NationStates Jolt Archive

That is the plan.

The plan was put into effect before the idea?

No, the issue here is that you refuse to accept any other viewpoint on what constitutes a marriage, even though several different types exist, and have been shown to you.

The issue, or so you seem to reiterate, is that a gay marriage somehow violates religious sanctity or views, that you also protest not to have.
Despite the fact that no such violation has, or will take place, apparently means little to you.

So then, what is the REAL issue?

I would guess that the real issue here, is that you just plain dont like the very idea of it, and are grasping at the thinniest of political straws in order to justify your opinion, despite several people informing you that its an opinion of sheer intolerance.

People have shown you legal court cases supporting the idea, a few states have even legalized it, and yet..you still argue for the absolute authority of religion in a civil marriage.

Just give up.

First of all, the vast majority of people who are "showing me" here, are liberals who are comfortable hiding out in a forum full of liberals. You aren't used to people challenging your ideas and debating with you, because the mods do a splendid job of running off anyone right of Howard Stern here. So, the fact that "several people have shown me" something here, is not that impressive, to be honest. I am anything BUT intolerant, but it seems you people are nothing BUT intolerant. If it doesn't carry the liberal water and tow the liberal line, you rebuke it, defame it, criticize it, ostracize it, and start hurling petty insults at it, until it goes away.

My argument is simple, MARRIAGE is a religious tradition... like BAPTISM, like BARMITZVAH... like LAST RITES... If you want to call something else MARRIAGE, that is fine, but you can't change what the religious recognition is, and you shouldn't be allowed to under the Constitution. It is an affront to religious freedom to do so, and I know you don't care about this, because liberals are all about accosting religion whenever they can!

You can guess all you like about me and my views. Chances are, you are going to be wrong, because you don't know me or anything about me. You can make prejudiced and bigoted assumptions, but you're not really that kind of person now, are you? I am kind of like the ACLU defending Rush Limbaugh here, I am not religious, don't particularly like religion or religious zealots, and don't belong to any religious organization. I am a spiritualist, I have my own personal beliefs regarding origin and our Creator, heaven and hell, etc... they have nothing to do with my position on this issue. Granted, I understand liberals might have a difficult time understanding how that could be, because they are so entwined in their ideological beliefs and such bigots about them, but I am really open-minded to things, and my positions are often taken as a matter of principle, and nothing else.

No, I am sorry, going by what you posted, YOU are wrong. The SCOTUS does not say "marriage is a right" anywhere in there! They say the FREEDOM TO marry, is a right, and I agree with that. Marriage, however, is defined as the union of a man and woman, not same-gender.
... do you seriously think that that is a relevant distinction? SCOTUS doesn't, and that's all that's rather important, no?

The point still stands, marriage is a religious tradition and always has been. Because the Council of Trent or whomever, decided to make marriage something non-religious, doesn't mean it stopped being a religious tradition and practice. It simply means there were governments before ours that did not protect the religious freedoms of others.
You got it backward. The Council of Trent ADDED religion to it. Can you not fucking read?

Listen, don't you tell me what I have to accept or take seriously, I decide that! Don't force your (im)moral views down my throat! I personally recognize marriage as the holy union in matrimony, of a man and woman. This is how most practicing religions recognize marriage, as well as a vast majority of the general public. Because you can cite examples where this isn't the case, doesn't make that no so. No one has claimed that you can't view marriage as something else, people do it all the time, and are free to do it! It still doesn't change the definition of marriage and its significance to religious beliefs, and that is what the issue is here.

No, you don't have to take it seriously-- but the point is that the LAW does take it seriously, demonstrating that, in the eyes of the law, marriage is not a religious ceremony, but a civil one.

Also, you're still skipping plenty of posts. Like you haven't answered my rebuttal to your claim "NOTHING is guaranteed internationally, so it doesn't matter that civil unions aren't." If you can't rebut that, then I've proven that civil unions are not equal to marriage, and are therefore discrimination. Anyway, if all the posts I've quoted are so silly and irrelevant, it should be easy to point out their stupidity. But you can't-- which is why you ignore them.

First of all, the vast majority of people who are "showing me" here, are liberals who are comfortable hiding out in a forum full of liberals. You aren't used to people challenging your ideas and debating with you, because the mods do a splendid job of running off anyone right of Howard Stern here. So, the fact that "several people have shown me" something here, is not that impressive, to be honest. I am anything BUT intolerant, but it seems you people are nothing BUT intolerant. If it doesn't carry the liberal water and tow the liberal line, you rebuke it, defame it, criticize it, ostracize it, and start hurling petty insults at it, until it goes away.

I'll have you know, I live in Georgia. And I debate people here. So don't insinuate that I just hide out in liberal havens and debate with others who agree with me. It's a lie and is a direct attack on my character.


My argument is simple, MARRIAGE is a religious tradition... like BAPTISM, like BARMITZVAH... like LAST RITES... If you want to call something else MARRIAGE, that is fine, but you can't change what the religious recognition is, and you shouldn't be allowed to under the Constitution. It is an affront to religious freedom to do so, and I know you don't care about this, because liberals are all about accosting religion whenever they can!

You are being so fucking thick. No, you can't change the religious recognition of marriage. NOBODY IS FUCKING SAYING THAT, SO STOP ATTACKING THAT STRAWMAN. We are saying that we should change the law's recognition, which is entirely seperate from religion's. Additionally, many Christians support gay marriage rights, as do people of other religions.


You can guess all you like about me and my views. Chances are, you are going to be wrong, because you don't know me or anything about me. You can make prejudiced and bigoted assumptions, but you're not really that kind of person now, are you? I am kind of like the ACLU defending Rush Limbaugh here, I am not religious, don't particularly like religion or religious zealots, and don't belong to any religious organization. I am a spiritualist, I have my own personal beliefs regarding origin and our Creator, heaven and hell, etc... they have nothing to do with my position on this issue. Granted, I understand liberals might have a difficult time understanding how that could be, because they are so entwined in their ideological beliefs and such bigots about them, but I am really open-minded to things, and my positions are often taken as a matter of principle, and nothing else.

No, you aren't open-minded, or you'd, you know, change your beliefs on occasion.
Here's a hint: It's okay to change your mind. In fact, I used to agree with you. Then people showed me why I was wrong, and *gasp* I thought, "hmm. I suppose I should change my views. Those are convincing arguments." And you know what? They didn't disrespect me for "flip flopping" or any bullshit like that. Some peoples' minds change when new evidence and arguments are presented. Yours, evidently, does not.

Are you impervious to facts because you're acting more skippier than that CD I used as a coaster then wondered why it kept skipping when I put it in my drive. Honestly, try looking at this from an honest point of view. I am not denying that marriage is a part of religion, I'm just pointing out that contrary to your misinformed opinion, marriage has long existed outside of religion and only became an integral part later on.

And how is using Gates as an example a way to add credibility to your statement? No one is denying that Gates is a rich bastard. But with all due respect, there are few in history who could have been considered as rich as he is. Further, the definition if "rich" can vary. A person could be considered rich even if they have few assets because they have a wealth of people who care and love them and a family that is there for them.

What a testament to your wisdom! I suggest not using CD's as coasters. My opinion has never been that marriage has existed outside of religion. This is the misinformed opinion reached from taking my comments out of context. Marriage did originate through religion, go read the Old Testament.

Yes, a person could be considered rich by any number of definitions of "rich" ...it doesn't mean that Bill Gates isn't rich, does it? Marital unions can exist in any number of forms outside of religion, it doesn't mean marriage is not a religious tradition. That was the point of my example.

My argument is simple, MARRIAGE is a religious tradition... like BAPTISM, like BARMITZVAH... like LAST RITES... If you want to call something else MARRIAGE, that is fine, but you can't change what the religious recognition is, and you shouldn't be allowed to under the Constitution. It is an affront to religious freedom to do so, and I know you don't care about this, because liberals are all about accosting religion whenever they can!


For the third time, I challenge you to cite a single case -- even just one freakin' case in the history of our Republic! --where "religious freedom" is protected in the way you claim it is.

First of all, the vast majority of people who are "showing me" here, are liberals who are comfortable hiding out in a forum full of liberals.

Funny. I did not know the Corneliu was a liberal. Speaking as a historian of course... If you're reading this, I apologize profusely Corneliu :p

You aren't used to people challenging your ideas and debating with you, because the mods do a splendid job of running off anyone right of Howard Stern here.

OD, a commie-leftist-bastard as you might call him, has also been run off.

So, the fact that "several people have shown me" something here, is not that impressive, to be honest.

Why don't you go down to your library or search the internet for information on the council of Trent?

Why don't you search your library and the internet for information regarding marriages around the world?

Go inform yourself. You might just realize that a vast majority of marriages throughout history has been secular and not religious.

I am anything BUT intolerant, but it seems you people are nothing BUT intolerant.

Sorry, but considering you do not tolerate marriages outside of a religious context, even when between a man and a woman, I have a hard time finding you to be a very tolerant person.

If it doesn't carry the liberal water and tow the liberal line, you rebuke it, defame it, criticize it, ostracize it, and start hurling petty insults at it, until it goes away.

Really? I'm sure you can link to examples of all of us doing that... otherwise, that argument is bunk and you know it.

My argument is simple, MARRIAGE is a religious tradition... like BAPTISM, like BARMITZVAH... like LAST RITES...

No, Marriage is NOT a religious tradition. Case in point:

Marriages in the Roman empire.
Marriages in Scandinavia, the Viking era.
Fleet Marriages.
Civil Unions (also marriages, I might add).

If you want to call something else MARRIAGE, that is fine, but you can't change what the religious recognition is, and you shouldn't be allowed to under the Constitution.

Screw the constitution. I don't care about it. I care about the English language - a perfectly malleable and useful resource. One which happens to not have agreed upon a single definition of marriage. In that sense, you can argue all you want for a marriage to be between a man and a woman, but languages have this tendency of very strongly following majority rule whether you like it or not.

It is an affront to religious freedom to do so, and I know you don't care about this, because liberals are all about accosting religion whenever they can!

First of all, stop using such a broad sweep such as liberals. I happen to be a social-liberalist, who is going to be voting for the Radical Left (incorrect translation, though direct), in a few days.

Second of all, how is it an affront to religious freedom? Will you suddenly not be able to call it marriage?

You can guess all you like about me and my views. Chances are, you are going to be wrong, because you don't know me or anything about me. You can make prejudiced and bigoted assumptions, but you're not really that kind of person now, are you? I am kind of like the ACLU defending Rush Limbaugh here, I am not religious, don't particularly like religion or religious zealots, and don't belong to any religious organization. I am a spiritualist, I have my own personal beliefs regarding origin and our Creator, heaven and hell, etc... they have nothing to do with my position on this issue. Granted, I understand liberals might have a difficult time understanding how that could be, because they are so entwined in their ideological beliefs and such bigots about them, but I am really open-minded to things, and my positions are often taken as a matter of principle, and nothing else.

If you are so open-minded to things, how is it so hard for you to understand that the Catholic Church, which you are defending, did not get involved in marriages until the 1500s? Please, explain how come it took them that long to get involved and how you can argue, as a result thereof, that marriage is STILL religious in origin.

What a testament to your wisdom! I suggest not using CD's as coasters. My opinion has never been that marriage has existed outside of religion. This is the misinformed opinion reached from taking my comments out of context. Marriage did originate through religion, go read the Old Testament.

You're not seriously using this argument are you? It's circular: Marriage is religious, because a religious text dealt with marriage. Why did a religious text deal with marriage? because it's religious.

Unfortunately, the Old Testament saying that marriage is religious does not make it so.

I am beginning to sincerely doubt the idea that you are not a Christian. You'd have no reason to cite the Old Testament if you weren't, because I am just sure you find Buddhist or Hindu texts (both older religions) claiming religion and furthermore, the Old Testament is young compared to the Earth and the human species.

Yes, a person could be considered rich by any number of definitions of "rich" ...it doesn't mean that Bill Gates isn't rich, does it? Marital unions can exist in any number of forms outside of religion, it doesn't mean marriage is not a religious tradition. That was the point of my example.

Marriage is not a religious tradition. There. Read up on chinese marriages for example - completely and utterly secular. Always have been. For over two thousand years. These are real marriages - they have the same effect and result as your religious marriages.

Marriage may be a tradition, but it is not exclusively a religious tradition as you claim.

I say we all point and laugh at Dixie.

What a testament to your wisdom! I suggest not using CD's as coasters. My opinion has never been that marriage has existed outside of religion. This is the misinformed opinion reached from taking my comments out of context. Marriage did originate through religion, go read the Old Testament.

Yes, a person could be considered rich by any number of definitions of "rich" ...it doesn't mean that Bill Gates isn't rich, does it? Marital unions can exist in any number of forms outside of religion, it doesn't mean marriage is not a religious tradition. That was the point of my example.

Okay, I'd been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about your claims of not being a Christian. After all, I had no evidence that you are one.
But now... well, only a Christian (and even many of them don't) considers the Bible as a reliable historical source, especially the OT.

Go study real history.

What a testament to your wisdom! I suggest not using CD's as coasters. My opinion has never been that marriage has existed outside of religion. This is the misinformed opinion reached from taking my comments out of context. Marriage did originate through religion, go read the Old Testament.

Yes, a person could be considered rich by any number of definitions of "rich" ...it doesn't mean that Bill Gates isn't rich, does it? Marital unions can exist in any number of forms outside of religion, it doesn't mean marriage is not a religious tradition. That was the point of my example.

Marriage can be considered a religious tradition but it was not always part of religion. It wasn't a clear mandate of religion until the Council of Trent, which established religion's authority over marriage as an institution. Hence, marriage has not always been a integral part of religion as other traditions have.

But your opinion, even if it is yours, which you are entitled to, is by definition faulty because you have been unable to prove it is factual.

Originally Posted by Skaladora:

There are religions (and Churches) who have no compunction about marrying two men or two women.

If you want to respect the most basic notion of freedom of religion, you have to legalize gay marriage otherwise you are infringing on the rights of the religions who wish to perform said marriages. And they are many. Protestant, Anglican denominations around the world have taken this step.

To outlaw gay marriage does not protect freedom of religion. It is merely enforcing ONE religion on everyone else.

I'm going to post this again and again until you notice it, Dixieana. Or until the universe implodes on itself from the kharmic unbalance of your refusal to acknowledge that freedom of religion means doing exactly the opposite of what you argue. If you want to protect freedom of religion, you need to legalize gay marriage, and let the Churches who want to do so bless these unions.

Originally Posted by Skaladora:

There are religions (and Churches) who have no compunction about marrying two men or two women.

If you want to respect the most basic notion of freedom of religion, you have to legalize gay marriage otherwise you are infringing on the rights of the religions who wish to perform said marriages. And they are many. Protestant, Anglican denominations around the world have taken this step.

To outlaw gay marriage does not protect freedom of religion. It is merely enforcing ONE religion on everyone else.

I'm going to post this again and again until you notice it, Dixieana. Or until the universe implodes on itself from the kharmic unbalance of your refusal to acknowledge that freedom of religion means doing exactly the opposite of what you argue. If you want to protect freedom of religion, you need to legalize gay marriage, and let the Churches who want to do so bless these unions.
On second thought, it's brilliant. Let's apply his logic to other rights:

We should ban speech anti-Republican editorials, because it's an affront to the freedom of expression of Republicans. It's tantamount to forcing Republicans to write anti-Republican articles! They'd be persecuted if they didn't!
We should ban people from voting for the Green Party, because it's a mockery of the right to vote for the vast majority of people in the country, who are in parties that disagree with the Green Party. It'd be like forcing everybody to join the Green party; those who didn't would be persecuted!

:D

On second thought, it's brilliant. Let's apply his logic to other rights:

We should ban speech anti-Republican editorials, because it's an affront to the freedom of expression of Republicans. It's tantamount to forcing Republicans to write anti-Republican articles! They'd be persecuted if they didn't!
We should ban people from voting for the Green Party, because it's a mockery of the right to vote for the vast majority of people in the country, who are in parties that disagree with the Green Party. It'd be like forcing everybody to join the Green party; those who didn't would be persecuted!

:D

My receptive center of the brain just sparkled and blew up in a glory of smattering emerald green purple colours.

Please explain in detail all the things you just said so that my tired brain can absorb the rather ludicrous information you posted.

In other words - I'm not sure that fit with the analogy presented :p

I say we all point and laugh at Dixie.

Seconded! /points and laughs.

My receptive center of the brain just sparkled and blew up in a glory of smattering emerald green purple colours.

Please explain in detail all the things you just said so that my tired brain can absorb the rather ludicrous information you posted.

In other words - I'm not sure that fit with the analogy presented :p

Dixie claims that it's a violation of religious freedom to allow gay marriage, because it "forces Christians to recognize gay marriage." So I made fun of him by applying that logic to other rights, such as free speech.

See, this is what I mean by the universe imploding on itself from kharmic irony.

Congratulations, you just doomed us all now ¬_¬

Nah, the ebil gheyz marrying in the Netherlands already doomed us all. :p

On second thought, it's brilliant. Let's apply his logic to other rights:

We should ban speech anti-Republican editorials, because it's an affront to the freedom of expression of Republicans. It's tantamount to forcing Republicans to write anti-Republican articles! They'd be persecuted if they didn't!
We should ban people from voting for the Green Party, because it's a mockery of the right to vote for the vast majority of people in the country, who are in parties that disagree with the Green Party. It'd be like forcing everybody to join the Green party; those who didn't would be persecuted!

:D
See, this is what I mean by the universe imploding on itself from kharmic irony.

Congratulations, you just doomed us all now ¬_¬

Screw the constitution. I don't care about it.

Ah, the most honest quote of the day!

Like to say thanx to everyone who had their fun w/Dixieanna in making this thread so ironically OP-title oriented.

:rolleyes:

Nah, the ebil gheyz marrying in the Netherlands already doomed us all. :p

And isn't the poisonous gay-itude from Canada slowly seeping through the porous border with the US, some how infecting their wholesome law-abiding citizens? ;) You know, speeding up the doomed-ness of the world...?

Nah, the ebil gheyz marrying in the Netherlands already doomed us all. :p

Don't forgot Canada, I'm Canadian, and my country still exists, despite 5 or so years of gay marriage. Nobody's been forced into slavery at the hands of a buff, leather-wearing, BDSM fetishist gay man yet. And no previous hetero marriage have broken up and/or been devaluated. At least no more than before gays could marry. Churches still choose who they marry and who they don't; some Churches do gay marriages (Ex: United Church of Canada) others don't (ex: Roman Catholic Church).

In other words, all is well and freedom of religion is protected.


@Dixieana:
Just so you know, if you reappear in 5 pages without even bothering to reconsider your old, beaten-to-death false arguments in the face of this, I *will* post again until it gets through. Just so you know.

Homophobes aren't the only ones who can be dense and/or stubborn about repeating things.

Dixie claims that it's a violation of religious freedom to allow gay marriage, because it "forces Christians to recognize gay marriage." So I made fun of him by applying that logic to other rights, such as free speech.

Ah hah.

Much better.

You know, I just found an argument for hate speech laws by accident, by using this argument:

It's a violation of free speech to allow hate speech, because it "forces the hated to recognize the hate."

In other words, since the argument is bunk, hate speech should actually be allowed.

Ah, the most honest quote of the day!

Give me one good reason why I should care about it :D

Marriage can be considered a religious tradition but it was not always part of religion. It wasn't a clear mandate of religion until the Council of Trent, which established religion's authority over marriage as an institution. Hence, marriage has not always been a integral part of religion as other traditions have.

But your opinion, even if it is yours, which you are entitled to, is by definition faulty because you have been unable to prove it is factual.

Tell me? Did the Council of Trent happen before or after the Old Testament? I am pretty dang sure it was after. If so, the tenants laid out in the Old Testament supersede the Council of Trent and their definition of marriage. Granted, things may have changed between the Old Testament days and the Council on Trent, and perhaps that was why the Council on Trent re-established marriage as a religious institution, I don't know. The point is, and remains, marriage has always been a religious institution, as this is how marriage originated to begin with. Because you can cite examples where society strayed from the traditional meaning of marriage, doesn't prove your point or refute mine. If religion did not exist, marriage would not have ever existed, and wouldn't exist in any manifestation through history, because there would have been no inherent need for it.

Tell me? Did the Council of Trent happen before or after the Old Testament? I am pretty dang sure it was after. If so, the tenants laid out in the Old Testament supersede the Council of Trent and their definition of marriage. Granted, things may have changed between the Old Testament days and the Council on Trent, and perhaps that was why the Council on Trent re-established marriage as a religious institution, I don't know. The point is, and remains, marriage has always been a religious institution, as this is how marriage originated to begin with. Because you can cite examples where society strayed from the traditional meaning of marriage, doesn't prove your point or refute mine. If religion did not exist, marriage would not have ever existed, and wouldn't exist in any manifestation through history, because there would have been no inherent need for it.

I'll say it again. The fact that you cite the OT as a reliable historical document proves that you're a Christian, despite your claims. A foolish Christian, at that... there's plenty of them intelligent enough not to accept the OT as fact.

What was the status of marriage prior to the old testament?

What was the status of Christmas before the new testament?

Existent. And secular.

Tell me? Did the Council of Trent happen before or after the Old Testament? I am pretty dang sure it was after. If so, the tenants laid out in the Old Testament supersede the Council of Trent and their definition of marriage. Granted, things may have changed between the Old Testament days and the Council on Trent, and perhaps that was why the Council on Trent re-established marriage as a religious institution, I don't know. The point is, and remains, marriage has always been a religious institution, as this is how marriage originated to begin with. Because you can cite examples where society strayed from the traditional meaning of marriage, doesn't prove your point or refute mine. If religion did not exist, marriage would not have ever existed, and wouldn't exist in any manifestation through history, because there would have been no inherent need for it.

What was the status of marriage prior to the old testament?

What was the status of Christmas before the new testament?

Give me one good reason why I should care about it :D


Wow, I can't think of one! You go right on not caring about it, okay?

In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many men and women of our armed forces, who made your freedom to not care about the constitution possible!

...And thanks for finally stepping up to the plate and admitting this! Not many liberals actually have the guts to admit they don't give a damn about the constitution, it's refreshing to hear one tell the truth about it.

Wow, I can't think of one! You go right on not caring about it, okay?

In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many men and women of our armed forces, who made your freedom to not care about the constitution possible!

...And thanks for finally stepping up to the plate and admitting this! Not many liberals actually have the guts to admit they don't give a damn about the constitution, it's refreshing to hear one tell the truth about it.

As if YOU cared about the Constitution, when you just want the government cracking down on gays to justify yourself in not coming out of your closet.

Tell me? Did the Council of Trent happen before or after the Old Testament? I am pretty dang sure it was after. If so, the tenants laid out in the Old Testament supersede the Council of Trent and their definition of marriage. Granted, things may have changed between the Old Testament days and the Council on Trent, and perhaps that was why the Council on Trent re-established marriage as a religious institution, I don't know. The point is, and remains, marriage has always been a religious institution, as this is how marriage originated to begin with. Because you can cite examples where society strayed from the traditional meaning of marriage, doesn't prove your point or refute mine. If religion did not exist, marriage would not have ever existed, and wouldn't exist in any manifestation through history, because there would have been no inherent need for it.
You are talking only about YOUR particular brand of religion and completely ignoring the rights of the other denominations who do not agree with you as far as marriage goes.

Please stop shoving YOUR brand of religion down everyone's throat. If you're for FREEDOM of religion, you have to address the fact that SOME(as in a significant number of denominations who represent a significant number of believers) religions wish to bless homosexual unions, and if gay marriage is outlawed theirs religious rights are being infringed on.

Do not enter into theological debates, they are beside the point.

Tell me? Did the Council of Trent happen before or after the Old Testament? I am pretty dang sure it was after. If so, the tenants laid out in the Old Testament supersede the Council of Trent and their definition of marriage. Granted, things may have changed between the Old Testament days and the Council on Trent, and perhaps that was why the Council on Trent re-established marriage as a religious institution, I don't know. The point is, and remains, marriage has always been a religious institution, as this is how marriage originated to begin with. Because you can cite examples where society strayed from the traditional meaning of marriage, doesn't prove your point or refute mine. If religion did not exist, marriage would not have ever existed, and wouldn't exist in any manifestation through history, because there would have been no inherent need for it.

Let's see what we can find about marriage shall we? It seems that marriage isn't necessary unless sexual relations are desired. In which case, marriage is a necessity to avoid eternal damnation. It also seems that marriage is contrary to Biblical scripture unless sexual relations are involved, but even then, sex is to be avoided. How strange.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. -- 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

For I would that all men were even as I myself.... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. -- 1 Corinthians 7:7-9

Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. -- 1 Corinthians 7:27

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none. -- 1 Corinthians 7:29

The same scripture also appears to encourage divorce.

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her.... -- Deuteronomy 22:13

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. -- Deuteronomy 24:1-2

Would you care to provide passages that substantiate your stance? Passages that prove that the OT included parts about marriage being an integral part of religion?

And long after religion becomes a mere part of history, marriage will still exist because people will use it as an expression of love. Or, even for financial or social reasons. It will be around long after religion dies out due to its inability to evolve with humanity's natural progression.

I'll say it again. The fact that you cite the OT as a reliable historical document proves that you're a Christian, despite your claims. A foolish Christian, at that... there's plenty of them intelligent enough not to accept the OT as fact.

LOL... Well, a 2000+ year-old document is certainly valid historical evidence. As valid as anything you've presented, I would say. If you want to say I am a Christian, that is fine, does it mean my point is less valid because I am this? And where are these Christians who don't accept the OT as fact? My understanding of Christianity is, you must accept the Bible as the Word of God in whole, not in part. I've never met a Christian who didn't believe in the Bible.

Again, for the late bloomers, I have repeatedly said, I am not a Christian, or a member of any organized religion or group. I am a spiritualist, there is a distinction. Isn't it funny how some liberals think it's some huge insulting blow to call someone a Christian? Ooooo.... almost as insulting as calling someone a "Godless Socialist" isn't it?

...it's refreshing to hear one tell the truth about it.

Did you know that if you look at a liberal real hard you can see the horns coming from their head?

Yay, I'm here this time. Sadly all I have brought is something that does not refute or support any side of the argument.

Wow, I can't think of one! You go right on not caring about it, okay?

In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many men and women of our armed forces, who made your freedom to not care about the constitution possible!

...And thanks for finally stepping up to the plate and admitting this! Not many liberals actually have the guts to admit they don't give a damn about the constitution, it's refreshing to hear one tell the truth about it.

One, I am not a liberal. Quit calling me that. I am a social-liberalist. I will be voting for them in three days.

Second, I don't give a damn about the US constitution. Nor do I really have any reason to care about the US armed forces, as they never fought for me.

Thirdly, I'm going to give you one last really good guess as to why this is.

One, I am not a liberal. Quit calling me that. I am a social-liberalist. I will be voting for them in three days.

Second, I don't give a damn about the US constitution. Nor do I really have any reason to care about the US armed forces, as they never fought for me.

Thirdly, I'm going to give you one last really good guess as to why this is.

Oooo...ooo...! I know! Pick me, teacher, I'm ever so great! Oooo...I know the answer! It's because... you're not American! Am I right? :)

Not many liberals actually have the guts to admit they don't give a damn about the constitution, it's refreshing to hear one tell the truth about it.You're probably a poor listener then, besides a confabulator, bloviator, AND delusional statistic of a caricature, so the refreshing part would actually be the fact that you noticed someone elses' point of view, if any of this thread is an indicator to your true nature.
Fuck off with your theories about "liberals".

And where are these Christians who don't accept the OT as fact? My understanding of Christianity is, you must accept the Bible as the Word of God in whole, not in part. I've never met a Christian who didn't believe in the Bible.

Um, no. I wasn't aware that most Christians were against eating shellfish and in support of slavery, IIRC.

Oooo...ooo...! I know! Pick me, teacher, I'm ever so great! Oooo...I know the answer! It's because... you're not American! Am I right? :)

You spoiled my fun :(

LOL... Well, a 2000+ year-old document is certainly valid historical evidence.
Not really. The Bible claims lots of things about Old Testament times that history and science have found to be untrue.

As valid as anything you've presented, I would say. If you want to say I am a Christian, that is fine, does it mean my point is less valid because I am this?
No, being a Christian does not make your point less valid on its own. But it demonstrates that you are dishonest, which does call into question your claims. It doesn't completely destroy them, of course, but it does call them into question

And where are these Christians who don't accept the OT as fact? My understanding of Christianity is, you must accept the Bible as the Word of God in whole, not in part. I've never met a Christian who didn't believe in the Bible.

... Are you.... serious?
You know some Christians believe in evolution, right?
That's against the OT.
You know some Christians realize that the Flood never happened, right?
That's against the OT.
I could go on, but you should, by now, get the idea.

Well, you probably won't, but any sane person would.

Again, for the late bloomers, I have repeatedly said, I am not a Christian, or a member of any organized religion or group. I am a spiritualist, there is a distinction. Isn't it funny how some liberals think it's some huge insulting blow to call someone a Christian? Ooooo.... almost as insulting as calling someone a "Godless Socialist" isn't it?
No, being a Christian is fine.
Being an idiot isn't.

Um, no. I wasn't aware that most Christians were against eating shellfish and in support of slavery, IIRC.

And against wearing mixed textiles. Stoning people to death for shaving the hair around their temples. The list goes on.

Maybe someone just needs to get out and meet people more.

You spoiled my fun :(

Kind of like rain during the gay pride parade because you know there won't be a true wet t-shirt contest? ;)

edit - I will pick up this in the morning. I'll leave this in your capable hands. :)

Hmm, in all fairness, I recall being presented different versions of religious texts. Some of them contained different accounts of floods. Some of them contained no account of floods. The difference? Their place of origin. Those who spoke of floods generally originated from the Iraq area. That makes sense, because there are two rivers there who, given correct circumstances, could have caused extremely devastating floods.

Of course, literally speaking, there wasn't a flood that engulfed the world. However, if you read some fantasy texts, they also overdo things sometimes, based on events in real life.

Well, by "the Flood," I meant "the Flood, as described in the Bible." :p

You know some Christians realize that the Flood never happened, right?

Hmm, in all fairness, I recall being presented different versions of religious texts. Some of them contained different accounts of floods. Some of them contained no account of floods. The difference? Their place of origin. Those who spoke of floods generally originated from the Iraq area. That makes sense, because there are two rivers there who, given correct circumstances, could have caused extremely devastating floods.

Of course, literally speaking, there wasn't a flood that engulfed the world. However, if you read some fantasy texts, they also overdo things sometimes, based on events in real life.

Rain on a gay pride parade just means more wet t-shirt and no need to fake up a sweat :p In other words, a good thing for participants? (not me, btw, I have better things to do, like try to figure out ways in which to hang out with my girlfriend... who probably does care about the US constitution I might add :p ).

Now, if regular people on regular days didn't mean getting wet by the rain, that would actually be nicer. Not because I want wet t-shirts. It's because I always sigh a bit inside when I see people sheltering themselves from a little bit of rain.

Disclaimer: Light rain only. Heavy rain that drenches you sucks.

I think a little rain on a hot day feels really good. :)

Kind of like rain during the gay pride parade because you know there won't be a true wet t-shirt contest? ;)

Rain on a gay pride parade just means more wet t-shirt and no need to fake up a sweat :p In other words, a good thing for participants? (not me, btw, I have better things to do, like try to figure out ways in which to hang out with my girlfriend... who probably does care about the US constitution I might add :p ).

Now, if regular people on regular days didn't mean getting wet by the rain, that would actually be nicer. Not because I want wet t-shirts. It's because I always sigh a bit inside when I see people sheltering themselves from a little bit of rain.

Disclaimer: Light rain only. Heavy rain that drenches you sucks.

And against wearing mixed textiles. Stoning people to death for shaving the hair around their temples. The list goes on.

Maybe someone just needs to get out and meet people more.

Although someone probably also needs to spend more time here to get it into his head that not all of NSG are Americans and/or leftists. It appears we have a dilemma.

Stop timewarping me!

Timewarp!

1. The bible is proof of nothing, and has little historical value, except of course, the different revisions, and thier according dates.
Its written by persons unknown, and the dates of its origin is unknown. it has been re-edited, and translated through several languages from its original language of origin.
History speaking, the bible is empircal proof of absolutely nothing, and wouldnt hold up under any kind of scrutiny.

2. This has fuck all to do with the topic at hand, wich was gay marriage.

Well, by "the Flood," I meant "the Flood, as described in the Bible." :p

The time warps are trying to tell us something...

...what I meant was that even if something such as The Flood was overdone, it doesn't mean that something similar couldn't have happened somewhere ;) Hence my comparison to fantasy texts - writers like to bloat experiences, so that a small flood becomes a catastrophe and a catastrophic flood becomes world spanning. In other words, some aspects are worth studying closer, because like the exodus from Egypt, there are grains of truth to be gained from it.

Probably more than we originally assume. Probably less than we originally assume. We really don't know until we have checked.

I think a little rain on a hot day feels really good. :)

Stop timewarping me!

Timewarp!

I need that head exploding pic.

Also [/Spam]

i don't understand the whole "God hates fags" thing. He doesn't hate them, first of all. He loves them and hates what they're doing. while the emotions are actually felt, what is experienced is a bias toward whichever gender has shown compassion. secondly, that is a very vulgar term, that especially should not be used by those representing God, unless they happen to be referring to cigarettes or whatever. so where is the "God loves them and wants to help them and accept them for who they are even though he hates what they're doing" choice? because that would be mine. [=

I need that head exploding pic.

Also [/Spam]

Here ya go.

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Camera/2524/misc/exhead.gif

i don't understand the whole "God hates fags" thing. He doesn't hate them, first of all. He loves them and hates what they're doing. while the emotions are actually felt, what is experienced is a bias toward whichever gender has shown compassion. secondly, that is a very vulgar term, that especially should not be used by those representing God, unless they happen to be referring to cigarettes or whatever. so where is the "God loves them and wants to help them and accept them for who they are even though he hates what they're doing" choice? because that would be mine. [=

I can't quite figure out whether that is a "I'll allow gay marriage even if I think it's wrong" argument or not.

Not really. The Bible claims lots of things about Old Testament times that history and science have found to be untrue.

Untrue. Science can not "prove" anything. Theories and hypothesis can be made, but absolute proof doesn't exist within the scientific method. Sorry. I'm also unsure about how "history" can find something from the OT untrue, since the OT is often the only historic record.

No, being a Christian does not make your point less valid on its own. But it demonstrates that you are dishonest, which does call into question your claims. It doesn't completely destroy them, of course, but it does call them into question

Well, I am not a Christian, you claim I am, so how am I being dishonest? Are you trying to say that all Christians are dishonest or something? I don't understand your point here. Again, my limited understanding of Christians is, they have this thing about being honest, I think it's some sort of commandment from God, so I don't comprehend why they would be automatically dishonest in your view. Can you elaborate?

... Are you.... serious?
You know some Christians believe in evolution, right?
That's against the OT.

Really? Please show me where the OT says evolution doesn't exist! I happen to know some Christians who believe in evolution and the Old Testament, I would like to enlighten them on this, if you would be so kind.

You know some Christians realize that the Flood never happened, right?
That's against the OT.
I could go on, but you should, by now, get the idea.

The flood is in The Bible, and as a Christian, you have to accept the Bible as the word of God, so.... no, a true Christian believes the flood happened like the Bible indicates. Perhaps they believe the Bible is an ancient historical reference, and doesn't adequately illustrate the event from a purely geological scientific standpoint, nevertheless, they still believe a flood occurred, and ark was built, people died and it rained for many days.

Well, you probably won't, but any sane person would.

No, being a Christian is fine.
Being an idiot isn't.

So you are calling me an insane idiot now? I think I had rather be called a Christian!

BTW... where are the iron-fisted moderators who banned me for days because I correctly called someone a godless socialist? It didn't take them but a few minutes to ban my ass, but apparently, they just overlook these "insane idiot" comments from the liberal scum. Figures!

Marriage did originate through religion, go read the Old Testament.
Guess what? You are so wrong it ain't even funny. Marriage, as in two (or more) people getting together has existed long before the OT, and in countries (like China and Japan that I mentioned) that hadn't even heard of the OT. So unless you're tying to say that marriage was created by Adam and Eve (And which point we will just laugh our collective asses off), you fail, badly.

Really? Please show me where the OT says evolution doesn't exist! I happen to know some Christians who believe in evolution and the Old Testament, I would like to enlighten them on this, if you would be so kind.

I'll take this one...
Its called "Genesis". Its the first book of the bible, and also a 70's prog-rock band featuring Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins.
But I digress...

In it, it mentions God creating just about everything in six days, including every plant, animal, etc...
That pretty much points directly at "Creationism", doesnt it?



BTW... where are the iron-fisted moderators who banned me for days because I correctly called someone a godless socialist? It didn't take them but a few minutes to ban my ass, but apparently, they just overlook these "insane idiot" comments from the liberal scum. Figures!

Or....maybe they did it, becuase you flame people, like you did to me on this very thread?

Really? Please show me where the OT says evolution doesn't exist! I happen to know some Christians who believe in evolution and the Old Testament, I would like to enlighten them on this, if you would be so kind.

That bit where God created all the animals in two days escape you?

BTW... where are the iron-fisted moderators who banned me for days because I correctly called someone a godless socialist? It didn't take them but a few minutes to ban my ass, but apparently, they just overlook these "insane idiot" comments from the liberal scum. Figures!

If you want to report anyone for having broken the forum rules, here is what I personally suggest you do, as the moderators will not notice otherwise:

First, head to Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231)

Second, make a new thread.

Third, state your complaint.

Fourth, link to the grounds for your complaint.

Until you have done this, you have no reason to complain about mod bias.

Untrue. Science can not "prove" anything. Theories and hypothesis can be made, but absolute proof doesn't exist within the scientific method. Sorry. I'm also unsure about how "history" can find something from the OT untrue, since the OT is often the only historic record.

I said that it finds that the OT is inaccurate, not that it proves it. Subtle difference. I'll address how it does in a bit.
As to history: we can find no traces of the wanderings of the Israelites in the desert. None. Despite the fact that they supposedly did it, in very large numbers (600,000 men, plus women and children who aren't included in that count). Therefore, we can probably conclude that it didn't happen.
Furthermore, we can find no evidence of the worship of God as we now him today until after the Babylonian captivity-- yet the OT claims that God was worshiped before then! We do, however, find evidence of worship of other Gods there-- so it can't be that all manuscripts from that time deteriorated. What's more likely is that when they were compiling the books in the Bible, they wanted to attribute their God to an earlier time period, the "Glory days," because that'd make their God more legitimate.


Well, I am not a Christian, you claim I am, so how am I being dishonest? Are you trying to say that all Christians are dishonest or something? I don't understand your point here. Again, my limited understanding of Christians is, they have this thing about being honest, I think it's some sort of commandment from God, so I don't comprehend why they would be automatically dishonest in your view. Can you elaborate?

Cut the bullshit and stop being so dishonest. You know damn well what I mean. If you claim to not be a Christian and you are one, then you are dishonest.


Really? Please show me where the OT says evolution doesn't exist! I happen to know some Christians who believe in evolution and the Old Testament, I would like to enlighten them on this, if you would be so kind.


From Genesis:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Earth created in six days, with man created on the sixth day. The Earth, in reality, is far older than humanity. Seriously. If the history of the entire earth were represented by the human armspan, the time humanity's been here would be smaller even than your fingertips.
Furthermore, by tracing the generations in the bible back (it's quite detailed on this), you can get an age of the earth that's less than 10,000 years old-- far too little time for evolution.



The flood is in The Bible, and as a Christian, you have to accept the Bible as the word of God, so.... no, a true Christian believes the flood happened like the Bible indicates. Perhaps they believe the Bible is an ancient historical reference, and doesn't adequately illustrate the event from a purely geological scientific standpoint, nevertheless, they still believe a flood occurred, and ark was built, people died and it rained for many days.

There never was a world-wide flood. The flood hypothesis has been disproven many times. And some Christians don't take it literally, but as a collection of lessons.


So you are calling me an insane idiot now? I think I had rather be called a Christian!

BTW... where are the iron-fisted moderators who banned me for days because I correctly called someone a godless socialist? It didn't take them but a few minutes to ban my ass, but apparently, they just overlook these "insane idiot" comments from the liberal scum. Figures!

:rolleyes:

Guess what? You are so wrong it ain't even funny. Marriage, as in two (or more) people getting together has existed long before the OT, and in countries (like China and Japan that I mentioned) that hadn't even heard of the OT. So unless you're tying to say that marriage was created by Adam and Eve (And which point we will just laugh our collective asses off), you fail, badly.

$10 says he ignores this.

He doesn't hate them, first of all. He loves them and hates what they're doing.Does he feel the same way about figs?
What else does he think/feel? Why did he cower in a fight against iron chariot-armed men on the battlefield? Is that some kind of important lesson about Hephaestus?
while the emotions are actually felt, what is experienced is a bias toward whichever gender has shown compassion. secondly, that is a very vulgar term, that especially should not be used by those representing God, unless they happen to be referring to cigarettes or whatever.Easy mistake, obviously. :rolleyes:
so where is the "God loves them and wants to help them and accept them for who they are even though he hates what they're doing" choice? because that would be mine. [=Couldn't you just say "hate the 'sin', love the sinner"?

Oh, and if you have access to god's personal journal, feel free to express some of the nicer tidbits, per favore?

Oh, and if you have access to god's personal journal, feel free to express some of the nicer tidbits, per favore?

June 6, 2006.
Verily, Today I did use mine omniscience to gaze upon that hot chick next door whilst she did shower, for I am the LORD your God. I gazed upon her naked form whilst she did shower, and upon her I gazed. Just when it was getting most enjoyable to me, the LORD thy God, I was interrupted by a prayer for one of mine "most devoted servants" that I might strike down the homosexuals with the AIDS. So annoyed was I of the interruption of mine divine gazings, that I gave said devoted servant herpes himself-- a nice gift from his lover in an airport restroom.

--God.

I am still rambling about MY OWN religion and completely disregarding the fact that other, significant religions do not agree with mine on issues such as gay marriage, the virginity of Mary, the Flood as depicted in the Old Testament, etc.



There are religions (and Churches) who have no compunction about marrying two men or two women.

If you want to respect the most basic notion of freedom of religion, you have to legalize gay marriage otherwise you are infringing on the rights of the religions who wish to perform said marriages. And they are many. Protestant, Anglican denominations around the world have taken this step.

To outlaw gay marriage does not protect freedom of religion. It is merely enforcing ONE religion on everyone else.

I'm going to post this again and again until you notice it, Dixieana. Or until the universe implodes on itself from the kharmic unbalance of your refusal to acknowledge that freedom of religion means doing exactly the opposite of what you argue. If you want to protect freedom of religion, you need to legalize gay marriage, and let the Churches who want to do so bless these unions.


Told you I'd repeat it until you stopped being intellectually dishonest.

Let's make this blunt:

Nobody. Cares. About. YOUR (or any other particular kind of). Religion.

You're either for religious freedom, and thus for legalizing gay marriage to allow those religions to are for it to perform them, or you're actually AGAINST freedom of religion and only wish to shove YOUR conception of religion down everyone's throat and make them accept YOUR religious tenets as valid for EVERYONE.

They're not. Never have been, never will be. The Buddhist, Protestant, Anglicans, and other denominations next door are just as right as you are on a theological basis. So stop trying to convince us that any particular brand of religion trumps the others, because that's not the case. Under freedom of religion, all religions are equal, and possess equal rights.

That bit where God created all the animals in two days escape you?

two of who's days? your days or Gods? Maybe a "day" in the eye of God is millions of years to us? In this case, it seems quite possible that evolution could have been the tool God used to create the animals. Not that I am arguing that point, but it illustrates how perspectives can be different, and you have no exclusive rights to them.

two of who's days? your days or Gods? Maybe a "day" in the eye of God is millions of years to us? In this case, it seems quite possible that evolution could have been the tool God used to create the animals. Not that I am arguing that point, but it illustrates how perspectives can be different, and you have no exclusive rights to them.

Too bad the Bible's order of events isn't quite accurate, huh?

Nobody. Cares. About. YOUR (or any other particular kind of). Religion.

Wow! Yet another moment of candid honesty from a liberal! I'm glad I could bring it out in you! People really need to know and understand, you aren't taking your position because you care about the rights of others, but because you hate and loath religion and religious traditions. Thanks for admitting as much!

The correct answer to the question of "Why do I not care about the US constitution or the US armed forces?" was indeed that I am not American. Therefore, their armed forces have never fought for me (And I don't care about armed forces anyway) and their constitution is only of value to me when I decide to visit (Which I do frequently). However, seeing as how I can marry in a variety of places, gay marriage rights is honestly not something I care about in the context of the US constitution. I do support gay marriage rights though.

Mostly though, the abuse of the word marriage (with the claim that it was clearly defined) was what really got me to go on the aggressive. I did this because I know, as an educated English speaker, that the English language is as arbitrary as every other language - every definition depends entirely on the people using it. Because of this, if people decide to use marriage as being only between two same-sex couples, then for them, that's what marriage is. It's still just as wrong, in my eyes, as those who claim it's only for heterosexual couples, but in the very end, what really matters in this case is actually the law.

Why, you might ask?

Because in the US and where I live, there is a thing called equality before law and you are not equal if you cannot form whatever couple you wish to form and get the same lawful recognition. Getting to call it marriage is a part of that package. You might not like it, you might not call it that, but you can't stop other people from calling it.

Finally, this idea that what the bible says is true is just stupid. Christmas is supposed to be a Christian holiday. However, I've noticed various pagans starting to speak up, particularly in the US, that Yule is actually more correct. I can't really argue against this, since the place where I live, Christmas is actually called "Jul". And that is a name that hasn't been changed much since the 1000s AD. In other words, we celebrate Christmas and call it Jul. Kinda busts the whole "religion is the origin..." argument, doesn't it? Especially since we're actually celebrating winter solstice.

To then argue, on the basis of the bible, that marriages are religious because a religious text says so is a bit daft. There were marriages before, after and independently of the bible and any other religious texts. This independence from religious texts means that although SOME marriages have religious origins, it's certainly not ALL marriages and there are MANY examples of marriages unrelated to religion, both in origin and in current form.

Wow! Yet another moment of candid honesty from a liberal! I'm glad I could bring it out in you! People really need to know and understand, you aren't taking your position because you care about the rights of others, but because you hate and loath religion and religious traditions. Thanks for admitting as much!

It is YOU the one that hates any religion but your own and wants your religion to take precedence and rape the government and everyone else.

Wow! Yet another moment of candid honesty from a liberal! I'm glad I could bring it out in you! People really need to know and understand, you aren't taking your position because you care about the rights of others, but because you hate and loath religion and religious traditions. Thanks for admitting as much!

You completely ignored my reasons for not caring about the US constitution, didn't you?

You also completely ignored the fact that I am not a liberal in the US sense of the word. I am a social-liberalist. That is the type of party I am voting for in three-four days.

June 6, 2006.
Verily, Today I did use mine omniscience to gaze upon that hot chick next door whilst she did shower, for I am the LORD your God. I gazed upon her naked form whilst she did shower, and upon her I gazed. Just when it was getting most enjoyable to me, the LORD thy God, I was interrupted by a prayer for one of mine "most devoted servants" that I might strike down the homosexuals with the AIDS. So annoyed was I of the interruption of mine divine gazings, that I gave said devoted servant herpes himself-- a nice gift from his lover in an airport restroom.

--God.:fluffle:
Here and now, lo, i am but a convert.

Oh, and wasn't there a part in there about fantasizing about Onan?

Wow! Yet another moment of candid honesty from a liberal! I'm glad I could bring it out in you! People really need to know and understand, you aren't taking your position because you care about the rights of others, but because you hate and loath religion and religious traditions. Thanks for admitting as much!


Youre flaming, and trolling.

If your not here to "debate", anymore, who do you keep coming back to this thread?

:fluffle:
Here and now, lo, i am but a convert.

Oh, and wasn't there a part in there about fantasizing about Onan?

Did I unintentionally nearly quote something? I thought I just came up with it off the top of my head. :p

two of who's days? your days or Gods? Maybe a "day" in the eye of God is millions of years to us? In this case, it seems quite possible that evolution could have been the tool God used to create the animals. Not that I am arguing that point, but it illustrates how perspectives can be different, and you have no exclusive rights to them.

Seriously, the more you use Christian arguments, the more you come across as actually being a Christian.

Don't use arguments you don't believe in, please. Don't lie about what you are, please.

To avoid misunderstanding: If you are a Christian, say so. If you're not a Christian, stop using silly and rather outdated fundamentalist Christian arguments.

Too bad the Bible's order of events isn't quite accurate, huh?

Who says they aren't? You??? Is this based on your anti-religious interpretation of the Bible? Or is it based on your godless heroes of liberalism and their misinterpretations? Either way, not an authoritative source, in my opinion. Get Billy Graham to tell me the Bible's order of events are inaccurate, and I might lend some credibility to the opinion, otherwise, shut the hell up about something you don't know about.

Wow! Yet another moment of candid honesty from a liberal! I'm glad I could bring it out in you! People really need to know and understand, you aren't taking your position because you care about the rights of others, but because you hate and loath religion and religious traditions. Thanks for admitting as much!

Not caring != hating.

The point being made there, that you apparently missed, was "Your religion doesn't like our laws? Tough shit. Equality is equality. You don't have to recognize our marriages, but you can't stop us from recognizing whatever the hell we want to recognize we want as marriage."

Who says they aren't? You??? Is this based on your anti-religious interpretation of the Bible? Or is it based on your godless heroes of liberalism and their misinterpretations? Either way, not an authoritative source, in my opinion. Get Billy Graham to tell me the Bible's order of events are inaccurate, and I might lend some credibility to the opinion, otherwise, shut the hell up about something you don't know about.

:rolleyes:

Well, we know the Sun existed before plants did.

Seriously, the more you use Christian arguments, the more you come across as actually being a Christian.

Don't use arguments you don't believe in, please. Don't lie about what you are, please.

To avoid misunderstanding: If you are a Christian, say so. If you're not a Christian, stop using silly and rather outdated fundamentalist Christian arguments.

Seriously, you can believe whatever you like. I am not a Christian, and I belong to no religion. In fact, I think religious dogma poisons the mind and detracts from true spiritual enlightenment. But, that is my personal opinion. I have nothing against Christians, they are generally great people, and deserve the protections of freedom that everyone else has. I stand up for the underdogs, and take my positions on principle, not personal convictions.

Get Billy Graham to tell me the Bible's order of events are inaccurate, and I might lend some credibility to the opinion, otherwise, shut the hell up about something you don't know about.

I am curious. Why do you consider Billy Graham an authority figure in this case?

Seriously, you can believe whatever you like. I am not a Christian, and I belong to no religion. In fact, I think religious dogma poisons the mind and detracts from true spiritual enlightenment. But, that is my personal opinion. I have nothing against Christians, they are generally great people, and deserve the protections of freedom that everyone else has. I stand up for the underdogs, and take my positions on principle, not personal convictions.

Yeah, they deserve the protections of freedom that everyone else has.

However, homosexuals also deserve the protections of freedom that everyone else has.

The underdog here is not Christianity, they already have their freedom protected: They have the freedom to marry.

The underdog here is homosexuals, they don't have the freedom protected: They don't have the freedom to marry.

Also, since this is quite important, have you found out why it is that I do not care about the US constitution?

Untrue. Science can not "prove" anything. Theories and hypothesis can be made, but absolute proof doesn't exist within the scientific method. Sorry. I'm also unsure about how "history" can find something from the OT untrue, since the OT is often the only historic record.

True, science can not "prove" anything. However it can quite easily disprove something, and it frequently has. For instance, science can be used to disprove the belief that praying real hard to Jeebus while jumping off a cliff will allow you fly.
Similarly, science can be used to show that the universe can't have the young-earth age given by a literal account of the bible, thanks to many, many things, including mounds and mounds of observational data from a half dozen different sources (tree rings, carbon dating, ice cores, etc.)

Who says they aren't? You???
The motherfucking fossil record.

:rolleyes:

Well, we know the Sun existed before plants did.

Really? How do we "know" this? Isn't this a theory? Were we there when it all happened? If not, we don't really "know" anything. We suspect it, we think it, we can justify and rationalize our thinking, but definitive proof doesn't exist in science.

Besides, the Bible indicates that the Sun was created before plants.

I stand up for the underdogs,

By trying to prevent them from having rights, apparently.

Seriously, you can believe whatever you like. I am not a Christian, and I belong to no religion. In fact, I think religious dogma poisons the mind and detracts from true spiritual enlightenment. But, that is my personal opinion. I have nothing against Christians, they are generally great people, and deserve the protections of freedom that everyone else has. I stand up for the underdogs, and take my positions on principle, not personal convictions.

Are you fucking kidding me? You think Christians are the underdogs in society?

It's been posted already, but...

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5494/100de9.gif

Anyway, you still haven't explained how Christians have the right to tell other people that they can't get legal marriages because the Christians think it's icky. (Note, some Christians think Gay Marriage is okay.) You have no right to tell other people how to live their lives.

The motherfucking fossil record.

All around the most awesome answer ever.

Really? How do we "know" this? Isn't this a theory? Were we there when it all happened? If not, we don't really "know" anything. We suspect it, we think it, we can justify and rationalize our thinking, but definitive proof doesn't exist in science.

Besides, the Bible indicates that the Sun was created before plants.

Theory in science does not mean the same in layman's terms.

A theory is, to put it blunt, proven beyond reasonable doubt.

A hypothesis is the equivalent to a layman's theory.

A conjecture in mathematics is a hypothesis.

A theorem in mathematics is unique in that it is one of the few things to be undeniably 100% accurate, given the axioms that it operates within.

Wow! Yet another moment of candid honesty from a liberal! I'm glad I could bring it out in you! People really need to know and understand, you aren't taking your position because you care about the rights of others, but because you hate and loath religion and religious traditions. Thanks for admitting as much!

You, my friend, have not listened to or answered my post at all.

I will repeat myself yet again:

A lot of religions WANT TO AND ACTUALLY DO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGES.

What makes *your* religion any more special and right? Wait, let me answer that for you: it's not.

You can cry me a river and play martyr all you want, but don't pretend that outlawing gay marriage can be done in the name of freedom or religion, because freedom of religion commands that gay marriage be allowed so that every Church out there can decide for themselves whether or not to perform them.


Do you have anything to offer that might counter this? I didn't think so. So take your homophobia home, grow up, and realise that others do not need to bow down to YOUR religious tenets specifically just so you are not made uncomfortable.

It is precisely because I CARE about freedom of (all) religion(s) that I will not let you and your stupid statements appropriate and pervert freedom of religion for the sake of your religious tyranny.

I have nothing against Christians, they are generally great people, and deserve the protections of freedom that everyone else has. I stand up for the underdogs, and take my positions on principle, not personal convictions.
No. You are playing favorites with A CERTAIN NUMBER OF religion, and completely trying to thrash every other's whose views does not coincide with your own. Whether or not you yourself are Religious is irrelevant; THERE ARE CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS WHO PERFORMS GAY MARRIAGE. That is fact, and well documented. Look up the United Church of Canada, or look up your own protestant denominations based in New England.

If you were standing up for the underdog, you'd be arguing FOR gay marriage so those Churches can apply THEIR doctrine as they see fit, instead of being restricted in their freedoms by the opinion of OTHER Churches.

Your logic, my friend, fails utterly in face of this.

The motherfucking fossil record.

what do fossils have to do with Biblical accounts?

Oh come on people.

You cant see he's DELIBERATELY not answering anyone who actually has anything valid?
Hes a damn troll, and its time to ignore him.

Anyway, although I hoped another fifteen minutes would warrant a personal reply, I guess I am just going to have to state it again:

I am not a liberal.
I am not a US citizen.

Therefore, please call me a social-liberalist if you must bring up my political leanings.

And please understand that, because I am not a US citizen, I have little to no reason to care about your constitution and even less reason to care about your armed forces.

what do fossils have to do with Biblical accounts?

Fuck this shit. I can't respond to this right now. Someone else point out how goddamn stupid that post is for me.

Oh come on people.

You cant see he's DELIBERATELY not answering anyone who actually has anything valid?
Hes a damn troll, and its time to ignore him.

Yeah, I was starting to get that, but given him the benefit of the doubt.

1 hour and 30 minutes later, still no apology for calling me a liberal :p

I'm going to say this politely once.

Everybody back off the personal attacks and insults now, and debate the issue. There's been plenty of insults and cheap shots from all directions and it'd suck for me to bring out the Mod Stick and whale on SEVERAL people who have been less than civil.

Comprendé?

what do fossils have to do with Biblical accounts?

THEY DISPROVE THEM!

*snip*

Bravo, Skaladora! Well said. :)

I'm going to say this politely once.

Everybody back off the personal attacks and insults now, and debate the issue. There's been plenty of insults and cheap shots from all directions and it'd suck for me to bring out the Mod Stick and whale on SEVERAL people who have been less than civil.

Comprendé?

My apologies. I will do so.

since when did Christianity have any faith in fossils. I thought their faith was "beyond science"... you know not actually having to prove anything, cause they got that one big book of possible fiction. gee whiz, and yeah i know someone will probably come up with a "It's historically accurate..." but so was histories by Herodotus. and if you don't know Herodotus, he is called the first great liar.
:D

Anyway, although I hoped another fifteen minutes would warrant a personal reply, I guess I am just going to have to state it again:

I am not a liberal.
I am not a US citizen.

Therefore, please call me a social-liberalist if you must bring up my political leanings.

And please understand that, because I am not a US citizen, I have little to no reason to care about your constitution and even less reason to care about your armed forces.

Why do you hate freedom? :p







;)

You, my friend, have not listened to or answered my post at all.

I will repeat myself yet again:

A lot of religions WANT TO AND ACTUALLY DO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGES.

What makes *your* religion any more special and right? Wait, let me answer that for you: it's not.

You can cry me a river and play martyr all you want, but don't pretend that outlawing gay marriage can be done in the name of freedom or religion, because freedom of religion commands that gay marriage be allowed so that every Church out there can decide for themselves whether or not to perform them.


Do you have anything to offer that might counter this? I didn't think so. So take your homophobia home, grow up, and realise that others do not need to bow down to YOUR religious tenets specifically just so you are not made uncomfortable.

It is precisely because I CARE about freedom of (all) religion(s) that I will not let you and your stupid statements appropriate and pervert freedom of religion for the sake of your religious tyranny.

No they don't. Aside from ONE religious group, there are none who endorse or condone homosexuality or same-sex marriage. And again, for the tenth time, I have no religion, so this isn't about "my religious beliefs" at all. Nothing I have said is the least bit homophobic, but I understand this is the standard label to apply to those who disagree with your view.

If you cared about freedoms of religion, you wouldn't be advocating state sponsorship of something that completely disrespected it. You care about the Liberal agenda, and fooling people into believing you care about human rights. You don't really care about Gays either, but you'll gladly use them to attempt to destroy religiously-based morality within our society.

THEY DISPROVE THEM!

NO THEY DON'T!

Bravo, Skaladora! Well said. :)

Thanks. For a while there I thought nobody was paying attention. There really is nothing to stand on as far of freedom of religion goes for banning SSM, it's the opposite.

Freedom of religion means that no religion is above any other, and that all have equal rights and privileges.

The privilege to grant legal, civil marriage license to whomever they want is currently being granted to those religions who don't approve of same-sex marriage. Whereas the denominations who do bless such unions (UCC blessed them YEARS before the Canadian law was passed, the marriages just had no legal value in the face of the law and consisted of purely religious blessing ceremonies) are limited and restricted in whom they can lawfully deliver permits to.

It's just that simple.

I'm going to say this politely once.

Everybody back off the personal attacks and insults now, and debate the issue. There's been plenty of insults and cheap shots from all directions and it'd suck for me to bring out the Mod Stick and whale on SEVERAL people who have been less than civil.

Comprendé?

Don't you mean "Wail"? Unless you're going to bitchslap with a beluga. Hey what do you know, it is Whale, go figure.

You don't really care about Gays either, but you'll gladly use them to attempt to destroy religiously-based morality within our society.

Erm...Skaladora is gay.

NO THEY DON'T!

But we do know for a fact that the sun existed before plants did. Which you conveniently ignored.

NO THEY DON'T!

Yes, they do. They are evidence, the Bible isn't.

No they don't. Aside from ONE religious group, there are none who endorse or condone homosexuality or same-sex marriage.
United Church of Canada. Unitarian Universalism. The Episcopalians. The United Church of Christ. That's four right there, and I can get way more.

No they don't. Aside from ONE religious group, there are none who endorse or condone homosexuality or same-sex marriage. And again, for the tenth time, I have no religion, so this isn't about "my religious beliefs" at all. Nothing I have said is the least bit homophobic, but I understand this is the standard label to apply to those who disagree with your view.

If you cared about freedoms of religion, you wouldn't be advocating state sponsorship of something that completely disrespected it. You care about the Liberal agenda, and fooling people into believing you care about human rights. You don't really care about Gays either, but you'll gladly use them to attempt to destroy religiously-based morality within our society.

Uh, I can think of atleast 4 offhand who condone it, there's probably a couple dozen more, to say nothing of civil marriages which don't really have an opinion. So wanna cut out the "I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!!!!!" shtick?

But we do know for a fact that the sun existed before plants did. Which you conveniently ignored.

He claimed we couldn't know that it did, so it didn't. Seriously.

United Church of Canada. Unitarian Universalism. The Episcopalians. The United Church of Christ. That's four right there, and I can get way more.

You're assuming Dixie will care.

Don't you mean "Wail"? Unless you're going to bitchslap with a beluga. Hey what do you know, it is Whale, go figure.

No, he means "wale".

wale1 /weɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[weyl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, waled, wal·ing.
–noun 1. a streak, stripe, or ridge produced on the skin by the stroke of a rod or whip; welt.
2. the vertical rib in knit goods or a chain of loops running lengthwise in knit fabric (opposed to course).
3. the texture or weave of a fabric.
4. Nautical. a. any of certain strakes of thick outside planking on the sides of a wooden ship.
b. gunwale.

5. Also called breast timber, ranger, waling. Engineering, Building Trades. a horizontal timber or other support for reinforcing various upright members, as sheet piling or concrete form boards, or for retaining earth at the edge of an excavation.
6. a ridge on the outside of a horse collar.
–verb (used with object) 7. to mark with wales.
8. to weave with wales.
9. Engineering, Building Trades. to reinforce or fasten with a wale or wales.

If you cared about freedoms of religion, you wouldn't be advocating state sponsorship of something that completely disrespected it. You care about the Liberal agenda, and fooling people into believing you care about human rights. You don't really care about Gays either, but you'll gladly use them to attempt to destroy religiously-based morality within our society.
Morality shouldn't be based on the concept that man is a divine creature. This fundamental flaw denote that any religiously-based morality is inherently flawed.
I don't attack the fact that yes Judeo-Christian and all others have some basic truth and bare bones human dignity, but they also have a flawed set up. barring of course the Tao and Buddhist faiths (they are really more philosophical than lead by faith).

Thanks. For a while there I thought nobody was paying attention. There really is nothing to stand on as far of freedom of religion goes for banning SSM, it's the opposite.

Freedom of religion means that no religion is above any other, and that all have equal rights and privileges.

The privilege to grant legal, civil marriage license to whomever they want is currently being granted to those religions who don't approve of same-sex marriage. Whereas the denominations who do bless such unions (UCC blessed them YEARS before the Canadian law was passed, the marriages just had no legal value in the face of the law and consisted of purely religious blessing ceremonies) are limited and restricted in whom they can lawfully deliver permits to.

It's just that simple.

Hhaha... if it was "just that simple" the debate would have ended on page one! I am afraid, like everything else you've had to say here, you are wrong again!

Perhaps this is a good time to reiterate my view again... I think the state should ban the practice of issuing "marriage" licenses altogether. Instead, they should issue "Civil Union" licenses, and these can be made available to any two parties who would like to join in a partnership union together. This removes the "gay/straight" connotations as well as any religious infringement aspect, and makes the issue benign and completely civil. Everyone gets what they want... well... except for the godless socialist crowd who are just hell-bent on smearing religious traditions.... they don't get to tear down an important religious institution with this, but you can't make everyone happy.

Hhaha... if it was "just that simple" the debate would have ended on page one! I am afraid, like everything else you've had to say here, you are wrong again!

Perhaps this is a good time to reiterate my view again... I think the state should ban the practice of issuing "marriage" licenses altogether. Instead, they should issue "Civil Union" licenses, and these can be made available to any two parties who would like to join in a partnership union together. This removes the "gay/straight" connotations as well as any religious infringement aspect, and makes the issue benign and completely civil. Everyone gets what they want... well... except for the godless socialist crowd who are just hell-bent on smearing religious traditions.... they don't get to tear down an important religious institution with this, but you can't make everyone happy.

The only problem with that is that while marriages from one country will almost always be recognized in other countries, civil unions often won't be.

No they don't. Aside from ONE religious group, there are none who endorse or condone homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

No, this is not the case, and as I have stated SEVERAL Protestant, Anglican, and otherwise Non-Christian/Catholic religions do not desire to stop gays from marrying.

And I'll humor you again: even if it was just one, which it isn't, freedom of religion would still apply equally to that religion. Get a little bit out of your home, and you'll see PLENTY of open-minded Churches who welcome gays and lesbians with open arms and bless their life partnership. You have no clue whatsoever what you're saying when stating that everyone but one group condemn homosexuality.

And if you won't take my word for it, by all means, ask me proof and I'll wiki you some in about 30 seconds and watch you get all confused about being proven wrong. Or do the research yourself and prove to us you're not talking in bad faith.



If you cared about freedoms of religion, you wouldn't be advocating state sponsorship of something that completely disrespected it. You care about the Liberal agenda, and fooling people into believing you care about human rights. You don't really care about Gays either, but you'll gladly use them to attempt to destroy religiously-based morality within our society.
First of all: legalising something =/= state sponsorship. Alcohol is legal. It's not sponsored by the state. Cars are legal. They're not sponsored by the state. If you wish to avoid drinking or use public transportation, you're still free do so... while leaving everyone else who wants to drink or have a car or both free to do so as well.

Nobody's forcing YOU or anyone to have a gay marriage if they don't want to.

Religious-based morality has nothing to do with laws and equality in any country who is not a theocracy, and therefore has a secular government. Especially one who states that all religions are equal.

And I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm gay. So yeah, I do pretty much freaking care about people like you trying to restrict my rights and liberties just because it might make you feel comfortable.

Neither you nor any religion has a right not to be offended. Neither you nor any religion has a right to assimilate me or force religious tenets upon me that I do not believe in.

If you or a religion is against gay marriage, so be it. But the state does not cater to your or any specific religion's personal interests, it's there to look out for everyone's interests. And like it or not, me and Churches who perfom gay marriages exist. You're going to have to learn to live with that.

United Church of Canada.
Not an American church or a major religious group.

Unitarian Universalism.
Obscure cult group, not a part of mainstream religion.

The Episcopalians.
This is the only one.

The United Church of Christ.
Does not condone or sanction gay marriage.

Hhaha... if it was "just that simple" the debate would have ended on page one!

It really should have, but you keep repeating the same nonsense.

The only problem with that is that while marriages from one country will almost always be recognized in other countries, civil unions often won't be.

bullshit.

Unitarian Universalism.
Obscure cult group, not a part of mainstream religion.

Ah, so you're claiming that the only religions that should be under the protection of the 1st Amendment are the "mainstream" ones now? That's cute.

United Church of Canada.
Not an American church or a major religious group.

Actually it is, seeing as how Canada is in N. America.

Furthermore, the Danish Lutheran Protestant Church also, to the best of my knowledge, condones it in the following manner: A priest may refuse to perform the service. However, he must direct the couple towards a priest who is willing to perform the service.

Now, are you ever going to apologize for calling me a liberal?

Hhaha... if it was "just that simple" the debate would have ended on page one! I am afraid, like everything else you've had to say here, you are wrong again!

It should have.


Perhaps this is a good time to reiterate my view again... I think the state should ban the practice of issuing "marriage" licenses altogether. Instead, they should issue "Civil Union" licenses, and these can be made available to any two parties who would like to join in a partnership union together. This removes the "gay/straight" connotations as well as any religious infringement aspect, and makes the issue benign and completely civil. Everyone gets what they want... well... except for the godless socialist crowd who are just hell-bent on smearing religious traditions.... they don't get to tear down an important religious institution with this, but you can't make everyone happy.
If the state didn't issue marriage licenses at all but only civil unions, sure. But that wouldn't stop the fact that even if only Churches performed marriages, gay marriages would still happen in those denominations who accepts to perform it.

So, really, you're again not arguing against gay marriage. You're only arguing that government get out of marriage entirely. Which would effectively ensure that gay marriage is legalised.

But that's not the case now, and it never will be, because marriage is pretty much the *only* legal contract form recognized everywhere in the world. Civil unions are not recognized outside one country. Edit: And no, it's not bullshit. Quebec has civil unions, France has PACS, and a host of other countries have legal contracts to give out rights to gays and lesbians living under the same roof. Few of those if any are recognized by other countries.

United Church of Canada.
Not an American church or a major religious group.

Unitarian Universalism.
Obscure cult group, not a part of mainstream religion.

The Episcopalians.
This is the only one.

The United Church of Christ.
Does not condone or sanction gay marriage.

You were linked to the freaking United Church of Christ page. They do allow same-sex marriages.

And the Unitarians obscure? Goddamn that's ignorant.

Hhaha... if it was "just that simple" the debate would have ended on page one! I am afraid, like everything else you've had to say here, you are wrong again!

Perhaps this is a good time to reiterate my view again... I think the state should ban the practice of issuing "marriage" licenses altogether. Instead, they should issue "Civil Union" licenses, and these can be made available to any two parties who would like to join in a partnership union together. This removes the "gay/straight" connotations as well as any religious infringement aspect, and makes the issue benign and completely civil. Everyone gets what they want... well... except for the godless socialist crowd who are just hell-bent on smearing religious traditions.... they don't get to tear down an important religious institution with this, but you can't make everyone happy.
you don't realize it yet, but nothing is sacred, just because you think it is, doesn't mean it is true. you are victim to one of the 4 Idols. It is just a term i don't really care if someone has to get a civil union license instead of a marriage license. If the people are together, they are together and i do find it bullshit that someone can devote so much time and attention to a relationship (regardless of faith and orientation) and still not be allowed any form of union. hell years ago it was Illegal to even be gay. we live in some pretty progressive times. we cant let the collective imaginary friends of mankind dictate what is and isn't right. Yeah i know, godless socialist banter. but seriously, why should someone's definition or marriage be everyones?

You were linked to the freaking United Church of Christ page. They do allow same-sex marriages.

And the Unitarians obscure? Goddamn that's ignorant.

Of course! Any church that disagrees with him MUST be obscure, because only obscure churches disagree with him! :rolleyes:

Anyway, the numbers are irrelevant. Even small religions get 1st amendment protections-- indeed, that's what the protections are for! Large religions are less likely to need it, because they are less likely to be legislated against in the first place.

Oh, quick question! Which church are you part of Dixie? [/honestcuriosity]

Moreover, the United Church of Canada boasts around 1 million believers.

That's one in 13 Christian Canadian.

To present it as "not a major religious group" is incorrect.

Also note that major religions are not the only ones entitled to freedom of religion. Rights and freedom are given out equally by the state, and not only to those who are part of the majority.

Blacks and hispanics would not have any rights in the USA, because they are not part of the majority, if freedoms were only granted to the majority.

Edit: also:

http://www.ucc.org/news/ucc-executive-hails.html

Read that.

Yes, Unitarians are VERY obscure.

Here's a few Unitarians in American politics -- I'm sure NONE of them ring a bell....


http://members.iconn.net/~gedney1/FamousUUs.htm#polUUs

Yes, Unitarians are VERY obscure.

Here's a few Unitarians in American politics -- I'm sure NONE of them ring a bell....


http://members.iconn.net/~gedney1/FamousUUs.htm#polUUs

At least three of those ring a bell. Two founding fathers and one dictionary dude (whom I disagree with on many accounts). Dunno if the dictionary dude is actually the dictionary dude.

Now, if I know at least two or three, that brings up the question of how many are known to the general American populace that Dixie seems so intently focused upon?

I have a proposal to make, let's just legalize gay marriage in the United States so we can all just close the book on this debate and move on to the next pointless political debate and beat it to death too!

This was partly said "tongue in cheek."

I have a proposal to make, let's just legalize gay marriage in the United States so we can all just close the book on this debate and move on to the next pointless political debate and beat it to death too!

This was partly said "tongue in cheek."

"Better nuke the site from Orbit...

...just to be sure, you know."

So is everyone convinced that all Churches ought to have the same rights, freedoms and privileges now, and that Churches who wish to perform gay marriage exist and are denied the right to do so because the current definition of marriage in the US enforces a narrow view of marriage pushed by some Churches ?

Does everyone agree that this is not an acceptable situation, and that Churches like the UCC, Episcopalians, and any and all other denomination who wishes to do so ought to be able to choose themselves whose unions they wish to bless, without interference from dogma that comes from other Churches completely unrelated to them?

Any other objections? No? Well, that settles it.

Anyone who doesn't like can move away and go live in a theocracy where their particular brand of religion forbids whatever it wants with no regard whatsoever for the freedom of other religions. I suggest Iran.

At least three of those ring a bell. Two founding fathers and one dictionary dude (whom I disagree with on many accounts). Dunno if the dictionary dude is actually the dictionary dude.

Now, if I know at least two or three, that brings up the question of how many are known to the general American populace that Dixie seems so intently focused upon?

There were 6 American Presidents...not including other very important "Founding Fathers" like Ben Franklin, famous writers, military generals, etc.

United Church of Canada.
Not an American church or a major religious group.

Unitarian Universalism.
Obscure cult group, not a part of mainstream religion.

The Episcopalians.
This is the only one.

The United Church of Christ.
Does not condone or sanction gay marriage.

You were linked to the freaking United Church of Christ page. They do allow same-sex marriages.

And the Unitarians obscure? Goddamn that's ignorant.

They were my links, and I'm happy to provide them again:

http://ucc.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ

As well as this one:

http://www.ucccoalition.org/

At least three of those ring a bell. Two founding fathers and one dictionary dude (whom I disagree with on many accounts). Dunno if the dictionary dude is actually the dictionary dude.

Now, if I know at least two or three, that brings up the question of how many are known to the general American populace that Dixie seems so intently focused upon?

You're thinking of Noah Webster. Daniel Webster was a Senator and Secretary of State.

You're thinking of Noah Webster. Daniel Webster was a Senator and Secretary of State.

or this guy.

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/webster.html

So we have a near-consensus.

I propose we close the thread, pass the law, and let everyone do as they please, free to get a gay marriage or not get one if it's not their thing. Same for Churches, who'll be free to perform them or not.

Then, as someone eloquently put, we can find another pointless topic to beat to death for several years to come before we figure out that it really wasn't that big of a deal to begin with.

On that note, I'm going to bed, this thread's finished anyway. :p

or this guy.

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/webster.html

Daniel Webster was the only Webster listed on Wikipedia's list of Unitarian Universalists, so I assumed that was who he meant.

So we have a near-consensus.

I propose we close the thread, pass the law, and let everyone do as they please, free to get a gay marriage or not get one if it's not their thing. Same for Churches, who'll be free to perform them or not.

Then, as someone eloquently put, we can find another pointless topic to beat to death for several years to come before we figure out that it really wasn't that big of a deal to begin with.

On that note, I'm going to bed, this thread's finished anyway. :p

Sounds good to me.

Good night.

Daniel Webster was the only Webster listed on Wikipedia's list of Unitarian Universalists, so I assumed that was who he meant.

Uhmm..sorry.

It was a joke reffering to an 80's television sitcom starring a tiny little black man who may have had an "unusual" affair with Michael Jackson...

Uhmm..sorry.

It was a joke reffering to an 80's television sitcom starring a tiny little black man who may have had an "unusual" affair with Michael Jackson...

Ah, didn't get the reference. My apologizes. :p

No, this is not the case, and as I have stated SEVERAL Protestant, Anglican, and otherwise Non-Christian/Catholic religions do not desire to stop gays from marrying.

They do not condone homosexual behavior, or gay marriage. They may "accept" it, but they don't condone it. Sorry.

And I'll humor you again: even if it was just one, which it isn't, freedom of religion would still apply equally to that religion. Get a little bit out of your home, and you'll see PLENTY of open-minded Churches who welcome gays and lesbians with open arms and bless their life partnership. You have no clue whatsoever what you're saying when stating that everyone but one group condemn homosexuality.

Christianity is the religion of love and forgiveness, as the Christian person posted earlier, they don't "hate fags" and don't even use that word, they love homosexuals, they don't approve of their lifestyle. No one has said that anyone condemns gays, or at least, that isn't remotely close to anything I've said.

And if you won't take my word for it, by all means, ask me proof and I'll wiki you some in about 30 seconds and watch you get all confused about being proven wrong. Or do the research yourself and prove to us you're not talking in bad faith.

whatever. You have already determined my position is something I never argued, so what difference does it make?


First of all: legalising something =/= state sponsorship. Alcohol is legal. It's not sponsored by the state. Cars are legal. They're not sponsored by the state. If you wish to avoid drinking or use public transportation, you're still free do so... while leaving everyone else who wants to drink or have a car or both free to do so as well.

None of these things are religious institutions as marriage is. Sorry.

Nobody's forcing YOU or anyone to have a gay marriage if they don't want to.

Oh well, then I am okay with destroying religious traditions then! Whew, I was only against gay marriage out of fear I would be forced to marry a gay man! Glad you cleared that up for me! /sarcasm

Religious-based morality has nothing to do with laws and equality in any country who is not a theocracy, and therefore has a secular government. Especially one who states that all religions are equal.

I would argue America is not a theocracy and not secular. We do, however, have a Constitution which is supposed to protect religious freedom from persecution.

And I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm gay. So yeah, I do pretty much freaking care about people like you trying to restrict my rights and liberties just because it might make you feel comfortable.

Please tell us what "right" you have been denied that others have? I don't have the "right" to marry a guy either, or a goat, or my sister, or a 10-year-old... are MY rights being infringed too? Just because it may make you feel uncomfortable, I don't think you should restrict me to wearing clothes in public, or masturbating outside your sister's bedroom window...

Neither you nor any religion has a right not to be offended. Neither you nor any religion has a right to assimilate me or force religious tenets upon me that I do not believe in.

Right, I agree, and neither should YOU!

If you or a religion is against gay marriage, so be it. But the state does not cater to your or any specific religion's personal interests, it's there to look out for everyone's interests. And like it or not, me and Churches who perfom gay marriages exist. You're going to have to learn to live with that.

Again.... No religion here, so my "religion" is completely neutral on it. Marriage is a religious institution, and one that is very important to the sanctity of religious belief. To have the state decide how to re-define it, is a violation of religious freedom, and shouldn't be allowed. As I said, take it out of the context of religion and pass civil union legislation, and I am fine with it! It seems my view is pretty logical and simple, no?

Not all UCC churches perform SS rituals. Each congregation is autonomous and the General Synod speaks to the churches and not for the churches.

Individual churches decide whether to follow the marriage resolution, or not, and many do not as they are free to determine their own doctrine and theology and may not agree with the Synod resolutions.

The UCC is a federation, a union, an assembly of different individual churches, there are some very conservative UCC churches, and some very liberal UCC churches. The Synod voted to accept SS rituals and to make a public statement that SS couples should be recognized by the civil authorities, but the vote did not actually make UCC churches do or perform or accept the SS unions or marriage rituals themselves. Every UCC congregation owns their own building, each one governs itself and they choose UCC membership like club membership, not official oversight or a ruling body over their congregation from a head office somewhere, like other denominations.

Well, yes, but it still is enough to refute the premise that "no major religious groups allow gay marriage," as Dixie claims.

They were my links, and I'm happy to provide them again:

http://ucc.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ

As well as this one:

http://www.ucccoalition.org/

Not all UCC churches perform SS rituals. Each congregation is autonomous and the General Synod speaks to the churches and not for the churches.

Individual churches decide whether to follow the marriage resolution, or not, and many do not as they are free to determine their own doctrine and theology and may not agree with the Synod resolutions.

The UCC is a federation, a union, an assembly of different individual churches, there are some very conservative UCC churches, and some very liberal UCC churches. The Synod voted to accept SS rituals and to make a public statement that SS couples should be recognized by the civil authorities, but the vote did not actually make UCC churches do or perform or accept the SS unions or marriage rituals themselves. Every UCC congregation owns their own building, each one governs itself and they choose UCC membership like club membership, not official oversight or a ruling body over their congregation from a head office somewhere, like other denominations.

They do not condone homosexual behavior, or gay marriage. They may "accept" it, but they don't condone it. Sorry.



Christianity is the religion of love and forgiveness, as the Christian person posted earlier, they don't "hate fags" and don't even use that word, they love homosexuals, they don't approve of their lifestyle. No one has said that anyone condemns gays, or at least, that isn't remotely close to anything I've said.



whatever. You have already determined my position is something I never argued, so what difference does it make?




None of these things are religious institutions as marriage is. Sorry.



Oh well, then I am okay with destroying religious traditions then! Whew, I was only against gay marriage out of fear I would be forced to marry a gay man! Glad you cleared that up for me! /sarcasm



I would argue America is not a theocracy and not secular. We do, however, have a Constitution which is supposed to protect religious freedom from persecution.



Please tell us what "right" you have been denied that others have? I don't have the "right" to marry a guy either, or a goat, or my sister, or a 10-year-old... are MY rights being infringed too? Just because it may make you feel uncomfortable, I don't think you should restrict me to wearing clothes in public, or masturbating outside your sister's bedroom window...



Right, I agree, and neither should YOU!



Again.... No religion here, so my "religion" is completely neutral on it. Marriage is a religious institution, and one that is very important to the sanctity of religious belief. To have the state decide how to re-define it, is a violation of religious freedom, and shouldn't be allowed. As I said, take it out of the context of religion and pass civil union legislation, and I am fine with it! It seems my view is pretty logical and simple, no?

You clearly don't understand how the first amendment works, do you?

If the government said to churches, "This is how you have to define marriage," then yes, I would agree with you.
However, this is not what gay marriage legalization is.
It's the government saying, "Go ahead and define marriage how you will, but for legal purposes, this is how we define marriage."

OK, in summation:

The reason people can't just shut up about homosexuality is that Dixieanna won't let us.

I think all of us -- except Dixieanna -- can agree on the following:

1) "Separate but equal" is not equal. Civil unions do not give the same level of legal protections/privileges that civil marriage does. Therefore, civil unions are not enough to protect the rights of gays.

2) The legal status of "married" is not connected to religion, but is a matter of law controlled by government. This is true whether the marriage in question was performed in a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony.

3) Gay marriage is disallowed only by some religions. Therefore blanket arguments that "religion" does not allow gay marriage are false.

4) Forms of marriage vary extremely from time to time, place to place, culture to culture, legal code to legal code, and religion to religion. Therefore, blanket claims about what "marriage" is -- i.e. the form it has to take -- are false.

5) Both US and international law have specifically defined marriage as a right, so arguments that marriage is not a right are false.

6) Since marriage is a right, denying marriage to gays is a denial of rights to gays (see point 1, above).

7) The First Amendment of the US Constitution is not permission for any religion to impose its views on the rest of society. That lack of permission is not persecution.

8) Arguments that, if gays are granted the legal status of "married," this will mean that churches will be forced to marry gays in violation of their beliefs, are so false as to qualify as deliberate lies. Not only is no person, group, or proposed law anywhere suggesting that such a thing be done, in the US, it would be impossible to do it, because of the First Amendment.

9) Life is full of all kinds of people, and having to share the planet with people who are different from you is NOT persecution against you. So the mere fact that married gay couples exist is NOT an attack against religion, nor an insult to religion, nor a violation of people's right to practice their religion. Arguments otherwise are just childishly petulant.

10) Plenty of places allow gay marriage, and in every single one of them, the various churches carry on their business exactly the same as churches do in bigoted places. So do all other areas of society. Therefore, social changes from legalizing gay marriage are likely to be small, possibly unnoticeable by anyone but gays. So there is no reason not to do it.

Finally, I'm not going to flame Dixieanna, but I am going to tell him/her flat out that I think he/she has been lying to us. Based solely on the content of your posts, Dixie, I believe you are religious, and you are promoting a religious view, and a very radical one at that. I believe all of your denials of this have been deliberate lies. I believe you support a theocratic view of society, in which government is meant to serve the church, which you think should be the source of social rules. I also believe you are so bigoted in your views, that in fact, the thing you are not coming right out and saying is that, in your mind, the very existence of gays on the planet is an attack on your religion, as is the fact that the government is not taking direct action to force gays out of society. I base these beliefs on the fact that you are not the first person I've heard say the things you've said here. Your arguments are old-hat -- well established talking points of religious extremists -- and that is always the foundation of their beliefs. I do not believe you can toe their line so perfectly and so obsessively, and not belong in their group.

On the basis that you are not being honest with us, and that your opposition to gay rights is very likely to go FAR beyond any questions of marriage, I do not think there is any point in continuing to debate with you. You did not come here to debate issues. You came to declare your loyalty to your cause. You've done that. You can take a break now.

I think I might have already posted in this.. and if I did I was drunk .. like I am now. Lets see if what I have to say now .. contradicts what I said then..

Because it's mainstream.

. Marriage is a religious institution, and one that is very important to the sanctity of religious belief. To have the state decide how to re-define it, is a violation of religious freedom, and shouldn't be allowed. As I said, take it out of the context of religion and pass civil union legislation, and I am fine with it! It seems my view is pretty logical and simple, no?

Except that the fundamental crux of your arguement is that marriage is "solely" a religious institution.

About a dozen of us keep showing you it most certainly NOT.

Ask yourself this:

When filing for divorce, do you file it with your (hypothetically) church, or with the court system?

If marriage were indeed soley a religious institution, you wouldnt need a license from the state, merely any religious institution who would perform the ceremony.

Gay marriage may not be congruent with YOUR particular views on ethics, or "religious freedoms", however, the constitution says that Congress shall make no law that favors one church over another, or religion over another. This inherently means that if you dont like gay marriage, too bad, because its not a violation of your religious freedoms, as no one is impinging upon them.

<snip a bunch of obvious, irrelevant and unnecessary remarks>
I'm sorry. I was under the impression that we were mutually ignoring each other, at your request. I agreed to that and it hasn't been rescinded, so, therefore, you don't have clearance to address me. And I will not violate the ignore by responding to your irrelevant hair-splitting.

OK, in summation:

The reason people can't just shut up about homosexuality is that Dixieanna won't let us.

I think all of us -- except Dixieanna -- can agree on the following:

1) "Separate but equal" is not equal. Civil unions do not give the same level of legal protections/privileges that civil marriage does. Therefore, civil unions are not enough to protect the rights of gays.

2) The legal status of "married" is not connected to religion, but is a matter of law controlled by government. This is true whether the marriage in question was performed in a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony.

3) Gay marriage is disallowed only by some religions. Therefore blanket arguments that "religion" does not allow gay marriage are false.

4) Forms of marriage vary extremely from time to time, place to place, culture to culture, legal code to legal code, and religion to religion. Therefore, blanket claims about what "marriage" is -- i.e. the form it has to take -- are false.

5) Both US and international law have specifically defined marriage as a right, so arguments that marriage is not a right are false.

6) Since marriage is a right, denying marriage to gays is a denial of rights to gays (see point 1, above).

7) The First Amendment of the US Constitution does not permit any religion to impose its views on the rest of society. That lack of permission is not persecution.

8) Arguments that, if gays are granted the legal status of "married," this will mean that churches will be forced to marry gays in violation of their beliefs, are so false as to qualify as deliberate lies. Not only is no person, group, or proposed law anywhere suggesting that such a thing be done, in the US, it would be impossible to do it, because of the First Amendment.

9) Life is full of all kinds of people, and having to share the planet with people who are different from you is NOT persecution against you. So the mere fact that married gay couples exist is NOT an attack against religion, nor an insult to religion, nor a violation of people's right to practice their religion. Arguments otherwise are just childishly petulant.

10) Plenty of places allow gay marriage, and in every single one of them, the various churches carry on their business exactly the same as churches do in bigoted places. So do all other areas of society. Therefore, social changes from legalizing gay marriage are likely to be small, possibly unnoticeable by anyone but gays. So there is no reason not to do it.

Finally, I'm not going to flame Dixieanna, but I am going to tell him/her flat out that I think he/she has been lying to us. Based solely on the content of your posts, Dixie, I believe you are religious, and you are promoting a religious view, and a very radical one at that. I believe all of your denials of this have been deliberate lies. I believe you support a theocratic view of society, in which government is meant to serve the church, which you think should be the source of social rules. I also believe you are so bigoted in your views, that in fact, the thing you are not coming right out and saying is that, in your mind, the very existence of gays on the planet is an attack on your religion, as is the fact that the government is not taking direct action to force gays out of society. I base these beliefs on the fact that you are not the first person I've heard say the things you've said here. Your arguments are old-hat -- well established talking points of religious extremists -- and that is always the foundation of their beliefs. I do not believe you can toe their line so perfectly and so obsessively, and not belong in their group.

On the basis that you are not being honest with us, and that your opposition to gay rights is very likely to go FAR beyond any questions of marriage, I do not think there is any point in continuing to debate with you. You did not come here to debate issues. You came to declare your loyalty to your cause. You've done that. You can take a break now.

if (username=="Muravyets"){
........wincount++;
}

Yes, Unitarians are VERY obscure.

Here's a few Unitarians in American politics -- I'm sure NONE of them ring a bell....


http://members.iconn.net/~gedney1/FamousUUs.htm#polUUs

That’s hardly fair. Unitarians two hundred years ago had a different standard of belief and doctrines than the group by the same name today have.

Before 1867 Unitarians were a Christian denomination, as recently as 1853 and 1854 they voted to confirm their Christian doctrine and beliefs. But in 1867 it began to change.

1867 - Free Religious Association founded by Unitarians unhappy with the Christian focus of Unitarianism.

1873 - Free Religionist Octavius Brooks Frothingham publishes The Religion of Humanity.

1886 - Unity movement in the WUC motivates Jabez T. Sunderland to publish The Issue in the West; James Freeman Clarke publishes Vexed Questions in Theology.

1887 - William Channing Gannett's The Things Most Commonly Believed Today Among Us is adopted by the Western Unitarian Conference, which allows for non-Christian beliefs.

1894 - National Conference meets and asserts the importance of love for God and humanity, but without a Christian focus.

By 1894 the denomination was NOT the same denomination that was founded by the one time Catholic, one time Lutheran, one time Calvinist, Francis David. To pretend that the members who were aligned with Unitarianism BEFORE 1867 agree with the church after 1867 is unfair at the very least and untrue by character.
By the 1850’s and 60’s, Deism was a growing movement among Unitarians, especially as one moved further west in the US. The conflict between Deists and Christians in the association was so strong that finally a series of compromise statements of purpose and belief were made by the AUA to allow the Deists to remain within the association. This was not good enough for some, though. In 1869, Francis Ellingwood Abbot and several other ministers left the AUA to form the Free Religious Association. This organization was decidedly Deist in nature, and tended to reject and criticize Christianity in any form as an immature religion. Nonetheless, Christianity remained the orientation for the majority of the members of the AUA right through to the end of the century.
http://www.americanunitarian.org/fisherhistory.htm

if (username=="Muravyets"){
........wincount++;
}

Um...uh...I'm going to pick...um...thanks? :)

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that we were mutually ignoring each other, at your request. I agreed to that and it hasn't been rescinded, so, therefore, you don't have clearance to address me. And I will not violate the ignore by responding to your irrelevant hair-splitting.

I never said I was ignoring you. EVEN that post you couldn't read correctly.

If you post misleading information about a Church I've attended I'm well within my rights to set the record straight.

I never said I was ignoring you. EVEN that post you couldn't read correctly.

If you post misleading information about a Church I've attended I'm well within my rights to set the record straight.
Oh, I see, you expected me to ignore you and not respond to you, while you continued to insult me. Well, as I told you earlier, you can bite me. This thread has already been flame-warned by a mod, so if you want to flick that little lighter of yours at me, you can go right ahead. I'll let someone else deal with your worthless verbage.

Someone else has already pointed out the error of your "objections" to you. I am not worried that the majority of posters and readers will be taken in by your nonsense, any more than they were by Dixieanna's.

'Bye.

Oh, I see, you expected me to ignore you and not respond to you, while you continued to insult me. Well, as I told you earlier, you can bite me. This thread has already been flame-warned by a mod, so if you want to flick that little lighter of yours at me, you can go right ahead. I'll let someone else deal with your worthless verbage.
...

For fear that someone not in the know actually thinks I'm guilty of what you accuse me of, I'll repeat what I said then, verbatim...

Perhaps you should just put me on ignore, you seem to ignore what I say and assign your own words for me anyway, why bother reading what I actually write at all.

That’s hardly fair...snippage..

I dont think it really matters what thier particular views were, as the whole point was to inform Dixieanna that the UU's were indeed, a serious, and wide-spread institution, even 200 years ago.

If indeed thier views werent supportive of such an issue, certainly by the 1850's-60's, they leaned such.
So, such an institution has still supported this sort of thing, or issues deemed "unchristian" for a century and a half.

I dont think it really matters what thier particular views were, as the whole point was to inform Dixieanna that the UU's were indeed, a serious, and wide-spread institution, even 200 years ago.

If indeed thier views werent supportive of such an issue, certainly by the 1850's-60's, they leaned such.
So, such an institution has still supported this sort of thing, or issues deemed "unchristian" for a century and a half.

My point was that it was 'bigger' then, 200 hundred years ago, by being mainstream then it had big and popular support. Now it is not mainstream, imagine a politician today saying, I'm a Unitarian, he/she would receive an entirely different reception than they did then. Agree? Or do I have to prove it?

$10 says he ignores this.
No bet, since he pretty much did.

You clearly don't understand how the first amendment works, do you?

Yes I do, but you seem to have a problem with it, especially the "prohibiting the excercise therof" part.

If the government said to churches, "This is how you have to define marriage," then yes, I would agree with you.

That is what they are 'de facto' saying with adoption of Gay Marriage. That IS the point here! That IS all I have been saying for two days here! If the state passes a law defining marriage to include homosexuals, it is in direct and absolute contradiction of the teachings of most religions.

However, this is not what gay marriage legalization is.
It's the government saying, "Go ahead and define marriage how you will, but for legal purposes, this is how we define marriage."

But you can't do this under the 1st Amendment. It undermines the church's teachings and doctrines, which is a form of persecution, whether you like it or not. As I said, I am non-religious, but I can see where this violates the freedom of religion as presented in the 1st Amendment. Whether I agree with these religions or not, I am obligated to respect their rights to freely exercise their beliefs. You guys continue to cite examples of obscure instances where gay marriage is accepted by some religions, but that is not the point, you can't say that because some say it's okay, all must agree and be bound to follow that viewpoint. That isn't freedom of religion, it is freedom of your mandate of religion.

Again, I argue that the state has no business issuing a "marriage" licence. Marriage should be reserved for the religious groups who hold the holy institution sacred, and we should all respect that and leave it alone completely. If they decide to include homosexuals in that institution, it is up to them, but the state should have no part in it. Instead, the state could issue 'civil union' or 'partnership' licenses, which could be used by gay people, straight people, religious people, non-religious people, and anyone who just wanted to join in partnership for whatever reason they desired. The government removes itself from entanglement into the religious tradition of marriage, and the civil aspect is still addressed. This protects the rights of gay people to join in union (holy or non-holy) with each other, and it protects the sanctity of marriage with regard to religion. Both sides effectively have what they desire, or claim to desire, and everyone is happy... save for the god-hating socialists who just want to smear religion on general principle, which isn't a constitutional right.

You clearly don't understand how the first amendment works, do you?

Yes I do, but you seem to have a problem with it, especially the "prohibiting the excercise therof" part.

If the government said to churches, "This is how you have to define marriage," then yes, I would agree with you.

That is what they are 'de facto' saying with adoption of Gay Marriage. That IS the point here! That IS all I have been saying for two days here! If the state passes a law defining marriage to include homosexuals, it is in direct and absolute contradiction of the teachings of most religions.

However, this is not what gay marriage legalization is.
It's the government saying, "Go ahead and define marriage how you will, but for legal purposes, this is how we define marriage."

But you can't do this under the 1st Amendment. It undermines the church's teachings and doctrines, which is a form of persecution, whether you like it or not.snip
Wait wait so if legal definition does not match religious definition it undermines religious teachings which is persecution

Bullshit

If thats all it takes to be "persecuted" nowadays fuck seems to be a de-valuation of the word

You clearly don't understand how the first amendment works, do you?

Yes I do, but you seem to have a problem with it, especially the "prohibiting the excercise therof" part.

If the government said to churches, "This is how you have to define marriage," then yes, I would agree with you.

That is what they are 'de facto' saying with adoption of Gay Marriage. That IS the point here! That IS all I have been saying for two days here! If the state passes a law defining marriage to include homosexuals, it is in direct and absolute contradiction of the teachings of most religions.

No, it wouldn't be.
As it currently stands, divorced people can remarry.
This is a direct contradiction of Roman Catholic teaching. Roman Catholics will not recognize remarrying.
In Canada, gays can get married.
Churches aren't forced to recognize it.
Unless you can somehow demonstrate that this case is different from those, then your entire argument utterly falls apart.


However, this is not what gay marriage legalization is.
It's the government saying, "Go ahead and define marriage how you will, but for legal purposes, this is how we define marriage."

But you can't do this under the 1st Amendment. It undermines the church's teachings and doctrines, which is a form of persecution, whether you like it or not. As I said, I am non-religious, but I can see where this violates the freedom of religion as presented in the 1st Amendment. Whether I agree with these religions or not, I am obligated to respect their rights to freely exercise their beliefs. You guys continue to cite examples of obscure instances where gay marriage is accepted by some religions, but that is not the point, you can't say that because some say it's okay, all must agree and be bound to follow that viewpoint. That isn't freedom of religion, it is freedom of your mandate of religion.
Certainly, not every religion would have to follow the viewpoint of Gay Marriage being legal-- they would not be required to recognize or sanctify gay marriage. That's how it is in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. That's how it is in Canada, where gay marriage is legal. And that's how it'd be anywhere, if gay marriage were legal.


Again, I argue that the state has no business issuing a "marriage" licence. Marriage should be reserved for the religious groups who hold the holy institution sacred, and we should all respect that and leave it alone completely. If they decide to include homosexuals in that institution, it is up to them, but the state should have no part in it. Instead, the state could issue 'civil union' or 'partnership' licenses, which could be used by gay people, straight people, religious people, non-religious people, and anyone who just wanted to join in partnership for whatever reason they desired. The government removes itself from entanglement into the religious tradition of marriage, and the civil aspect is still addressed. This protects the rights of gay people to join in union (holy or non-holy) with each other, and it protects the sanctity of marriage with regard to religion. Both sides effectively have what they desire, or claim to desire, and everyone is happy... save for the god-hating socialists who just want to smear religion on general principle, which isn't a constitutional right.

But civil unions performed in one country won't be guaranteed recognition abroad, marriages will. Therefore, they are not legally equivalent. IF you could guarantee international legal recognition, to the same extent we have with marriages, and IF civil unions applied both to gay and straight "marriage," then I'd support that. But you'd have to fulfill BOTH conditions, or your proposition fails.

But civil unions performed in one country won't be guaranteed recognition abroad, marriages will.

You continue to say this, and it is total and utter bullshit. No country is obligated to "recognize" or "guarantee" any document issued by a United States justice. We have no jurisdiction over other nations or their laws, or their regulations. I have no idea of what you are even talking about here, it's like some mindless rant about something you just can't seem to articulate. What the hell would another country need to recognize marriage of a couple, other than the official government document issued to verify that union? Why the hell would it even matter if a foreign country recognized or guaranteed a marriage or not? And how the hell does any government guarantee a marriage? You are more full of shit than a Christmas turkey!

Certainly, not every religion would have to follow the viewpoint of Gay Marriage being legal-- they would not be required to recognize or sanctify gay marriage.

Oh, but they certainly would. This would be where the "persecution" comes in, and why I am opposed to "Gay Marriage". By making this a national standard, you effectively undermine the church doctrine, they can get away with this in Canada and Europe where you have no guarantee of protection for your inalienable rights endowed by your Creator, as we have in America. Here, we can't pass laws which effectively undermine religious practice, because we have a 1st Amendment. Massachusetts gets away with it because it is isolated and new, and because it wasn't ratified into the constitution of the state. There is also pending lawsuits to have the ruling overturned in that state. In the last elections, gay marriage lost in every place it was on the ballot, including some fairly left-wing bastions it was expected to do well in. The People have spoken, and they don't want Gay Marriage. I have tried to articulate, in a non-religious-zealot way, exactly why people are so opposed to it. I have also provided a very realistic compromise, one which would satisfy every-one's wishes, without violating any-one's rights, but you still insist on being so bigoted in your view, because it really isn't about rights and you know it. You see an opportunity to shove your immorality down religious people's throats... a little payback, you figure. So, you will continue to rant and rave here, and your buddies will do the same, and eventually you will probably convince enough fools to support you on this. After all, we live in an age where bashing religion is cool, and no one really even gives a shit what the constitution says or means.

My point was that it was 'bigger' then, 200 hundred years ago, by being mainstream then it had big and popular support. Now it is not mainstream, imagine a politician today saying, I'm a Unitarian, he/she would receive an entirely different reception than they did then. Agree? Or do I have to prove it?

Oh no arguement there, but I think there may be more of you than you realize.
My lil' town has more churches per capita than any other, anywhere, and sure enough, we have one. I think its a faster growing church because of the very fact that they dont define god for you, but rather help one to define "it" 'for ones self.
At least as far as I can tell.

So, for the purposes of the earlier reference, i think it still holds water.

They do not condone homosexual behavior, or gay marriage. They may "accept" it, but they don't condone it. Sorry.Ahem:
con·done - n.
1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).Linky (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone)
Accepting (or disregarding, overlooking) something that many people object to is... condoning! (according to one valid definition)



Christianity is the religion of love and forgiveness,Yes, it is. And Islam is the religion of peace.
as the Christian person posted earlier, they don't "hate fags" and don't even use that word, they love homosexuals, they don't approve of their lifestyle.S'truth. I don't hate homophobes either. Love the sinner hat the sin, and all that.
No one has said that anyone condemns gays, or at least, that isn't remotely close to anything I've said. Nah, just their "lifestyle"...
None of these things are religious institutions as marriage is. Sorry.No one's arguing that churches should be forced to marry gays. The state is the institution that marries them.

I would argue America is not a theocracy and not secular. We do, however, have a Constitution which is supposed to protect religious freedom from persecution. Having to sit idly while gays are allowed to marry is not a form of persecution. If you were forced to marry another of your sex, or if your church was forced to perform a gay marriage, that would be persecution.



Please tell us what "right" you have been denied that others have? I don't have the "right" to marry a guy either, or a goat, or my sister, or a 10-year-old... are MY rights being infringed too? Where the other man is concerned, yeah. Using the bestiality, pedophilia and incest argument shows a lack of knowledge concerning "consensual relationships among adults".
Just because it may make you feel uncomfortable, I don't think you should restrict me to wearing clothes in public,Yeah, they really should get rid of that stupid puritan legislation. One of the few perks that Europe has over the US is that skinny dipping isn't illegal =D
or masturbating outside your sister's bedroom window... Exhibitionism? Relates to gay marriage? How?

Again.... No religion here, so my "religion" is completely neutral on it. Marriage is a religious institution, and one that is very important to the sanctity of religious belief. Bah, humbug.
To have the state decide how to re-define it,Ooh! Let ME finish it: "...would be like the Church redefining it back when it wasn't a religious ceremony."
is a violation of religious freedom, and shouldn't be allowed.Bullshit.
As I said, take it out of the context of religion and pass civil union legislation, and I am fine with it! It seems my view is pretty logical and simple, no?Er... what? Is your opposition to gay marriage simply semantic in nature or what?

That does it.

There have been appeals made on behalf of equality...

/removes jacket

and on behalf of compassion...

/rolls up sleeves

and on behalf of fairness, and justice, and blah, blah, blah...

/cricks neck

and on behalf of plain old fashioned Enlightenment-era reason and rationality, and no matter what's tried it's just more of the same 'head-against-brick-wall' routine, so...

/stretches

anyone who thinks they have the right to deny me the right to marry the consenting adult of my choice based on their religion or superstition or upbringing or whatever other justification they want to clutch at...

/raises fists

step up. Imma knock y'all on your asses. No, really- if you're closed to reason and no amount of discussion will change your mind and persuade you in favour of human equality and dignity- then all that's left to do it duke it out. Apparently, since you like to throw the weight of "God" and "tradition" around, you're comfortable and smug in your belief that Might = Right, so we'll settle things your way.

If we can't earn your respect we'll just have to fuck you up. Because while you're fighting for the status quo and your superiority complex, we're fighting for equal standing as human beings and- ultimately, by extension- survival. If we accept anything less than full equity and dignity, then one thing *can* lead to another until we're back-sliding into polgroms and camps and extermination.

When it comes to bigotry, in for a penny is in for a pound. Today it's "no marriage for you," someday it's "just get in the oven, it's not like you're real people- you can't even marry." Well no, some of us won't take it today or ever. Not without a fight. And we'll either win- like we must- or you'll simply have to go all the way with your discrimation and your bigotry and take us out; maybe the sight of your own nose gushing blood will wake you up, or maybe in a hundred years you'll look at scars we gave you and realise you were wrong, or maybe you never will. But you'll have scars either way. Because here and now, we won't take it without a fight.

You continue to say this, and it is total and utter bullshit. No country is obligated to "recognize" or "guarantee" any document issued by a United States justice. We have no jurisdiction over other nations or their laws, or their regulations. I have no idea of what you are even talking about here, it's like some mindless rant about something you just can't seem to articulate. What the hell would another country need to recognize marriage of a couple, other than the official government document issued to verify that union? Why the hell would it even matter if a foreign country recognized or guaranteed a marriage or not? And how the hell does any government guarantee a marriage? You are more full of shit than a Christmas turkey! Over here, married couples (and blood relatives) have the right to not appear as witnesses against their spouses (relatives). Couples married outside of Germany don't count as unmarried, so yeah, it does make a difference.


Oh, but they certainly would. This would be where the "persecution" comes in, and why I am opposed to "Gay Marriage". By making this a national standard, you effectively undermine the church doctrine, they can get away with this in Canada and Europe where you have no guarantee of protection for your inalienable rights endowed by your Creator, as we have in America. That's funny, because its wrong =D
Here, we can't pass laws which effectively undermine religious practice, because we have a 1st Amendment. How is gay marriage undermining religious practice?
Massachusetts gets away with it because it is isolated and new, and because it wasn't ratified into the constitution of the state. There is also pending lawsuits to have the ruling overturned in that state. In the last elections, gay marriage lost in every place it was on the ballot, including some fairly left-wing bastions it was expected to do well in. The People have spoken, and they don't want Gay Marriage.Meh. Popularity is seriously overrated.
I have tried to articulate, in a non-religious-zealot way, exactly why people are so opposed to it. And it still sounds like "Wah! Undermining religious practices!"
I have also provided a very realistic compromise, one which would satisfy every-one's wishes, without violating any-one's rights, but you still insist on being so bigoted in your view, because it really isn't about rights and you know it. You mean calling it civil union and having the state marry them? Why not call it marriage and have the state and any churches that want to marry them?
You see an opportunity to shove your immorality down religious people's throats... a little payback, you figure. So, you will continue to rant and rave here, and your buddies will do the same, and eventually you will probably convince enough fools to support you on this. After all, we live in an age where bashing religion is cool, and no one really even gives a shit what the constitution says or means.Payback? Religion-bashing? Most... er no... All of my Christian friends are for gay marriage. How could it be religion bashing or getting even?

Wait wait so if legal definition does not match religious definition it undermines religious teachings which is persecution

Bullshit

If thats all it takes to be "persecuted" nowadays fuck seems to be a de-valuation of the wordRemember the days when persecution still meant "being nailed to a cross" and not "tolerating other people alongside yourself"?

Neither do I... =(

That does it.

There have been appeals made on behalf of equality...

/removes jacket

and on behalf of compassion...

/rolls up sleeves

and on behalf of fairness, and justice, and blah, blah, blah...

/cricks neck

and on behalf of plain old fashioned Enlightenment-era reason and rationality, and no matter what's tried it's just more of the same 'head-against-brick-wall' routine, so...

/stretches

anyone who thinks they have the right to deny me the right to marry the consenting adult of my choice based on their religion or superstition or upbringing or whatever other justification they want to clutch at...

/raises fists

step up. Imma knock y'all on your asses. No, really- if you're closed to reason and no amount of discussion will change your mind and persuade you in favour of human equality and dignity- then all that's left to do it duke it out. Apparently, since you like to throw the weight of "God" and "tradition" around, you're comfortable and smug in your belief that Might = Right, so we'll settle things your way.

If we can't earn your respect we'll just have to fuck you up. Because while you're fighting for the status quo and your superiority complex, we're fighting for equal standing as human beings and- ultimately, by extension- survival. If we accept anything less than full equity and dignity, then one thing *can* lead to another until we're back-sliding into polgroms and camps and extermination.

When it comes to bigotry, in for a penny is in for a pound. Today it's "no marriage for you," someday it's "just get in the oven, it's not like you're real people- you can't even marry." Well no, some of us won't take it today or ever. Not without a fight. And we'll either win- like we must- or you'll simply have to go all the way with your discrimation and your bigotry and take us out; maybe the sight of your own nose gushing blood will wake you up, or maybe in a hundred years you'll look at scars we gave you and realise you were wrong, or maybe you never will. But you'll have scars either way. Because here and now, we won't take it without a fight.

THAT had STYLE.

You clearly don't understand how the first amendment works, do you?

Yes I do, but you seem to have a problem with it, especially the "prohibiting the excercise therof" part.

If the government said to churches, "This is how you have to define marriage," then yes, I would agree with you.

That is what they are 'de facto' saying with adoption of Gay Marriage. That IS the point here! That IS all I have been saying for two days here! If the state passes a law defining marriage to include homosexuals, it is in direct and absolute contradiction of the teachings of most religions.

However, this is not what gay marriage legalization is.
It's the government saying, "Go ahead and define marriage how you will, but for legal purposes, this is how we define marriage."

But you can't do this under the 1st Amendment. It undermines the church's teachings and doctrines, which is a form of persecution, whether you like it or not. As I said, I am non-religious, but I can see where this violates the freedom of religion as presented in the 1st Amendment. Whether I agree with these religions or not, I am obligated to respect their rights to freely exercise their beliefs. You guys continue to cite examples of obscure instances where gay marriage is accepted by some religions, but that is not the point, you can't say that because some say it's okay, all must agree and be bound to follow that viewpoint. That isn't freedom of religion, it is freedom of your mandate of religion.

I think it has been made abysmally clear that you don't understand the First Amendment or freedom of religion in general.

Nonetheless, I challenge you for the FOURTH time to cite even a SINGLE case in the history of the Republic that supports your view of freedom of religion.

Again, I argue that the state has no business issuing a "marriage" licence. Marriage should be reserved for the religious groups who hold the holy institution sacred, and we should all respect that and leave it alone completely. If they decide to include homosexuals in that institution, it is up to them, but the state should have no part in it. Instead, the state could issue 'civil union' or 'partnership' licenses, which could be used by gay people, straight people, religious people, non-religious people, and anyone who just wanted to join in partnership for whatever reason they desired. The government removes itself from entanglement into the religious tradition of marriage, and the civil aspect is still addressed. This protects the rights of gay people to join in union (holy or non-holy) with each other, and it protects the sanctity of marriage with regard to religion. Both sides effectively have what they desire, or claim to desire, and everyone is happy... save for the god-hating socialists who just want to smear religion on general principle, which isn't a constitutional right.

Now, in order to keep gays from getting same-sex marriage licenses, you would deny everyone a marriage license.

I guess you had to destroy marriage in order to save it. :rolleyes::headbang:

All of my Christian friends are for gay marriage.

I bet most of them are for it even BECAUSE Jesus' message was one of tolerance, peace and good will. Which makes the people against equality for gays, yes, un-Christian.

Today it's "no marriage for you," someday it's "just get in the oven, it's not like you're real people- you can't even marry."
Hey, where is there a law which doesn't let a gay to marry?


But you'll have scars either way. Because here and now, we won't take it without a fight.

Go get'em, GNFOS!

Go get'em, GNFOS!

What's a GNFOS?

You're thinking of Noah Webster. Daniel Webster was a Senator and Secretary of State.

In that case, I only knew two.

I was almost sure it wasn't him, hence the disclaimer :p

Dixie, I am disappointed. You never apologized for calling me a liberal.

You are hereby placed on ignore, for blatant lies (you ARE a Christian, if you are not, why is that the only religion you care about?), stupid assumptions (If Gay Marriage is legal, MY church HAS to recognize it and perform it... untrue. However bigoted it might be of a church to deny the service, to force them to perform it is stupid and only people like Fass would do that, for the joy of seeing them spasm) and generally not listening to arguments (source after source has shown you TRUE MARRIAGE (not some stupid marrying your pet) that was COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO RELIGION and certainly UNRELATED TO CHRISTIANITY).

So remember, Chinese and Viking marriages never were religious.

Dixie, I am disappointed. You never apologized for calling me a liberal.

You are hereby placed on ignore, for blatant lies (you ARE a Christian, if you are not, why is that the only religion you care about?), stupid assumptions (If Gay Marriage is legal, MY church HAS to recognize it and perform it... untrue. However bigoted it might be of a church to deny the service, to force them to perform it is stupid and only people like Fass would do that, for the joy of seeing them spasm) and generally not listening to arguments (source after source has shown you TRUE MARRIAGE (not some stupid marrying your pet) that was COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO RELIGION and certainly UNRELATED TO CHRISTIANITY).

So remember, Chinese and Viking marriages never were religious.

You think he'll read or care?

Dixie, you can say you're non-religious until you're blue in the face but the tone and wording of your posts sells you out, plain as day, as a Christian. By using terms like "holy matrimony", a specifically Christian ritual, and other holy terms, you've established your religiosity. You frequently cite the Bible as your only source and refer to "church", which tends to be a Christian concept.

You also have another shortcoming in your posts, and that's your anti-liberal talk. The more religious people on here, who tend to be conservative also spout anti-liberal rhetoric when backed against a wall.

You were presented with logical arguments and sources for those arguments and you have ignored them. You even ignored arguments when the Bible was used as a source to disprove the relation between religion and marriage. You failed to proper comprehend basic passages written here that stated religion didn't have diddle to do with marriage until the Council of Trent.

Yet you wonder why people think you're being intellectually dishonest. You need to take a look in the mirror. You're the one who's being dishonest here. Many of us have granted you a chance to prove us wrong, something done on debate. We have also used the same chances to disprove what you've claimed.

Perhaps a nice little diagram is in order? This will help you understand why people won't see your POV.

http://weaselhut.net/nsg-debate.PNG

http://weaselhut.net/nsg-debate.PNG

Nice drawin' skillz. I've always wondered what debate really looks like.

Click Stand;13204552']Nice drawin' skillz. I've always wondered what debate really looks like.

This could be applied to pretty much any NSG debate. :)

Who says they aren't? You??? Is this based on your anti-religious interpretation of the Bible? Or is it based on your godless heroes of liberalism and their misinterpretations? Either way, not an authoritative source, in my opinion. Get Billy Graham to tell me the Bible's order of events are inaccurate, and I might lend some credibility to the opinion, otherwise, shut the hell up about something you don't know about.

Dixieanna, Dixieanna, Dixieanna. What is so difficult for you to comprehend about the rules of this site? Stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a godless liberal and telling people to shut the hell up as your first and only ways of debating, or you will end up banned AGAIN.

For Christ's sake, it's not like it's a big secret: BE CIVIL.

That does it.

There have been appeals made on behalf of equality...

/removes jacket

and on behalf of compassion...

/rolls up sleeves

and on behalf of fairness, and justice, and blah, blah, blah...

/cricks neck

and on behalf of plain old fashioned Enlightenment-era reason and rationality, and no matter what's tried it's just more of the same 'head-against-brick-wall' routine, so...

/stretches

anyone who thinks they have the right to deny me the right to marry the consenting adult of my choice based on their religion or superstition or upbringing or whatever other justification they want to clutch at...

/raises fists

step up. Imma knock y'all on your asses. No, really- if you're closed to reason and no amount of discussion will change your mind and persuade you in favour of human equality and dignity- then all that's left to do it duke it out. Apparently, since you like to throw the weight of "God" and "tradition" around, you're comfortable and smug in your belief that Might = Right, so we'll settle things your way.

If we can't earn your respect we'll just have to fuck you up. Because while you're fighting for the status quo and your superiority complex, we're fighting for equal standing as human beings and- ultimately, by extension- survival. If we accept anything less than full equity and dignity, then one thing *can* lead to another until we're back-sliding into polgroms and camps and extermination.

When it comes to bigotry, in for a penny is in for a pound. Today it's "no marriage for you," someday it's "just get in the oven, it's not like you're real people- you can't even marry." Well no, some of us won't take it today or ever. Not without a fight. And we'll either win- like we must- or you'll simply have to go all the way with your discrimation and your bigotry and take us out; maybe the sight of your own nose gushing blood will wake you up, or maybe in a hundred years you'll look at scars we gave you and realise you were wrong, or maybe you never will. But you'll have scars either way. Because here and now, we won't take it without a fight.
Yeah, like he said!

Nicely done, btw. :) I'll hold your coat while you beat the fear into them (and I might take the opportunity to get in a few cheap kicks of my own after you're finished).

Separate but equal? Oh yeah, that worked out brilliantly the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) around.


Actually, if you look at the countries that have gay marriage, Civil Union were the first step. In New Zealand we have civil unions, and they automatically have all the same rights/privileges as a married couple - infact, heterosexual couples can get a civil union if they so wish.

Actually, if you look at the countries that have gay marriage, Civil Union were the first step. In New Zealand we have civil unions, and they automatically have all the same rights/privileges as a married couple - infact, heterosexual couples can get a civil union if they so wish.

In Canada we didn't have that baby-step; we didn't start with civil unions. We had a Supreme Court ruling that paved the way, with Ontario being the first to legalise gay (civil) marriage. At the civil level, gay marriages were not legally recognised until the Supreme Court declared that refusal to grant gays a marriage license was a violation of their Charter rights.

In Canada we didn't have that baby-step; we didn't start with civil unions. We had a Supreme Court ruling that paved the way, with Ontario being the first to legalise gay (civil) marriage. At the civil level, gay marriages were not legally recognised until the Supreme Court declared that refusal to grant gays a marriage license was a violation of their Charter rights.

Which is stupid; for me, even as a gay male, I'd sooner see the law changed, through an act of parliament than seeing things being rail roaded through the court system. Civil unions were passed in New Zealand, and due to the Human Rights Act, we automatically got all the perks of marriage, off the bat.

Don't get me started on New Zealand the stupid idea of having a supreme court. Before that, we had the privy council; and sure, it was all the way in London, but atleast the politicians couldn't have their dirty mitts on the decision makers.

Which is stupid; for me, even as a gay male, I'd sooner see the law changed, through an act of parliament than seeing things being rail roaded through the court system. Civil unions were passed in New Zealand, and due to the Human Rights Act, we automatically got all the perks of marriage, off the bat.

Don't get me started on New Zealand the stupid idea of having a supreme court. Before that, we had the privy council; and sure, it was all the way in London, but atleast the politicians couldn't have their dirty mitts on the decision makers.
Actually, the changes were accepted and confirmed by a vote in parliament around a year afterwards. So it's both the judiciary and the legislative body that were in agreement about this. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor, too. The Bloc Québécois and NDP both enforced party lines to vote for SSM, the Liberals didn't enforce party lines but most of them voted for. The conservatives were the only party whose majority voted against, but they didn't enforce party lines either, so quite a few of them who are only fiscally conservative voted for.

Which is stupid; for me, even as a gay male, I'd sooner see the law changed, through an act of parliament than seeing things being rail roaded through the court system. Civil unions were passed in New Zealand, and due to the Human Rights Act, we automatically got all the perks of marriage, off the bat.

Don't get me started on New Zealand the stupid idea of having a supreme court. Before that, we had the privy council; and sure, it was all the way in London, but atleast the politicians couldn't have their dirty mitts on the decision makers.
But that legal ruling made it easier to pass the law in the House of Commons and get it approved by the Senate because it meant that a legal hurdle was out of the way, and that is a constitutional challenge on the legality of the law.

So, why wouldn't you want the same perks? There is nothing that makes gay marriage any less worthy of the same benefits of a hetero union. The only real difference is the sex of the two parties involved, and that is the only real difference. We are all people and equal before the law; innocent until proven guilty in a court of law that respects our core right to dignity as a human being.

But that legal ruling made it easier to pass the law in the House of Commons and get it approved by the Senate because it meant that a legal hurdle was out of the way, and that is a constitutional challenge on the legality of the law.

So, why wouldn't you want the same perks? There is nothing that makes gay marriage any less worthy of the same benefits of a hetero union. The only real difference is the sex of the two parties involved, and that is the only real difference. We are all people and equal before the law; innocent until proven guilty in a court of law that respects our core right to dignity as a human being.

And a party doesn't stay in power for 12 years because it simply says, "fuck you, we'll pass laws, irrespective of what you the little people think". The majority of NZ'ders supported civil unions, along with the same sex adoptions, numerous social policies including a 'rainbow desk', the numerous openly gay MPs who are now ministers, prostitution legalisation etc. etc.

Compared to you guys over in the America's, we're far ahead of you.

And a party doesn't stay in power for 12 years because it simply says, "fuck you, we'll pass laws, irrespective of what you the little people think". The majority of NZ'ders supported civil unions, along with the same sex adoptions, numerous social policies including a 'rainbow desk', the numerous openly gay MPs who are now ministers, prostitution legalisation etc. etc.

Same can be said of Canada.


Compared to you guys over in the America's, we're far ahead of you.

I'd like to remind you that we are the ones with gay marriage, as opposed with civil unions.

And a party doesn't stay in power for 12 years because it simply says, "fuck you, we'll pass laws, irrespective of what you the little people think". The majority of NZ'ders supported civil unions, along with the same sex adoptions, numerous social policies including a 'rainbow desk', the numerous openly gay MPs who are now ministers, prostitution legalisation etc. etc.

Compared to you guys over in the America's, we're far ahead of you.

Do you think that stopped the Chretien Liberals? They held office for a hell of a long time and they did pass laws because they had a clear majority, with the Senate filled with Liberals. They passed laws like that. Even minority governments try and force their laws on us because they don't care.

Yes we all need to grow leaps and bounds but don't compare Canada to the US. It's like comparing the mature college sibling to the stubborn emo-preteen sibling.

Do you think that stopped the Chretien Liberals? They held office for a hell of a long time and they did pass laws because they had a clear majority, with the Senate filled with Liberals. They passed laws like that. Even minority governments try and force their laws on us because they don't care.

Yes we all need to grow leaps and bounds but don't compare Canada to the US. It's like comparing the mature college sibling to the stubborn emo-preteen sibling.
Ahem. I prefer to think of it as the sibling who sort of has some of his/her shit together and prefers to focus on that versus the sibling who's caught up in stressful personal dramas over the shit he/she doesn't have together yet.

Ahem. I prefer to think of it as the sibling who sort of has some of his/her shit together and prefers to focus on that versus the sibling who's caught up in stressful personal dramas over the shit he/she doesn't have together yet.

Plagiarism! How dare you take what I wrote and paraphrase it as your own! :)

I agree with you on this one. Screw all the faggots who disagree with you.:mp5:

I agree with you on this one. Screw all the faggots who disagree with you.:mp5:

...welcome to NSG. Just watch your step. Methinks thou smells like liberal bait.

And young grasshopper, you may wanna watch your language and take a long look at the rules because you won't last a day here with that kind of attitude. Your post could easily be considered trolling.

The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573)

Plagiarism! How dare you take what I wrote and paraphrase it as your own! :)
HA! Shows what you know! It would only be plagiarism if I didn't paraphrase. And anyway, you know we Americans are obsessed with spin-control. The wording is the most important part of the message. :p

HA! Shows what you know! It would only be plagiarism if I didn't paraphrase. And anyway, you know we Americans are obsessed with spin-control. The wording is the most important part of the message. :p

Same message, different words. :) Sugar coat it all you want but it'll still smell worse than rancid dung at the end of the day.

Hey, man, can't stop people from being who they are, homosexuals have just as much of a right to succeed or fail of their own merits, and they have every right to seek equal treatment by society and the law.

Same message, different words. :) Sugar coat it all you want but it'll still smell worse than rancid dung at the end of the day.

I prefer to think of it as reworking an unpleasantly expressed idea into one that is more accessible to a greater number of people and maintains at least the appearance of peaceful co-existence and fraternity that we all know is the true essence of the relationship between these sibling nations and their freedom-loving peoples. So rather than say I simply repeated your idea, one could say that I improved it. (spin!) ;)

(Or in other words, I put lipstick on your pig. ;))

I agree with you on this one. Screw all the faggots who disagree with you.:mp5:

Interesting. Whose puppet are you, I wonder?

You continue to say this, and it is total and utter bullshit. No country is obligated to "recognize" or "guarantee" any document issued by a United States justice. We have no jurisdiction over other nations or their laws, or their regulations. I have no idea of what you are even talking about here, it's like some mindless rant about something you just can't seem to articulate. What the hell would another country need to recognize marriage of a couple, other than the official government document issued to verify that union? Why the hell would it even matter if a foreign country recognized or guaranteed a marriage or not? And how the hell does any government guarantee a marriage? You are more full of shit than a Christmas turkey!
Either by common practice or by treaty, other countries do tend to recognize marriages performed here, though, and we recognize theirs. Is that so hard to understand?


Oh, but they certainly would. This would be where the "persecution" comes in, and why I am opposed to "Gay Marriage". By making this a national standard, you effectively undermine the church doctrine,
:rolleyes: So divorce is illegal, then, because it undermines church doctrine? And allowing people to divorce and remarry would violate the Roman Catholic church's freedom of religion? Please.


they can get away with this in Canada and Europe where you have no guarantee of protection for your inalienable rights endowed by your Creator, as we have in America. Here, we can't pass laws which effectively undermine religious practice, because we have a 1st Amendment.
:rolleyes:Guess where we got the idea of a document known as a "Bill of Rights" from. If you can't answer this, you probably failed high school history classes.

Massachusetts gets away with it because it is isolated and new, and because it wasn't ratified into the constitution of the state. There is also pending lawsuits to have the ruling overturned in that state. In the last elections, gay marriage lost in every place it was on the ballot, including some fairly left-wing bastions it was expected to do well in. The People have spoken, and they don't want Gay Marriage.
It doesn't matter that people have spoken-- at one point, the people had spoken and wanted segregation. And we let that go on for too long, but eventually the government said "You want segregation? Tough shit. You don't get it."


I have tried to articulate, in a non-religious-zealot way, exactly why people are so opposed to it.
First of all, even IF that's really why you oppose it, do you really think that's why people oppose it? Be honest. Most people who oppose it oppose it because "homosexuality is immoral and gays are bad people that should be discouraged from being gay!"
Furthermore, you may have TRIED to articulate that. But you've failed miserably, by ignoring any counter-point that you couldn't refute, and you've always used your reason as "It undermines the Church's dogma!" (Note: saying "the Church" indicates that you're most likely either a Roman Catholic or discussing Roman Catholicism.) Never mind that some Christians are pro- allowing gay marriage. Never mind that by the first amendment, we can't let any dogma enshrine itself into our law. The amendment is supposed to create a "wall of seperation." (a quote from Jefferson, who was pretty well placed to know.)

And since you keep ignoring it, intentionally so, I'm sure, I will requote it so you can't even claim that you just "didn't notice it." (Well, you already can't really claim that in any honesty, but now even more so)
Already, we have marriage laws that undermine religious teachings of major religious groups, such as allowing divorce and remarriage. If we weren't allowed to undermine religious teachings on marriage, then divorce and remarriage would be illegal because it would, in your view, violate the 1st amendment rights of Roman Catholics. If you don't believe that divorce and remarriage should be illegal, then your stance is self-contradictory, and therefore wrong.


I have also provided a very realistic compromise, one which would satisfy every-one's wishes, without violating any-one's rights, but you still insist on being so bigoted in your view, because it really isn't about rights and you know it. You see an opportunity to shove your immorality down religious people's throats... a little payback, you figure. So, you will continue to rant and rave here, and your buddies will do the same, and eventually you will probably convince enough fools to support you on this. After all, we live in an age where bashing religion is cool, and no one really even gives a shit what the constitution says or means.

You've proposed a compromise, yes, but compromise is not always good. For almost a century, we compromised on slavery. Neville Chamberlain compromised when he appeased Germany. Sometimes, compromise is wrong, because you should never compromise on rights-- and marriage is a right, according to SCOTUS. Even IF, for the sake of argument, that it somehow doesn't mean there's a right to marriage even though it says that there is a right to marriage, then the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that marriage is a right.

Also, you repeatedly say that this is about shoving my "immorality" down religion's throat. Yeah. Because homosexuality is immoral. :rolleyes:
The fact that you believe that is further evidence that you are, indeed, a Christian. And while, yes, I'd love to see Christianity, and, indeed, all religion lose power and influence, I wouldn't deny them their freedom of worship-- but I would deny them their "freedom" [sic] to tell the rest of the country how to live their lives. I would deny them their "freedom" [sic] to tell the government how to define legal statuses. I would deny them their "freedom" [sic] to have Creationism taught in our public schools. None of these things, though, actually violate religious freedom as defined in the 1st amendment. Indeed, they protect it.

And again, you accuse me of hiding in a liberal haven and only debating where the masses agree with me. I could have forgiven you the first time, but after I've told you where I live, after I've told you that I do enter into debates here, regularly... well, that's a blatant attack on my character, and, what's more, it's not just you being incorrect, it's an intentional lie. I would ask you not to tell blatant and intentional lies with the intent to attack my character.

You sound like you're getting horse. Use this diagram. It gets the point across.

http://weaselhut.net/nsg-debate.PNG

:D
It's pretty much gotten to the point where I'm not actually hoping to convince him, but just having some fun and having a chance to use some good arguments.

It's like a boxer hitting a punching bag. He doesn't actually expect to knock it out, but it's fun and it's good practice.

-- SNIP --

You sound like you're getting horse. Use this diagram. It gets the point across.

http://weaselhut.net/nsg-debate.PNG

:D
It's pretty much gotten to the point where I'm not actually hoping to convince him, but just having some fun and having a chance to use some good arguments.

It's like a boxer hitting a punching bag. He doesn't actually expect to knock it out, but it's fun and it's good practice.

You kidding? I even SANG here. ;)

I'm not a boxer per se, I'm one of those dancer classes from RPGs. :p

The plan was put into effect before the idea?

With Timewarp, anything is possible.

Everything is possible

With Timewarp.

I agree with you on this one. Screw all the faggots who disagree with you.:mp5:

Knock it off.

United Church of Canada.
Not an American church or a major religious group.

Unitarian Universalism.
Obscure cult group, not a part of mainstream religion.

The Episcopalians.
This is the only one.

The United Church of Christ.
Does not condone or sanction gay marriage.

Along with an unknown number of Discordian Cabals. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Dixieanna: "Christians who frown on homosexuality are the only ones whose opinion matters because OBVIOUSLY they own the word 'marry'."

Everyone else: "Overwhelming evidence, including everything from clever interpretation to cold, hard fact to the contrary."

Dixieanna: "Christians who frown on homosexuality are the only ones whose opinion matters because OBVIOUSLY they own the word 'marry'."

Look up 'civil marriage'. END OF DISCUSSION. You have a right to an opinion - but you have been stating as fact something that is INCORRECT. Marriage is not religious. End of discussion.

Why, after almost FIFTY pages, is Dix allowed to repeat himself, and having the same arguement?

Why, after almost FIFTY pages, is Dix allowed to repeat himself, and having the same arguement?

Civilly end the thread, then ...

...and in a small amount of time, another thread of the same name and only slightly different nature will pop up, hydra-style in its stead.

What was that poster saying about "timewarp"?

Why, after almost FIFTY pages, is Dix allowed to repeat himself, and having the same arguement?Against stupidity the very Mods themselves contend in vain - Friedrich Schiller (and I).

All around the most awesome answer ever.

Sig it, yo!


...mine's already full. :(

But you can't do this under the 1st Amendment. It undermines the church's teachings and doctrines, which is a form of persecution, whether you like it or not. As I said, I am non-religious, but I can see where this violates the freedom of religion as presented in the 1st Amendment. Whether I agree with these religions or not, I am obligated to respect their rights to freely exercise their beliefs. You guys continue to cite examples of obscure instances where gay marriage is accepted by some religions, but that is not the point, you can't say that because some say it's okay, all must agree and be bound to follow that viewpoint. That isn't freedom of religion, it is freedom of your mandate of religion.

Wait, are you suggesting that for any law to be ratified by our government all religions have to sign on to it and if it goes against any of their teachings we can not pass said law because we would be "discriminating" against them? Are you serious? I suppose in your quoting of the 1st Amendment you missed the seperation of church and state. The government doesn't have to check the opinion of religion to pass laws which is kind of one of the bedrock principles of what this country is all about. But perhaps you just want to talk out of your ass. Be happy that stupidity is perfectly legal but I wonder what religion feels about the suffering of fools? Hmmm?

My previous post hasn't been challenged (and well it should not be), but I feel for some reason I have to say it again:

Religions do not make laws. Laws do not have to, nor should they, conform to the beliefs of any or all religions. Religion has absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with law making. Any law which is made to intentionally endorse a particular religion's belief is unconstitutional and violates the first amendment.

Marriage as defined by Judeo-Christian religions is NOT the same thing as the legal status granted by the state. The former is a ceremony which has no legal ramifications unless the state authorizes it. Conversely, the state can and does authorize the legal status of marriage, and when you become married as a result of simply registering with the state this is known as a civil marriage.

I repeat: A civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with any religion whatsoever. Therefor it is unconstitutional to prohibit same-sex marriage on a religious basis - and indeed, it is akin to prohibiting the marriage of a mixed couple. Any two consenting adults should be able to marry one another regardless of their gender.

What if a hermaphrodite wanted to get married? Could they marry only a member of the gender they did not themselves resemble? Or would the state require a DNA test to see which was their "true" gender? Or could a hermaphrodite marry either gender? A hermaphrodite is either one or the other - male or female - with some or all of the organs of the other gender.

Think carefully. Religion has nothing to do with this - nobody is asking Old Preacher Man Bates to marry them damn queers. Nobody is asking any religion to do anything. So what is the basis for denying homosexual men and women their right to marry their partners?

Ah, if only neocons gave a fuck about the Constitution, this whole debate wouldn't have happened.

Religions do not make laws. Laws do not have to, nor should they, conform to the beliefs of any or all religions. Religion has absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with law making. Any law which is made to intentionally endorse a particular religion's belief is unconstitutional and violates the first amendment.

While I agree with everything else you've said, I think I should point out this, I believe you're half right on this. While religions in themselves do not make laws, the religions do inspire laws in countries for the most part. There are very basic laws from religion, namely one or two from the Ten Commandments that are part of our legal system. The commandment about murdering and the one about stealing.

In theocracies, however, religion does dictate law to the word and is the source for all the laws in the nation. In democratic/republic systems, religion may have had some influence.

Consider both of these:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

This is the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is a mention of God, but no direct mention of religion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is from the Declaration of Independence. Once again, there is no mention of religion itself but a mention of God.

Does this mean both nations are Christian? No. But what it does mean is that we cannot deny that in one or two ways our laws may have been inspired by religion. We know it is religion and not simply theism because of choice of words involved.

Does this mean I agree? Hell no. But I have done my homework.

While I agree with everything else you've said, I think I should point out this, I believe you're half right on this. While religions in themselves do not make laws, the religions do inspire laws in countries for the most part. There are very basic laws from religion, namely one or two from the Ten Commandments that are part of our legal system. The commandment about murdering and the one about stealing.
<snip>
Does this mean I agree? Hell no. But I have done my homework.
Mm, indeed you have. My choice of words was poor.

A more accurate choice would have been: No religion directly influences or constitutes law in the United States. Only members of those religions influence it, and not all of them take the side of their beliefs when it comes to the creation of a law that would affect non-members of their religion.

As a side-note: Murder and theft were illegal before the Torah came to the public eye, were they not? Perhaps with a few exemptions - the very high upper class could no doubt slip by.

...wait, that still happens today. =P

Thanks for pointing out my mistake!

Mm, indeed you have. My choice of words was poor.

A more accurate choice would have been: No religion directly influences or constitutes law in the United States. Only members of those religions influence it, and not all of them take the side of their beliefs when it comes to the creation of a law that would affect non-members of their religion.

As a side-note: Murder and theft were illegal before the Torah came to the public eye, were they not? Perhaps with a few exemptions - the very high upper class could no doubt slip by.

...wait, that still happens today. =P

Thanks for pointing out my mistake!

True, no religion directly does. :) At least in western democracies (or developed nations), there is no direct use of religion to write/code laws of the nation.

Actually, as for murder and stealing (as per my examples), it was Hammurabi's Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi) where the offences first appeared in the public eye, not after the Torah gained prominence.

Though this code was influenced by the laws introduced in Exodus.

The actual oral Torah wasn't written until the after around the time the Persians controlled a part of the world.

Though this code was influenced by the laws introduced in Exodus.Nope:
Hammurabi's Code, ca. 1760 BC
Mosaic Law, ca. 1400 BC

Nope:
Hammurabi's Code, ca. 1760 BC
Mosaic Law, ca. 1400 BC

Thanks. I had been looking for the dates but I didn't see one for the Torah, only a very vague wording.

Thanks. I had been looking for the dates but I didn't see one for the Torah, only a very vague wording.It's funny that I actually had that page open independent of your post. :p

The actual oral Torah wasn't written until the after around the time the Persians controlled a part of the world.There is no evidence and no hint at all that something like an "oral Torah" exited. Even the written Torah does not delight us with existing samples prior to the Septuagint. There is in fact no hint at all that the Torah (that is, it's theological claims) wasn't just more or less made up by the authors of the Septuagint.

There is no evidence and no hint at all that something like an "oral Torah" exited. Even the written Torah does not delight us with existing samples prior to the Septuagint. There is in fact no hint at all that the Torah (that is, it's theological claims) wasn't just more or less made up by the authors of the Septuagint.

Very well, so there was likely no complete written version before the Septuagint. If that is the case, then no oral tradition of the Torah existed before then? If an oral version did not exist, then upon which is Jewish tradition based?

Secondly, what this this have to do with laws either inspired by or directly influenced by religion? The Codex was used as an example where religion has been used in a legal framework.

I just want to take a moment to thank Dixieanna for this thread. There are times when the struggle for equality seems so exhausting and impossible, but then somebody like Dixieanna comes along to remind me of what the primary opposition really consists of. When we're up against such an ignorant, unoriginal, and overwhelmingly insecure opposition, how can we do anything but succeed? :D

I just want to take a moment to thank Dixieanna for this thread. There are times when the struggle for equality seems so exhausting and impossible, but then somebody like Dixieanna comes along to remind me of what the primary opposition really consists of. When we're up against such an ignorant, unoriginal, and overwhelmingly insecure opposition, how can we do anything but succeed? :D

The problem is, they have numbers on their side. They're like the zerg. One is hardly worth the effort of killing, but then all of a sudden there's a million of them.

The problem is, they have numbers on their side. They're like the zerg. One is hardly worth the effort of killing, but then all of a sudden there's a million of them.


I'm sure if there are other life forms in the universe. That something similiar has been said about the entire human race.

The problem is, they have numbers on their side. They're like the zerg. One is hardly worth the effort of killing, but then all of a sudden there's a million of them.

And that is why area spells and distance are good things.

The problem is, they have numbers on their side. They're like the zerg. One is hardly worth the effort of killing, but then all of a sudden there's a million of them.

Next thing you know there's an ultralisk munching your SCVs like cheetos!

The problem is, they have numbers on their side. They're like the zerg. One is hardly worth the effort of killing, but then all of a sudden there's a million of them.
Pfft, lrn2firebat, noob! We're the gay rights side, after all, so how hard can it be to come up with some really powerful flamers?

Next thing you know there's an ultralisk munching your SCVs like cheetos!
If they're rushing to build ultras, then all we have to do is bunker up and let them waste their resources until they run out of gas! :D

Pfft, lrn2firebat, noob! We're the gay rights side, after all, so how hard can it be to come up with some really powerful flamers?


If they're rushing to build ultras, then all we have to do is bunker up and let them waste their resources until they run out of gas! :D

Siege tanks FTW!

Pfft, lrn2firebat, noob! We're the gay rights side, after all, so how hard can it be to come up with some really powerful flamers?
The ULTIMATE gay weapon: Some kind of huge gatling cannon that fires flamboyant gays armed with guns that fire gaydiation.


If they're rushing to build ultras, then all we have to do is bunker up and let them waste their resources until they run out of gas! :D

'Harvest moar vespene gas!'
Phelps: Harvest moar gas damn you!
Phelps' grandkid:'But grandpa, we're tired'
Phelps: 'Shut up! You're doing the Lord's work!'

'Harvest moar vespene gas!'
Phelps: Harvest moar gas damn you!
Phelps' grandkid:'But grandpa, we're tired'
Phelps: 'Shut up! You're doing the Lord's work!'
I must admit, picturing all the Phelps clan as zerglings certainly makes them more interesting to me.

I must admit, picturing all the Phelps clan as zerglings certainly makes them more interesting to me.

The incest doesn't seem quite as bad either. I mean, crazy alien things probably have different ideas of family and what not.