NationStates Jolt Archive

lol, calm down there! I was just being retarded. Sheesh! :p

It's all right. I actually sounded harsher than I intended to be. But yes, you were being retarded. :D

because that is not homosexual reproduction.

Who the hell said anything about HOMOSEXUAL REPRODUCTION? What was said is that homosexuals are capable of reproduction too:

Never mind that homosexuals CAN reproduce if they want to.

Next time try to read carefully before displaying your intolerance, Gatling Gun.

look, i made an oxymoron!

Yeah, you got the moron part right. :p

And homosexuality is not an issue of freedom or equality.

It's an issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation. That makes it an issue of equality. If the Catholic Church ruled the USA, all your points would be valid. Problem is, it's the Constitution, and not the Bible, the one that dictates the rules.

Nobody has the "right" to sodomize.

They have the right to live their lives as they wish, so long as they do not cause harm to others. "Sodomy" is merely a definition of "any sexual intercourse held to be abnormal". Homosexuality is being held as "abnormal", which is the whole friggin' point of this thread. It is not abnormal, it has been going on since the dawn of time, both in humans and animals, and it will continue so until some alien race obliterate us to kingdom come, or we do it ourselves. :D

You may capitalize it but that still does not make it murder (look up the definition if you need help with why it is not)

And you symbolize what they dislike as well ... hatred intolerance ... so be it I am sure there are plenty of them that wish Texas would be given back to Mexico



Murder is the willful termination of human life without being under the threat of said person (at least by my definition). If the fetus is a human fetus, is killing it not therefore murder?

MURDER: the killing of another human being with malice of forethought

a flock of crows

1) You know, I'm not American, but I think that s/he's right. There is no constitutional right saying a guy can have sex with a guy, or a girl can have sex with a girl.

But then again, there's no constitutional right saying a guy can have sex with a girl, vice versa, or involving kinky leather straps. Whatever. There's a whole lot of things that aren't put down in law or the constitution.

There's probably no law anywhere in the world saying that I can collect Buzz Lightyear action figures. Sure, somebody could pass a law against it.

However, there *does* seem to be laws, in many countries, saying that you can't discriminate against people based on their sexuality. I'm glad of that because, although I'm straight, I have a lisp and people often think I'm gay. Wow I'm glad that the politically correct movement has made gays acceptable here in Sydney.

And, if you can't discriminate against people based on sexuality, isn't it pretty clear they should have their marriage licences?
Your church is still free to refuse to marry them, just like my church is still free to refuse to marry red-haired people.

Murder is the willful termination of human life without being under the threat of said person (at least by my definition). If the fetus is a human fetus, is killing it not therefore murder?
That may be your definition
But that is not what the word means in the English language sorry

Murder is the ILLEGAL termination of a human life

If it is legal and or if it is not human it not murder

Sorry making up your own definitions does not make them correct

It's all right. I actually sounded harsher than I intended to be. But yes, you were being retarded. :D



Who the hell said anything about HOMOSEXUAL REPRODUCTION? What was said is that homosexuals are capable of reproduction too:



Next time try to read carefully before displaying your intolerance, Gatling Gun.



Yeah, you got the moron part right. :p




It's an issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation. That makes it an issue of equality. If the Catholic Church ruled the USA, all your points would be valid. Problem is, it's the Constitution, and not the Bible, the one that dictates the rules.



They have the right to live their lives as they wish, so long as they do not cause harm to others. "Sodomy" is merely a definition of "any sexual intercourse held to be abnormal". Homosexuality is being held as "abnormal", which is the whole friggin' point of this thread. It is not abnormal, it has been going on since the dawn of time, both in humans and animals, and it will continue so until some alien race obliterate us to kingdom come, or we do it ourselves. :D


Where in the Constitution does it reinforce the right to choose sexual orientation without repercussion?

1. Plenty of laws restrict your supposed "right to pursue happiness". The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are fundamentally different, as one is merely a letter expressing dissent and another is the law of the land. If the pursuit of happiness were recognized by law, any behavior that brings happiness to someone would be acceptable. Fortunately for us, it isn't.

2. How many times have I stated that I hate no one? Really, you are deserving of the title "King of Strawmen Manufacturers". As I stated earlier, your stance is hypocritical as you deny the right of Satanists to sacrifice infants. Certain freedoms WILL involve the restriction of others.

A cult is a group following a man and his supposed "divine revelation". As Christ was not a man but God, we cannot be classified as cultists.

1. Wrong. Persuit of happiness does not extend to you making others miserable, ei. Crime, oppression, etc.

2. I'm reeal sorry. In my holy book your words are defined as hatred. You're the one setting up strawmen by pushing your satanism.
Satanism, as you describe it, harms others. Others who cannot consent.
Homosexuals do no such thing.
Some faiths embrace homosexuals. That does not mean your faith has to.
What you advocate would restrict the faith of others.

I do not recognise your god. You cannot prove he was a god, assuming he existed at all. Thus, you're a cultist by your own definition.

MURDER: the killing of another human being with malice of forethought

a flock of crows
Cutting out words does not help you prove your point

mur·der Audio pronunciation of "murder" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.


Sorry it is not murder if it is lawfull

Where in the Constitution does it reinforce the right to choose sexual orientation without repercussion?

Pursuit of happiness is where.

ok, the constitution has not mattered for fifty years,and that is why we are having this argument: simply because the supreme court redefined its job as to make liberal rulings that allow murder simply due to the would-be parent's laziness or unwillingness to fill out the papers that would put the child up for adoption, and has restricted our second amendment rights because some sissies dont like guns.

Murder is the willful termination of human life without being under the threat of said person (at least by my definition). If the fetus is a human fetus, is killing it not therefore murder?

Debatable, on what constitutes life but hey.

On the issue of abortion. I understand why its needed but I don't agree with it morally

ok, the constitution has not mattered for fifty years,and that is why we are having this argument: simply because the supreme court redefined its job as to make liberal rulings that allow murder simply due to the would-be parent's laziness or unwillingness to fill out the papers that would put the child up for adoption, and has restricted our second amendment rights because some sissies dont like guns.
Stay on topic rather then whatever rant you choose to go on gun control laws have nothing to do with homosexual marriage

1. Wrong. Persuit of happiness does not extend to you making others miserable, ei. Crime, oppression, etc.

2. I'm reeal sorry. In my holy book your words are defined as hatred. You're the one setting up strawmen by pushing your satanism.
Satanism, as you describe it, harms others. Others who cannot consent.
Homosexuals do no such thing.
Some faiths embrace homosexuals. That does not mean your faith has to.
What you advocate would restrict the faith of others.

I do not recognise your god. You cannot prove he was a god, assuming he existed at all. Thus, you're a cultist by your own definition.

you are an idiot. satanism is the worship of the devil, not simply something that harms others. and which holy book is yours?

no,not really. because i live in texas, where i have millions of people who support that view. so there. and i am not intolerant, i just have religious conviction.

"intolerance" and "religious convictions" is almost the same thing, as religions tend to be quite intolerant on many issues.

Because it is unnatural and disgusting. Period. Man and Woman is the only natural way, not Man and Man, and not Woman and Woman. Besides, if you were to take a homo out to meat woman, they would become straight very fast. Do you know why? Because Man and Woman is natural, and all this crap is just a CHOICE How could you defend this? Man and Women marriage is the only natural kind because of OBVIOUS, NATURAL REASONS!!!!!!! And don't worry, I don't need the Bible to know that it is wrong. :P

The problem here is that people think that government should be ruled by religion. That is sheer ignorance. Our government (U.S.) was established, partly, due to religious persecution and is stated to be seperate from religion in all forms. To take that to fact, which is what government is supposedly based upon, marriage (outside of the religious orders) should be a union of two adults (humans as it is now) who share a life together with all legal ramifications. Basically that means that a legal union of said persons is legal and accepted in law even if the religious house does not wish to bond the two spiritually.

*<}:o) H-D
(Devoted Christian)

you are an idiot. satanism is the worship of the devil, not simply something that harms others. and which holy book is yours?
Flaming is none too appreciated on the forum

only when unjustified. calling christianity satanism, which are TWO OPPOSING THINGS is quite obviously stupid, dont you agree?

Where in the Constitution does it reinforce the right to choose sexual orientation without repercussion?

Is there something in the Constitution that actually punishes any sexual orientation not heterosexual?

Because it is unnatural and disgusting. Period. Man and Woman is the only natural way, not Man and Man, and not Woman and Woman. Besides, if you were to take a homo out to meat woman, they would become straight very fast. Do you know why? Because Man and Woman is natural, and all this crap is just a CHOICE How could you defend this? Man and Women marriage is the only natural kind because of OBVIOUS, NATURAL REASONS!!!!!!! And don't worry, I don't need the Bible to know that it is wrong. :P
LOL parody right? (seriously?)

you are an idiot. satanism is the worship of the devil, not simply something that harms others. and which holy book is yours?
Where did I define satanism?
My holy book is still being fabricated. Mainly it deals with how to inflict grevious bodily harm on christians.
And by the way, I'll take any obnoxious outburst from you as a compliment.

only when unjustified. calling christianity satanism, which are TWO OPPOSING THINGS is quite obviously stupid, dont you agree?

First post where I actually agree with you.

i dont think so....... :confused:

only when unjustified. calling christianity satanism, which are TWO OPPOSING THINGS is quite obviously stupid, dont you agree?
Flaming is never justified

LOL parody right? (seriously?)

Huh? :confused:

Huh? :confused:
I guess not lol

Im sorry I thought it was a parody post kind of like jesussaves used to ... it was so “out there” so ridiculous, that it almost looked like someone making over the top claims to get a laugh

I am sorry I was mistaken

Reading this thread, mainly focused on the situation in US, makes me glad I've never set foot in the Land of the Free. I live in Sweden, where the situation is quite different. First of all, couples living together "under marriage-like circumstances" have many rights without being married. These rights are defined in law, and it is explicitally written that it doesn't matter what gender people are of. Same-sex couples have recently been given the right to adoption. Couples consisting of two women have even more recently been given the same right to assisted reproduction as man-woman couples have had for quite some time. (This assistance is funded by taxes) Since the mid-1990s a same-sex couple can be joined in a "registered partnership". This grants all things which is given to a married couple, with some exceptions. By non-heterosexual and/or transgendered people this is usually seen as a problem. We don't settle for registered partnership; we want marriage.

Reading this thread, mainly focused on the situation in US, makes me glad I've never set foot in the Land of the Free. I live in Sweden, where the situation is quite different. First of all, couples living together "under marriage-like circumstances" have many rights without being married. These rights are defined in law, and it is explicitally written that it doesn't matter what gender people are of. Same-sex couples have recently been given the right to adoption. Couples consisting of two women have even more recently been given the same right to assisted reproduction as man-woman couples have had for quite some time. (This assistance is funded by taxes) Since the mid-1990s a same-sex couple can be joined in a "registered partnership". This grants all things which is given to a married couple, with some exceptions. By non-heterosexual and/or transgendered people this is usually seen as a problem. We don't settle for registered partnership; we want marriage.
Good for you keep up the good fight you already have such an advantage on personal freedoms (in that area on us)

Maybe one day we can take you guys and Spain and Canada as role models for freedom and equality

you know what i agree i'm gonna go sodomize my girlfriend right now because it makes me happy and you know what people that are the most against gays are usually have homosexual tendencies
Don't know if this is an attempt at humor ... but if she wants it go for it ... whatever makes you two happy

I guess not lol

Im sorry I thought it was a parody post kind of like jesussaves used to ... it was so “out there” so ridiculous, that it almost looked like someone making over the top claims to get a laugh

I am sorry I was mistaken

What, My post. I'm sorry, It is called "the truth" :rolleyes:

Where did I define satanism?
My holy book is still being fabricated. Mainly it deals with how to inflict grevious bodily harm on christians.
And by the way, I'll take any obnoxious outburst from you as a compliment.

All christians? I'm usually annoyed at christians who make broard statements about non-christians. Yes it wasn't wise for that person to suddenly call you a satanist but is this really neccesary? "I wanna hurt all Christians because they are all the same" :rolleyes:

What is really depressing and makes you feel like the US will never get anywhere, is when you find websites like http://www.godhatessweden.com/ (which among other things applauds the loss of Swedish lives in the Tsunami disaster)

All christians? I'm usually annoyed at christians who make broard statements about non-christians. Yes it wasn't wise to suddenly call you a satanist but is this really neccesary? "I wanna hurt all Christians because they are all the same" :rolleyes:

I'm sure more than a few Protestants would abhor the thought of being considered the same as Catholics like myself (and vice versa).

I am both gay and Christian. Works fine for me.

What is really depressing and makes you feel like the US will never get anywhere, is when you find websites like http://www.godhatessweden.com/ (which among other things applauds the loss of Swedish lives in the Tsunami disaster)

Good old Freddy Phelps... I'm sure God just loves him for abusing his wife, children, violating ethics standards, glorifying brutal murder and hatred of others, hating the sinner, wishing suffering on innocent people, using drugs...

What is really depressing and makes you feel like the US will never get anywhere, is when you find websites like http://www.godhatessweden.com/ (which among other things applauds the loss of Swedish lives in the Tsunami disaster)

Never should that sort of trash be even available, it makes me wonder how I'm the same religion as people who can hate so indiscriminately :(

Never should that sort of trash be even available, it makes me wonder how I'm the same religion as people who can hate so indiscriminately :(

You are not. They aren't Christian, only blasphemers who mock what Jesus sought to establish on Earth through his teachings.

I'm sure more than a few Protestants would abhor the thought of being considered the same as Catholics like myself (and vice versa).

I was brought up with the option of being either or niether so its a bit difficult to understand but I respect Prostestants as they are Christian like you and me :) . This goes for the Orthadox religions aswel

What, My post. I'm sorry, It is called "the truth" :rolleyes:
Hmmm thats not what I would call it but whatever floats your boat

Good old Freddy Phelps... I'm sure God just loves him for abusing his wife, children, violating ethics standards, glorifying brutal and hatred of others, hating the sinner, wishing suffering on people, using ...

If that was sarcasim, then I agree. :D

You are not. They aren't Christian, only blasphemers who mock what Jesus sought to establish on Earth through his teachings.

Hmm not much different from Al Queada with respect to thought process and attitude.
Obviously actions cannot be compared

The aforementioned website is of course also about a man called Åke Green, who became (in)famous in Sweden for holding a sermon about homosexuality, among other things calling it "a cancer on the societal body". He claimed he was only citing the bible and elaborating a bit. He was convicted of a crime called "hets mot folkgrupp" - roughly meaning "agitation towards a group of people" - in the lowest court, but appealed and was equitted in higher court. The Attourney has appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case is particularly interesting because homosexual people was recently included into this crime, after much resistance, mainly from the Christian Democratic Party, who regards it a limitation to the freedom of religion, and from the Conservative Party, who is opposed to the crime existing altogether, since it is a limitation to the freedom of speech.

If that was sarcasim, then I agree. :D

Trust me, it was. :D

I was brought up with the option of being either or niether so its a bit difficult to understand but I respect Prostestants as they are Christian like you and me . This goes for the Orthadox religions aswel

Same with me. They did a lot of good, and from a Catholic perspective saved the Church by waking it up to its corruption.

Hmm not much different from Al Queada with respect to thought process and attitude. Obviously actions cannot be compared

Nope, both of them show what happens when religion is twisted for personal gain and power through hatred. Still, I feel the only reason Phelps doesn't do anything is because he doesn't have enough support (his entire WBC is all in the family, so to speak. Almost no one in it isn't related to him)

Hmmm thats not what I would call it but whatever floats your boat

What would you call it? How is this whole gay marriage thing natural? If there could be good evidence that it really is natural, than I could belive you. Also, Why do only humans get it? Does gayness happen to Animals? If not, then it is nothing more than a mental problem, at best.

All christians? I'm usually annoyed at christians who make broard statements about non-christians. Yes it wasn't wise for that person to suddenly call you a satanist but is this really neccesary? "I wanna hurt all Christians because they are all the same" :rolleyes:
Disasociate your religion from theirs, and I'll start differentiating between you. As long as they're christians, I'm opposed to christianity.

What would you call it? How is this whole gay marriage thing natural? If there could be good evidence that it really is natural, than I could belive you. Also, Why do only humans get it? Does gayness happen to Animals? If not, then it is nothing more than a mental problem, at best.

Homosexuality has been proven in animals.

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

Trust me, it was. :D

Good. I agree with this too.

You are not. They aren't Christian, only blasphemers who mock what Jesus sought to establish on Earth through his teachings.

The aforementioned website is of course also about a man called Åke Green, who became (in)famous in Sweden for holding a sermon about homosexuality, among other things calling it "a cancer on the societal body". He claimed he was only citing the bible and elaborating a bit. He was convicted of a crime called "hets mot folkgrupp" - roughly meaning "agitation towards a group of people" - in the lowest court, but appealed and was equitted in higher court. The Attourney has appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case is particularly interesting because homosexual people was recently included into this crime, after much resistance, mainly from the Christian Democratic Party, who regards it a limitation to the freedom of religion, and from the Conservative Party, who is opposed to the crime existing altogether, since it is a limitation to the freedom of speech.

Ugh, Åke Green! Snacka om människa som verkligen inte förtjänar uppmärksamhet! :rolleyes:

Disasociate your religion from theirs, and I'll start differentiating between you. As long as they're christians, I'm opposed to christianity.

Who, specifically? I can't find the specific groups you mention.

The aforementioned website is of course also about a man called Åke Green, who became (in)famous in Sweden for holding a sermon about homosexuality, among other things calling it "a cancer on the societal body". He claimed he was only citing the bible and elaborating a bit. He was convicted of a crime called "hets mot folkgrupp" - roughly meaning "agitation towards a group of people" - in the lowest court, but appealed and was equitted in higher court. The Attourney has appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case is particularly interesting because homosexual people was recently included into this crime, after much resistance, mainly from the Christian Democratic Party, who regards it a limitation to the freedom of religion, and from the Conservative Party, who is opposed to the crime existing altogether, since it is a limitation to the freedom of speech.
Sounds like "attempting to incite a riot" rules ... wen the intent of the speech is purposly set up to get people to cause harm or commit crimes as a group

Ugh, Åke Green! Snacka om människa som verkligen inte förtjänar uppmärksamhet! :rolleyes:

Damn, my German skill can't help me with this one. I could probably pronounce it half-decent, though. A translation would be great. :cool:

Disasociate your religion from theirs, and I'll start differentiating between you. As long as they're christians, I'm opposed to christianity.

Why should I do anything because of your ignorance?

You can't tell them from normal Christians then theres nothing i can do.

What would you call it? How is this whole gay marriage thing natural? If there could be good evidence that it really is natural, than I could belive you. Also, Why do only humans get it? Does gayness happen to Animals? If not, then it is nothing more than a mental problem, at best.

What do you mean by "natural"? Homosexuality exists within nature. What evidence is there that homosexuality is unnatural? Animals can have mental problems too. Homosexuality is not a mental problem though. I don't know what the word "gayness" means, but I presume you meant the same thing as homosexuality.

What would you call it? How is this whole gay marriage thing natural? If there could be good evidence that it really is natural, than I could belive you. Also, Why do only humans get it? Does gayness happen to Animals? If not, then it is nothing more than a mental problem, at best.
As posted homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom

Ugh, Åke Green! Snacka om människa som verkligen inte förtjänar uppmärksamhet! :rolleyes:

Translation: "Yuck, Åke Green! Talk about a man who really doesn't deserve attention!"

Translation: "Yuck, Åke Green! Talk about a man who really doesn't deserve attention!"

Oh. I recognized about two words in that entire phrase. Thanks :)

Nor I, which is why I posed the question. I have a feeling I will be waiting a while for an answer.

It isn't allowed because of religion. I mean in my religion it's not allowed, but I've got nothing against it. Personally I don't care. If all people were 'created equal' then it should be allowed, but it's not, because of those certain people who protest it.

Why should I do anything because of your ignorance?

You can't tell them from normal Christians then theres nothing i can do.
Seriously mate. You're starting to annoy me.

1. I'm guilty of generalising, so sue me. Or use your impressive mental resources to discern I was responding in kind to verbal abuse.

2. If you're gonna take my remark this far, you owe yourself to explain to me what the difference is. Otherwise your bitching about me generalising is pointless.

3. I don't have a holy book, nor any other book concerning christians. I simply let myself be provoked by ignorant hatebreeders. Judging by your response, I assume you know exactly what I mean.

4. Thank you for reading all this. You may want to reread it several times.

Here is the actual law definition:

"8 § Den som i uttalande eller i annat meddelande som sprids
hotar eller uttrycker missaktning för folkgrupp eller annan
sådan grupp av personer med anspelning på ras, hudfärg,
nationellt eller etniskt ursprung, trosbekännelse eller sexuell
läggning, döms för hets mot folkgrupp till fängelse i högst två
år eller om brottet är ringa, till böter.

Är brottet grovt döms till fängelse i lägst sex månader och
högst fyra år. Vid bedömande av om brottet är grovt skall
särskilt beaktas om meddelandet haft ett särskilt hotfullt
eller kränkande innehåll och spritts till ett stort antal
personer på ett sätt som varit ägnat att väcka betydande
uppmärksamhet. Lag (2002:800)."

My personally made on-the-fly translation:
"8 § He who in statement or in other message which is distributed threatens or expresses disdain for ethnic group or other such group of people with respect to race, skin colour, national or ethnical heritage, faith or sexual orientation, is convicted of hets mot folkgrupp to prison for a maximum of two years or if the crime is petty, to a fine.

Be the crime grave, [the person] is convicted to prison for a minimum of six months and a maximum of four years. At the judgement of whether the crime is grave it shall especially be taken into consideration whether the message has had especially threatful or insulting contents and has been distributed to a large number of people in a way that has been designated for attracting significant attention. Law (2002:800)."

People often make the argument that it will destroy the sanctity of marriage or somehow affect their own marriage. I think they just worry that if we give the gays rights everyone will want them. Or maybe they fear that their significant other is homosexual XD

And about the whole animal gay thing? If you go to...I think the Bronx Zoo, you can witness gay penguins. The male penguins act like everyother penguin couple. When they saw other penguins making nests, they did the same. They even found a rock that looked like a penguin egg and tried to hatch it. One of the zoo keepers noticed this and tried to help. Another penguin had layed 2 eggs but had never successfully hatched both. So the keper gave one to the gay penguins and now they have a happy healthy chick and are a perfectly (almost) normal penguin family.
There's a book written about it. It's a childrens book and it's not fiction.

Homosexuality is not a mental disease (I'm a psych student, we learn this stuff) because there is NO evidence to support it. They have the same brains as any straight person. They just prefer the same sex.

Infact 1 in every 10 (not sure about exactl numbers. I'm pretty sure it's 1 in 10 though) people is gay. So think of ten people you know. Chances are one of them is gay. Would you be able to tell your best friend that they aren't aloud to get married to the person they love just because they don't follow the norm?

wow...longer than I thought! sorry guys! (I tend to rant ^_^; )

[QUOTE=The Similized world]Seriously mate. You're starting to annoy me.

1. I'm guilty of generalising, so sue me. Or use your impressive mental resources to discern I was responding in kind to verbal abuse.

:snip:
[QUOTE]

Well, no one should get mad at you for generalizing. There is naught else for you to do when discussing sociological problems. There are no absolutes; and anyone who says so is saying so only to hide their ignorance.

In Sweden, homosexuality was on the Government's official list of mental diseases until 1979. It took a lot of work to have it stricken.

In the year of 2005 a Swedish psychology professor claimed that homosexual people have problems and should therefore not become psychologists themselves.

In course literature used in psychology education, it was claimed that homosexuality can be cured by presenting the subject with pictures of "homosexual situations" and at the same time administrating electric shocks.

In Sweden, homosexuality was on the Government's official list of mental diseases until 1979. It took a lot of work to have it stricken.

In the year of 2005 a Swedish psychology professor claimed that homosexual people have problems and should therefore not become psychologists themselves.

In course literature used in psychology education, it was claimed that homosexuality can be cured by presenting the subject with pictures of "homosexual situations" and at the same time administrating electric shocks.

Not to be a jerk, but I'm Swedish myself and even I'm not interested in that.

alright. homosexuality is WRONG because of several reasons.
1. it cannot result in pregnancy. therefore,it is not a natural sexual behavior.
2. My religion, one of the oldest and largest, says it is wrong. and i stand behind my religion. so you can kiss my butt. unless of course you would like that, in which case , let the hate crimes commence.
3. it is a liberal idea that it can be accepted, so i instantly hate it with a passion, just as i hate liberal idiots.
4. GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!!!

1. Sex with a post-menopausal woman, or any sterile person also cannot result in pregnancy. Therefore, should all post-menopausal women and sterile people never have sex?

2. Tough about your religion. Just because it is old and big, it doesn't make it right...or give it the right to force it's views onto those who do not share them...or to force it's view to be codified by our CIVIL LAW.
And, incidentally, I'll pass on the offer to kiss your butt. I don't kiss anyone's butt, and I sure as hell ain't starting with YOU.

3. Well, I hate conservative ideals, and I hate conservative idiots.

4. Why the hell don't you Red States secede again? Honestly, our country would be better off without you! Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. Let the Stars and Bars fly high and get the fuck out of our country. We don't want you anyway. This time, we won't come after you.

We'll keep the East and West Coast, and the Northern States...the ones who vote correctly...and you can have the bigoted hateful Southland and the Plains States. Who needs you, anyway? Go on...get out of our country!! Form your own country!! You were so gung-ho to do it 140 years ago so that you could continue to enslave and oppress another "undesireable" minority...why not do it again?? Please, you'd be doing the rest of us a favor.

Seriously mate. You're starting to annoy me.

1. I'm guilty of generalising, so sue me. Or use your impressive mental resources to discern I was responding in kind to verbal abuse.

Firstly i was in your defence for that guy making a stupid comment at you. Why you had to do the same I don't know.


2. If you're gonna take my remark this far, you owe yourself to explain to me what the difference is. Otherwise your bitching about me generalising is pointless.

Strangely enough some of us are normal people who don't want to be tarnished by these same people who foam at the mouth when acceptence of any person doing something non-christian. Bit like the Muslims and Al Queada but not nearly as extereme


3. I don't have a holy book, nor any other book concerning christians. I simply let myself be provoked by ignorant hatebreeders. Judging by your response, I assume you know exactly what I mean.


I do and I know what you mean I was just trying to keep civility and I got a bit annoyed at your reaction. Having my religion represented by hatebreeders annoys me .To be fair I think we generally agree on this.


All good?

Not to be a jerk, but I'm Swedish myself and even I'm not interested in that.

That was just a few examples of such things. I could go on and on, but I chose not to. Didn't take you that much time reading it, did it? Not everyone can be interested in everything. And you know what, you won't have to read more from me at the moment, because I'm going to bed now.

People often make the argument that it will destroy the sanctity of marriage or somehow affect their own marriage. I think they just worry that if we give the gays rights everyone will want them. Or maybe they fear that their significant other is homosexual XD

That is what I don't understand; that they think that allowing gays to have equal rights will be detrimental to their exhisting rights. There is no merit to such arguements, and it astounds me that they flourish in the argument against gay-marriage. One would think all those agruments would have been proven wrong by the allowing on interracial marriages. The debate for interracial marriages met the same arguments forty years ago, and they have been revived in yet another futile attempt to make the intollerance of a few the law of the land.

You're a better man than I. I would hate my guts if I were you.

That said, I'm not asking you to like me. You're you. I'm me. We're not friends. We'll disagree in the future.
I expect people to hold me to the things I say, but I can admit when I'm acting like a peice of shit. I don't expect forgiveness, though I do appreciate it. I don't think you were or are out of line. My own response would've been a lot more harsh I think.
Thank you for your forgiveness, and do continue to judge me by what I write. Otherwise I might as well shut the fuck up and go away.

Well, I'm a woman, but I'll try not to be offended there. I know you're making a general statement. My religion teaches me not to hate anyone. i'll admit it is hard, sometimes, not to hate people. Especially assholes.
I don't hate someone for being ignorant (literal definition of "ignorant" means uninformed...ignorant is NOT a synonym for "stupid.") I DO hate people who are willfully ignorant. You do not appear to be willfully ignorant.

The fact that you can admit when you are wrong, and in your words, "acting like a piece of shit," well, that actually makes me respect you somewhat, even if we don't agree.

Peace!

Lyric is a she....a very annoying she who will flame you senseless if you even so much as think about disagreeing with gay marriage :rolleyes:

Seems you are the only one engaging in flames here, Neo Rogolia!

Jesus, I have you on IGNORE, and you STILL can't stop making snide comments about me. So who's flaming who?

Let it go. Its really not worth it for either side

i realize that. i have no real problem with homosexuality in general, just gay marriage. and thank god i am a part of the roman catholic church because they are among the largest opponents to homosexual marriage.

my church teaches that homosexuals are to be accepted,treated with kindness and decency, but also that they are call to a life of chastity, as sodomy is a sin,and homosexual sex is sodomy.

and how do you square "treating with kindness and decency" with denying them the right to communal property, or to be at the bedside of their loved one when they are in the hospital, perhaps on their deathbed?

Do you honestly think the love between two gay people is any less genuine than the love between a hetero couple?

Who the fuck are you to try to legislate, or outlaw, someone's FEELINGS?!?!

and how do you square "treating with kindness and decency" with denying them the right to communal property, or to be at the bedside of their loved one when they are in the hospital, perhaps on their deathbed?

Do you honestly think the love between two gay people is any less genuine than the love between a hetero couple?

Who the fuck are you to try to legislate, or outlaw, someone's FEELINGS?!?!

He is religious. Religion is the only cruch that the opponents of gay marriage have, but regardless of what their religion teaches, it has no place in the deciding of American policies.

You can't possibly imagine how offensive you are...
Should I ever watch US churches bombed to dust by terrorists, you are the sole reason I'll throw a party.

Well, Similized...much as we may disagree...the fact that your original quote is addressed to Neo Rogolia shows we can agree on SOMETHING!

Hey, Neo...I thought you said you were gonna stay out of this thread. I'm glad I didn't hold my breath, though I really am glad to have you on ignore where I only see you when someone else quotes you!

What ever happened to civil rights? Why are people freaking out about gay marriage? Just let people be. I'm straight and I'm 100% fine with gay marriage. it is not even close to being evil. I can't believe there's a forum like this open. If there were forums like this in the 50s and 60s, pretigitous people would have had discussions like how " Colored People Are Evil" Being Puerto Rican I take deep offense to the topic of this forum, showing how much hate people are capable of. So wake up everybody, and let people have their civil rights guarenteed under our Constitution.

OMG you hit the nail on the head and i have a great idea that will help the economy we can gather up all the genetically unsuperior gays put them in large prison camps where they can work in factories to support the war against terrorism then we wont feed them and when they die, isn't like they were gonna have kids anyway, we'll just throw them in ovens and thats problem solved

You do Jonathan Swift proud! You ever read "A Modest Proposal??"

That may be your definition
But that is not what the word means in the English language sorry

Murder is the ILLEGAL termination of a human life

If it is legal and or if it is not human it not murder

Sorry making up your own definitions does not make them correct



Yes, just how genocide of 6 million Jews wasn't murder since it was legal ;)

The guy does the big thing by saying he's sorry and you have to get on your high horse about it?

That just shows you. Most people just say "no problem" and move on but you have to turn it into a drama? Do people do this for kicks? Embarassing other people further?

No, you don't need to stick YOUR oar into this. No...most people, insulted as badly as I was...do not just say "no problem" and move on...else this board wouldn't need Mods, would it. So how about you just keep your nose in your own business?

I think the solution is to take away the benefits marriage is granted by the government so religious people like myself can keep it a sacrament, covenant with God and all that. Heterosexuals and homosexuals who wish for a civil union will have to file with the appropriate agencies etc. for communal property and what have you. Everybody wins.

Is there something in the Constitution that actually punishes any sexual orientation not heterosexual?



It's not mentioned in the Constitution and, given the general sentiment of the times, we can construe that homosexuality would NOT have been acceptable under the Constitution. If they had even the slightest prediction that it would become an issue (which they didn't, since it was universally opposed in the west), they would have dealt with it.

I dont have faith that your book is the truth ... (hence my not sharing your belief)

Tell me again why should I follow your rules?

Better yet...why should we follow HER INTERPRETATION of the rules?

It's not mentioned in the Constitution and, given the general sentiment of the times, we can construe that homosexuality would NOT have been acceptable under the Constitution. If they had even the slightest prediction that it would become an issue (which they didn't, since it was universally opposed in the west), they would have dealt with it.

Given the general sentiment of the time I supose being Jewish and Roman Catholic would be banned too. :rolleyes:

The aforementioned website is of course also about a man called Åke Green, who became (in)famous in Sweden for holding a sermon about homosexuality, among other things calling it "a cancer on the societal body". He claimed he was only citing the bible and elaborating a bit. He was convicted of a crime called "hets mot folkgrupp" - roughly meaning "agitation towards a group of people" - in the lowest court, but appealed and was equitted in higher court. The Attourney has appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case is particularly interesting because homosexual people was recently included into this crime, after much resistance, mainly from the Christian Democratic Party, who regards it a limitation to the freedom of religion, and from the Conservative Party, who is opposed to the crime existing altogether, since it is a limitation to the freedom of speech.


Ja, jag vilja hata till förstå en svensk författning :(

So in short, I believe gays should have the same legal rights when it comes to unions, but I would have a serious issue calling it "marriage" because that implies (to me anyway) that it has been blessed by some religious authority

Gay marriage can be blessed by a religous authority. Christians may look upon homosexuality as a sin, but homosexuality is not the only religion that exists. I personally have attended a church with homosexuals (and I myself am bisexual, married to a man) and they were very much welcome.

No, you don't need to stick YOUR oar into this. No...most people, insulted as badly as I was...do not just say "no problem" and move on...else this board wouldn't need Mods, would it. So how about you just keep your nose in your own business?

why all this rage? Just some advice. If you feel that bad about it use the mods. If you think I was offensive use the mods. And by the way if you post something on a public board then expect anyone to comment. My personal business is not aired on this board. If you want your business privite TG the person don't post a public message.

no,not really. because i live in texas, where i have millions of people who support that view. so there. and i am not intolerant, i just have religious conviction.

and i hate california and rhode island for no apparent reason.

People like you are the reason I LEFT Texas.

I lived in Austin for 9 years. It was good while it lasted, but y'all conservative idiots started creeping in and ruining what was good about Austin, so I left and came back to Pennsylvania.

In the end, the warm political climate of Pennsylvania became more important than the warm weather climate of Texas.

no, i just hate liberals because they embody everything they stand against, including the MURDER of unborn children, gay marriage, not defending our country from terrorism, and paris hilton.
And I hate conservatives because they embody everything I stand against.

Yeah, you guys so love life in the womb, but you give that same life a giant middle finger once it's out of the womb, don't you?

You may capitalize it but that still does not make it murder (look up the definition if you need help with why it is not)

And you symbolize what they dislike as well ... hatred intolerance ... so be it I am sure there are plenty of them that wish Texas would be given back to Mexico

Hell, I lived in Texas. Mexico don't want 'em, either!

I say let 'em go back to being the Republic of Texas.

Seems you are the only one engaging in flames here, Neo Rogolia!

Jesus, I have you on IGNORE, and you STILL can't stop making snide comments about me. So who's flaming who?



If you have me on ignore, how did you see that? ;)

And I hate conservatives because they embody everything I stand against.

Yeah, you guys so love life in the womb, but you give that same life a giant middle finger once it's out of the womb, don't you?

Okay Lyric you need to calm down. Jesus if you get this worked up over a damn forum I would not like to get into a real life arguement with you.

That was just a few examples of such things. I could go on and on, but I chose not to. Didn't take you that much time reading it, did it? Not everyone can be interested in everything. And you know what, you won't have to read more from me at the moment, because I'm going to bed now.

I'm more interested in finding out if the shock therapy works beyond just theory? :p LOL Clockwork Orange comes to mind :eek:

Homosexuality is not a mental disease (I'm a psych student, we learn this stuff) because there is NO evidence to support it. They have the same brains as any straight person. They just prefer the same sex.



Having the same brains proves there isn't a mental disease? Really? Let's not even talk about homosexuality for a moment... is a bulimics brains different? How about a compulsive gambler? What about an over-eater? A chain smoker? A mass murderer? How do they not have the same brains as everyone else?

Why don't you go back and ask "why" something is declared a mental disease and why something else is NOT declared a mental disease and then come back and let us know what you find out...

ok. this is what i balive. god made adam and eve. not adam and steve. in the bible it says that homosexualty is a sin and abomnation 2 god. so there is my thoughts

Better yet...why should we follow HER INTERPRETATION of the rules?



Because some parts aren't open to interpretation?

"gay marriage should only be allowed if both both girls are sexy"


That phrase isn't gonna catch on? Ahh well

Like I said can someone please explain whats stopping gay marriage being legal other than my "brothers in the christian church"*


* :(

Because it is unnatural and disgusting. Period. Man and Woman is the only natural way, not Man and Man, and not Woman and Woman. Besides, if you were to take a homo out to meat woman, they would become straight very fast.

Do you suggest that homosexual men never meet, or hang out with women? If so, you are even more uninformed than I thought!

I'm going to butt in your conversation for a minute for elaboration on the relation between Levitical law and Christian law: It is true that the law of Moses was revoked, however we can use the precedent set by it to reinforce the notion of God's view towards homosexuality in the new law. Some claim that Romans 1 Corinthians are vague on their condemnation of homosexual activity, however Leviticus 18:22 can be used to support the argument that the homosexual act is indeed being portrayed, as opposed to temple prostitution.

Except the original text said that you shall not lie with a man in the bed of a woman according to some (that doesn't appear to be about homosexuality). And others say it says you shall not lie with a man as with a woman but that at the time women were considered second class and to treat a man as a woman was an insult. Either way the intent isn't clear and Jesus called them the laws of man and not the laws of God. I choose to not guess at the intent of God. I will preach by living a life I believe Jesus would like me to live and allow people to learn the laws of God by speaking with him themselves. Mine is not to judge or play the part of accuser.

Given the general sentiment of the time I supose being Jewish and Roman Catholic would be banned too. :rolleyes:



Oh, so you don't put much stock in the Constitution and the intentions of its framers then? Good to know that, now we can move on.

Is there something in the Constitution that actually punishes any sexual orientation not heterosexual?

There WOULD be, if some of the people who post on this forum had THEIR way about it!!

And I hate conservatives because they embody everything I stand against.

Yeah, you guys so love life in the womb, but you give that same life a giant middle finger once it's out of the womb, don't you?



Is not hatred condemned by Christ and the apostles? ;)

Oh, so you don't put much stock in the Constitution and the intentions of its framers then? Good to know that, now we can move on.

Care to actually answer the point that times change and that you shouldn't look to the founding fathers to decide every law you have?

Except the original text said that you shall not lie with a man in the bed of a woman according to some (that doesn't appear to be about homosexuality). And others say it says you shall not lie with a man as with a woman but that at the time women were considered second class and to treat a man as a woman was an insult. Either way the intent isn't clear and Jesus called them the laws of man and not the laws of God. I choose to not guess at the intent of God. I will preach by living a life I believe Jesus would like me to live and allow people to learn the laws of God by speaking with him themselves. Mine is not to judge or play the part of accuser.



Either interpretation you presented is still a condemnation of homosexuality (in males anyway) :D

Oh, so you don't put much stock in the Constitution and the intentions of its framers then? Good to know that, now we can move on.

No I was just commenting on the fact that if the majority of people had their way back in that time like you said that this could happen. Except it wasnt that way with the majority. There is a reason why there is a bill of rights and there is a reason why the majority does not always equal right. My post was more a sarcastic response to yours. Too bad you dont seem to get it. O well.

Homosexuality is not a mental disease (I'm a psych student, we learn this stuff) because there is NO evidence to support it. They have the same brains as any straight person. They just prefer the same sex.

You're right. It's not a mental disease. Your statements about brains is not correct according to my research. Can you tell me - are male and female brains identical?

Care to actually answer the point that times change and that you shouldn't look to the founding fathers to decide every law you have?



Ah, so NOW we know the true intentions of the left! Dismemberment of our Constitution! (Ok, I probably exemplified the typical paranoid conservative, but my point still remains valid! :()

Either interpretation you presented is still a condemnation of homosexuality (in males anyway) :D

Actually it's not. Did you read what I said or are you just guessing? They condemned laying with a man as a woman because it was an insult to the man. Basically, lay with a man as a man and not as a woman because women are second-class citizens. That's one interpretation. Basically it's sinful to treat a man as a woman not to have sex with them.

The other suggests that you may not lay in the bed of a woman (again many suggest that it's an insult to involve the woman) but sex with another man is acceptable.

What would you call it? How is this whole gay marriage thing natural? If there could be good evidence that it really is natural, than I could belive you. Also, Why do only humans get it? Does gayness happen to Animals? If not, then it is nothing more than a mental problem, at best.

what would you call it? How is this whole fundamentalist "religion" thing natural? If there could be good evidence that it really is natural, then I could believe you. Also, why do only humans get it? Does religion happen to animals? If not, then it is nothing more than a mental problem, at best.

P.S. My apologies to any sincerely religious people this offends. I merely swapped religion for gayness in his quote and mouthed it back at him so he could hear what he sounded like.

No I was just commenting on the fact that if the majority of people had their way back in that time like you said that this could happen. Except it wasnt that way with the majority. There is a reason why there is a bill of rights and there is a reason why the majority does not always equal right. My post was more a sarcastic response to yours. Too bad you dont seem to get it. O well.


I knew you were being sarcastic, but you claim to have the law on your side when the very writers of said law would have been on my side :) So now are you going to toss the Constitution out the window because it no longer supports your premise?

Ah, so NOW we know the true intentions of the left! Dismemberment of our Constitution! (Ok, I probably exemplified the typical paranoid conservative, but my point still remains valid! :()

lol so how are they trying to dismember the constitution exactly? Last time I checked it was the republicans who were proposing a constitional amendment that took away rights.

Ah, so NOW we know the true intentions of the left! Dismemberment of our Constitution! (Ok, I probably exemplified the typical paranoid conservative, but my point still remains valid! :()

Not really as I'm not American so can't be put into your catagories

Ah, so NOW we know the true intentions of the left! Dismemberment of our Constitution! (Ok, I probably exemplified the typical paranoid conservative, but my point still remains valid! :()

No, it doesn't. The framers of the constitution put this thing into the constitution to allow it to change. It's called an amendment. A very important amendment has since been made that guarantees equal protection under the law, the fourteenth. That amendment says that same-sex marriage is protected. You can not make laws based on sex. It is you who is trying to dismember the constitution.

I knew you were being sarcastic, but you claim to have the law on your side when the very writers of said law would have been on my side :) So now are you going to toss the Constitution out the window because it no longer supports your premise?

The framers wrote the fourteenth amendment? Really? Could you give me a link?

To anyone who wondered about homosxuality in Animals I'll post this again

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

I knew you were being sarcastic, but you claim to have the law on your side when the very writers of said law would have been on my side :) So now are you going to toss the Constitution out the window because it no longer supports your premise?

Actually you are just speculating here. A majority of our founding fathers were deists and there were laws passed that promoted tolerance instead of persecution. Yet all of a sudden when you say the majority of the people in the olden days would support your side the law is suddenly on your side too? The majority does not mean that the laws would be on your side. Supreme court, electoral college, and other checks are in place which prohibit the tyrany of the majority. I mean come on do you really want to place your viewpoint back with the people who thought slavery was right and beating your wife was okay?

Why is gay marriage evil?

Because of threads like these that continue a debate that will never end... Even if we beg and plead for you to let it die...

If you have me on ignore, how did you see that? ;)

Because it was quoted about three posts later, by someone else, and I saw in the quote box, your snarky comment.

This one I saw becasuse I clicked "View Post" because your post was in the middle of a bunch of mine, and so I figured it just had to be another snide remark. I wasn't disappointed, either.

Look, Neo. I don't like you. You don't like me. How about we go back to pretending each other doesn't exist?

Not sure if its been mentioned, but there are monetary benefits associated with the current civil union system that would theoretically hurt the system by including homosexual civil unions in on the monetary gains and losses, most notably social security. Not that im against homosexual civil unions :) Social security is a big time issue, and it happens to be associated with old people, which are amazingly conservative.

Guys, try referring to it from here on out as homosexual civil union instead of the GM phrase, It might help. Political correctness is all this issue needs. :P

Actually it's not. Did you read what I said or are you just guessing? They condemned laying with a man as a woman because it was an insult to the man. Basically, lay with a man as a man and not as a woman because women are second-class citizens. That's one interpretation. Basically it's sinful to treat a man as a woman not to have sex with them.

The other suggests that you may not lay in the bed of a woman (again many suggest that it's an insult to involve the woman) but sex with another man is acceptable.


Source? Because recognized translations and commentaries understand it to be dealing with homosexuality. I find the notion ridiculous.

what would you call it? How is this whole fundamentalist "religion" thing natural? If there could be good evidence that it really is natural, then I could believe you. Also, why do only humans get it? Does religion happen to animals? If not, then it is nothing more than a mental problem, at best.

P.S. My apologies to any sincerely religious people this offends. I merely swapped religion for gayness in his quote and mouthed it back at him so he could hear what he sounded like.



Rational thought, altruism, artistic expression (the chimp paintings don't count), etc. don't occur in animals. Are we to exclude them?

<Snippy snip>
I do and I know what you mean I was just trying to keep civility and I got a bit annoyed at your reaction. Having my religion represented by hatebreeders annoys me .To be fair I think we generally agree on this.

All good?
Shit happens. It's all good.

Not sure if its been mentioned, but there are monetary benefits associated with the current civil union system that would theoretically hurt the system by including homosexual civil unions in on the monetary gains and losses, most notably social security. Not that im against homosexual civil unions :) Social security is a big time issue, and it happens to be associated with old people, which are amazingly conservative.

Guys, try referring to it from here on out as homosexual civil union instead of the GM phrase, It might help. Political correctness is all this issue needs. :P

Well, some people, on both sides, are hung up on the semantics of the whole thing. Me, I don't have a dog in this fight, as I've said before...except that it burns me up that my gay brothers and sisters are being denied equality.

As long as the relationships all come with the same legal rights, benefits, and resposibilities, I could personally give a shit less what you call it...marriage, civil union, partnership, or "Pickle Me Elmo" I could care less.

what would you call it? How is this whole fundamentalist "religion" thing natural? If there could be good evidence that it really is natural, then I could believe you. Also, why do only humans get it? Does religion happen to animals? If not, then it is nothing more than a mental problem, at best.

P.S. My apologies to any sincerely religious people this offends. I merely swapped religion for gayness in his quote and mouthed it back at him so he could hear what he sounded like.

fair comparison really. You could actually argue that homosexuality is more natural than religion

Rational thought, altruism, artistic expression (the chimp paintings don't count), etc. don't occur in animals. Are we to exclude them?

ahh now define rational thought.

Rational thought, altruism, artistic expression (the chimp paintings don't count), etc. don't occur in animals. Are we to exclude them?

I KNEW a literalist like you would completely fail to see my point...even in spite of the P.S. I put after mine. I never said I held that view...I just mouthed his own words back to him, only changing "gayness" for "religion" to show him he had made a stupid argument.

The facvt that you have replied as you have seems to back up my assertion that he made a stupid argument, and even you agree it was a stupid argument.

THAT was my point in posting what I did. To show him how stupid he sounded.

The framers wrote the fourteenth amendment? Really? Could you give me a link?


"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "


The problem is, homosexual marriage is not a right.

Source? Because recognized translations and commentaries understand it to be dealing with homosexuality. I find the notion ridiculous.

Brilliant now weve got back to scriptual interpretation

Actually you are just speculating here. A majority of our founding fathers were deists and there were laws passed that promoted tolerance instead of persecution. Yet all of a sudden when you say the majority of the people in the olden days would support your side the law is suddenly on your side too? The majority does not mean that the laws would be on your side. Supreme court, electoral college, and other checks are in place which prohibit the tyrany of the majority. I mean come on do you really want to place your viewpoint back with the people who thought slavery was right and beating your wife was okay?



A majority? So Jefferson and a select few others were a majority? Yes yes, I suppose they were if you ignore the other countless individuals :rolleyes:

Well, Similized...much as we may disagree...the fact that your original quote is addressed to Neo Rogolia shows we can agree on SOMETHING!

Hey, Neo...I thought you said you were gonna stay out of this thread. I'm glad I didn't hold my breath, though I really am glad to have you on ignore where I only see you when someone else quotes you!
Lyric, just for the record...
As far as I can tell, we don't actually disagree on anything ;)
Damn! I must really have fucked up that post to give you that impression... Oh well. Only meself to blame for that.

Brilliant now weve got back to scriptual interpretation



He brought up an absurd point and I want sources. No objective scholar could reach that conclusion. I've read many commentaries and none have ever referred to anything other than homosexuality.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "


The problem is, homosexual marriage is not a right.

Can you just read the other threads? Because it is currently held by the courts as a right. Can you show why it isn't? Have you actually read that rights not enumerated are still rights according to the constitution? Would you care to suppore your statement?

Lyric, just for the record...
As far as I can tell, we don't actually disagree on anything ;)
Damn! I must really have fucked up that post to give you that impression... Oh well. Only meself to blame for that.



Oh, so she wants churches blown up too? A very peaceful ideology secularism is :rolleyes:

He brought up an absurd point and I want sources. No objective scholar could reach that conclusion. I've read many commentaries and none have ever referred to anything other than homosexuality.

Your asking to prove the thought behind the Bible! No matter how many scholar's opinions you quote there is a chance they could be wrong. Your asking for the impossible

Your asking to prove the thought behind the Bible! No matter how many scholar's opinions you quote there is a chance they could be wrong. Your asking for the impossible


You can't use the lack of a live Moses as a crutch to deny and/or distort his laws. Romans 1 and Leviticus 18:22 also reinforce one another...it is quite obvious there is more evidence supporting the condemnation of homosexuality than its acceptance. These people have far greater understanding of Hebrew texts than you or I, wouldn't you listen to them?

Stop acting like a troll


I'm not, The Similized World actually stated that he would throw a party if terrorists blew up churches.

I actually find it hilarious how many people argue the whole "what is government's place in marriage, anyway?" side of this thing, as a medieval historian. Every time I see a post about how government has no place in marriage anyway, as it is a religious institution, I get angry, so I have given into my urge to explain why you're all wrong.

(As an American, I feel that the separation of Church and State in the Constitution makes it pretty clear that religious views on homosexuality should have nothing to do with the legality of a civil union such as marriage.)

If you want to get technical, marriage as it was practiced throughout the majority of (Christian) Western history was a legal and not religious institution. Marriage laws in Europe were based on a combination of Roman marriage laws and older N European ones, but the focus was on the consent of the married couple and their families, not on the participation of the Church. Marriage was a legal ceremony, and the Church didn't really get involved except to bless the couple until about the 13th century. Then, the Church started to claim jurisdiction in deciding who could marry and more part of the ceremony because they didn't approve of some of the leftover N European laws about marriage. (The Catholic Church, after all, was very Roman in legal outlook.)

Really, our idea of marriage as a religious ceremony, and how the ceremony goes and all that is based on a tradition maybe 300 years old. That's 300/2005 supposed years since Christ, that someone is going to try and tell me is the entirety of Christian marriage traditions, not even looking at the entirety of Western legal history? Whatever.

The point of this post, however, is not that I think marriage should or shouldn't be secular/religious or that I'm all about aping medieval tradtions (umm, no) but that "tradition" is such a lame fallback when explaining any point of view. What is tradition? Depends on your context. I know most people aren't educated in our history before 1800 the way I am, but it still makes me sad how many Victorian "traditions" people try to claim as "the way things have been and should be". Frelling Victorians, ruining everything.

So, yeah, telling me that marriage is wholly either a "religious" or "secular" thing is nonsense, as it has been both, depending on when you're talking about.

I'm not, The Similized World actually stated that he would throw a party if terrorists blew up churches.

fine i'll take it back

You can't use the lack of a live Moses as a crutch to deny and/or distort his laws. Romans 1 and Leviticus 18:22 also reinforce one another...it is quite obvious there is more evidence supporting the condemnation of homosexuality than its acceptance. These people have far greater understanding of Hebrew texts than you or I, wouldn't you listen to them?

If thats what you want to read that is whats there

How about instead of repeating and entire thread, I just post this. Marriage is a fundamental right.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9195105&postcount=177

If thats what you want to read that is whats there


But it's not about what we want to read! It's about what the true meaning is! Do you think I "want" homosexuality to be condemned? As I stated many times before, I personally have no problem with it, but apparently God does.

How about instead of repeating and entire thread, I just post this. Marriage is a fundamental right.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9195105&postcount=177



But homosexual marriage is not, as it is based upon sexual orientation as opposed to gender.

Yes, I know, another gay-marriage thread. I just want to get answers to a few questions. First, how can you call yourself American and deny any right to any person that is allowed to others. In this case the right of a gay couple to obtain a licence of marriage that any heterosexual couple may obtain for any reason. Many who argue against gay marriage say they are "defending family;" what are you defending family against? I have seen countless studies from counless "experts" from both sides of the fence, none have led to any conclusive data, simply because of the fact that there are no facts concerning people and groups of people. There can only be generalizations. I want to discuss the sociological and political implications of the legalization of homosexual marraige. I do not want to hear any reference to any religious texts whatsoever. Religion has no place in politics. Period.

its because people fear change and instead of seeing homosexuality as a way of life they see it as a threat to their lifestyles. People are just closed minded

as for the "First, how can you call yourself American and deny any right to any person that is allowed to others." part, the answer is that politicians these days just dont give a shit.

its because people fear change and instead of seeing homosexuality as a way of life they see it as a threat to their lifestyles. People are just closed minded

as for the "First, how can you call yourself American and deny any right to any person that is allowed to others." part, the answer is that politicians these days just dont give a shit.



Hey, I'm the only one allowed to hit-and-run!

I'm not, The Similized World actually stated that he would throw a party if terrorists blew up churches.
Correction: I stated you are the reason I'd throw a party if that happened.
I'd be outraged if it weren't your churches though. But spread the prejudice, and you'll feel the prejudice. What can I say? You just bring out the worst in people.

About your holocaust remark. It was actually the reason why we had to invent international laws about this sort of thing. It wasn't strictly speaking murder, as it was state sanctioned and lawful.
But that just makes it all the more grotesque. I wager you'd be a better person if you read your history books instead of your holy book.

Correction: I stated you are the reason I'd throw a party if that happened.
I'd be outraged if it weren't your churches though. But spread the prejudice, and you'll feel the prejudice. What can I say? You just bring out the worst in people.

About your holocaust remark. It was actually the reason why we had to invent international laws about this sort of thing. It wasn't strictly speaking murder, as it was state sanctioned and lawful.
But that just makes it all the more grotesque. I wager you'd be a better person if you read your history books instead of your holy book.



Ad hominem attacks, characteristics of a supposed "master debater" ,eh? :rolleyes:

But it's not about what we want to read! It's about what the true meaning is! Do you think I "want" homosexuality to be condemned? As I stated many times before, I personally have no problem with it, but apparently God does.

Good for god. So let god deal with his grievences. You gotta admit its convenient to say "It's not my problem its gods". I hate it when pepole use God to be shitty to eachother. You give me a quote that God has decreed "homosexuality is bad"


Who would have thought it, a Catholic defending homosexulity

Ok, Im missing like alot of the thread merely cuz I just got off of work, and I dont want to read everything... simply stating back to the original questions posed...

One: Marriage (Hetero or Homo) is a pursuit of happiness and there for is a constitutionaly granted right. So poo on you G.W.B.

Two: Divorce rate for homosexual couples is phenominaly lower than those of heterosexual marriages.

Three: I lost my point three somewhere, so simply stated, get to know a gay person, female or male, and youll see that there is nothing evil at all. so meh.. im done... :fluffle: we be the same anyways, we are all human. :)

Ad hominem attacks, characteristics of a supposed "master debater" ,eh? :rolleyes:
And you call the above?

Let me get this straight though; it's alright for you to be exasperated and say shit, but it's not ok for me to do the same? Further, it's alright to misquote me and give others a distorted impression of what I say?

Oh well... I guess I'll just have to put up with it. You're obviously in the right, no matter what you pull. :rolleyes:

And you call the above?

Let me get this straight though; it's alright for you to be exasperated and say shit, but it's not ok for me to do the same? Further, it's alright to misquote me and give others a distorted impression of what I say?

Oh well... I guess I'll just have to put up with it. You're obviously in the right, no matter what you pull. :rolleyes:



I never stated I would support the death of anyone, be they straight or gay. You, on the other hand, stated that you wouldn't mind if a church I attended was blown up. So, yes, you ARE in the wrong in this case.

Good for god. So let god deal with his grievences. You gotta admit its convenient to say "It's not my problem its gods". I hate it when pepole use God to be shitty to eachother. You give me a quote that God has decreed "homosexuality is bad"


Who would have thought it, a Catholic defending homosexulity



Leviticus and Romans both state (and don't give me that "it was written by men therefore it's probably a lie" junk) it is wrong. Now, is there anything stating that homosexuality is acceptable in the Bible? No, and it also states that we are to rebuke sinners does it not? Therefore, the only conclusion would be to oppose homosexuality.

THe thing that i do not understand is how people can justify treating a person unequally because of their sexual orientation. Its just like tereating somone differntly bcause their nose is a different width or they have a different skin color. It makes no sense.

THe thing that i do not understand is how people can justify treating a person unequally because of their sexual orientation. Its just like tereating somone differntly bcause their nose is a different width or they have a different skin color. It makes no sense.



Because the width of the nose is a physical characteristic, not an act that an individual willingly commits regardless of whether it is right or not. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Two: Divorce rate for homosexual couples is phenominaly lower than those of heterosexual marriages.



Wow, I would really like to see those stats, anywhere, any country.

THe thing that i do not understand is how people can justify treating a person unequally because of their sexual orientation. Its just like tereating somone differntly bcause their nose is a different width or they have a different skin color. It makes no sense. Indeed... They are american citizens, the right to a pursuit of happiness is undeniable... and just earlier, wasnt it stated that religion had no where in politics... honestly... Sepreation of church and state, sides, wouldn't God (my beliefs say there is none) get rid of anything that would make people in the wrong in his eyes, i mean, sure freedom of choice is one thing, but hasn't it been proven homosexuals are more or less born that way, and its nothing they can change, so in essence, god had made them gay only to punish them? or did god make them gay, because homosexuals are ok? sorry for the rant

Leviticus and Romans both state (and don't give me that "it was written by men therefore it's probably a lie" junk) it is wrong. Now, is there anything stating that homosexuality is acceptable in the Bible? No, and it also states that we are to rebuke sinners does it not? Therefore, the only conclusion would be to oppose homosexuality.

I wouldn't say it was a lie now would I? Man did write it so it could be argued that parts are flawed like man.(a discussion that can be left for another day though agreed?)

So your excuse for being against homosexuality is simply the Bible?

Church says its wrong, its wrong?

Wow, I would really like to see those stats, anywhere, any country.
I believe its either in Scandinavia or Sweden, where gay marriage is legal (at least these statistics were stated in my 20th century world book last year) That hetrosexual marriage was at a 65% divorce rate, while homosexual divorce rate over the same period of time was 18%

Infact 1 in every 10 (not sure about exactl numbers. I'm pretty sure it's 1 in 10 though) people is gay. So think of ten people you know. Chances are one of them is gay. Would you be able to tell your best friend that they aren't aloud to get married to the person they love just because they don't follow the norm?

And if none of them are gay, then it must be you. ;)

I wouldn't say it was a lie now would I? Man did write it so it could be argued that parts are flawed like man.(a discussion that can be left for another day though agreed?)

So your excuse for being against homosexuality is simply the Bible?

Church says its wrong, its wrong?
Again, wasnt religion supposed to stay out of this, but no, nothing can be religion free while G.W. is in office... (JAB!)

Indeed... They are american citizens, the right to a pursuit of happiness is undeniable... and just earlier, wasnt it stated that religion had no where in politics... honestly... Sepreation of church and state, sides, wouldn't God (my beliefs say there is none) get rid of anything that would make people in the wrong in his eyes, i mean, sure freedom of choice is one thing, but hasn't it been proven homosexuals are more or less born that way, and its nothing they can change, so in essence, god had made them gay only to punish them? or did god make them gay, because homosexuals are ok? sorry for the rant



Perhaps we need to clear something up: The homosexual orientation itself is not wrong, that is a characteristic. The act, on the other hand, is where sin comes into play.

Again, wasnt religion supposed to stay out of this, but no, nothing can be religion free while G.W. is in office... (JAB!)



Why not? My opposition to it is soley religious.

Perhaps we need to clear something up: The homosexual orientation itself is not wrong, that is a characteristic. The act, on the other hand, is where sin comes into play.
Ok, ... The orientation is not wrong... yet the action is... hmmm... Thats almost like stating, being diabetic is a traight, yet taking insulin or watching what you eat is wrong... thats a bit far fetched for a simily... so let me try this... if being straight is a charachteristic, would acting on it be right, and even so, what defines right and wrong... im sorry, i believe the constitution more so than the bible...

Why not? My opposition to it is soley religious.
I dunno, maybe somewhere stated in the VERY FIRST POST is where they didn't want religion, and wanted more or less a political debate? You wouldn't happen to be a republican would you?

Why not? My opposition to it is soley religious.
that's the entire problem with opposition to gay marriage.

I never stated I would support the death of anyone, be they straight or gay. You, on the other hand, stated that you wouldn't mind if a church I attended was blown up. So, yes, you ARE in the wrong in this case.
I'm curious. Do you really not understand why people feel like strangling you when you refuse them equal rights?

You're advocating that some people should be treated like second class citizens! I cannot believe you don't full well know why people hates your guts for it. At a moment like this, where I'm slightly groggy & tired, your unflinching seflrightious arrogance actually piss me off more than this entire topic. Go figure...
Perhaps it's because I hear nothing even resembling logic from you. It's just God god god. Trouble is, lots of people completely disagree with your interpretation. Your church's teachings have no business limiting the rights of other citizens or religions. All peoples constitutional right to persue happiness includes the right to marry. Your church has no right to dictate federal law...

Frankly my dear, you have no relevant objections.

But your style is offensive, both to straight people, bent people and religious people. You wish to persue politics of segregation, yet you complain when people make offensive remarks about you.

How exactly do you think your own comments looks?

Oh hell. I'm not gonna bother with you any more. As far as I'm concerned, you're utterly insane and evil through & through.
I'm very sorry for all the christians you give a bad name.

Ok, ... The orientation is not wrong... yet the action is... hmmm... Thats almost like stating, being diabetic is a traight, yet taking insulin or watching what you eat is wrong... thats a bit far fetched for a simily... so let me try this... if being straight is a charachteristic, would acting on it be right, and even so, what defines right and wrong... im sorry, i believe the constitution more so than the bible...



There are plenty of characteristics that would be sinful to act upon. Remember, Christianity involves denial of the Self. The diabetic comparison is invalid due to the fact that taking insulin is not inherently sinful.

I dunno, maybe somewhere stated in the VERY FIRST POST is where they didn't want religion, and wanted more or less a political debate? You wouldn't happen to be a republican would you?



Fine, good luck on finding someone who would debate a religious issue without involving religion :rolleyes:

I'm curious. Do you really not understand why people feel like strangling you when you refuse them equal rights?

You're advocating that some people should be treated like second class citizens! I cannot believe you don't full well know why people hates your guts for it. At a moment like this, where I'm slightly groggy & tired, your unflinching seflrightious arrogance actually piss me off more than this entire topic. Go figure...
Perhaps it's because I hear nothing even resembling logic from you. It's just God god god. Trouble is, lots of people completely disagree with your interpretation. Your church's teachings have no business limiting the rights of other citizens or religions. All peoples constitutional right to persue happiness includes the right to marry. Your church has no right to dictate federal law...

Frankly my dear, you have no relevant objections.

But your style is offensive, both to straight people, bent people and religious people. You wish to persue politics of segregation, yet you complain when people make offensive remarks about you.

How exactly do you think your own comments looks?

Oh hell. I'm not gonna bother with you any more. As far as I'm concerned, you're utterly insane and evil through & through.
I'm very sorry for all the christians you give a bad name.
WOOT! WOOT FOR YOU! WOOOOOOOT YES! *high five*

Originally Posted by Theory and Thought
Indeed... They are american citizens, the right to a pursuit of happiness is undeniable... and just earlier, wasnt it stated that religion had no where in politics... honestly... Sepreation of church and state, sides, wouldn't God (my beliefs say there is none) get rid of anything that would make people in the wrong in his eyes, i mean, sure freedom of choice is one thing, but hasn't it been proven homosexuals are more or less born that way, and its nothing they can change, so in essence, god had made them gay only to punish them? or did god make them gay, because homosexuals are ok? sorry for the rant.

1. Seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution so therfore it has no relevence.

2.God would not get rid of things that make it wrong in his eyes because 1. we have free will, and to get rid of the things would violate that. 2.It was perfect until sin came into the world and as such we have to suffer the consequenses.

3. It hasn't been proven at all that homosexuality is a thing you are born with in fact the oppisite has been shown:

It has been argued through the ages, long before science was ever involved, that homosexuality is merely a choice. Many people state that gays only have homosexual relations because they choose to do so. Others profess that homosexuality is not a choice and due to the societal stigma which is associated with homosexuality very few would consciously choose a homosexual lifestyle and the discrimination that accompanies it.

Some state that simply due to the genetic makeup of the human race it is very unlikely that homosexuality would be anything other than a choice. In An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation, by Dr. Tahir I jaz, M.D., he states, "Of all animals, human beings are the most genetically indeterminate. In the words of Dr. Joseph Wortis, Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York: 'no complex high-level behavior of the human species can be reduced to genetic endowment, not language, not house building and not sexual behavior.' Preferential and exclusive homosexuality is not naturally found in any infrahuman mammalian species and it would be odd for such behavior in humans to be genetically determined." It is Dr. Tahir's opinion that homosexuality is completely a choice as it is not possible for it to be genetically determined. He further cites various accounts of leading psychologists and psychiatrists, such as Masters and Johnson, Dieber, Barnhouse, Socarides, Cappon, Hadden, Ribinstein and Leif, who have reported very high rates of success in curing individuals of their homosexual tendencies. Tahir does not believe that individuals could be helped if homosexuality were indeed genetic -- just as you would not be able to cure someone of his or her race or gender.

Socarides, who has been successful in reportedly curing gays of their homosexuality, also agreed with Tahir. In an excerpt taken from his article, Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics, Socarides states, "Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of a sexual object. Such an object is learned, acquired behavior, there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex." Socarides is very blunt in his assertion that homosexuality is specifically a choice. He completely disagrees with the genetic arguments for homosexuality.

Tahir also points out in his article that the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs supported the idea of homosexuality as a choice. In a report distributed by them in 1981 they stated, "There are some homosexuals who would like to and probably could change their sexual orientation. Because some homosexual groups maintain contrary to the bulk of scientific evidence that preferential or exclusive homosexuality can never be changed, these people may be discouraged from seeking adequate psychiatric consultation. What is more deplorable is that this myth may also be accepted by some physicians... The physician who is not alert to the orientation of the homosexual patient may not challenge the belief in sexual irreversibility and arrange for appropriate referral." Once again, Tahir supports the decision that homosexuality is a choice and that with proper medical attention there can be a cure.

So God did not make people gay, they choose to be that way and violate His law.

They infect our culture. There would be much less homosexuals running around out there if it wasn't accepted as much as it is today.

Infect our culture? Gay people INVENTED culture!!!

I'm curious. Do you really not understand why people feel like strangling you when you refuse them equal rights?

You're advocating that some people should be treated like second class citizens! I cannot believe you don't full well know why people hates your guts for it. At a moment like this, where I'm slightly groggy & tired, your unflinching seflrightious arrogance actually piss me off more than this entire topic. Go figure...
Perhaps it's because I hear nothing even resembling logic from you. It's just God god god. Trouble is, lots of people completely disagree with your interpretation. Your church's teachings have no business limiting the rights of other citizens or religions. All peoples constitutional right to persue happiness includes the right to marry. Your church has no right to dictate federal law...

Frankly my dear, you have no relevant objections.

But your style is offensive, both to straight people, bent people and religious people. You wish to persue politics of segregation, yet you complain when people make offensive remarks about you.

How exactly do you think your own comments looks?

Oh hell. I'm not gonna bother with you any more. As far as I'm concerned, you're utterly insane and evil through & through.
I'm very sorry for all the christians you give a bad name.



1. Homosexual marriage is not an issue of equality.

2. Are you saying that strangling me would be justified? If so, I don't see why I even bother with you :rolleyes:

3. Self-righteousness would imply the righteousness of the Self. Am I stating I am righteous? No, I am stating that God is righteous and therefore must be heeded.

4. Of course people hate my guts! Nobody likes being told that what they are doing is wrong, do they?

5. This IS God's business, deny it all you want but it won't change a thing.

6. Insane and evil? I say the same for you, you endorse Christianity that does not adhere to its basic tenets and laws, yet condemn those who do? That fits both definitions of insane and evil.

There are plenty of characteristics that would be sinful to act upon. Remember, Christianity involves denial of the Self. The diabetic comparison is invalid due to the fact that taking insulin is not inherently sinful.
What charachteristics, praytell would be inherently sinful? do keep in mind, that the religion you follow, comes from about 2000 years or more ago whatever you believe... and in that case dont you think a Few things have changed, like what is deemed Evil or wrong isn't the same? just please list a few things that are evil charachteristics.
So God did not make people gay, they choose to be that way and violate His law.
They Choose, to use their free will, to do something, that has not direclty been stated nor proven wrong or evil, so that... makes... it bad?

I dunno, maybe somewhere stated in the VERY FIRST POST is where they didn't want religion, and wanted more or less a political debate? You wouldn't happen to be a republican would you?

don't take away religion, you remove their whole basis of argument :eek:

WOOT! WOOT FOR YOU! WOOOOOOOT YES! *high five*



Way to cheer on those who advocate violence! Seriously, this is just further proving my point.

What charachteristics, praytell would be inherently sinful? do keep in mind, that the religion you follow, comes from about 2000 years or more ago whatever you believe... and in that case dont you think a Few things have changed, like what is deemed Evil or wrong isn't the same? just please list a few things that are evil charachteristics.

They Choose, to use their free will, to do something, that has not direclty been stated nor proven wrong or evil, so that... makes... it bad?



Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1. The law of Moses was abolished, however it supports the statement in Romans. I believe that God would not allow the translators to instill their own ideas into the text, as it would lead all Christians astray, therefore, no, I don't believe they changed the laws.

This thread is far too large to quote and respond to each person regarding my last post; so I'll make some general comments. In terms of the Religious, I gave you the reason why I oppose homosexual marriage, not why society should. I also clearly stated that this is the least reliable argument as it is subjective.
In terms of the Natural argument, I would like to point out that homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce, as I stated in my original post. The natural laws of evolution are difficult to apply to humans today because of our level of advancement. We are now capable of doing things that cannot naturally occur (genetic engineering, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization). Regardless, a larger gene pool is always a beneficial factor for any species, as it reduces the potential for imbreeding and the spread of genetic weakness. And no, this does not mean we should round up the genetically inferior among us for summary execution; taking my words out of context does nothing to support your point of view.
In terms of the Legal argument, I would suggest to those that portray my arguments as gender discrimination reexamine what equal protection means. "Equal" does not always mean "the same." Men and women have equal rights, but the rights they have are not the same (i.e. a man can marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man). 2 + 2 equals 4, but it is not the same as 4. One is a mathematical expression, and one is an integer. I know that this is highly semantical, but if we're going to split hairs here, lets go all the way. Additionally, I would also like to point that the concept of judicial review as a way of checking a majority is not constitutional. The so-called "tryanny" you suggest is equally possible of a minority, and an example of this is when the Supreme Court declared "Seperate but Equal" constitutional (Plessy vs Fergusson).

Lastly, I would like to ask those in favor of Gay Marriage where exactly society should draw a line. I've heard the phrase "love makes a family," but should you be able to marry an animal? a toaster? And who is to say how many people someone can marry?

And then there is some evidence that having non regularly reproducing healthy adults for child care and food gathering is a massive advantage to the group …


NEWSFLASH!!!!

Gay people reporduce!!! Often with each other!!!

We just use an alternative method of conception. It does not take a penis to make a baby, only the sperm...

Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people. No one is saying that churches have to marry Gay people if it goes against their beliefs.

I am not a Christian, but that doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be Christians.

Besides, if Jesus came back I think he'd be pretty pissed at all of the hate-mongering small-minded peolple who claim to be his followers. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, it was Paul who was the homophobe. He did say that whenever 2 or more are gathered in his name he would be there with love. He didn't say it was restricted to heterosexuals.

All we are saying is give us our civil rights...

Way to cheer on those who advocate violence! Seriously, this is just further proving my point.
Ummmm... I never saw him once advocate violence, I was cheering on his points that you are a stick in the mud and that most of your points were irelivant (sp?) and the fact of the matter is, he said something along the lines of dont you realise why people want to strangle you, not that he (or she) would want to strangle you.

NEWSFLASH!!!!

Gay people reporduce!!! Often with each other!!!

We just use an alternative method of conception. It does not take a penis to make a baby, only the sperm...

Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people. No one is saying that churches have to marry Gay people if it goes against their beliefs.

I am not a Christian, but that doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be Christians.

Besides, if Jesus came back I think he'd be pretty pissed at all of the hate-mongering small-minded peolple who claim to be his followers. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, it was Paul who was the homophobe. He did say that whenever 2 or more are gathered in his name he would be there with love. He didn't say it was restricted to heterosexuals.

All we are saying is give us our civil rights...



1. Learn to differentiate between sexual and platonic love.

2. Christ gave Paul authority to preach His word, therefore Paul is to be obeyed. To deny Paul is to deny Christ. Besides, he was inspired by the Holy Spirit which removes all doubt :)

3. Have you read the Bible? You're making plenty of assertions that take one part of the Scripture and ignore the others.

Ummmm... I never saw him once advocate violence, I was cheering on his points that you are a stick in the mud and that most of your points were irelivant (sp?) and the fact of the matter is, he said something along the lines of dont you realise why people want to strangle you, not that he (or she) would want to strangle you.



Devout Christian = stick in the mud? If you say so ;)


I'm going to bed now, it's already 11:30. Toodles!

NEWSFLASH!!!!

Gay people reporduce!!! Often with each other!!!

We just use an alternative method of conception. It does not take a penis to make a baby, only the sperm...

Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people. No one is saying that churches have to marry Gay people if it goes against their beliefs.

I am not a Christian, but that doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be Christians.

Besides, if Jesus came back I think he'd be pretty pissed at all of the hate-mongering small-minded peolple who claim to be his followers. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, it was Paul who was the homophobe. He did say that whenever 2 or more are gathered in his name he would be there with love. He didn't say it was restricted to heterosexuals.

All we are saying is give us our civil rights...


I never said they did not... I said regularly reproducing ... compared to the normal output of a heterosexual couple or just a heterosexual woman their baby production

What I was trying to go is there is an advantage even without reproduction

In no way did I mean to imply that they were sterile

Lastly, I would like to ask those in favor of Gay Marriage where exactly society should draw a line. I've heard the phrase "love makes a family," but should you be able to marry an animal? a toaster? And who is to say how many people someone can marry?[/QUOTE]

What the hell does this have to do with Gay marriage? You small-minded hate-mongering heterosexual perverts always go to the animals! Where are you from, Montana? Gee, I don't know anyone who has ever had sex with an animal or a toaster, is there something you'd like to share about yourself???

What a moron you are. I certainly hope you haven't bothered to reproduce-the world could use fewer village idiots...

Devout Christian = stick in the mud? If you say so ;)


I'm going to bed now, it's already 11:30. Toodles!
No you = stick in the mud
Devout Christian is only a side note

I know plenty of people I would consider to follow the bibles teachings more devoutly that are not a stick in the mud :p (not trying to pick on ya ... was trying to imply that the stick in the mud is seperate from the christianity aspect ... I know I stated it badly but I am tired lol)

Lastly, I would like to ask those in favor of Gay Marriage where exactly society should draw a line. I've heard the phrase "love makes a family," but should you be able to marry an animal? a toaster? And who is to say how many people someone can marry?

What the hell does this have to do with Gay marriage? You small-minded hate-mongering heterosexual perverts always go to the animals! Where are you from, Montana? Gee, I don't know anyone who has ever had sex with an animal or a toaster, is there something you'd like to share about yourself???

What a moron you are. I certainly hope you haven't bothered to reproduce-the world could use fewer village idiots...[/QUOTE]
Honestly are you that dense? he never implied sex with a toaster or animal, he was advocating love, and love of someone or something other than human, you would marry it. that old expression, if you love (insert noun here) so much then why dont you marry it. Never once was love = sex made as a point, you blind idiotic dolt.

1. Learn to differentiate between sexual and platonic love.

2. Christ gave Paul authority to preach His word, therefore Paul is to be obeyed. To deny Paul is to deny Christ. Besides, he was inspired by the Holy Spirit which removes all doubt :)

3. Have you read the Bible? You're making plenty of assertions that take one part of the Scripture and ignore the others.

Christ was dead before Paul began trying to convert the Gentiles to the new religion. Yes, I have read the Bible. I wanted to make an informed decision befor I chose to follow a different path. I was merely making a point about the New Testament, which I thought was supposed to trump the Old Testament.

Lastly, I would like to ask those in favor of Gay Marriage where exactly
What the hell does this have to do with Gay marriage? You small-minded hate-mongering heterosexual perverts always go to the animals! Where are you from, Montana? Gee, I don't know anyone who has ever had sex with an animal or a toaster, is there something you'd like to share about yourself???

What a moron you are. I certainly hope you haven't bothered to reproduce-the world could use fewer village idiots...
Hey settle down I agree with a lot of your point of view but flamage is not acceptable as per forum rules ... take a deep breath and settle down

Christianity has no place in political issues as says in the constitution and under the constitution, the government may make no laws prohibiting religion in any form and any way. The very fact that George Bush wants it in the constitution shows that he could give a shit about his fore fathers.

Gay Marriage should not be illegal. I am not homosexual myself and I know nobody who is....And I find it sick and disgusting- However, just because I find it wrong doesan't mean it is.

Indeed... They are american citizens, the right to a pursuit of happiness is undeniable... and just earlier, wasnt it stated that religion had no where in politics... honestly... Sepreation of church and state, sides, wouldn't God (my beliefs say there is none) get rid of anything that would make people in the wrong in his eyes, i mean, sure freedom of choice is one thing, but hasn't it been proven homosexuals are more or less born that way, and its nothing they can change, so in essence, god had made them gay only to punish them? or did god make them gay, because homosexuals are ok? sorry for the rant.

I'm sorry to bring you the news.....

Jesus died 2005 years ago. I'm sorry somebody didn't tell you sooner.

The idea that gays are born that way is ridiculous, that whole idea makes me laugh and really, you would have to be some kind of dumbass to believe it. Gays are manufactered by there environment, they react to there emotions and impulses, and who's to condemn somebody for there HUMAN emotions?

1. Seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution so therfore it has no relevence.

From the constitution itself.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Its clear that the government should not take a stance on this and if they do....Oh man, whats next? They already broke the constitution, who's not to say they restrict our other freedoms?

2.God would not get rid of things that make it wrong in his eyes because 1. we have free will, and to get rid of the things would violate that. 2.It was perfect until sin came into the world and as such we have to suffer the consequenses.

Sin...Get a fucking life man. Fuck that. Religion has NOTHING to do with society and again, jesus is dead- And God isn't real, and if he is- May he strike me down where I stand.

Socarides, who has been successful in reportedly curing gays of their homosexuality, also agreed with Tahir. In an excerpt taken from his article, Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics, Socarides states, "Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of a sexual object. Such an object is learned, acquired behavior, there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex." Socarides is very blunt in his assertion that homosexuality is specifically a choice. He completely disagrees with the genetic arguments for homosexuality.

Are you trying to say Socrates?

So God did not make people gay, they choose to be that way and violate His law.

1. God has no law
2. Religion is an invention to create order
3. We have moved beyond this invention and it is time to take a liberal stance and accept as a society that god is as such- An invention. The minute all of mankind accepts this, war will be cut in half. The invention of god is the greatest weapon of mankind as the concept has cost the lives of billions of men throughout the course of Human EVOLUTION

Joob Prime, now i want to state a few things, one, way to come in and lay the smack down on everybody... honestly... second... im way to tired to make great sense, or trains of thought... so everything I say is a little off... from what im ireally trying to say anyways... but still... yeah man... you just laid the smack down on everyone... honestly, you remind me a bit of my religion teacher... funny enough...

Honestly are you that dense? he never implied sex with a toaster or animal, he was advocating love, and love of someone or something other than human, you would marry it. that old expression, if you love (insert noun here) so much then why dont you marry it. Never once was love = sex made as a point, you blind idiotic dolt.
Return flaming is not acceptable either

Return flaming is not acceptable either
Im so lost... somewhere a misplaced end quote or start quote was well... misplaced or left out... sorry, did not mean to return flame...

NEWSFLASH!!!!

Gay people reporduce!!! Often with each other!!!

We just use an alternative method of conception. It does not take a penis to make a baby, only the sperm...

Sorry, promised myself not to get involved with these arguments. but I do have a question.

Now Female-Female couples can have children as you say, there are alternatives... but how can a Male-Male couple have a child? Granted you can have a donated egg, but no womb... unless you go Serrogate mothers, but then that involves a female... and there is the possibility of them deciding to keep the child dispite the contract.


Hmmm...unless you have a Female-Female couple help provide a child for the Male-male couple... that's a possibitility... but doesn't that put the burden of Child birth only on the Female-Female couple?

Moral:
As a Catholic, my religious beliefs teach me that the act of homosexuality is an abomination (Lev 18:22). Because I have faith in these teachings, I accept this as true and subsequently oppose gay marriage (who am I to tell my God that He is wrong?) However, I tend to rely on this form of argument the least, as it is purely subjective.


I hate to break it to you, but no. As a Catholic you are not bound by any of the laws in the Book of Leviticus. That's why you can eat pork, shell fish, meat and milk toghether in the same meal, wear cloth of 2 different threads, etc. All laws in Leviticus. Now you do have the letters of St. Paul in the bible where he is talking about it people leaving their wives and engaging in 'un-natural' sex with other men.


Naginah

Sorry, promised myself not to get involved with these arguments. but I do have a question.

Now Female-Female couples can have children as you say, there are alternatives... but how can a Male-Male couple have a child? Granted you can have a donated egg, but no womb... unless you go Serrogate mothers, but then that involves a female... and there is the possibility of them deciding to keep the child dispite the contract.


Hmmm...unless you have a Female-Female couple help provide a child for the Male-male couple... that's a possibitility... but doesn't that put the burden of Child birth only on the Female-Female couple?

Yes but while we can remove the social enequality biology is a bitch lol

Seriously did anyone else notice the smackdown joob prime did? Honestly? I mean... sorry... Im tired... really tired...

As the thread slows down to a crawl... and I have made a total fool of myself more than once, im goin to bed... night all..

And you call the above?

Let me get this straight though; it's alright for you to be exasperated and say shit, but it's not ok for me to do the same? Further, it's alright to misquote me and give others a distorted impression of what I say?

Oh well... I guess I'll just have to put up with it. You're obviously in the right, no matter what you pull. :rolleyes:

And NOW you understand WHY I put Neo Rogolia on my fucking ignore list. She was quite literally driving me fucking crazy.

You can't argue with people who "KNOW" they are "RIGHT"

Seriously did anyone else notice the smackdown joob prime did? Honestly? I mean... sorry... Im tired... really tired...

Thank you...I'm gonna be lurking around the forum from now on.

Again, wasnt religion supposed to stay out of this, but no, nothing can be religion free while G.W. is in office... (JAB!)

You notice religion DID, mostly...stay out of this until Neoi rogolia decided to break her original statement of not getting involved in this thread. And it's why Neo is on my ignore list. she can not argue ANYTHING logically, or rationally...she only spews out more Bible crap and refuses to admit when she is wrong.
So, to save my fucking sanity, I put her on ignore.

Seriously did anyone else notice the smackdown joob prime did? Honestly? I mean... sorry... Im tired... really tired...
actually Joob Prime has some fallicies in his argument, but being that I promised myself I would stay out of these things...

I'll let others punch holes through them.




That is if they can see them. :D

I believe its either in Scandinavia or Sweden, where gay marriage is legal (at least these statistics were stated in my 20th century world book last year) That hetrosexual marriage was at a 65% divorce rate, while homosexual divorce rate over the same period of time was 18%

All of Sweeden suffers from a 64% divorce rate. It has one of the least marriage friendly places on earth, people have no reason to stay together… And yes, they have SSM there. What they have there, I do NOT want in America.

As to your misunderstanding about the SSM statistics there though, these a little more revealing:

Between 1995 and 2002, there were 1,526 gay partnerships contracted, compared to 280,000 for heterosexual couples. Five out of 1,000 new couples in Sweden are same-sex. Sixty-two percent of those are male same-sex unions.

The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.

Even among childless households, same-sex male partnerships experienced almost a 50% higher likelihood (1.49 times as likely) of divorce during the study period, while childless lesbian couples were three times as likely (200% higher likelihood) to break up as a married couple without children."


For Sweden, we find the same relation between the divorce risks of lesbian
and gay partnerships. In addition, we provide a comparison with the divorce-risk level
of opposite-sex marriages (Table 5). An introductory model without further
explanatory variables (Raw model) shows that the divorce risk in partnerships of men
appears 50 percent higher than the corresponding risk in heterosexual marriages , and that the divorce risk in partnerships of women is about the double of that of men.

http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=40208

I see no reason, NONE whatsoever, to bring that type of ideology of ‘tolerance for marriage’ to America.

The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.

Maybe this is because, when it turned legal, a lot of gay couples jumped into it thinking "yay! We can marry now!" without considering if they were ready for it. And turning out not to be?

But homosexual marriage is not, as it is based upon sexual orientation as opposed to gender.

Ha. That's a nice try, but it doesn't work that way. Marriage is a fundamental right. That right cannot be abridged on the basis of sex unless there is a compelling government interest. If a man can marry a woman and not a man, that is on the basis of sex. No amount of wordgames on your part will change that. The government doesn't evaluate your sexuality. Two homosexuals can marry today if they are of the opposite sex. SSM is about the sex of the participants not sexual orientation.

Maybe this is because, when it turned legal, a lot of gay couples jumped into it thinking "yay! We can marry now!" without considering if they were ready for it. And turning out not to be?Yep, the inital rate does not always reflect the true rate. Dunno about you guys but I know of quite a few very long lasting gay relationships and only 1 short lived one.. Thats first hand none of that celebrity crap. I can't say much for the lesbian rates though.

Ha. That's a nice try, but it doesn't work that way. Marriage is a fundamental right. That right cannot be abridged on the basis of sex unless there is a compelling government interest. If a man can marry a woman and not a man, that is on the basis of sex. No amount of wordgames on your part will change that. The government doesn't evaluate your sexuality. Two homosexuals can marry today if they are of the opposite sex. SSM is about the sex of the participants not sexual orientation.

Please tell me how in the hell marriage is a right. Please explain for me how you derive, whether from the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or social contract theory, the right of two people to get married.
Marriage is not a right. It is a contract between two people, usually in a religious sense. State-wise, a marriage is a contract to act as a single entity for the purpose of inheritance and so on, and also to claim special benefits from the government.

The state has no obligation to recognize any marriage, much less homosexual marriage. When the state does so, it is because it has an interest in the couple, namely the stability they provide to the community and the children they bring into the world for the betterment of the economy and the society.

Homosexual marriage cannot provide stability to a community because (at this stage of our society) it is inherently polarizing. Because of this, the ability of homosexual couples to raise healthy and well-adjusted children is extremely impaired. Therefore, it is not in the state's best interests to recognize homosexual marriage.

Its not.

Next :rolleyes:

I personally don't find anything wrong with gay marriage.Which Is why It Is perfectly legal In my country.It reminds me of a quotation the reads "A mind Is like a parachute.It works best when open."

I personally don't find anything wrong with gay marriage.Which Is why It Is perfectly legal In my country.It reminds me of a quotation the reads "A mind Is like a parachute.It works best when open."


Which country was that? I saw that they were talking about a sixty-five percent divorce rate in some Scandinavia countries with SSM earlier in this thread and I thought that was too high... But when I did a preliminary scan to find out, it turns out it really is that high. That's a really, really high divorce rate. I can't imagine what that is like to society.

I know everyone in America goes around yapping about a 50% rate here, but really, it's closer to 40% and seems to be stabilized and/or dropping in some areas.


So what country are you talking about and can tell us about?

Which country was that? I saw that they were talking about a sixty-five percent divorce rate in some Scandinavia countries with SSM earlier in this thread and I thought that was too high... But when I did a preliminary scan to find out, it turns out it really is that high. That's a really, really high divorce rate. I can't imagine what that is like to society.

I know everyone in America goes around yapping about a 50% rate here, but really, it's closer to 40% and seems to be stabilized and/or dropping in some areas.


So what country are you talking about and can tell us about?
The beautiful thing is last time I checked Massachusetts (that’s right the “gay lover” state) has the lowest divorce rate in the united states :p

The beautiful thing is last time I checked Massachusetts (that’s right the “gay lover” state) has the lowest divorce rate in the united states :p

How does that help clarify anything? They've only had SSM for (how long? a year and half?) and the divorce rate records from the census are older than that, one doesn't have anything to do with the other, yet. It takes time to see the results of such changes in the census. Sweeden has something like seven and a half years I think.

How long has Denmark had it? Does anyone have stats from there?

How does that help clarify anything? They've only had SSM for (how long? a year and half?) and the divorce rate records from the census are older than that, one doesn't have anything to do with the other, yet. It takes time to see the results of such changes in the census. Sweeden has something like seven and a half years I think.

How long has Denmark had it? Does anyone have stats from there?
But the feelings that SSM should be alright in Massachusetts predate the inception of the actually institution … obviously the acceptance of SSM in their hearts had not bumped up their divorce rate at all

How does that help clarify anything? They've only had SSM for (how long? a year and half?) and the divorce rate records from the census are older than that, one doesn't have anything to do with the other, yet. It takes time to see the results of such changes in the census. Sweeden has something like seven and a half years I think.

How long has Denmark had it? Does anyone have stats from there?
Denmark as of 1989

Their 1996 Devorce rate was
35 percent while the united states was 49 percent

So the first real country 7 years after initiating same sex marriages still had a lower divorce rate then the US



:p

Please tell me how in the hell marriage is a right. Please explain for me how you derive, whether from the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or social contract theory, the right of two people to get married.
Marriage is not a right. It is a contract between two people, usually in a religious sense.State-wise, a marriage is a contract to act as a single entity for the purpose of inheritance and so on, and also to claim special benefits from the government.

The state has no obligation to recognize any marriage, much less homosexual marriage. When the state does so, it is because it has an interest in the couple, namely the stability they provide to the community and the children they bring into the world for the betterment of the economy and the society.

Homosexual marriage cannot provide stability to a community because (at this stage of our society) it is inherently polarizing. Because of this, the ability of homosexual couples to raise healthy and well-adjusted children is extremely impaired. Therefore, it is not in the state's best interests to recognize homosexual marriage.
Underlines and bolds my addition, but you just made our artgument FOR us, thank you. See, hetero coupless get special benefits from the government that are denied to homosexual couples, also, hetero couples have the ability to act as a single entity in things like inheritance, thus the ability to pass on common property tax free upon the death of a spouse...homosexual couples who have built a life together, and who have common property together are not allowed to do that...and those disparies in treatment between hetero and homosexual couples, my friend, is discrimination.

Homosexual marriage cannot provide stability to a community because (at this stage of our society) it is inherently polarizing. Because of this, the ability of homosexual couples to raise healthy and well-adjusted children is extremely impaired. Therefore, it is not in the state's best interests to recognize homosexual marriage.

Republicanism cannot provide stability to a community because (at this stage of our society) it is inherently polarizing. Because of this, the ability of Republican couples to raise healthy and well-adjusted children is extremely impaired. Therefore it is not in the state's best interests to recognize Republicanism.

But the feelings that SSM should be alright in Massachusetts predate the inception of the actually institution … obviously the acceptance of SSM in their hearts had not bumped up their divorce rate at all

You are assuming WAY too much. Massachusetts could have the lowest divorce rate simply because they also have the lowest marriage rate in the nation.

You are assuming WAY too much. Massachusetts could have the lowest divorce rate simply because they also have the lowest marriage rate in the nation.
As you were assuming with Denmark right? (but that was PERCENTAGE meaning not lowest overall in raw numbers rather percentage of married couples) that means it TAKES INTO ACCOUNT MARRIGE RATE!

As you were assuming with Denmark right? (but that was PERCENTAGE meaning not lowest overall in raw numbers rather percentage of married couples) that means it TAKES INTO ACCOUNT MARRIGE RATE!

No, it doesn't take marriage rates into account. Hawaii and Massachusetts have about the same divorce rate, but Hawaii has a marriage rate that is about 400% of Massachusetts...

And I wasn't assuming anything about Denmark rates, I was asking because I didn't know and was curious... Sheesh, kind of a touchy subject with you huh?

Please tell me how in the hell marriage is a right. Please explain for me how you derive, whether from the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or social contract theory, the right of two people to get married.

Government has no place in this discussion. The government shall not and will not get involved in the religious matters of the country.

Marriage is not a right. It is a contract between two people, usually in a religious sense. State-wise, a marriage is a contract to act as a single entity for the purpose of inheritance and so on, and also to claim special benefits from the government.

This day and age, Marriage has become a right, religion has evolved in such a way where "Sin" no longer exists, because everyone sins. Divorce, infertility...Porn. The corruption of the youth, murder, rape, crime, hating of the parents, all of those things have evolved.

Marriage is a union between TWO PEOPLE who love eachother, now who's to say some homophobe is going to deny others that right.

Homosexual marriage cannot provide stability to a community because (at this stage of our society) it is inherently polarizing. Because of this, the ability of homosexual couples to raise healthy and well-adjusted children is extremely impaired. Therefore, it is not in the state's best interests to recognize homosexual marriage.

State should have nothing to do with it, religion is religion and the state is the state, which makes this so irritating that each state- Even the government is breaking the constitution deliberatly.

State should have nothing to do with it, religion is religion and the state is the state, which makes this so irritating that each state- Even the government is breaking the constitution deliberatly.

I hate to inform you but the goverment isn't breaking to constitution, because seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution at all, it acctually comes from a letter written by thomas jefferson.

No, it doesn't take marriage rates into account. Hawaii and Massachusetts have about the same divorce rate, but Hawaii has a marriage rate that is about 400% of Massachusetts...

And I wasn't assuming anything about Denmark rates, I was asking because I didn't know and was curious... Sheesh, kind of a touchy subject with you huh?
The divorce rates I quoted are percentage of marriges ... they take into account marriges because the rate changes as the ammout of marriges change

If you are using a per capita rate THEN that does not take into account marrige rate ... it all depends on the stats

(I used percent of total for denmark and united states statistics)

Your "50 percent" quote was close but that was a percent of marriges (which takes marrige rate into account)
A "per capita" mesurement for example is in 2002 the rate was
.038%

That is right a fraction of 1%

THAT does not take marrige rate into account ... there is a difference

Replying to the original question and without any use of religious texts, I can prove to you why the equal rights issue is not an issue at all. The problem lies in your assumption that they don't have equal rights. Any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man (with the one restriction that they can't already be married, unless they live in Utah... ;) Gay or straight, they all share this right. So don't tell me it's a question of equal rights, because that simply proves that you've formed your opinion first and your argument second.

P.S. - I am conservative but I don't hate gays or want them to be demeaned in any way so don't label me as such

<Snip>
And once again, Joob Prime brings down the hammer.

Let me just add that the US supreme court have ruled that marriage falls under the right to persue happiness.
And that there are legal aspects to being married.

Those 2 simple things kills all discussion of whether marriage is a right and whether this debate is about equal rights. There's simply no denying it. Scream and shout if you want. It makes no difference. This is discrimination. Marriage is a right. Reread the above untill you understand it.

Apart from the fact that your constitution doesn't allow you to base laws on religions, there's another reason why god has no place in this discussion.
Other branches of Christianity, and other religions, have no problem with homosexuality. In fact, right now you are intervening with their freedom of religion, because the marriages they perform is not equal to the ones your particular hatefaith performs. That goes against freedom of religion. Reread this untill you get it.

Homosexual couples have children. Either through insimination, adobtion or surrogate mothers. Often gay & lesbian couples will help eachother have children. That means they reproduce. Reread this untill it sinks in.

You hate homosexuals? Great. Know what? I hate you too. Do you want me to try and limit your rights, belittle your lifestyle, discriminate against you both in job situations and socially? And maybe take it so far that me and 10 mates start hunting for you with knives and bats?
Again, reread that untill you grasp the implications of your own sick actions.

Do you think the institution of marriage will fall apart if homosexuals can marry? Try to look at the statistics from Scandinavia, Denmark in particular.
Remember a few things when you do it. 1: You need to look at the numbers at least 10 years previous to the SSM laws to get an idea of how it has affected hetero marriages. 2: You need to have an understanding of how that society is.
I posted some statistics about this in another gaybashing thread. I can't be arsed to look them up right now, so search for it. I provided some background info about the Danish society as well.
The conclusion of it is, despide US studies trying to prove the opposite, if gay marriage have had any measurable effect on marriages in general, is has been two fold. 1: A general rise in the number of marriages. 2: A falling divorce rate.
Did I mention that even though people in Denmark have had fewer children the last 20 years than ever before, the number of childbirths are now also on the rise? Did I also mention that children of gay married couples do statistically better than children from conventional marriages?

People, you can't use social statistics in this area for anything, unless you know the development for at least 20 years before and after the change in legislation. Again, reread this untill you get it.

Neo Rogolia, I never said I would kill you. But yes, I think you're evil & quite insane. And I think it's likely you're a dyke.

Lyric... Tell me about it. Hopefully this remark will be the last I ever make about her.

Replying to the original question and without any use of religious texts, I can prove to you why the equal rights issue is not an issue at all. The problem lies in your assumption that they don't have equal rights. Any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man (with the one restriction that they can't already be married, unless they live in Utah... ;) Gay or straight, they all share this right. So don't tell me it's a question of equal rights, because that simply proves that you've formed your opinion first and your argument second.

P.S. - I am conservative but I don't hate gays or want them to be demeaned in any way so don't label me as such
Bunk argument you are still discriminating on sex
If you are strait you can marry someone you love change the sex and you cant.

In the same frame of mind you can say that heterosexuals are being discriminated against because same sex marriage is illegal.
Giving the option of same sex marriage allows heterosexuals more freedoms as well

Replying to the original question and without any use of religious texts, I can prove to you why the equal rights issue is not an issue at all. The problem lies in your assumption that they don't have equal rights. Any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man (with the one restriction that they can't already be married, unless they live in Utah... ;) Gay or straight, they all share this right. So don't tell me it's a question of equal rights, because that simply proves that you've formed your opinion first and your argument second.

P.S. - I am conservative but I don't hate gays or want them to be demeaned in any way so don't label me as such
Would you consider it an equal rights issue if only men could marry men and only women could marry women?

Source? Because recognized translations and commentaries understand it to be dealing with homosexuality. I find the notion ridiculous.

I'm sure the sources you recognize believe that. Either way, it doesn't matter. Unless your name is Jesus Christ, you were not given the authority to judge other people. So unless you're a homosexual, we needn't hear your opinion on the subject.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm

Christianity has no place in political issues as says in the constitution and under the constitution, the government may make no laws prohibiting religion in any form and any way. The very fact that George Bush wants it in the constitution shows that he could give a shit about his fore fathers.

Gay Marriage should not be illegal. I am not homosexual myself and I know nobody who is....And I find it sick and disgusting- However, just because I find it wrong doesan't mean it is.



I'm sorry to bring you the news.....

Jesus died 2005 years ago. I'm sorry somebody didn't tell you sooner.

The idea that gays are born that way is ridiculous, that whole idea makes me laugh and really, you would have to be some kind of dumbass to believe it. Gays are manufactered by there environment, they react to there emotions and impulses, and who's to condemn somebody for there HUMAN emotions?



From the constitution itself.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Its clear that the government should not take a stance on this and if they do....Oh man, whats next? They already broke the constitution, who's not to say they restrict our other freedoms?



Sin...Get a fucking life man. Fuck that. Religion has NOTHING to do with society and again, jesus is dead- And God isn't real, and if he is- May he strike me down where I stand.



Are you trying to say Socrates?



1. God has no law
2. Religion is an invention to create order
3. We have moved beyond this invention and it is time to take a liberal stance and accept as a society that god is as such- An invention. The minute all of mankind accepts this, war will be cut in half. The invention of god is the greatest weapon of mankind as the concept has cost the lives of billions of men throughout the course of Human EVOLUTION




1. False
2. False
3. Very very false lol


Seriously, continue to post because you're making my job a lot easier :)

Ha. That's a nice try, but it doesn't work that way. Marriage is a fundamental right. That right cannot be abridged on the basis of sex unless there is a compelling government interest. If a man can marry a woman and not a man, that is on the basis of sex. No amount of wordgames on your part will change that. The government doesn't evaluate your sexuality. Two homosexuals can marry today if they are of the opposite sex. SSM is about the sex of the participants not sexual orientation.



The government does not recognize homosexual marriage as legitimate though, nor is it an issue of "equal rights"....and it will remain that way, because, if it were to change, it would lead to the collapse of many laws that differentiate between genders :)

Underlines and bolds my addition, but you just made our artgument FOR us, thank you. See, hetero coupless get special benefits from the government that are denied to homosexual couples, also, hetero couples have the ability to act as a single entity in things like inheritance, thus the ability to pass on common property tax free upon the death of a spouse...homosexual couples who have built a life together, and who have common property together are not allowed to do that...and those disparies in treatment between hetero and homosexual couples, my friend, is discrimination.



That's because most heterosexual couples are capable of reproducing, so the government gets a return on its investment ;)

Government has no place in this discussion. The government shall not and will not get involved in the religious matters of the country.



This day and age, Marriage has become a right, religion has evolved in such a way where "Sin" no longer exists, because everyone sins. Divorce, infertility...Porn. The corruption of the youth, murder, rape, crime, hating of the parents, all of those things have evolved.

Marriage is a union between TWO PEOPLE who love eachother, now who's to say some homophobe is going to deny others that right.



State should have nothing to do with it, religion is religion and the state is the state, which makes this so irritating that each state- Even the government is breaking the constitution deliberatly.



Sin no longer exists, eh? And here I thought Christ had established a law that would last until the end of the earth :rolleyes:

I'm sure the sources you recognize believe that. Either way, it doesn't matter. Unless your name is Jesus Christ, you were not given the authority to judge other people. So unless you're a homosexual, we needn't hear your opinion on the subject.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm




2 Timothy and Titus.

1. False
2. False
3. Very very false lol


Seriously, continue to post because you're making my job a lot easier :)
Your deeming them as such does not necessarily make them false

Your deeming them as such does not necessarily make them false




They are, I'd love to see his proof...or even evidence supporting it!

Replying to the original question and without any use of religious texts, I can prove to you why the equal rights issue is not an issue at all. The problem lies in your assumption that they don't have equal rights. Any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man (with the one restriction that they can't already be married, unless they live in Utah... ;) Gay or straight, they all share this right. So don't tell me it's a question of equal rights, because that simply proves that you've formed your opinion first and your argument second.

P.S. - I am conservative but I don't hate gays or want them to be demeaned in any way so don't label me as such

These are examples of your so called equal rights.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

A homosexual couple have to testify against each other. Where husband and wife do not.

Many state courts have overturned wills based on the person inheriting was a partner in a homosexual relationship.

You can be fired from your job for being gay but not for being White, Black or female.

You can be refused a mortgage or kicked out of a rented apartment for being gay but not for being White, Black or Female..

Fair housing laws and fair employment laws do not protect a homosexual in court.

a Homosexual couple can not marry.

Homosexuals do not have equal rights.
While the rights on the books should cover them, they do not.

JMayo

It is just not right :sniper:

They are, I'd love to see his proof...or even evidence supporting it!
I would love to see any hard or verifiable proof on either side … not likely to happen

I would love to see any hard or verifiable proof on either side … not likely to happen



He made the claim, therefore the burden of proof rests on him :)

You are assuming WAY too much. Massachusetts could have the lowest divorce rate simply because they also have the lowest marriage rate in the nation.

Incorrect. Oklahoma has the lowest marriage rate, at 4.9 per 1000.

The government does not recognize homosexual marriage as legitimate though, nor is it an issue of "equal rights"....and it will remain that way, because, if it were to change, it would lead to the collapse of many laws that differentiate between genders :)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=125&invol=190

Marriage is a right and it is an issue of equal rights. You cannot abridge my rights on the basis of gender due to the fourteenth amendment without a compelling reason. I as a male have a right to marry another person. To limit who that person can be based on my sex is an obvious discrimination. Perhaps you can show how creating law that limits your rights based on your sex isn't a violation of the fourteenth amendment?

This is why it sucks that people keep creating all these threads. You can make your arguments all you want, but we've heard them all before. Disallowing same-sex marriage is an abridgement of a fundamental right established over a hundred years ago. The fact that it still goes on does not make it defensible any more than slavery was defensible or treating women like second-class citizens was defensible. I'd like to think we're better than that.

Denying same-sex couples the RIGHT to marry is denying them over 1000 cascading rights, liberties, advantages and responsibilities. To deny them these rights is a grave injustice and it's a matter of time before we fix it.

Also, let's note that because it's accepted doesn't make it constitutional. DOMA, anyone?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=125&invol=190

Marriage is a right and it is an issue of equal rights. You cannot abridge my rights on the basis of gender due to the fourteenth amendment without a compelling reason. I as a male have a right to marry another person. To limit who that person can be based on my sex is an obvious discrimination. Perhaps you can show how creating law that limits your rights based on your sex isn't a violation of the fourteenth amendment?

This is why it sucks that people keep creating all these threads. You can make your arguments all you want, but we've heard them all before. Disallowing same-sex marriage is an abridgement of a fundamental right established over a hundred years ago. The fact that it still goes on does not make it defensible any more than slavery was defensible or treating women like second-class citizens was defensible. I'd like to think we're better than that.

Denying same-sex couples the RIGHT to marry is denying them over 1000 cascading rights, liberties, advantages and responsibilities. To deny them these rights is a grave injustice and it's a matter of time before we fix it.

Also, let's note that because it's accepted doesn't make it constitutional. DOMA, anyone?



Marriage = a right

Homosexual marriage = not a right

It's that simple. If it were incorrect, then it would have been recognized long ago by one of the many radical activist judges ;)

Marriage = a right

Homosexual marriage = not a right

It's that simple. If it were incorrect, then it would have been recognized long ago by one of the many radical activist judges ;)

Why is heterosexual marriage a right but homosexual marriage a privilege? And give me a real answer, not one of your usual bullshit dismissive responses.

Marriage = a right

Homosexual marriage = not a right

It's that simple. If it were incorrect, then it would have been recognized long ago by one of the many radical activist judges ;)
Oh and what makes marriage a fundamental right but not homosexual?

2 Timothy and Titus.

I tell you what. You live a your life of judgement and accusal and I'll live one of love and tolerance while observing the teachings of Jesus and when we sit before the king we'll see how that works out for you. I personally choose not to judge because the lord speaks silently to the hearts of all. I no more know what he says to your heart than what you know what he says to mine. I do know that Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone and remove the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the speck of dust from the eye of your brother. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus first before all others.

I tell you what. You live a your life of judgement and accusal and I'll live one of love and tolerance while observing the teachings of Jesus and when we sit before the king we'll see how that works out for you. I personally choose not to judge because the lord speaks silently to the hearts of all. I no more know what he says to your heart than what you know what he says to mine. I do know that Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone and remove the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the speck of dust from the eye of your brother. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus first before all others.



But if you also followed the teachings of Jesus, you would spend a good deal of your time trying to get sinners to return to the light :) Is not compassion and concern part of love?

Marriage = a right

Homosexual marriage = not a right

It's that simple. If it were incorrect, then it would have been recognized long ago by one of the many radical activist judges ;)

In other words, you can't actually show how same-sex marriage does not violate the fourteenth amendment so you're not going to answer. Fine. I agree that you can't show it. That's because it does.

These are examples of your so called equal rights.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

A homosexual couple have to testify against each other. Where husband and wife do not.

Many state courts have overturned wills based on the person inheriting was a partner in a homosexual relationship.

You can be fired from your job for being gay but not for being White, Black or female.

You can be refused a mortgage or kicked out of a rented apartment for being gay but not for being White, Black or Female..

Fair housing laws and fair employment laws do not protect a homosexual in court.

a Homosexual couple can not marry.

Homosexuals do not have equal rights.
While the rights on the books should cover them, they do not.

JMayo


And that is just the tip of the iceberg!!

Consider, if you will, the stories of three of my "sisters" all of whom are transgender. and I say "sisters" in that way to indicate they are not flesh-and-blood sisters...but they are sisters to me in a way flesh and blood cannot be.
Then, also consider the story of one of my transgender "brothers" and tell me if you think this is fair or right. And how you'd feel if YOU were treated this way by the law, by society...or by people who were SUPPOSED to try to help you.

1. Lauryn Paige - Austin, Texas. Lauryn, an 18 year-old transgender female, was found in a Southeast Austin ditch, mutilated. Ms. Paige suffered 60 stab wounds, one being a nine-inch gash that left her nearly decapitated. Her admitted killer, Gamliel Coria, who admitted in open court to killing Paige, was sentenced to forty years in prison, eligible for parole in twenty. This, in the state that leads the nation in executions, and while GWB, The Texecutioner, was still Gubnor of Texas. Had Paige been a genetic woman, I've no doubt Coria would've done the airdance. But, because Paige was transgender, Coria got this rificulously light sentence, and that is a travesty of justice which indicates that, somehow, Paige's life was worth less than other lives.

2. Christie Lee Littleton, San Antonio, Texas. Christie, a post-operative transsexual for over ten years, legally married Johnathan Littleton, in the State of Kentucky. Johnathan knew, before the marriage, of Christie's transgender status. They settled in Christie's home of San Antonio. they lived happily together for seven years of marital bliss, until Johnathan was killed by medical malpractice. A doctor had given Johnathan a medication that was counter-indicated by other medications Johnathan was taking. A clear case of medical malpractice. However, the 4th Circuit Court of Texas denied Christie legal standing to sue Dr. Prange for wrongful death, because, they ruled, Christie was, in fact, "a male with a vagina," and that, therefore, she and Johnathan were in an illegal same-sex marriage, thus the court annulled their marriage, and stripped Christie of her standing to sue...as well as the communal property Johnathan and Christie had accumulated in their seven-year marriage. All the property (including Christie's share) went to the family of Johnathan, and Christie was left with absolutely nothing. Her identity, her marriage, and her property was stripped from her and given to Johnathan's family, for no better reason than hate. (The deciding judge in that lawsuit, Littleton v. Prange, 1999...Justice Hardberger...is now mayor of San Antonio.)

3. Tyra Hunter, Washington DC. On August 7, 1995, Tyra was a passenger in a co-worker's car. They were struck by another vehicle which then fled the scene. When paramedics arrived on the scene, they began to treat Tyra for her injuries, administering mouth-to-mouth. One of the paramedics, as part of the treatment proceedings, had to cut open Tyra's pants. When it was discovered Tyra had male genitalia (she was pre-operative) all eight paramedics backed off, and ceased life-saving attempts on Tyra, and, instead, began making jokes about Tyra, as she lay, broken, bleedding, and dying on the pavement. Bad enough when the people who are supposed to try to save your life refuse to do their jobs...but to spend the last few minutes of your life, broken and bleeding...and being taunted by the people who were supposed to try to save your life... (Tyra's mother later successfully sued the City of Washington, DC in the wrongful death of her child.)

4. Robert Eads, Atlanta Georgia - Robert was a female-to-male transsexual, pre-operative. Robert contracted ovarian cancer. His condition indicated a total hysterectomy needed to save his life. Twenty different oncologists refused to treat Robert for his condition, because he was a transsexual. When he finally found a doctor willing to treat him, it was too late. the cancer had spread and became inoperable. In effect, Robert was sentenced to death, merely because he was a transsexual. (Robert's story is documented in the HBO documentary film, "Southern Comfort," in which yours truly has a cameo appearance.)

THIS is the way we people are treated by this society...and the law refuses to stick up for us! And you wonder WHY we are pissed?

Personally, I BURN WITH RAGE over the injustice of the treatment of my brothers and sisters...and I know full well, that I, too, may one day be remembered like this...and that one of my borthers or sisters may burn with rage over the injustice I received.

there are many more cases with which I am intimately familiar...I'll name a couple...

Brandon Teena - murdered in Nebraska in 1993 (his life, and murder were the basis of the movie "Boys Don't Cry" in which Hilary Swank played Brandon, and won the Oscar for her role)

Terrianne Summers - a very close personal friend and political activist...she was gunned down in her own front yard in Jacksonville, florida, by persons unknown. to this day, Jacksonville PD has yet to name a suspect, and it does not seem they are trying very hard. (Terrianne was involved in the protests against Winn-Dixie Gocery Stores for their firing of Peter Oiler, a veteran truck driver for the chain for 22 years. Peter was fired when company officials discovered Peter cross-dressed on his off-time from work. Seems to me if you want a lead on Terrianne's murder, that's a good place to start looking, no?)

These and other stories are all documented at

http://www.rememberingourdead.org

I tell you what. You live a your life of judgement and accusal and I'll live one of love and tolerance while observing the teachings of Jesus and when we sit before the king we'll see how that works out for you. I personally choose not to judge because the lord speaks silently to the hearts of all. I no more know what he says to your heart than what you know what he says to mine. I do know that Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone and remove the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the speck of dust from the eye of your brother. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus first before all others.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: Absolutly ... I think if there is a god this is what he would want

I tell you what. You live a your life of judgement and accusal and I'll live one of love and tolerance while observing the teachings of Jesus and when we sit before the king we'll see how that works out for you. I personally choose not to judge because the lord speaks silently to the hearts of all. I no more know what he says to your heart than what you know what he says to mine. I do know that Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone and remove the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the speck of dust from the eye of your brother. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus first before all others.

That is because you are a Christian (one who follows CHRIST.) Neo Rogolia, along with many of her contemporary so-called Christians, are in fact, Paulites (followers of PAUL...not JESUS.)

No, it doesn't take marriage rates into account. Hawaii and Massachusetts have about the same divorce rate, but Hawaii has a marriage rate that is about 400% of Massachusetts...

And I wasn't assuming anything about Denmark rates, I was asking because I didn't know and was curious... Sheesh, kind of a touchy subject with you huh?

Apparently, you don't understand the term "percentage".

See, if 500 people marry in place A and 500000 people marry in place B - and then 250 divorces occur in A and 250000 divorces occur in B - they both have a 50% divorce rate!

Having a higher number of marriages does not change your divorce rate one bit.

Apparently, you don't understand the term "percentage".

See, if 500 people marry in place A and 500000 people marry in place B - and then 250 divorces occur in A and 250000 divorces occur in B - they both have a 50% divorce rate!

Having a higher number of marriages does not change your divorce rate one bit.
God I tried to explain the difference between the per capita rate and the overall percentage but I am not sure they got it lol

Replying to the original question and without any use of religious texts, I can prove to you why the equal rights issue is not an issue at all. The problem lies in your assumption that they don't have equal rights. Any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man (with the one restriction that they can't already be married, unless they live in Utah... ;) Gay or straight, they all share this right. So don't tell me it's a question of equal rights, because that simply proves that you've formed your opinion first and your argument second.

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

Did it ever occur to you that we might be thinking about marriage as a set of rights and protections afforded to a couple, and not an individual?

Maybe you will randomly pick a member of the opposite sex and marry them just for the hell of it, but most of us find our partner first - someone we can spend the rest of our lives with - and then start worrying about marriage.

The government does not recognize homosexual marriage as legitimate though, nor is it an issue of "equal rights"....and it will remain that way, because, if it were to change, it would lead to the collapse of many laws that differentiate between genders :)

I don't get it what laws would change? And why would it be detremental to society. Other than your bigoted homophobia that you poorly hide behind your faith in God.
"I don't mind gays but God hates them so I must hate them"

Edit: Flame? If so. I'll remove it.

But if you also followed the teachings of Jesus, you would spend a good deal of your time trying to get sinners to return to the light :) Is not compassion and concern part of love?

Yes, and I do so by living a life according to the teachings of Jesus. Not be shouting down the sinners. Allowing them to see the happy and healthy life I live is the clearest and cleanest preaching I can do. I don't have to shout at them that I'm a Christian and that my way of living is better. I let them see what I am and what I do and judge for themselves. And when they ask me about God or about sin I don't try to convince them citing chapter and verse. I am not their preist. Jesus came and replaced all preists. Jesus is their conduit and he writes on their heart. I simply ask them to read their heart and they will receive the word. Jesus wasn't successful at converting so many because he could heal wounds or make water into wine. Those are just magic tricks. Jesus was successful because he let them see who he was and those that have eyes could see.

That is because you are a Christian (one who follows CHRIST.) Neo Rogolia, along with many of her contemporary so-called Christians, are in fact, Paulites (followers of PAUL...not JESUS.)



Luke 10:16 16He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me."

I don't get it what laws would change? And why would it be detremental to society. Other than your bigoted homophobia that you poorly hide behind your faith in God.
"I don't mind gays but God hates them so I must hate them"

Edit: Flame? If so. I'll remove it.



Bigoted homophobia? I've already stated many times that I hate no one. I'm beginning to think that the entire strategy the pro-gay camp employs is the vilification of their opponents, be it true or false :rolleyes:

Yes, and I do so by living a life according to the teachings of Jesus. Not be shouting down the sinners. Allowing them to see the happy and healthy life I live is the clearest and cleanest preaching I can do. I don't have to shout at them that I'm a Christian and that my way of living is better. I let them see what I am and what I do and judge for themselves. And when they ask me about God or about sin I don't try to convince them citing chapter and verse. I am not their preist. Jesus came and replaced all preists. Jesus is their conduit and he writes on their heart. I simply ask them to read their heart and they will receive the word. Jesus wasn't successful at converting so many because he could heal wounds or make water into wine. Those are just magic tricks. Jesus was successful because he let them see who he was and those that eyes could see.



And if you were following Christ and loving your brother, you would not stand by as he hastened to eternal seperation from God :)