in them. Am I a disturbing thought? Well tough. You're outnumberd a couple of billion times. Live with it.

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.People who use the Bible as a crutch to espouse bigoted beliefs disgrace your God and your religion far worse than gay marriage could ever hope to.

People who use the Bible as a crutch to espouse bigoted beliefs disgrace your God and your religion far worse than gay marriage could ever hope to.

Wow, that's very well said. Can I quote you in my sig please? :D

The 14.01% who voted ' No thise shold never be!' are narrow minded, homophobes who are controled by their ancient beliefs.

Wow, that's very well said. Can I quote you in my sig please? :DSure, go ahead.

As I posted in another thread here are all the attempts to make you 'believe' using evidence: Here is the pattern of posts.

'Rant about God's will'

'Man not laying with another Man obscure bible quote'

'Gay is wrong because I said so.'

'Rant about some other obsure bible verse.'

'I'm not forcing my beliefs on everyone.'

'No I'm not'

'Really'

'I mean it I'm not!'

'Argh all of you are useless because you won't believe what I want you to believe'

I'm still right because GOD is on my side.

Yes he is

No I don't need to talk to him see 'Obscure Bible quote'

What do you mean it's just a book.

Whaaa I want to got home.

British Jimmy, you lose. :p

lol this thread is funny :p
and this British Jimmy chap is such a troll :rolleyes:

It would be unconstitutional to forbid gay marriage on religious reasons.

Two men or women kissing makes me wanna puke my guts up!

EDIT: especially the men, the women just because its wrong, but the men...eeeccchhhhhh!

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.
You know what else is a disturbing thought? The idea of you procreating. We should ban that too.

What mythological oppression did I site? Oh wait, I didn't. WASPs? Oh I see, you think that all white people are Anglo-Saxon Protestants. You've outdone yourself with the dumb cliched statements. Bravo.

/claps

Wow, you bitched about how there aren't any White Make Pride parades and then you turn around claiming to not have brought up the subject?

Can you even bring up a point where there should be a White Male Pride parade? Was there ever a point in history where being a White Male meant the system was stacked against you to begin with?

If you can't just say it then don't spray it.

:mp5:

My point is that marriage traditionally isn't religious. If you argue from the premise that marriage is a religious ceremony, you're wrong. And I'll argue you should be against all marriage, not just same-sex ones. BEcause traditionally, marriage is a blatant breach of womens rights.

Same-sex marriages was performed waaay back in history. They weren't called anything other than marriage (obviously not that very same word). Read up on roman history if you doubt me, or look elsewhere here. Magical Ponies posted some good info about this a week or two ago.

I mentioned all religions and underlined the Christian faiths. I did it because there's an overwhelming number of Christians on this forum, and most of them argue their nonsense from their religion's point of veiw. Not from the point of veiw of all religion.

About your abortion argument... How is this related or valid? Do you see any connection in the following?

I want equal rights.

I want to kill people.
I dont think you should say nonsense.

Abortion well simple back in Roman times if you didnt want your newborn child you could just leave it out on the streets.

You're nothing but a troll are you?

1. Blah blah blah! I don't wanna hear any evidence that everything isn't how I imagine it

2. My religion shouldn't force you to do anything. You should follow it unquestioningly

3. Freedom of religion is shit. I have mine, and if others disagrees, kill 'em. Let god sort 'em out. Yee-Haaw

Don't worry. I won't post again. It's pointless writing to a blind.
1. A troll not at all
2.Whats wrong with a bit of devotion to a higher being?
3.Hey the 4 main ones all worship the same guy jusyt differently we cant all be wrong.
4.When your words are hollow how can they be worthy of attention?

I dont think you should say nonsense.

Abortion well simple back in Roman times if you didnt want your newborn child you could just leave it out on the streets.


1. A troll not at all
2.Whats wrong with a bit of devotion to a higher being?
3.Hey the 4 main ones all worship the same guy jusyt differently we cant all be wrong.
4.When your words are hollow how can they be worthy of attention?

2. Its wrong when he doesnt exist.

3. Goody proctor is a witch!

2. Its wrong when he doesnt exist.

3. Goody proctor is a witch!



2. You now have even more faith than we do ;)

3. I suppose the day that anti-Christian bigots stop quoting that ghastly play will be the day pigs fly :rolleyes:

Two men or women kissing makes me wanna puke my guts up!

EDIT: especially the men, the women just because its wrong, but the men...eeeccchhhhhh!

Oh Yoooohooooo!

must...get...abuse...

KILLER-kitty, since you are resorting to flaming us conservative religious types, let me counter-flame:
Anyone who voted 'Yes, it should be' is so open-minded their brains have fallen out. They are all gay homosexuals that are controlled by their stupid civics-class moonbat-educated stupidity.

British Jimmy, just let me know if you need any help. I'll come to your aid.

Oh Yoooohooooo!

must...get...abuse...
Okay, I'll humor you, trolly.

HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT? TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN KISSING IS BEAUTIFUL! JUST ASK XTINA!

Seriously, dude, if you expose yourself to same sex relationships in media more often, I can guarantee it will eventually seize to make you uncomfortable if you allow yourself to open your own mind.


EDIT: I can also guarantee I couldn't spell the word "guarantee" correctly without a spell checker if my life depended on it.

KILLER-kitty, since you are resorting to flaming us conservative religious types, let me counter-flame:
Anyone who voted 'Yes, it should be' is so open-minded their brains have fallen out. They are all gay homosexuals that are controlled by their stupid civics-class moonbat-educated stupidity.

British Jimmy, just let me know if you need any help. I'll come to your aid.




Shhh, espousing your religious beliefs is politically incorrect! Talk softly, lest the raving leftist hordes come with pitchfork and torch screaming "CHRISTIAN PREJUDICED HATING RACIST BIGOT!!!!!!!!!!"

Okay, I'll humor you, trolly.

HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT? TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN KISSING IS BEAUTIFUL! JUST ASK XTINA!

Seriously, dude, if you expose yourself to same sex relationships in media more often, I can guarantee it will eventually seize to make you uncomfortable if you allow yourself to open your own mind.


EDIT: I can also guarantee I couldn't spell the word "guarantee" correctly without a spell checker if my life depended on it.



Yes, constant exposure to evil/sin hardens the heart, hence the media.

Yes, constant exposure to evil/sin hardens the heart, hence the media.
Oh, Neo, we both know that homosexuality is NOT actually a sin or evil. Judgement of others is. *Smiles innocently.*

Oh, Neo, we both know that homosexuality is NOT actually a sin or evil. Judgement of others is. *Smiles innocently.*



Romans 1, 2 Timothy, and Titus :p

Romans 1, 2 Timothy, and Titus :p
All open to interpretation. Must I go into my full-length arguement?

Shhh, espousing your religious beliefs is politically incorrect! Talk softly, lest the raving leftist hordes come with pitchfork and torch screaming "CHRISTIAN PREJUDICED HATING RACIST BIGOT!!!!!!!!!!"

Eh, I can take 'em with my bare hands!

All open to interpretation. Must I go into my full-length arguement?



You already have, and I've already given a rebuttle, then you've given a counter-rebuttle, and I've given a counter-counter-rebuttle, and so on. Let's just decide who is right with paper-rock-scissors. Best 2 out of 3 :D

KILLER-kitty, since you are resorting to flaming us conservative religious types, let me counter-flame:
Anyone who voted 'Yes, it should be' is so open-minded their brains have fallen out. They are all gay homosexuals that are controlled by their stupid civics-class moonbat-educated stupidity.

British Jimmy, just let me know if you need any help. I'll come to your aid.
Activating N008 mode...
(Edited to be easier)
Loading..
STFU!!11!!

[QUOTE=-Everyknowledge-]Okay, I'll humor you, trolly.

Oh thankyou! rolls over

HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT? TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN KISSING IS BEAUTIFUL! JUST ASK XTINA!

Barfs!*(especially the two men part)

Seriously, dude, if you expose yourself to same sex relationships in media more often, I can guarantee it will eventually seize to make you uncomfortable if you allow yourself to open your own mind.

Sounds like pc media brainwashing to me.
My mind is only open to men and women having sex with each other not with the same sex, your mind is closed to my way of thinking.

Thanks for the abuse! sighs*

Oh thankyou! rolls over



Barfs!*(especially the two men part)



Sounds like pc media brainwashing to me.
My mind is only open to men and women having sex with each other not with the same sex, your mind is closed to my way of thinking.

Thanks for the abuse! sighs*
Ah, are you ready for disturbing thoughts?

(1) People frequently see "flaws" in others that are "flaws" in themselves.
(2) There was recently a study that stated male homophobes are frequently physically aroused by gay porn. Would you like me to link to the article?

Ah, are you ready for disturbing thoughts?

(1) People frequently see "flaws" in others that are "flaws" in themselves.
(2) There was recently a study that stated male homophobes are frequently physically aroused by gay porn. Would you like me to link to the article?

No thankx! God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, or Carol and Linda.
Have a nice day. :)

No thankx! God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, or Carol and Linda.
Have a nice day. :)
How long do you think humans would've been around if God had created Adam and Steve?

God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, or Carol and Linda. Technically, God created Adam and Lilith and things didn't work out... but that's a whole other kettle of gay fish.

In other news, who cares what your neighbour is doing with his/her genitalia? Is the final destination of their vagina/penis, as long as it isn't without consent, really all that important to you?

God created Adam and Eve...

Way to go, God! They fucked it all up for all of us, for all of eternity.

I'd rather we had the Steve option, personally.

Two men or women kissing makes me wanna puke my guts up!

EDIT: especially the men, the women just because its wrong, but the men...eeeccchhhhhh!

Ah. Brilliant. Almost as brilliant as your posts on the thread about rapists/molestors, which very nearly did make me "puke my guts up" (as you so eloquently put it), seeing as I have a rather strong emotional response to the subject.

I feel a little better knowing that you're like this on every thread. Ever considered living under a bridge? Something about that environment seems to suit you.

Technically, God created Adam and Lilith and things didn't work out... but that's a whole other kettle of gay fish.

Funny how that story was. Basically when Adam wanted to get it on with Lilith, he complained to God about how she wanted to be equal lay side by side instead of being the good bitch on the bottom like every man in those periods expected a woman to be. Lilith objected, left the Garden and shacked up with some demons blah blah blah.

And so God created Eve as the more traditional submissive Do As The Man Tells You Bitch kind of woman. And we all read how that went down.

Is it any surprise that there's a Lilith Fair that celebrates the independent woman?

In other news, who cares what your neighbour is doing with his/her genitalia? Is the final destination of their vagina/penis, as long as it isn't without consent, really all that important to you?

Christians are afraid letting men ride men or shoes rub against each other will create a homosexual virus that will infect the world population like a zombie flick.

Funny how that story was. Basically when Adam wanted to get it on with Lilith, he complained to God about how she wanted to be equal lay side by side instead of being the good bitch on the bottom like every man in those periods expected a woman to be. Lilith objected, left the Garden and shacked up with some demons blah blah blah.

And so God created Eve as the more traditional submissive Do As The Man Tells You Bitch kind of woman. And we all read how that went down.

Is it any surprise that there's a Lilith Fair that celebrates the independent woman?



Christians are afraid letting men ride men or shoes rub against each other will create a homosexual virus that will infect the world population like a zombie flick.
Yes, indeed. OH NO, HE'S BEEN TO ABERCROMBIE! HE'S INFECTED! GET THE DECONTAMINATOR, STAT! OH, NO! IT'S TOO LATE! WE LOST HIM! :p

Christians are afraid letting men ride men or shoes rub against each other will create a homosexual virus that will infect the world population like a zombie flick.
For obvious reasons, considering remarks often made by overzealous faithful fanatics, that was a very bad choice of words.

Someone is going to mention AIDs...(since only gay people have unprotected sex)


EDIT: Oops...

No thankx! God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, or Carol and Linda.
Have a nice day. :)

What about the liberal protestant churches?

What about the liberal protestant churches?

Exactly. You can’t legislate morality because even followers of the same basic ideology have different views about what is moral. Personally, I believe my church's interpretation of the Bible is correct, but part of living in a free society is accepting that others have their opinions as well.

Ah. Brilliant. Almost as brilliant as your posts on the thread about rapists/molestors, which very nearly did make me "puke my guts up" (as you so eloquently put it), seeing as I have a rather strong emotional response to the subject.

I feel a little better knowing that you're like this on every thread. Ever considered living under a bridge? Something about that environment seems to suit you.

So you dont agree with me, so you call me a troll, :rolleyes: your material is so original, maybe you should read every thread Ive posted on b4 you generalise my statements too.
Your strong emotional response is your own, not everyone elses, and certainally not mine.

What about the liberal protestant churches?

I dont recognise any Church that has replaced Gods values, with some of the worlds.

Exactly. You can’t legislate morality because even followers of the same basic ideology have different views about what is moral. Personally, I believe my church's interpretation of the Bible is correct, but part of living in a free society is accepting that others have their opinions as well.

Okay, but most religions see themselves as the one true religion. A code, if you will, that God handed down for everyone to use as a ssytem to live their life by. If you think that your religion is the Will of God, doesn't it follow logically then that everyone else should endeavor to obey its strictures too?

How horrid, they want the same rights as hetrosexuals. :rolleyes:

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.
I don't care if gays or lesbians get married, let them adopt kids, let them have rights. They're people to dude. I'm straight, and I don't see what is wrong with them. Screw your God if he's not for equality among all, bugger your prejudiced religion, and as long as they don't rape people (gays/lesbians are very unlikely to do that) I don't see how it's disgusting.

How horrid, they want the same rights as hetrosexuals. :rolleyes:

Next thing you know, black people are going to want equal rights, too!

Oh, wait. That already happened. Silly me.

Well, I don't honestly know where or how AIDS originated, but gays and bis (Am I the first one to mention them in this thread?) did spread it pretty far. Gays (I assume) originated it, then spread it to the bis, who spread it to the straight folks. All of this, combined with the rotting moral fiber of the world today, is why AIDS has spread like wildfire.

Plus, using protection isn't necessarily a way to prevent contracting AIDS. The odds of a condom catching an AIDS virus are about the same as, as a smart man once said, about the same as a volleyball net catching a tennis ball. It's possible, but not likely.

So, as far as I can figure, the only sure-fire way to keep from getting AIDS is to abstain.

Well, I don't honestly know where or how AIDS originated, but gays and bis (Am I the first one to mention them in this thread?) did spread it pretty far. Gays (I assume) originated it, then spread it to the bis, who spread it to the straight folks. All of this, combined with the rotting moral fiber of the world today, is why AIDS has spread like wildfire.

Plus, using protection isn't necessarily a way to prevent contracting AIDS. The odds of a condom catching an AIDS virus are about the same as, as a smart man once said, about the same as a volleyball net catching a tennis ball. It's possible, but not likely.

So, as far as I can figure, the only sure-fire way to keep from getting AIDS is to abstain.

Please... Spare me your religious propaganda.

Please... Spare me your religious propaganda.
It ain't religious propaganda. All it is (The abstinance part, anyway) is pure, unabated truth. See, if you don't have sex, and assuming you don't touch any bodily fluids of people who have AIDS, how can you get AIDS? If you know a way you can get it without handling bodily fluids or having sex, please inform me on how that happens, as I would like to be informed.

Religion is THE most important thing about living on this Earth that the Lord gave us to follow his word, and to try our hardest to live by it. Legalizing it would bring incentive to do the opposite.



What says that YOUR religioun is the only one?


Who says your "god" is the only God?



From one patriotic, freedom-loving American, to a 1st Amendment freedom-hater like you, I say yo-ho-ho and a harty FUCK YOU.

People like you are the reason the 2nd Amendment was invented, so the patrotic may defend themselves from your (in)breed of religious fanaticism.


By the way, for those on the fence, churches won't be forced to wed gays, the government just recognizes civil unions between gays as full marriage, with the associated benefits.

It ain't religious propaganda. All it is (The abstinance part, anyway) is pure, unabated truth. See, if you don't have sex, and assuming you don't touch any bodily fluids of people who have AIDS, how can you get AIDS? If you know a way you can get it without handling bodily fluids or having sex, please inform me on how that happens, as I would like to be informed.

Don't make me laugh. Even I couldn't stop myself from doing that, and I have quite the strong will...

Contraception and education are a lot safer than abstinence, because it goes further to protect people, other than just saying "don't do it".

And, Letokia: I know the guy pisses you off immensly (shit like this pisses me off, as well), but you should probably tone your post down...

Don't make me laugh. Even I couldn't stop myself from doing that, and I have quite the strong will...

Contraception and education are a lot safer than abstinence, because it goes further to protect people, other than just saying "don't do it".
Safe sex education includes urging kids to be abstinent anyway...not to mention that studies I've heard about have found that pretty much the same percent of kids have sex in abstinence only scenarios, the difference is, they mostly have unprotected sex...which...is more dangerous than protected sex.

Don't make me laugh. Even I couldn't stop myself from doing that, and I have quite the strong will...

Contraception and education are a lot safer than abstinence, because it goes further to protect people, other than just saying "don't do it".

And, Letokia: I know the guy pisses you off immensly (shit like this pisses me off, as well), but you should probably tone your post down...

Give me proof that contraception and education are better alternatives.

Give me proof that contraception and education are better alternatives.
...it's self-evident.

Teaching only abstinence.

vs

Teaching abstinence, but stressing the importance of safe-sex if you're going to have sex.


...have you ever been in a class that taught safe sex?

Give me proof that contraception and education are better alternatives.

I will... When you give me proof that abstinence is better.

Is that how you like it?

...it's self-evident.

Teaching only abstinence.

vs

Teaching abstinence, but stressing the importance of safe-sex if you're going to have sex.


...have you ever been in a class that taught safe sex?

Yup. Twice. And it's my dad's advice. It's also what I believe in. I also happen to think that people should only have sex if they're married, and that even then, if they actually want to get pregnant. But if you absolutely MUST, I begrudgingly tolerate contraception. But the fact remains, if you are abstinent, you don't get AIDS.

Yup. Twice. And it's my dad's advice. It's also what I believe in. I also happen to think that people should only have sex if they're married, and that even then, if they actually want to get pregnant. But if you absolutely MUST, I begrudgingly tolerate contraception. But the fact remains, if you are abstinent, you don't get AIDS.
I didn't say you will get AIDS by remaining abstinent. But the FACT of the matter is, even through abstinence only sex ed programs, a significant difference in the % of people having sex is not seen...and so if they ARE having sex, being protected reduces their likelihood of getting AIDs (or "the herpes," inside joke that some people here might get).

Basically, while I tend to agree with you that the surest way of keeping yourself safe is through abstinence, it is ignorant and dangerous to suggest we not teach people about condoms, for the simple reason that you can't stop people from having sex. They're going to have sex. Why not let them know about the safest way to have sex if they've already determined to have sex and you can't change their mind about it?

By the way, you can get AIDs through intramarrital sex anyway. What if you marry someone with AIDs?

Give me proof that contraception and education are better alternatives.

What is the current research and information that supports sexuality education? (http://www.siecus.org/library/faqs/faqs0001.html)
BASED ON THE RESEARCH, COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE AT STOPPING THE SPREAD OF HIV INFECTION (http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html)
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strengthens its call for comprehensive sex education (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/1/281)
Comprehensive Approach Needed To Combat Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Youth (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/07/1/gr070103.html)
Scare Tactics and Negative Sex Ed Messages Less Effective at Reducing Unplanned Pregnancy Than Positive Focus on Contraception (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2005/01/16/index.html)

Although this is an appeal to authority/appeal to popularity, let's be clear that a wide range of national organizations support comprehensive sexuality education, including SIECUS, Advocates for Youth, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Education Association, the National Medical Association, the National School Boards Association, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

No reputable sex education association, national major medical association, or national education association has endorsed abstinence-only education. To the contrary, they denounce abstinence-only education.

Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work. There is little evidence that teens who participate in abstinence-only programs abstain from intercourse longer than others. It is known, however that when they do become sexually active, teens who received abstinence-only education often fail to use condoms or other contraceptives. In fact, 88 percent of students who pledged virginity in middle school and high school still engage in premarital sex. The students who break this pledge are less likely to use contraception at first intercourse, and they have similar rates of sexually transmitted infections as non-pledgers. Meanwhile, students in comprehensive sexuality education classes do not engage in sexual activity more often or earlier, but do use contraception and practice safer sex more consistently when they become sexually active.

Some more links:
Teen sex increased after abstinence program (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894568/)
Virginity Pledgers More Likely to Engage in Risky Sexual Behavior Including Oral and Anal Sex (http://www.siecus.org/media/press/press0094.html)
Decline In Teen Pregnancy Rates Due To Both Less Sexual Activity and More Contraceptive Use (http://www.siecus.org/media/press/press0068.html)
New Interim Report Suggests Federal Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Yield Little Return For $1 Billion Taxpayer Investment (http://www.siecus.org/media/press/press0101.html)
Virginity Pledges Do Not Reduce Rates of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (http://www.siecus.org/media/press/press0053.html)
NEW STUDIES SIGNAL DANGERS OF LIMITING TEEN ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL INFORMATION AND SERVICES (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2005/01/18/index.html)
Sex Education: Needs, Programs and Policies (http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/sex_ed.pdf)

Is that enough evidence?

If not specify how it is lacking? There is copious evidence out there.

-snip-

I knew you'd show up! Good stuff, man. Damn good stuff.

Let me ask you all who are against gay marriage.

Why do you care?

Let me ask you all who are against gay marriage.

Why do you care?

Don't you know? They just can't take it when other people lead their lives differently.

Yup. Twice. And it's my dad's advice. It's also what I believe in. I also happen to think that people should only have sex if they're married, and that even then, if they actually want to get pregnant. But if you absolutely MUST, I begrudgingly tolerate contraception. But the fact remains, if you are abstinent, you don't get AIDS.
Not everyone shares those values. Don't force them on people.

As a godless heathen/pagan/redeyedsatan athiest, I humbly suggest to you that kids are stupid, and many will fuck eachother even if you tell them not to. I also suggest to you that two kids who have been told not to, ignored it, BUT have a condom won't become parents at 13.

Jeez, this isn't hard.

Well, I don't honestly know where or how AIDS originated, but gays and bis (Am I the first one to mention them in this thread?) did spread it pretty far. Gays (I assume) originated it, then spread it to the bis, who spread it to the straight folks. All of this, combined with the rotting moral fiber of the world today, is why AIDS has spread like wildfire.

Plus, using protection isn't necessarily a way to prevent contracting AIDS. The odds of a condom catching an AIDS virus are about the same as, as a smart man once said, about the same as a volleyball net catching a tennis ball. It's possible, but not likely.

So, as far as I can figure, the only sure-fire way to keep from getting AIDS is to abstain.

um, it originated in apes in africa, where someone shagged a monkey and caught it, and in some parts of africa where catholicism is fire, theres no contraception to stop it spreading among men who travel and frequent hookers.

it was only in the west it became a 'gay man's disease', because gay men didn't see a need for contraception because they weren't going to get pregnant.

it's not because they're gay, it's because they didn't have the risk of pregnancy.

the old 'only gays get aids' idea is biggoted and blinkered. even my evangelical happy clappy R.E. teacher can see that!

How long do you think humans would've been around if God had created Adam and Steve?

and anyone seen the 'last two men on earth' short on newgrounds?

that shows god's sense of humor. well, an idea about it.

So...British Jimmy

Have you ever:

Eaten Fish on Friday
Played Sports on Sunday
Used the words "God", "Jesus", or "Christ" as an exclamation.
ETC.

Many of the churches traditions have been ignored one by one as they became to antagonistic to society and as more and more christians just forgot about them.

A little known fact is that a passage in the bible says plainly that you should not go "Number 2" on sundays as it is an affront to god.

The simple fact that the church keeps changing its ideas and views on everything just to prevent themselves becoming unpopular is the main reason That im onto my fourth religion, and i still havnt found the one thats right for me.

Give it another 10=-20 years and the church will probably accept gay marriage, if that is the way the rest of the world is leaning.

Don't you know? They just can't take it when other people lead their lives differently.
At last someone that understands...

Ontario, Quebec and BC may have it legalized but the rest of the country, particulairly the prairie provinces are still fighting. We recognize the fact that homosexuality becoming legal is one of the later stages in the decline of a civilization.
So if we are allowing gay marriages what is next? The polygimists are already preparing a motion to get their lifestyle legalized. But what about the other perverts? Beastiality? public nudists? Man boy love? It is immpossible to stop an avalanche once it starts but it can be controlled before it begins!

oh for the sake of the god you beleive in, the slippery slope argument is one of the most annoying cop-out arguments in existence!

there's a difference between the marriage of human beings who are mature and in love and the marriage of a human and an animal that can't sa yes, or a human and a child who deosn't know what yes means.

it's quite obvious really.

Let me ask you all who are against gay marriage.

Why do you care?

Because we think its absolutely disgusting.

Because we think its absolutely disgusting.
Hmm, so things that are disgusting should be banned?
I think surgery is disgusting, but I'm not pushing for surgery to be banned.
Something being disliked by others isn't really much of a reason to ban it at all.

Hmm, so things that are disgusting should be banned?
I think surgery is disgusting, but I'm not pushing for surgery to be banned.
Something being disliked by others isn't really much of a reason to ban it at all.

But surgery is necessary, gay marriage isnt.

But surgery is necessary, gay marriage isnt.

Heterosexual marriage isn't necessary either, but that still happens.

But surgery is necessary, gay marriage isnt.
Ah, so it all depends on what is 'necessary', does it?
What if I decided to find it disgusting that people eat at McDonalds? It's not 'necessary' to eat there. In that case, would it be correct for McDonalds to be banned?
I would think not.
So who gets do decide what is 'necessary', anyway?

Ah, so it all depends on what is 'necessary', does it?
What if I decided to find it disgusting that people eat at McDonalds? It's not 'necessary' to eat there. In that case, would it be correct for McDonalds to be banned?
I would think not.
So who gets do decide what is 'necessary', anyway?

Yep, gay marriage isnt necessary, but surgery is. Society could function just as well without gay marriage, but not without surgery.
Id like to see matters like this put to a popular vote, and the outcome decided on that.
If the country votes gay marriage out as unesscessary, then out it stays.

But surgery is necessary, gay marriage isnt.

How about cosmetic surgery?

Yep, gay marriage isnt necessary, but surgery is. Society could function just as well without gay marriage, but not without surgery.
Society could function pretty well without any drugs, alcohol, or unhealthy foods. Society could function without any marriage too.
We could set up a totalitarian dictatorship where all choices are made for people by the government, based on whether it is 'necessary' or not. It would probably be quite efficient as long as the population was kept subdued. Tere would be no 'family', people would breed, and the children would be taken away. Everybody would be healthy too, due to our banning of any unhealthy practices.

But would that be right? Would it be right to make people do only what is 'necessary'?

Deciding rights based on whether they are necessary to the continuation of society or not doesn't quite work, since a society could exist without those rights.

How about cosmetic surgery?

Only for extreme cases, cosmetic surgery for the sake of ones vanity is just plain silly.

Society could function pretty well without any drugs, alcohol, or unhealthy foods. Society could function without any marriage too.
We could set up a totalitarian dictatorship where all choices are made for people by the government, based on whether it is 'necessary' or not. It would probably be quite efficient as long as the population was kept subdued. Tere would be no 'family', people would breed, and the children would be taken away. Everybody would be healthy too, due to our banning of any unhealthy practices.

But would that be right? Would it be right to make people do only what is 'necessary'?

Deciding rights based on whether they are necessary to the continuation of society or not doesn't quite work, since a society could exist without those rights.

Like I said, just put it to a vote.

Only for extreme cases, cosmetic surgery for the sake of ones vanity is just plain silly.

What if someone develops deep self esteem issues based on their appearance? I'm curious as to how many feel that if this person could feel better about themselves as a result of cosmetic surgery, would it be acceptable

I'd like to know in what tangible way you would be affected if any gay couple got married.

I would really like to know what makes you think this should be accepted as a permanent matter to any country in the world? I also want to know if you would like to have your kids watch a gay couple kiss each other and think that it is ok!

I wave this motion you pull out on this forum and wish for this to be a proposal to the regions based on what they think about this. When I get married and have kids, I do NOT want my kids watching or even looking at a gay couple holding hands, kissing or holding each other and thinking that it is right and ok.

You might want to think about what you just asked the other person because it does make a huge change in someones point of view.

Just because we don't agree with another group, we don't impose our ideology on them. What ever happen to tolerance? Let’s not forget how interracial marriages were considered taboo, few decades back. I believe America will soon accept this (gay marriage) issue, just like how other issues in past were gradually recognized among main stream America.

I would really like to know what makes you think this should be accepted as a permanent matter to any country in the world? I also want to know if you would like to have your kids watch a gay couple kiss each other and think that it is ok!

I wave this motion you pull out on this forum and wish for this to be a proposal to the regions based on what they think about this. When I get married and have kids, I do NOT want my kids watching or even looking at a gay couple holding hands, kissing or holding each other and thinking that it is right and ok.

You might want to think about what you just asked the other person because it does make a huge change in someones point of view.

Honestly yes, when I have kids I will have no problem with them seeing gays kissing, hugging, w/e. What, do you think they're going to corrupt your children? Because I know that all gay people want is to turn everyone else gay! [/sarcasm]

Religion is once again being used as a cover up for someone's personal feelings. Just because you're too immature and afraid to deal with someone different than you, that does not mean that you should come up with an excuse ("Oh god doesn't approve.") Let your close-mindedness die with you, and please don't teach your kids to be afraid of anyone. Because that's what it comes down to, it's really no different than racism.

my father is in training to be an anglican priest. now you'd think i'd be an anglica christian? well, i'm not, i'm an athiest. I don't go to church, i don't do anything religious. I spend time socialising in the colledge, i respect their views and they respect mine. They don't force me to be a christian, i don't try to force them to be athiest. We're all happy. If you don't want gay marriage, don't support it but don't force people who do want it to lose it.

now i must say that my uncle is gay, he's been in a relationship for 6 years since he moved to saudi arabia. when the law changes here i britain, he's going to marry Vivek. I'm not gay, i have had a girlfriend since december, and before that i was in an all-boys school for 3 years. if i was gay, i'd probably have gotten a boyfriend, right? and being around my uncle is bound to make me gay? well it hasn't so i must be immune to homosexuality, must i not?

all i'm saying is that gay people don't make people gay, nor is their view wrong. i share the view that homosexuality is fine. now you don't thnk it is, but forcing that view on your children won't help them in any way.


all i'm trying to say is, your view isn't the only one and nor is mine, so leave the homosexual community alone, they have a hard time of it as it is.

doesn't everyone deserve to have their view respected, even if respect just means leaving their view alone and not attacking it?

In the words of te Dropkicks

"Ignorance is something you can't over come but you've passed it on down
and that's something much worse for a bitter young man...
is now taking the torch"

What right do you lot think you have to harm others?!
Nevermind the equal rights part of this. What the hell gives you the right to prevent others from displaying affection towards eachother?
You disgust me. You sick, twisted scum. Way to pass on the hatred. Not only do people have to put up with your deranged shit, you teach it to your children. If it were up to me, I'd hang such piss poor parents. You're no better than nazis. Hating a race is wrong, but hating a sexual preference is right?! I hope you all die a slow and painful death.

Please... Spare me your religious propaganda.

please spare us your athiest ranting...

What right do you lot think you have to harm others?!
Nevermind the equal rights part of this. What the hell gives you the right to prevent others from displaying affection towards eachother?
You disgust me. You sick, twisted scum. Way to pass on the hatred. Not only do people have to put up with your deranged shit, you teach it to your children. If it were up to me, I'd hang such piss poor parents. You're no better than nazis. Hating a race is wrong, but hating a sexual preference is right?! I hope you all die a slow and painful death.
You seem to be saying hate is wrong, yet you wish a certain group of people to have slow and painful deaths, or that they should be hanged, due to them making a certain choice?
How does that work?

You seem to be saying hate is wrong, yet you wish a certain group of people to have slow and painful deaths, or that they should be hanged, due to them making a certain choice?
How does that work?

here i agree with the religious zealot not the athiest zealot. athiest zealot you give us all a bad name.

we should NOT criticise anyone's views, just ask them not to shove them i out faces. so, please don't condemn them for their views!

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

fortunately, british jimmy.....YOUR god and YOUR religion doesn't pertain to everyone else in the world...if you don't like it than don't do it.

fortunately, british jimmy.....YOUR god and YOUR religion doesn't pertain to everyone else in the world...if you don't like it than don't do it.

this is good, yes. everyone has their own view. even athiests have different views on athiesm and how religion should be treated.

here i agree with the religious zealot not the athiest zealot. athiest zealot you give us all a bad name.
*curious*

What religious zealot are you referring to?
Were you trying to refer to me? If so, I'm agnostic. Not religious.
:p

fortunately, british jimmy.....YOUR god and YOUR religion doesn't pertain to everyone else in the world...if you don't like it than don't do it.


Please don't repeat what many people have repeated before, read the thread before you post please

here i agree with the religious zealot not the athiest zealot. athiest zealot you give us all a bad name.

we should NOT criticise anyone's views, just ask them not to shove them i out faces. so, please don't condemn them for their views!


I agree with you too, People are saying auto-saying that since we are religious thqat we judge people,(and suprisingly athiest know alot about the bible...) but most of us don't, don't you think we know that?? Its like a sunday school lesson practically!
And i have said before earlier in the thrread that i respect your opinion, but appantly you haven't and won't so once again READ the thread!

*curious*

What religious zealot are you referring to?
Were you trying to refer to me? If so, I'm agnostic. Not religious.
:p

sorry. i meant you ocndemning people to horrid deaths for thier forcing their beleif in your face. i meant the zealot who said it's odd you saying that.

sorry for confusion, everyone.

I can't say anything without re-posting what's been said many times, so I'm just going to say that I agree with the pro-gay marriage group.

You seem to be saying hate is wrong, yet you wish a certain group of people to have slow and painful deaths, or that they should be hanged, due to them making a certain choice?
How does that work?
Sorry, I'm calmer now. No, I don't actually wish they all die horribly. It's just that some of the totally unfounded hatred tossed about here, makes me angry. And it's a threat to people.

As such, you could say my post didn't reflect hatred at all, but was a natural response to a threat against innocent people. British people should be able to appreciate where I come from.

British people should be able to appreciate where I come from.

Aye.

I'd like to take seperation of church and state for 1000 Alex.
damnit this isn't a tennett of any american legal document. At no point in the constitution (including the Bill of Rights for all you people out there that think they are seperate things), the DOI, or any court rulling is the statement made that there shall be a "wall of seperation between church and state". That line comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a concerned Baptist preacher who was afraid of a state instituted church.

damnit this isn't a tennett of any american legal document. At no point in the constitution (including the Bill of Rights for all you people out there that think they are seperate things), the DOI, or any court rulling is the statement made that there shall be a "wall of seperation between church and state". That line comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a concerned Baptist preacher who was afraid of a state instituted church.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx

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

Even if it was a line coined by Jefferson it still applies to the US thanks to the establishment clause.

It depends on the interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Nobody back then wanted a Church of England on this side of the pond, but I don't think the Founders intended to establish a government completely devoid of Christian influence either.

It depends on the interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Nobody back then wanted a Church of England on this side of the pond, but I don't think the Founders intended to establish a government completely devoid of Christian influence either.
Dare I say "Thank God you don't decide that"?

About that Zealot bit... I think it's the first time I've ever been called that. I guess I sorta deserved it tho.
However, you seek to limit peoples behaviour. Behaviour that doesn't affect you in any way. Are you not zealots yourselves?

I assume you believe god is all-powerful. Doesn't it stand to reason he's perfectly capable of handling things that offend him then?

Also, you will experiance no more or less disgust as a result of same-sex marriages. There's homo's & bi's al over. There won't be any more of them because they gain the same rights as you. There won't be any less either. What makes you think you would be able to tell the difference? You lot have already stated you won't look at them holding hands, so how will you notice if they're married?

It just won't affect you at all, will it?

Now call me a zealot again, because I dare take a stand for what is right. If you were the persecuted ones, I would stand up for you.

Yep, gay marriage isnt necessary, but surgery is. Society could function just as well without gay marriage, but not without surgery.
Id like to see matters like this put to a popular vote, and the outcome decided on that.
If the country votes gay marriage out as unesscessary, then out it stays.

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

damnit this isn't a tennett of any american legal document. At no point in the constitution (including the Bill of Rights for all you people out there that think they are seperate things), the DOI, or any court rulling is the statement made that there shall be a "wall of seperation between church and state". That line comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a concerned Baptist preacher who was afraid of a state instituted church.

It depends on the interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Nobody back then wanted a Church of England on this side of the pond, but I don't think the Founders intended to establish a government completely devoid of Christian influence either.

Um.

This is off-topic, but you are so, so, so wrong. The phrase as been adopted by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses for at least 125 years.

In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Quoting British Jimmy:
Must you repeat what many people have repeated before, read the thread before you post NOOB

If a Moderator sees this, it is likely you will be banned for a personal attack. I really think you ought to edit this.

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

The Law should serve the majoritys interest, not the minoritys.
When it doesnt, it is serving a section of societys interests that are not influential for the good of society, but only their own interests.
I think your precious constitution needs a drastic overhaul, to say the least.

The Law should serve the majoritys interest, not the minoritys.
When it doesnt, it is serving a section of societys interests that are not influential for the good of society, but only their own interests.
I think your precious constitution needs a drastic overhaul, to say the least.

Wrong. Majority should only rule in issues that directly affect them. Otherwise all we've got is a tyranny by majority, not a constitutional republic.

Wrong. Majority should only rule in issues that directly affect them. Otherwise all we've got is a tyranny by majority, not a constitutional republic.

Id rather have a tyranny dictated to society by the majority, as that would then reflect the average mans interest, than rather a tyranny dictated by monoritys, that reflect only a minoritys interest.

Id rather have a tyranny dictated to society by the majority, as that would then reflect the average mans interest, than rather a tyranny dictated by monoritys, that reflect only a minoritys interest.
You do realize there's also a 'no tyranny at all' option, right?

British Jimmy, are you British? I dont think you sound like one.

Id rather have a tyranny dictated to society by the majority, as that would then reflect the average mans interest, than rather a tyranny dictated by monoritys, that reflect only a minoritys interest.

Really? You really think that a minority of people should be forced to do something by the majority when it doesn't matter to the majority at all if they do or don't?

Would you go along with that if you were in the minority?

British Jimmy, are you British? I dont think you sound like one.

Yes, we usually do a good job of keeping headcases out of our country...

The Law should serve the majoritys interest, not the minoritys.
When it doesnt, it is serving a section of societys interests that are not influential for the good of society, but only their own interests.
I think your precious constitution needs a drastic overhaul, to say the least.

Thank you for exposing your hatred for freedom and equality.

Because you may not be allowed to oppress whomever you wish, we must toss out not only the Constitution, but all regard for individual rights and equal protection under the law.

Yes, those pesky rights sure get in the way of tyranny.

(Nevermind that no "majority" would even vaguley support a "drastic overhaul" of the Constitution of the type you propose. The "majority" may have a tendency towards factions, but it is not that self-hating.)

This topic always makes me laugh... especially the ridiculous argument that gay marriage is somehow going to 'destroy the value' of traditional marriage; nobody has ever, ever backed that argument up with exactly how it's going to destroy anything, in my memory. That's kind of like saying that the fact that your neighbor owns a car somehow devalues your own car. I've never quite understood this viewpoint.

I suppose those who are against allowing gay marriage also think womens' sufferage was ethically wrong and should be repealed, huh?

Personally, I think Canada has it exactly right. Federal legislation that makes it legal nationwide, while also ensuring that no religious organization may be forced to perform any marriage that doesn't follow their beliefs. Fair for everyone. I love my country. :D

This topic always makes me laugh... especially the ridiculous argument that gay marriage is somehow going to 'destroy the value' of traditional marriage; nobody has ever, ever backed that argument up with exactly how it's going to destroy anything, in my memory. That's kind of like saying that the fact that your neighbor owns a car somehow devalues your own car. I've never quite understood this viewpoint.
Exactly. Me eating pork doesn't affect my Jewish friends, it doesn't destroy Judiaism. They don't care. Why should Christianity be any different?

I want people to marry donkeys and trees. That's true freedom, I say.

I would really like to know what makes you think this should be accepted as a permanent matter to any country in the world? I also want to know if you would like to have your kids watch a gay couple kiss each other and think that it is ok!

I wave this motion you pull out on this forum and wish for this to be a proposal to the regions based on what they think about this. When I get married and have kids, I do NOT want my kids watching or even looking at a gay couple holding hands, kissing or holding each other and thinking that it is right and ok.

You might want to think about what you just asked the other person because it does make a huge change in someones point of view.

If I have kids, then yes, I would have no problem with them having watch a gay couple kiss eachother. I would want them to think it is ok. You know why? Because maybe then they will grow up more tolerant of others.

I will never support gay 'marriage' because it will never be real marriage in my eyes. True marriage is between one man and one woman. Having said that, how many of my fellow Christians debating this hot topic really think the 'gay rights/marriage' issue is all that important? I think only a church who's spiritual integrity has been baddly compromised would ever perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. Therefor, if the Church remains steadfast in her convictions, what has Christianity got to lose? And who established the Church? God did. If you believe this, then you must believe then the gates of the netherworld will never prevail against that said Church. So what's the big deal? Trust in God, live your life and (if you have them) teach your kids to embrace Christianity and to reject secularism like the fraud it is. No government can take that right away from you (and, if it could, believe me it will strip every liberty from every human being... then we're all in trouble... Christian or non-Christian alike) and nobody else has the responsibility to raise your children but you. Tell them plainly "hey, just because the state sanctions it, doesn't make it right because the state isn't God. Any questions?"

As for same-sex marriage destroying traditional morality of our culture...

Turn on MTV and you'll see plenty of heterosexual images doing that already. Go to any town in America's "heartland" and check out the meth labs. Oh, and turn on FOX News and listen to those cynnical freaks discuss how the violent deaths of people around the world might effect your pocket-book. You will observe that same-sex marriage will hardly be a factor, compared to the stuff thats already degrading our society into a heap of trash-culture.

You do realize there's also a 'no tyranny at all' option, right?


That post made me smile!

Yes, we usually do a good job of keeping headcases out of our country...


Oh go choke on the socialist crumpet that the UK is...

It's a wonderful step forwards for minority rights, and I hope the rest of the world eventually follows suit.

Unfortunately, I think it will take quite a while before we here in the US accept it.

Minority? :fluffle:

Id rather have a tyranny dictated to society by the majority, as that would then reflect the average mans interest, than rather a tyranny dictated by monoritys, that reflect only a minoritys interest.

Especially in the case of 50.8% to 49.2%

It disgraces my God and my religion, and altogether is a disturbing thought.

Your values and beliefs does not equal the rest of the world.