NationStates Jolt Archive

Marriage was intended by G-d to be between a man and a woman. It defeats the whole purpose to have it between two men or two women.

That said, America does not make legal decisions based on religion, so if a gay marriage bill comes up in my state, I will vote in favor of gay marriage.

Win.

I encourage lesbianism. More guys for me. And chicks if I get bored with the same old thing. But homosexuality in hot guys is just wrong. And makes me feel deprived.

Oddly enough, I have made exactly the same argument in favor of homosexuality in men (especially the attractive ones, though. It eliminates the tougher competition :D). One of my favorite times is when I pulled it on a slightly homophobic friend of mine who votes (absentee) in California and had been planning on voting for Prop 8. His reply was priceless:

"Wait... holy shit! You are absolutely right! Fuck, I'm donating to the No on Proposition 8 campaign now!!"

I, uh, "forgot" to mention that prop 8 applies to women, too.

It makes baby Jesus cry............

Doubtless the whole procreation bullshit. I suppose since I never intend to do so, I shouldn't have been allowed to marry.

You're married?


As for the procreation thing, yeah, that's silly. My aunt and uncle have been married for like, I dunno, at least twenty years, and have no children. I don't know if that's because they physically can't have children, or they just chose not to. Never asked, as it's none of my business. But yeah, if marriage is simply about breeding, they shouldn't be allowed to be married.

Fortunately, marriage isn't about making babies.

"That each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no-one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life." ~Thessalonians 4:4-7

The bible's not against gay sex. It's against gay rape. I wish people would understand this more, that even Christians get it wrong, that God's message was one of total love, and not that 'if you don't follow me, you'll go to Hell'.... luckily, I'm not a Christian, but please, the bible doesn't say anything wrong about gay sex... Jesus taught us of love, so why would his own supposed Father tell us different?

No, there's nothing wrong with gay marriage, gay sex, or anything gay, not biblically, not in any way, and people should just stop whining about it and get on with their own lives, rather than ruin the lives of those they think are wrong, because they don't understand their own religion properly. </Rant>

The possibilities in finding a partner are a bit more limited.
Tell me about it. When one of you guys falls for somebody, there is >90% chance it just isn't going to work out, one way or the other; but for me, FIRST there is >90% chance he just isn't that way, and it's out of the question to begin with, and if I get past that, THEN I get to the >90% chance that it still won't work out.

Tell me about it. When one of you guys falls for somebody, there is >90% chance it just isn't going to work out, one way or the other; but for me, FIRST there is >90% chance he just isn't that way, and it's out of the question to begin with, and if I get past that, THEN I get to the >90% chance that it still won't work out.

Indeed. That must be really frustrating.

Besides, what's so radical about being a Dairy Farmer? I live on a Dairy Farm, after all.

That's very abnormal, you know.

You're married?


As for the procreation thing, yeah, that's silly. My aunt and uncle have been married for like, I dunno, at least twenty years, and have no children. I don't know if that's because they physically can't have children, or they just chose not to. Never asked, as it's none of my business. But yeah, if marriage is simply about breeding, they shouldn't be allowed to be married.

Fortunately, marriage isn't about making babies.Was. Divorced several years ago. Right about the time I started on NS.

Was. Divorced several years ago. Right about the time I started on NS.

Wow. I never knew that before.

Wow. I never knew that before.Now you can say you actually learned something on this forum.

People all use different definitions of "normal" in debates such as this.
In general however the people who yell "it is not normal" flee as soon as someone points out that abnormal and bad are far from the same - for instance with the left handed or the genius example.

But there are many evil genius' out there. And didn't sinster used to be latin for left or something? See bad :p

Ergh, I just find it disgusting, the general idea of Homosexuality, full stop. I won't prejudice on it, and you may as well declare yourself to be together if you are, just that churches are within their rights to deny homosexuals. And it shouldn't be encouraged.

looks at global population trends* I disagree.

LG that makes no sense.

Now you can say you actually learned something on this forum.

I've learned things on this forum before. Not a lot of useful things, but still.

Now you can say you actually learned something on this forum.

Clearly the only course of action is for him to drink until he unlearns it.

LG that makes no sense.

Sometimes I leap into bed so the cake can't grab my ankle as I climb in.

Sometimes I leap into bed so the cake can't grab my ankle as I climb in.

I see.

Yup.



Sexuality = Complicated Life Decision that requires deep consideration
Hand Preference = You don't really think about this. You just pick up that crayon.
Question: How much "deep consideration" did you give to the "complicated life decision" of who you like to fuck?

For me, it didn't take much thought at all -- just a few experiments with girls in my late teens was enough to satisfy me that I really, really did prefer guys, just like I'd been assuming I did since late childhood. Pretty simple, really.

How complicated was it for you?

Tell me about it. When one of you guys falls for somebody, there is >90% chance it just isn't going to work out, one way or the other; but for me, FIRST there is >90% chance he just isn't that way, and it's out of the question to begin with, and if I get past that, THEN I get to the >90% chance that it still won't work out.

LOL. But if you are gay you can still literally wrestle and horse around with your lover and then have sex. :D

Yea, most people are str8. But if you are gay and have a bf, u dont have the gender difference (and hence the problems, etc...) with it. No men from Mars, women from Venus shit. You can actuall be best buds and still fuck.

Long, long, LONG, story short there's no non-religious reason.

Well I'm all for Gay marriage, but there is one reason why its wrong. Not that we shouldn't have it, just that its wrong. It's wrong in the same was that being able to inflict pain on yourself is wrong. It's just not natural.

Well I'm all for Gay marriage, but there is one reason why its wrong. Not that we shouldn't have it, just that its wrong. It's wrong in the same was that being able to inflict pain on yourself is wrong. It's just not natural.

That could apply to all marriages though. ;)

*ducks a swipe from wifey*

Well I'm all for Gay marriage, but there is one reason why its wrong. Not that we shouldn't have it, just that its wrong. It's wrong in the same was that being able to inflict pain on yourself is wrong. It's just not natural.
Is it "not natural" in the way that ALL marriage is "not natural"?

Sometimes I leap into bed so the cake can't grab my ankle as I climb in.

Pfft woosy. Cake cant hurt you. Its the baseball bats in my shed that attack me when I enter it that scare me.

And I'd hate to point out that ur point is not worded as well as I had hoped

That could apply to all marriages though. ;)

*ducks a swipe from wifey*
Again you scoop me by one post! *comes gunning for LG*

Again you scoop me by one post! *comes gunning for LG*

*drops a container of crazy purple knockout gas and escapes in the confusion*

*drops a container of crazy purple knockout gas and escapes in the confusion*
Damn you, clown! I'll get you someday! *shakes fist ineffectually*

Well I'm all for Gay marriage, but there is one reason why its wrong. Not that we shouldn't have it, just that its wrong. It's wrong in the same was that being able to inflict pain on yourself is wrong. It's just not natural.

Well. Homosexuality is natural if you look at animals.

But of course natural vs unnatural is irrelevant. Cocaine is also natural. However, clothes and cooked food are unnatural. So start going out naked and eating fruits and uncooked veggies only.

Of course homes/buildings are unnatural too, so you may wanna find a cave or something.

Really, the idea that there is simply a distinct "natural vs. unnatural" dichotomy is, well, bunk. Many primates build themselves homes, even if they are temporary, for example. The idea that humanity is anything more, cosmically speaking, than just another species on some random insignificant planet is just plain arrogance.

Really, the idea that there is simply a distinct "natural vs. unnatural" dichotomy is, well, bunk. Many primates build themselves homes, even if they are temporary, for example. The idea that humanity is anything more, cosmically speaking, than just another species on some random insignificant planet is just plain arrogance.

Umm, but still I'd say a bird's home, its nest, is natural and right. But for humans, when you add all the concrete and electricity and heating and all those chemicals in the wall paints etc, it's just plain unnatural and wrong.

Well. Homosexuality is natural if you look at animals.

But of course natural vs unnatural is irrelevant. Cocaine is also natural.

Actually it isn't. The Coca plant is natural (and not nearly as potent), but it requires processing to be turned into powder cocaine.

Damn you, clown! I'll get you someday! *shakes fist ineffectually*

I'm sure he rues the day:rolleyes:

Sexuality = Complicated Life Decision that requires deep consideration

Protip: When you were in high school if it took deep consideration to decide if it was the head cheerleader or the captain of the football team that made you pop a stiffy you probably aren't straight. Maybe bi . . .

Okay, here's why:

As far as I can tell, many of the people posting here are atheists. Your First Amendment right prevents the government from forcing you to be a Christian or anything else, so you don't have to believe in God, but this is a country based on Christain values, and therefore, the country should be run as such. Again, this does not mean forcing people to become Christians or the US becoming a theocracy, but we should be run by how our basis was established.

Now, for those people who say legalizing gay marriage will make people happier, it won't. No matter what laws you pass, someone is not going to be happy. In this case, the whole half of the nation that is conservative will not be happy.

Branching off a bit, if we legalized gay marriage, what's preventing us from having sex with animals? Sex with children? Sex with...anything, pretty much? No matter what you do, if you give the people an inch, they will take a mile. For example, if abortion is passed, what's to say that murder can't be passed? Someone could say, "Hey, you've got people killing babies, but we can't kill adults. Why is that? I feel discriminated against." Now you got a whole controversy on your hands. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that murder is illegal, so who says it's not allowed?

Sounds crazy, right? Who in their right mind would legalize murder? Well, really think about what you're saying when you want to legalize gay marriage. If we do, before you know it, heterosexual marriage will be the minority, and soon even frowned upon, which will then really screw up the population growth.

As far as I can tell, many of the people posting here are atheists. Your First Amendment right prevents the government from forcing you to be a Christian or anything else, so you don't have to believe in God, but this is a country based on Christain values, and therefore, the country should be run as such. Again, this does not mean forcing people to become Christians or the US becoming a theocracy, but we should be run by how our basis was established.

The founding fathers disagree. Next ?

Now, for those people who say legalizing gay marriage will make people happier, it won't. No matter what laws you pass, someone is not going to be happy. In this case, the whole half of the nation that is conservative will not be happy.

Same was true for giving blacks and women equal rights. People were VERY upset about that.

Branching off a bit, if we legalized gay marriage, what's preventing us from having sex with animals? Sex with children? Sex with...anything, pretty much?

Existing consent laws ?
However - you realise that fucking children is perfectly allowable under Christianity, provided you get married first ? Be glad that the laws are stricter than Christian doctrine. It is already a pity that several muslim countries still hold on to the "9 years old" lower limit.

For example, if abortion is passed, what's to say that murder can't be passed?
Intelligence ?

Someone could say, "Hey, you've got people killing babies, but we can't kill adults. Why is that? I feel discriminated against."

Le sigh.

Tell me - are you just trolling ?

Okay, here's why:

As far as I can tell, many of the people posting here are atheists. Your First Amendment right prevents the government from forcing you to be a Christian or anything else, so you don't have to believe in God, but this is a country based on Christain values, and therefore, the country should be run as such. Again, this does not mean forcing people to become Christians or the US becoming a theocracy, but we should be run by how our basis was established.

Now, for those people who say legalizing gay marriage will make people happier, it won't. No matter what laws you pass, someone is not going to be happy. In this case, the whole half of the nation that is conservative will not be happy.

Branching off a bit, if we legalized gay marriage, what's preventing us from having sex with animals? Sex with children? Sex with...anything, pretty much? No matter what you do, if you give the people an inch, they will take a mile. For example, if abortion is passed, what's to say that murder can't be passed? Someone could say, "Hey, you've got people killing babies, but we can't kill adults. Why is that? I feel discriminated against." Now you got a whole controversy on your hands. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that murder is illegal, so who says it's not allowed?

Sounds crazy, right? Who in their right mind would legalize murder? Well, really think about what you're saying when you want to legalize gay marriage. If we do, before you know it, heterosexual marriage will be the minority, and soon even frowned upon, which will then really screw up the population growth.

You really are a n00b. If you weren't, you'd realize that all these arguments have been refuted about a hundred times on this board.

I'll do so again. The US was not founded on any religion, and that includes Christianity. The framers of the Constitution felt it very important actually to make a very clear distinction between religion and government.

Why will the whole conservative half of the nation not be happy? How does gays getting married affect them in any way, shape or form? Short answer: It doesn't. If you don't like gay marriage, don't fucking get one.

What prevents you from having sex with animals and children... ooh, let's see, maybe this little thing called "Informed Consent." You see, animals and children can't consent. So basically, that "slippery slope" argument is a well known fallacy. Already been refuted. And also, people argued the same damn things when Inter-racial Marriage was legalized.

Abortion is already legal and has been for more than 30 years. Murder is still illegal. You fail.

Why would heterosexual marriage become the minority? Gays being able to marry their long term partners will not make more gays, it will just give the existing ones the rights of marriage. This is possibly your dumbest point. Also, gays are homosexual, not sterile.

And as for population growth, in case you haven't noticed, overpopulation is one of the world's greatest problems. Not that it's relevant to this thread anyway.

Okay, here's why:

As far as I can tell, many of the people posting here are atheists. Your First Amendment right prevents the government from forcing you to be a Christian or anything else, so you don't have to believe in God, but this is a country based on Christain values,

Stop right there. No it isn't. Jefferson himself said it many times, and it's in the Treaty of Tripoli and several other documents. Article VI Section 3 states there's no religious test to hold office. The values the US was founded on are Enlightenment values. John Locke and the like. Now, we needed to go through a lot of religion to get to the Enlightenment, to be sure, and inspiration was certainly gained from various interpretations of the Bible and other texts, but as much as people such as yourself LOVE to make this claim, it's simply not true.

and therefore, the country should be run as such.

And if it WERE true, this does not follow. Were every government run based solely on the precepts upon which it was founded, democracy would never have evolved at all.

Not only that, but you must realize that some parts of the US government were inspired by Native Americans via the Iroquois confederacy. Hardly Biblical.

Again, this does not mean forcing people to become Christians or the US becoming a theocracy, but we should be run by how our basis was established.

No, not really. See above. We'd still have slaves and women still couldn't vote. Unless you're going to admit that you're picking and choosing.

Now, for those people who say legalizing gay marriage will make people happier, it won't. No matter what laws you pass, someone is not going to be happy. In this case, the whole half of the nation that is conservative will not be happy.

The difference being that the conservative half WILL HAVE NO REASON to not be happy. They still have their right to marry, their churches can still forbid gay couples from marrying under their banners. You're basically excusing discrimination based on "we don't like them". That's not America.

Branching off a bit, if we legalized gay marriage, what's preventing us from having sex with animals? Sex with children? Sex with...anything, pretty much?

Brother, you didn't branch off a bit, you're up a whole 'nother tree. Firstly, you've obviously not been around much. People have been having sex with animals for as long as people and animals have been around. Likewise children (look at some parts of the Arab world and Asia and well, everywhere to some extent) and "anything". You're asking what keeps people from having sex with whatever they want? THE LAW. I'm not into sex with animals so I've never looked it up, but it's probably illegal somewhere. Sex with children is always illegal (depending on the age of consent in your jurisdiction), so you're just grasping at straws with this.

Unless you're equating sex and marriage -- surely you're not that naïve. But let's assume you are. Did you mean to ask "what's to keep people from MARRYING pets, children or anything"? Common sense. A child, a dog or a knothole can't enter into a legal contract, which is what a marriage is, according to the law. That's why you must have a license, and it must be witnessed, and those under the age of majority (18 in WA), need parental permission (17) and parental permission + court order (16). Younger than 16 is a no-go here.

No matter what you do, if you give the people an inch, they will take a mile. For example, if abortion is passed, what's to say that murder can't be passed?

Whoa. MASSIVE change of topic, bad analogy and GINORMOUS strawman. Look, I know you don't like the idea, but if you resort to such shabby arguments and flawed tactics as dragging abortion into the gay marriage debate (IGNORING the simple question "who has fewer abortions than homosexuals?" for now), your questions cannot be taken seriously. Murder as defined now is already illegal. You'll have to pull something very inventive out of your head to come up with a scenario that winds up legalizing actual, defined murder. By the way? Abortion is already "passed".

Someone could say, "Hey, you've got people killing babies, but we can't kill adults. Why is that? I feel discriminated against." Now you got a whole controversy on your hands. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that murder is illegal, so who says it's not allowed?

You have got to be kidding me. Your next step is to tell me that folks could legally change the name of blue to green. First off, they're not killing babies. A baby, by definition, has been born. Once again, I can tell you're emotional about this issue, but you're trying to debate here. Let's not lose sight of reality, shall we? We don't have a whole controversy on our hands because MAYBE one person in a million might actually be cracked enough to feel discriminated against for believing murder is okay. Can we at least agree that there are one hell of a lot more gay couples who simply want to have a secular or gay-friendly church wedding that grants them the same rights as heterosexual couples, than there are people who lobby for murderers' rights?

Sounds crazy, right? Who in their right mind would legalize murder?

What's crazy is you actually thinking this argument holds water. At all. Ever.

Well, really think about what you're saying when you want to legalize gay marriage. If we do, before you know it, heterosexual marriage will be the minority, and soon even frowned upon, which will then really screw up the population growth.

Are you serious? AT THE MOST, we're talking 10% of the population, pal, and ALL OF THEM don't want to get married. Enough do that it's something to deal with, and it doesn't interfere with anyone else's marriage. You can't prove to me that it does because all you've done is gone to ridiculous lengths to show that you've got no proof -- just cockamamie conjecture. Are you so scared that you can't see that 90% of the population is still able to breed -- and hey, not all of THEM want kids or a spouse, either! If you are THAT concerned with population growth, why aren't you making a fuss about all those vasectomies, hysterectomies, and people who just plain don't want kids? On statistics ALONE, the number of hetero people who don't want to breed outnumber all gays who want to marry.

I'm doing my best to respect you, but you're making it difficult.

Linking gay marriage to abortion and murder... scary people indeed!
:S

As far as I can tell, many of the people posting here are atheists.

Yes. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with my stance on same-sex marriage.

Your First Amendment right prevents the government from forcing you to be a Christian or anything else, so you don't have to believe in God, but this is a country based on Christain values, and therefore, the country should be run as such.

Okay, first, this isn't actually a country based on Christian values. Find me a single reference to Christianity, or even to God, in the Constitution.

Second, that's not good enough: you need an actual justification for policy stances, which amounts to more than "This is how things have been done in the past, so let's continue them forever."

Now, for those people who say legalizing gay marriage will make people happier, it won't. No matter what laws you pass, someone is not going to be happy.

From "The world will forever be imperfect" it does not follow that "The world cannot be better."

In this case, the whole half of the nation that is conservative will not be happy.

Tough for them. Politics in this country are supposed to be more principled than that. You'll note that "happiness" doesn't appear in the Constitution either, but "equal protection of the laws" does. If granting some people their rights makes other people uncomfortable, that's the problem of the people made uncomfortable; it does not legitimate the denial of rights.

Branching off a bit, if we legalized gay marriage, what's preventing us from having sex with animals? Sex with children? Sex with...anything, pretty much?

Slippery slope fallacy. This one is transparent. Come on.

No matter what you do, if you give the people an inch, they will take a mile.

So should we ban all forms of straight sex, too? What's the difference?

For example, if abortion is passed, what's to say that murder can't be passed?

Are you seriously supporting one slippery slope fallacy with another slippery slope fallacy? Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973; that's thirty-five years. Is murder legal now?

Someone could say, "Hey, you've got people killing babies, but we can't kill adults. Why is that? I feel discriminated against." Now you got a whole controversy on your hands.

No, you don't. Why don't you actually read Roe v. Wade and learn how it was decided? If you do, you'll note some obvious reasons that its logic cannot be extended past birth. (As it stands, its logic does not even hold throughout pregnancy.)

Equal protection is about not making arbitrary distinctions. This distinction is not arbitrary.

Sounds crazy, right? Who in their right mind would legalize murder? Well, really think about what you're saying when you want to legalize gay marriage.

Um, I am. And I'm thinking that you're drawing a comparison so absurd as to not pass the most superficial of examinations.

If we do, before you know it, heterosexual marriage will be the minority, and soon even frowned upon, which will then really screw up the population growth.

Bullshit. Justify that.

Ok,

I do not treat a homosexual person any differently to anyone else. I believe that people are just that, people, and that people should be treated in accordance with how they treat you and others.

This debate is about the issue of homosexual couples being permitted by law to sign a legal document in front of witnesses that states that they are equally responible for their property and debts and wish to be a legally recognised couple for the rest of their living days or until they get a legal divorce.

For one minute...

forget about the actual sexual things these homosexuals couples may or may not be doing to each other if that is what is clouding your judgement, it is, after all, none of your business.

forget about religion. This is about law and human rights. Besides if your church wants to perform a marriage ceremony between two homosexual people and you don't agree, you can go to another church!

forget about "do homosexual people choose to be homosexual or is it genetic?" This also has nothing to do with it.

forget about colour and left handedness

At the end of the day I bet there are some spiritual, coloured, lefthanded homosexuals out there so no need to go confusing the issue.

Right now you have cleansed your minds of all the crap you can focus on the question...

Should it be legal for two adults to get married in the eyes of the law

Yes it should

Is it right for any man, woman or institution to declare that one human being can not legally bind themselves to another consenting human being?

No it isn't

Should homosexual couples be allowed to legally marry anywhere on the face of the planet?

Yes they should

Okay, here's why:

As far as I can tell, many of the people posting here are atheists. Your First Amendment right prevents the government from forcing you to be a Christian or anything else, so you don't have to believe in God, but this is a country based on Christain values, and therefore, the country should be run as such. Again, this does not mean forcing people to become Christians or the US becoming a theocracy, but we should be run by how our basis was established.

Now, for those people who say legalizing gay marriage will make people happier, it won't. No matter what laws you pass, someone is not going to be happy. In this case, the whole half of the nation that is conservative will not be happy.

Branching off a bit, if we legalized gay marriage, what's preventing us from having sex with animals? Sex with children? Sex with...anything, pretty much? No matter what you do, if you give the people an inch, they will take a mile. For example, if abortion is passed, what's to say that murder can't be passed? Someone could say, "Hey, you've got people killing babies, but we can't kill adults. Why is that? I feel discriminated against." Now you got a whole controversy on your hands. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that murder is illegal, so who says it's not allowed?

Sounds crazy, right? Who in their right mind would legalize murder? Well, really think about what you're saying when you want to legalize gay marriage. If we do, before you know it, heterosexual marriage will be the minority, and soon even frowned upon, which will then really screw up the population growth.

Epic Fail.

Ok,

I do not treat a homosexual person any differently to anyone else. I believe that people are just that, people, and that people should be treated in accordance with how they treat you and others.

This debate is about the issue of homosexual couples being permitted by law to sign a legal document in front of witnesses that states that they are equally responible for their property and debts and wish to be a legally recognised couple for the rest of their living days or until they get a legal divorce.

For one minute...

forget about the actual sexual things these homosexuals couples may or may not be doing to each other if that is what is clouding your judgement, it is, after all, none of your business.

forget about religion. This is about law and human rights. Besides if your church wants to perform a marriage ceremony between two homosexual people and you don't agree, you can go to another church!

forget about "do homosexual people choose to be homosexual or is it genetic?" This also has nothing to do with it.

forget about colour and left handedness

At the end of the day I bet there are some spiritual, coloured, lefthanded homosexuals out there so no need to go confusing the issue.

Right now you have cleansed your minds of all the crap you can focus on the question...

Should it be legal for two adults to get married in the eyes of the law

Yes it should

Is it right for any man, woman or institution to declare that one human being can not legally bind themselves to another consenting human being?

No it isn't

Should homosexual couples be allowed to legally marry anywhere on the face of the planet?

Yes they should

On the other hand, Epic Win.

I love Epic Wins - make me all fuzzy inside n whatnots... that could of course just be the chocolate I just ate but nonetheless; it is indeed a nice feeling.
:p

As far as I can tell, many of the people posting here are atheists.

Not me.

Your First Amendment right prevents the government from forcing you to be a Christian or anything else, so you don't have to believe in God, but this is a country based on Christain values, and therefore, the country should be run as such.

No, it isn't. No, it shouldn't.

And this is coming from someone who is Christian.

The founding fathers of our nation made it quite clear that they were not basing it on any given religion. And the fact that the majority of us come from the same basic religious background does not mean we should enforce our religion on others.

Again, this does not mean forcing people to become Christians or the US becoming a theocracy, but we should be run by how our basis was established.

Running a country based on "Christian values" is enforcing Christianity on the masses, no matter how you look at it.

Now, for those people who say legalizing gay marriage will make people happier, it won't. No matter what laws you pass, someone is not going to be happy. In this case, the whole half of the nation that is conservative will not be happy.

Those who hold to bigotry are always upset when the object of their bigotry actually achieves legal equality.

I hardly think that's a reason not to seek it, however.

Branching off a bit, if we legalized gay marriage, what's preventing us from having sex with animals? Sex with children? Sex with...anything, pretty much?

The issue of consent.

Meanwhile, I think you're a bit confused here. Gay sex is already legal. We're discussing marriage, not sex.

For example, if abortion is passed, what's to say that murder can't be passed? Someone could say, "Hey, you've got people killing babies, but we can't kill adults. Why is that? I feel discriminated against." Now you got a whole controversy on your hands. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that murder is illegal, so who says it's not allowed?

You do realize that abortion was legal in this country for most of its history, right? Most of the laws banning it weren't passed until the late 18th, early 19th century when it started to become a relatively safe medical procedure. And those laws were overturned with Roe v. Wade.

Strangely enough, we never randomly legalized murder.

Sounds crazy, right? Who in their right mind would legalize murder? Well, really think about what you're saying when you want to legalize gay marriage. If we do, before you know it, heterosexual marriage will be the minority, and soon even frowned upon, which will then really screw up the population growth.

Allowing those who are homosexual to marry is somehow going to turn us all gay?

How, exactly?

Not me.

<snip an excellent post>

Allowing those who are homosexual to marry is somehow going to turn us all gay?

How, exactly?

You know, I think whenever people use this argument, they reveal that they themselves are homosexual (or bisexual). They say that if people in society have a choice between a gay and a straight marriage, they'll go with the gay marriage. Sounds like they're projecting to me.

You know, I think whenever people use this argument, they reveal that they themselves are homosexual (or bisexual). They say that if people in society have a choice between a gay and a straight marriage, they'll go with the gay marriage. Sounds like they're projecting to me.

It does give that impression. Because, to me, the idea sounds so silly. The idea that gay marriage would somehow, if legalized, cause me to stop being sexually attracted to women is just so... ridiculous.

It does give that impression. Because, to me, the idea sounds so silly. The idea that gay marriage would somehow, if legalized, cause me to stop being sexually attracted to women is just so... ridiculous.You say that now...

You say that now...

Well, gay marriage was legal in my state for several months and... let me check... yup, still lusting after women, and not interested in men at all.

Epic Fail.
But I'm glad he posted it. Young posters can use it as a practice target for learning how to recognize and demolish bad arguments, since it contains so many of the classics. And it's all in one neat little package, that I'm sure will prove to have a 1001 uses for hitting him over the head with later on.


On the other hand, Epic Win.
Indeed. *Applause*. I especially like having that excellent post side by side with the other comedic pratfall of an argument.

Not me.
*raises hand* Nor me. Also not an atheist. In addition, not a Christian. Thus I go towards debunking both the "religious people righteously hate gays" argument and the "it's a Christian nation anyway, so we're not forcing views onto anyone" argument.

Plus, it's not a Christian nation.

It's pissing me off a bit that everyone has already stomped this guy on all the points I would have wanted to attack. Serves me right for sleeping.

You know, I think whenever people use this argument, they reveal that they themselves are homosexual (or bisexual). They say that if people in society have a choice between a gay and a straight marriage, they'll go with the gay marriage. Sounds like they're projecting to me.
I vote this.^^ "Protect me from myself!" suddenly makes all this anti-gay stuff make sense.

But I'm glad he posted it. Young posters can use it as a practice target for learning how to recognize and demolish bad arguments, since it contains so many of the classics. And it's all in one neat little package, that I'm sure will prove to have a 1001 uses for hitting him over the head with later on.


Totally. It's basically an example of exactly what NOT to do.

Ahaha! Gotta love targetted advertising:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Loveandpride.png

=D

I'm just getting the ad for the new season of Top Chef. Of course, it's a BRAVO show, the gayest channel on tv...

Ok,

I do not treat a homosexual person any differently to anyone else. I believe that people are just that, people, and that people should be treated in accordance with how they treat you and others.

This debate is about the issue of homosexual couples being permitted by law to sign a legal document in front of witnesses that states that they are equally responible for their property and debts and wish to be a legally recognised couple for the rest of their living days or until they get a legal divorce.

For one minute...

forget about the actual sexual things these homosexuals couples may or may not be doing to each other if that is what is clouding your judgement, it is, after all, none of your business.

forget about religion. This is about law and human rights. Besides if your church wants to perform a marriage ceremony between two homosexual people and you don't agree, you can go to another church!

forget about "do homosexual people choose to be homosexual or is it genetic?" This also has nothing to do with it.

forget about colour and left handedness

At the end of the day I bet there are some spiritual, coloured, lefthanded homosexuals out there so no need to go confusing the issue.

Right now you have cleansed your minds of all the crap you can focus on the question...

Should it be legal for two adults to get married in the eyes of the law

Yes it should

Is it right for any man, woman or institution to declare that one human being can not legally bind themselves to another consenting human being?

No it isn't

Should homosexual couples be allowed to legally marry anywhere on the face of the planet?

Yes they should

Eloquently and efficiently put. Bravo.

Gay marriage is as normal as straight marriage.

I'm just getting the ad for the new season of Top Chef. Of course, it's a BRAVO show, the gayest channel on tv...It keeps switching between that and a "Test her skills for free" ad featuring Jenna the Astrologer. And a couple German browser games.

*snip*

While I already replied to the content, I now wish to ask a question about *you*.

It is extremely clear you picked this text from some websites.

It is also quite certain that you already know that each and every one of those "arguments" has been debunked a few million times, including on these forums.

WHY then post them ? Why not add something new and original, instead of arguments you already know have no merit ?

But why is gay marriage against the Bible? It doesn't say anything about gay marriage, just gay sex, and if people are anti-gay marriage surely they're anti gay sex as well?

Marriage in the bible is defined as the proper relationship between a man and a woman who are looking to start a family. Marriage is strongly connected to the family. Anything that perverts the basis of the family is an attack on the concept of the family.

Gay sex is bad. Gay marriage is much much worse.

Ahaha! Gotta love targetted advertising:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Loveandpride.png

=D

I get something similar but more suited to this part of the world.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/imgad2.gif

Marriage in the bible is defined as the proper relationship between a man and a woman who are looking to start a family. Marriage is strongly connected to the family. Anything that perverts the basis of the family is an attack on the concept of the family.

Gay sex is bad. Gay marriage is much much worse.

My friend had two moms growing up. He's fine. They were a charming family.

Marriage in the bible is defined as the proper relationship between a man and a woman who are looking to start a family.

Wrong. Genesis Chapter 2 is commonly understood to describe the origin of marriage, and it's interesting to note what is and what is not there.

Why does God create Eve?

Genesis 2:18: "And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'"

Seems to me that same-sex relationships can fulfill that requirement perfectly fine. What about the verse describing marriage?

Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."

Notice how there's no mention of procreation. The commandment of procreation comes later, when God tells Noah to "give fruit and multiply." It is separate, however, from the institution of marriage itself, and it is hardly inconceivable that same-sex couples could fulfill the broad notion of this commandment in other ways: by caring for adopted children, for instance.

In any case, all of this is irrelevant. Live by your religious views if you see fit, but you do not have the right to impose your personal religious views on others.

Marriage is strongly connected to the family. Anything that perverts the basis of the family is an attack on the concept of the family.

Maybe, but homosexuality is not an attack on the "basis of the family."

Marriage in the bible is defined as the proper relationship between a man and a woman who are looking to start a family. Marriage is strongly connected to the family. Anything that perverts the basis of the family is an attack on the concept of the family.

Gay sex is bad. Gay marriage is much much worse.

I see, so childless couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either? Or sterile people shouldn't get the same marriage rights as those of us who can reproduce?
Its been said many a time now, but you're free to live by your religious beliefs if you so choose, but don't attempt to enforce your beliefs on anyone else.

Marriage in the bible is defined as the proper relationship between a man and a woman who are looking to start a family. Marriage is strongly connected to the family. Anything that perverts the basis of the family is an attack on the concept of the family.

Gay sex is bad. Gay marriage is much much worse.
The Bible has no value to people who do not worship according to it. The US separates church from state for that reason (among others). Therefore, your argument fails to persuade. Try another.

Marriage in the bible is defined as...

You can just stop there. How marriage in the bible has no bearing on whether it should be legal for two people of the same sex to get married. Maybe you want to live your life according to the bible, and that's fine, but why on Earth should the law be based on your holy book?

Nothing wrong with it. Its faaaaabulous

I do not totally understand the argument against gay marriage. Nothing in my religion tells me that allowing any two people to get married will destroy my faith, my life, or my soul. The bible says a lot of things. Very little of them have anything to do with homosexuality. If any of us truly followed every word of the bible it would be a terrifying place.

My God is a loving being who will judge me the same as the next person. It is not my job to enforce his code on the world. In the end I am not the judge so why am I worried? Why must I cast scorn on people in the name of God to show them I am a good follower? That's not really what my religious or humanistic feelings tell me to do. It doesn't hurt me to allow people to be together and attempt to find happiness with their beliefs. I am not in a position to judge because I do not know what the "rules" are.

You can be against something and still allow it to exist. You are obliged to neither hurt or help the situation. You simply agree to allow it to happen and have your own opinion. It won't have to interfere with your life.

If any of us truly followed every word of the bible it would be a terrifying place.

I agree, more to the point, if we were to all try to follow the bible down to the last word we'd all be very confused! The bible contradicts itself many times over. Moreover, If a person wanted to use the bible to back up a point they could use it for anything. That's why so many cults have been successful and so many horrific acts have been carried out in the name of it.

As I stated earlier, and some of you just don't seem to get it, this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with religion what so ever. When someone does put up a thread asaking the question on religious grounds all you scholars can jump on there and thrash it out between you

In response to the OP: Because the people who quote the Bible never actually read the Bible. Case in point: Glorious Freedonia, and Soheran's retort.

Case in point: Glorious Freedonia, and Soheran's retort.

Don't get me wrong, it's fairly clear that the Bible, both "Old" and "New" Testament, deems homosexuality to be immoral. But its stance on the issue has little to do with some traditional ideal of "marriage."

Edit: And if you want to view it as the valuable work of a loving deity instead of an essentially mythological work laden with both moral and historical nonsense, you should probably be trying to find the places where the Bible appears to be more accepting, not the places where the Bible is inclined to be less.

I agree, more to the point, if we were to all try to follow the bible down to the last word we'd all be very confused! The bible contradicts itself many times over. Moreover, If a person wanted to use the bible to back up a point they could use it for anything. That's why so many cults have been successful and so many horrific acts have been carried out in the name of it.

As I stated earlier, and some of you just don't seem to get it, this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with religion what so ever. When someone does put up a thread asaking the question on religious grounds all you scholars can jump on there and thrash it out between you
The fact remains that the most persistent arguments against gay marriage are religious ones. They are all bogus, in my opinion, because marriage is a legal construct not generated by religion, but regardless, they will not go away. Because we who advocate gay marriage are constantly being bombarded with Bible-based arguments against it, we are forced to answer those arguments.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, the most effective answer -- and the only necessary one -- is that the Bible has nothing to do with US law, so their arguments are irrelevant.

Or rather, they should be, but we see how they can be made very relevant indeed in situations like Prop 8, where through deceptive propaganda practices, the Bible-based arguments won the day and succeeded in writing discrimination into a state constitution.

So while I tend to just keep putting up the separation wall to cut Bible arguments off altogether -- manning the battlements, as it were -- I have no problem with those who wish to wade in and attack the Bible arguments themselves.

Nothing's "wrong" with gay marriage in my opinion. Doesn't affect me, so I don't care. I mean, I live in Massachusetts, we have gay marriage. I don't see the place bursting into flames, do you? No.

P.S. The ads for this thread are very odd. They're asking about adopting children. Which adds another thing, why can't single parents, or gay couples, or single gay poeple adopt? It should be a better home than a foster home. yes, there's unfit parents, but I just mean in general.

Who cares if it's a choice or not? Being blue-eyed or brown-eyed isn't a choice. Being a christian or a buddhist is a choice. None of these people deserve to be treated any differently do they?

Do you mind if I sig that?

Do you mind if I sig that?

Share and enjoy! :)

Share and enjoy! :)

Thankee!

Nothing's "wrong" with gay marriage in my opinion. Doesn't affect me, so I don't care. I mean, I live in Massachusetts, we have gay marriage. I don't see the place bursting into flames, do you? No.
Some interesting rumblings up here in Maine that may indicate a laying of groundwork for legalizing same-sex marriage here. First, the group Equality Maine set out to get 10,000 pro-SSM (not to be confused with S&M) voters to put their support in writing on election day, and ended up with more than three times that many. They'll be sent to the legislature, which gained Democratic seats this year. Meanwhile, a coalition of religious leaders voiced their support yesterday:

"We feel a moral obligation at this pivotal time to raise our voices on behalf of Mainers who are denied that most basic human right---the right to marry and form a family with the person of their choice," said the Rev. Mark Doty, pastor at the Hammond Street Congregational Church, where a press conference was held. Doty announced that more than 120 religious leaders from 14 different faith traditions across Maine, have formed the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine

P.S. The ads for this thread are very odd. They're asking about adopting children. Which adds another thing, why can't single parents, or gay couples, or single gay poeple adopt? It should be a better home than a foster home. yes, there's unfit parents, but I just mean in general.
I get "Meet Gay Couples".

Some interesting rumblings up here in Maine that may indicate a laying of groundwork for legalizing same-sex marriage here. First, the group Equality Maine set out to get 10,000 pro-SSM (not to be confused with S&M) voters to put their support in writing on election day, and ended up with more than three times that many. They'll be sent to the legislature, which gained Democratic seats this year. Meanwhile, a coalition of religious leaders voiced their support yesterday:

"We feel a moral obligation at this pivotal time to raise our voices on behalf of Mainers who are denied that most basic human right---the right to marry and form a family with the person of their choice," said the Rev. Mark Doty, pastor at the Hammond Street Congregational Church, where a press conference was held. Doty announced that more than 120 religious leaders from 14 different faith traditions across Maine, have formed the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine


More excellent news. Prop 8 may end up backfiring on the bigots, which would be (a) good and (b) consistent with historical patterns. :)

More excellent news. Prop 8 may end up backfiring on the bigots, which would be (a) good and (b) consistent with historical patterns. :)

Amen, amen.

Marriage in the bible is defined as the proper relationship between a man and a woman who are looking to start a family. Marriage is strongly connected to the family. Anything that perverts the basis of the family is an attack on the concept of the family.

Gay sex is bad. Gay marriage is much much worse.

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

Wrong. Genesis Chapter 2 is commonly understood to describe the origin of marriage, and it's interesting to note what is and what is not there.

Why does God create Eve?

Genesis 2:18: "And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'"

Seems to me that same-sex relationships can fulfill that requirement perfectly fine. What about the verse describing marriage?

Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."

Notice how there's no mention of procreation. The commandment of procreation comes later, when God tells Noah to "give fruit and multiply." It is separate, however, from the institution of marriage itself, and it is hardly inconceivable that same-sex couples could fulfill the broad notion of this commandment in other ways: by caring for adopted children, for instance.

In any case, all of this is irrelevant. Live by your religious views if you see fit, but you do not have the right to impose your personal religious views on others.

Maybe, but homosexuality is not an attack on the "basis of the family."

This this this this this this this this THIS! this this this this this this.

Share and enjoy! :)

When did you start working for the Sirius Cybernetics™ Complaints Department?

More excellent news. Prop 8 may end up backfiring on the bigots, which would be (a) good and (b) consistent with historical patterns. :)

Sorry, Myr it may be because I am tired or I have my mind on other things but how does it back fire on Prop 8? Considering this is in Maine?

the most of same things that are wrong with 'streight' merrage.

the one exception in gay merrage's favor is its not contributing to excess human population.

there are none more against it then 'streight', only those in the fantasies of ignorant fanatics.

the one exception in gay merrage's favor is its not contributing to excess human population.

They can still have kids.

They can still have kids.

"CAN", but are MUCH more likely to adopt discarded stray's needing a good home. those that WANT children.

"CAN", but are MUCH more likely to adopt discarded stray's needing a good home. those that WANT children.

So can straights ;) Not to mention one does not have to reproduce within marriage.. so some straight couples do not add to the population problem.
Let us applaud them.

Sorry, Myr it may be because I am tired or I have my mind on other things but how does it back fire on Prop 8? Considering this is in Maine?
Okay, pay attention:

FIRST OF ALL, I did not say it backfired on Prop 8. I said Prop 8 could backfire on them. Do you see the difference there?

Prop 8 could back fire on them by sparking nationwide shock and anger against their agenda and by encouraging other states to step up their plans for allowing gay marriage.

Connect the dots:

1) The anti-gay-rights bigots succeed in getting a permanent block against gay marriage written into the California constitution, as well as other anti-gay-marriage measures passed in Florida and a couple of other states in the same election (not covered as much because they were bad but less outrageously bad).

2) Immediate result of that "success": Nationwide outrage and protest in many states.

3) Secondary result of that "success": Other states that had plans in the works to clear the way to allowing gay marriage speed up those plans. The more examples there are of states allowing gay marriage and not suffering any problems because of it, the easier it becomes to overcome resistance to it in other states. It creates a snowball effect of easing of resistance to gay marriage.

4) Possible ultimate result: By "succeeding" in establishing anti-gay discrimination in California, the bigots may have accelerated their own nationwide failure by creating public sympathy for gay rights.

1 - 2 - 3 - 4. Get it?

Okay, pay attention:

FIRST OF ALL, I did not say it backfired on Prop 8. I said Prop 8 could backfire on them. Do you see the difference there?

Prop 8 could back fire on them by sparking nationwide shock and anger against their agenda and by encouraging other states to step up their plans for allowing gay marriage.

Connect the dots:

1) The anti-gay-rights bigots succeed in getting a permanent block against gay marriage written into the California constitution, as well as other anti-gay-marriage measures passed in Florida and a couple of other states in the same election (not covered as much because they were bad but less outrageously bad).

2) Immediate result of that "success": Nationwide outrage and protest in many states.

3) Secondary result of that "success": Other states that had plans in the works to clear the way to allowing gay marriage speed up those plans. The more examples there are of states allowing gay marriage and not suffering any problems because of it, the easier it becomes to overcome resistance to it in other states. It creates a snowball effect of easing of resistance to gay marriage.

4) Possible ultimate result: By "succeeding" in establishing anti-gay discrimination in California, the bigots may have accelerated their own nationwide failure by creating public sympathy for gay rights.

1 - 2 - 3 - 4. Get it?

An interesting corrolary to this being that if enough states put same sex marriage on ballots at the same time, the primary financiers of the Yes on Prop 8-type movements will either be spread thin or forced to sit it out.

Even after gay marriage was legalized, could a church refuse to marry a gay couple? Simply on the grounds that it's against their religion?

Even after gay marriage was legalized, could a church refuse to marry a gay couple? Simply on the grounds that it's against their religion?

Yes. Just as they have discretion over which opposite-sex couples to marry and to not marry now.

Even after gay marriage was legalized, could a church refuse to marry a gay couple? Simply on the grounds that it's against their religion?

Of course. They can after all also refuse to marry people who are not members of their church, people that are divorced and so on. State officials on the other hand would have had to marry them.

Conversely, churches can for instance marry seventeen different people to eachother and a rock if their faith dictates such. However, that does not mean such a marriage would also be recognised by the state.

Yes. Just as they have discretion over which opposite-sex couples to marry and to not marry now.

That should've occurred to me :p Just yesterday I heard about a man who was paralyzed from the waist down, so the Catholic Church wouldn't let him marry his girlfriend (couldn't consummate the marriage).

So wow. Knowing this now, I guess no one has any reason to bitch about gay marriage at all.

Even after gay marriage was legalized, could a church refuse to marry a gay couple? Simply on the grounds that it's against their religion?
Yes, of course, for the following reasons:

1) The First Amendment guarantees that churches do not work for the state and cannot be forced to do things for the state that are against their beliefs.

2) State marriage laws do not address religion or churches at all. They only affect what kinds of marriages the STATE will recognize, and remember, states do not work for churches, either, so the rules about what marriages they will recognize do not have to have anything to do with any church.

That should've occurred to me :p Just yesterday I heard about a man who was paralyzed from the waist down, so the Catholic Church wouldn't let him marry his girlfriend (couldn't consummate the marriage).

So wow. Knowing this now, I guess no one has any reason to bitch about gay marriage at all.
Indeed. This is why we get so angry at these arguments about how legalizing gay marriage will harm churches. It's a straight-up lie meant to scare people who don't really understand what their religious rights are, and nothing more.

Knowing this now, I guess no one has any reason to bitch about gay marriage at all.

Exactly. It's completely irrational and non-substantive.

Exactly. It's completely irrational and non-substantive.

Yep. The thing is, most of the people who really use this argument know this. However, they realize their congregations won't really care too much if gays get married-- so they have to invent a threat to their own churches to get them really fired up about it. It helps that much of Christianity has this lingering persecution complex that they can play to.

Even after gay marriage was legalized, could a church refuse to marry a gay couple? Simply on the grounds that it's against their religion?

Yes and yes. It's been answered better by smarter NSGers than I, but I thought I'd add my affirmative to the pile just for the sake of weight.

It helps that much of Christianity has this lingering persecution complex that they can play to.
And it helps that conservative-Christian preachers are smooth liars.

isnt if funny how every marriage/wedding i have been to has invovled a religious person from a religion that is against gay marriage. Marriage is strongly linked to the churches. You only need to attend one to figure that out.

isnt if funny how every marriage/wedding i have been to has invovled a religious person from a religion that is against gay marriage. Marriage is strongly linked to the churches. You only need to attend one to figure that out.

Who gives a damn? And I'm speaking as a Christian here.

Marriage grants legal rights, therefore it is an aspect of civil law.

As a result, discriminating on any arbitrary basis, based on religion, skin colour, sexual orientation, or anything else, is out of line. It's the fucking government we're talking about.

It was unconstitutional when interracial marriage was forbidden, it's unconstitutional when same-sex marriage is forbidden. Same fucking thing.

Edit: And I can tell you've never been to (for example) a pagan handfasting. Or to my uncle's wedding, which was completely areligious.

isnt if funny how every marriage/wedding i have been to has invovled a religious person from a religion that is against gay marriage. Marriage is strongly linked to the churches. You only need to attend one to figure that out.

Right, which is why atheists and agnostics can't get married.

...oh wait.

Well, Prince doesn't like it...

and you thought I was kidding...

http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/music/34601199.html?elr=KArksD:aDyaEP:kD:aUnc5PDiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

Prince, the gender-bending Minnesota rocker who now lives in California and makes the rounds as a Jehovah's Witness, spoke out in a newly released interview that the Bible opposes homosexuality and God has said "enough."

The comments from the Grammy-winning musician, who for decades has graced concert stages in high heels, makeup and flamboyant garb, appear in the Nov. 24 issue of New Yorker.

"So here's how it is," Prince began, "You've got the Republicans, and basically they want to live according to this." He pointed to a Bible.

"But there's the problem of interpretation, and you've got some churches, some people, basically doing things and saying it comes from here, but it doesn't."

Prince then moved to the other side of the political aisle, Democrats, saying, "They're, like, 'You can do whatever you want.' Gay marriage, whatever. But neither of them is right."

When asked for his views on social issues--gay marriage and abortion--Prince tapped his Bible and said, "God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, 'Enough.' "

Prince, who wrote sexually charged lyrics through much of his career, told the New Yorker that his change of faith came after a two-year debate with a musician friend. He likened it more to a "realization" rather than a "conversion."

Well, Prince doesn't like it...

and you thought I was kidding...

http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/music/34601199.html?elr=KArksD:aDyaEP:kD:aUnc5PDiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

So, Prince found Jesus? It was in his pocket all that time?

:p

So, Prince found Jesus? It was in his pocket all that time?

:p

Truly, God works in mysterious ways...

Truly, God works in mysterious ways...

And yet Prince is a moron in very clear ones. :p

And yet Prince is a moron in very clear ones. :p

I, for one, was not surprised. Moronic behavior seems to come with being a celebrity.

isnt if funny how every marriage/wedding i have been to has invovled a religious person from a religion that is against gay marriage. Marriage is strongly linked to the churches. You only need to attend one to figure that out.

I can't say I've ever attended a wedding where the people were anti-gay bigots.

But then, well, birds of a feather...

isnt if funny how every marriage/wedding i have been to has invovled a religious person from a religion that is against gay marriage. Marriage is strongly linked to the churches. You only need to attend one to figure that out.
All three of my mother's marriages were civil -- no religion or church came anywhere near them. My best friends got a civil marriage, no church. Millions of people get non-religious civil marriages every year. I'm sorry, but that pixie dust you sprinkled on your keyboard and over your breakfast was fake -- it did not give you the power to speak or write magic words that make your fantasies real just by saying them.

Well, Prince doesn't like it...

and you thought I was kidding...
Prince now says he did not mean any such thing.

Prince now says he did not mean any such thing.

First we must consider: Do we care what Prince thinks?

Okay, pay attention:

FIRST OF ALL, I did not say it backfired on Prop 8. I said Prop 8 could backfire on them. Do you see the difference there?

Prop 8 could back fire on them by sparking nationwide shock and anger against their agenda and by encouraging other states to step up their plans for allowing gay marriage.

Connect the dots:

1) The anti-gay-rights bigots succeed in getting a permanent block against gay marriage written into the California constitution, as well as other anti-gay-marriage measures passed in Florida and a couple of other states in the same election (not covered as much because they were bad but less outrageously bad).

2) Immediate result of that "success": Nationwide outrage and protest in many states.

3) Secondary result of that "success": Other states that had plans in the works to clear the way to allowing gay marriage speed up those plans. The more examples there are of states allowing gay marriage and not suffering any problems because of it, the easier it becomes to overcome resistance to it in other states. It creates a snowball effect of easing of resistance to gay marriage.

4) Possible ultimate result: By "succeeding" in establishing anti-gay discrimination in California, the bigots may have accelerated their own nationwide failure by creating public sympathy for gay rights.

1 - 2 - 3 - 4. Get it?

Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

Everything TL;DR except for prompted question.

Answer:

Okay, really simple. Take your left hand, and make a ring with your index finger and thumb. Now, take your right index finger and put it in the ring. It goes right in!

Now, try making your two index fingers enter each other. It doesn't work! It defies the laws of nature! Hence, my opposition.

Civil unions are fine, but don't besmirch the name of true marriages whose purpose is to have a family.

Everything TL;DR except for prompted question.

Answer:

Okay, really simple. Take your left hand, and make a ring with your index finger and thumb. Now, take your right index finger and put it in the ring. It goes right in!

Now, try making your two index fingers enter each other. It doesn't work! It defies the laws of nature! Hence, my opposition.

Civil unions are fine, but don't besmirch the name of true marriages whose purpose is to have a family.


I agree. Lets start denying sterile couples their marriages too.

Oh! Yeah, nice rhetoric!

Yeah, too bad that there's no efficient way to know the fertility of members of a heterosexual couple w/o tests, so that can't be enforced; it's pretty obvious when two dudes are marrying each other, though.

Realism, not bigotry.

Oh! Yeah, nice rhetoric!

Yeah, too bad that there's no efficient way to know the fertility of members of a heterosexual couple w/o tests, so that can't be enforced; it's pretty obvious when two dudes are marrying each other, though.

Realism, not bigotry.

So, if we could enforce a ban on sterile marraige, would you support it?

isnt if funny how every marriage/wedding i have been to has invovled a religious person from a religion that is against gay marriage. Marriage is strongly linked to the churches. You only need to attend one to figure that out.

Wow. Never heard of a Justice of the Peace, have you? How about a civil ceremony before a judge? Do you think the thousands of weddings a month in Vegas are all in churches? Try again.

On second thought, don't.

Everything TL;DR except for prompted question.

Then you can stop right there, pal.

If you're not going to bother to read the fucking thread -- the thread WHICH ANSWERS YOUR STUPID HAND-GESTURE BULLSHIT UNEQUIVOCALLY -- then your opinion isn't worth a truckload of dead rats at a tampon factory.






*cookie for whoever gets the reference first.

If two men are already raising children, is it fine for them to get married?

Oh! Yeah, nice rhetoric!

Yeah, too bad that there's no efficient way to know the fertility of members of a heterosexual couple w/o tests, so that can't be enforced; it's pretty obvious when two dudes are marrying each other, though.

Realism, not bigotry.
Except, of course, that either or both of those two dudes can easily reproduce with women even though they are married to each other, not those women.

See, because marriage and reproduction are entirely independent of each other.

If it were defined as a law? Yep. You see, I'm a big one with following the law of the land. It's not the subject matter that pisses me off about Prop. 8, it's the fact that people are bitching about it. Popular vote dictated a change in policy. Live with it.

So, if we could enforce a ban on sterile marraige, would you support it?
We should also immediately put a stop to all those people having and raising kids without getting married. They are undermining the program, the traitorous scum.

Oh! Yeah, nice rhetoric!

Yeah, too bad that there's no efficient way to know the fertility of members of a heterosexual couple w/o tests, so that can't be enforced; it's pretty obvious when two dudes are marrying each other, though.

Realism, not bigotry.

Bullshit, not common sense.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that you're one of those people who is ardently pro-life as well.

That being the case, don't you think that a stable gay couple could provide a good and happy home for a kid who would otherwise be a ward of the state?

Not only that, but sterility isn't rhetoric, it's REALITY. If such options as in vitro or sperm/egg donors are good enough for sterile hetero couples, what's your beef with homosexual couples using the same methods?

Look, it's no skin off my nose if you just don't like gay people 'cause you think they're icky. But have the guts to come out and admit it rather than piss all over logic with your petty evasions.

isnt if funny how every marriage/wedding i have been to has invovled a religious person from a religion that is against gay marriage. Marriage is strongly linked to the churches. You only need to attend one to figure that out.

Not all religions are against gay marriage.

As I've stated numerous times, mine is not, and routinely performs wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples. I don't see the big deal.

If it were defined as a law? Yep. You see, I'm a big one with following the law of the land. It's not the subject matter that pisses me off about Prop. 8, it's the fact that people are bitching about it. Popular vote dictated a change in policy. Live with it.
Ah, this bullshit again. And once again, for the newcomer who is too lazy to read:

The democratic process allows do-overs. The anti-rights crowd didn't stop at a few defeats, and neither will we in our drive to defeat them again.

Then you can stop right there, pal.

If you're not going to bother to read the fucking thread -- the thread WHICH ANSWERS YOUR STUPID HAND-GESTURE BULLSHIT UNEQUIVOCALLY -- then your opinion isn't worth a truckload of dead rats at a tampon factory..[/SIZE]


I'm sorry, I'm not interested in reading a dozen pages of arguments I've heard before and frankly don't care to read again.

I don't even know why I bothered replying in the first place, because I'm restating views expressed many times before, thus perpetuating the cycle, and I'm going to be flamed by the mostly Liberal NS forumcrawlers.

EDIT: Sorry, 2 dozen pages.

If it were defined as a law? Yep. You see, I'm a big one with following the law of the land. It's not the subject matter that pisses me off about Prop. 8, it's the fact that people are bitching about it. Popular vote dictated a change in policy. Live with it.

So if a proposition were raised and passed with the popular vote that you should throw yourself off of something high, you'd comply?

If it were defined as a law? Yep. You see, I'm a big one with following the law of the land. It's not the subject matter that pisses me off about Prop. 8, it's the fact that people are bitching about it. Popular vote dictated a change in policy. Live with it.

What if popular vote decided that you should have your nails ripped out, have all of your bones broken, and then have your entrails forcibly removed while showing them to you as you died? Of course, it's a ridiculous example, but quite simply, the majority, using popular sovereignty, can infringe on the rights of the minority (in the above case, you). That's why it's a big deal, and that's why people are "bitching". They feel constitutional rights are being violated by the law (like having your entrails pulled out, but somewhat milder).

If it were defined as a law? Yep. You see, I'm a big one with following the law of the land. It's not the subject matter that pisses me off about Prop. 8, it's the fact that people are bitching about it. Popular vote dictated a change in policy. Live with it.

I agree, we should never have banned slavery or overturned Plessey versus Ferguson.


I dont think you understand how this whole democracy thing works.

If it were defined as a law? Yep. You see, I'm a big one with following the law of the land. It's not the subject matter that pisses me off about Prop. 8, it's the fact that people are bitching about it. Popular vote dictated a change in policy. Live with it.

They will. Right up until the next vote to get it overturned. Should that happen, will YOU just "live with it"? Probably not.

See, your kind didn't "live with it" when the CA Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriages in the first place, did they? No. Prop 8 was born from that defeat, wasn't it?

So tell me, why should anyone "live with" something they feel is unjust? Especially since the vote wasn't particularly overwhelming. Are you really this obtuse or are you just wearing your Troll pants today?

This might be slightly off-topic, but when anti-gay marriage activists claim that marriage is a "religious institution", aren't they placing some religions over others? For instance, if in a certain religion, marriage can be between any two consenting persons at/over 18, wouldn't it be favoring some religions over others not to let homosexuals get married in such a case? Who determines what religion's marriage definition we use? And at the point where we are favoring one religion over another, isn't that kind of, you know, unconstitutional?

Bullshit, not common sense.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that you're one of those people who is ardently pro-life as well.

That being the case, don't you think that a stable gay couple could provide a good and happy home for a kid who would otherwise be a ward of the state?

Not only that, but sterility isn't rhetoric, it's REALITY. If such options as in vitro or sperm/egg donors are good enough for sterile hetero couples, what's your beef with homosexual couples using the same methods?

Look, it's no skin off my nose if you just don't like gay people 'cause you think they're icky. But have the guts to come out and admit it rather than piss all over logic with your petty evasions.

I am neither pro-life (If you're raped, get an abortion! We have enough people as it is!) nor am I homophobic (my French teacher was openly gay, he was fucking awesome, and do whatever you want with your body, dude). By rhetoric, I meant that you responded to my blanketing general statement with a rhetorical situation (Families, huh? What about sterile couples?). When I say child-bearing, I had, quite frankly, failed to remember sterile couples; wait a minute while I compose something, because I foresee many flames I have to read ATM.

I'm sorry, I'm not interested in reading a dozen pages of arguments I've heard before and frankly don't care to read again.

I don't even know why I bothered replying in the first place, because I'm restating views expressed many times before, thus perpetuating the cycle, and I'm going to be flamed by the mostly Liberal NS forumcrawlers.

EDIT: Sorry, 2 dozen pages.

You have yet to be flamed, but it's nice to know you've got your persecution complex all warmed up and ready to whine.

They will. Right up until the next vote to get it overturned. Should that happen, will YOU just "live with it"? Probably not.

See, your kind didn't "live with it" when the CA Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriages in the first place, did they? No. Prop 8 was born from that defeat, wasn't it?

So tell me, why should anyone "live with" something they feel is unjust? Especially since the vote wasn't particularly overwhelming. Are you really this obtuse or are you just wearing your Troll pants today?

You don't understand. I don't give a shit if the law was that every child after the firstborn must be slaughtered upon birth for population control, okay? I am not religious! I don't care about homosexuality one way or another! But, hell, do you rob a bank just because you don't want to "live with" mediocre wealth? No. It... is... the... law. Obey it.

You have yet to be flamed, but it's nice to know you've got your persecution complex all warmed up and ready to whine.

Rebuttal isn't whining. However, assuming that anything I have to say is going to be whining because you 'win' at the argument and I 'lose', hence making all my statements 'whining' is a very close-minded view on your part.

EDIT: And yes, I am close-minded for being so authoritarian. And?

I am neither pro-life (If you're raped, get an abortion! We have enough people as it is!) nor am I homophobic (my French teacher was openly gay, he was fucking awesome, and do whatever you want with your body, dude). By rhetoric, I meant that you responded to my blanketing general statement with a rhetorical situation (Families, huh? What about sterile couples?). When I say child-bearing, I had, quite frankly, failed to remember sterile couples; wait a minute while I compose something, because I foresee many flames I have to read ATM.

Again, you've not been flamed yet. One might construe your continued mock-preparations for flaming as flamebaiting, though.

Look, pal, it isn't "come in and post something remotely conservative and get pounced on in NSG". I've seen many conservative posters make their arguments WITHOUT resorting to the OMG LIBERAL BIAS trope. The real proposition in NSG is "post irrational crap here and get pounced on".

I mean, what were you expecting with that childish "poke your fingers at each other" crap?

You don't understand. I don't give a shit if the law was that every child after the firstborn must be slaughtered upon birth for population control, okay? I am not religious! I don't care about homosexuality one way or another! But, hell, do you rob a bank just because you don't want to "live with" mediocre wealth? No. It... is... the... law. Obey it.

Disobeying a law and questioning its validity are two very different things.

Again, you've not been flamed yet. One might construe your continued mock-preparations for flaming as flamebaiting, though.

Look, pal, it isn't "come in and post something remotely conservative and get pounced on in NSG". I've seen many conservative posters make their arguments WITHOUT resorting to the OMG LIBERAL BIAS trope. The real proposition in NSG is "post irrational crap here and get pounced on".

I mean, what were you expecting with that childish "poke your fingers at each other" crap?

Yeah, you're right about the finger thing. If the textbook explanation of male and female gametes doesn't work, even a basic elementary demonstration like that will fail.

Disobeying a law and questioning its validity are two very different things.

Really? Well, I hired a lawyer to defend my poisoning of my wife. The law is unfair; I should be allowed to poison her if she talks back.

Not a real example, obviously, but same gist. No, I am not likening gay marriage to anything negative, I'm just saying that Prop. 8 opponents are looking for an escape from reality.

You don't understand. I don't give a shit if the law was that every child after the firstborn must be slaughtered upon birth for population control, okay? I am not religious! I don't care about homosexuality one way or another! But, hell, do you rob a bank just because you don't want to "live with" mediocre wealth? No. It... is... the... law. Obey it.

*sigh* The difference is, you have no RIGHT to the money in the bank, and no religious organizations are gearing up money and ad campaigns to defeat a proposition to allow you to rob a bank. That is such a ludicrous analogy that it defies explanation.

IT IS the law now, of course. I expect folks to abide by it, too. However, I don't expect them to take an abridgment of rights lying down. And they're not. What's your problem with people using the democratic process to get laws passed? That's EXACTLY what happened with Prop 8, and I'll bet you were fine with THEM legislating that way, weren't you? Those who were put off by the CA Supreme Court's ruling had to live with it until Prop 8 passed, didn't they? Well, same shit, different angle, right?

Rebuttal isn't whining. However, assuming that anything I have to say is going to be whining because you 'win' at the argument and I 'lose', hence making all my statements 'whining' is a very close-minded view on your part.

You keep saying stuff like this and yet NOBODY has done anything of the sort. Who has said "lose" to you? We've soundly rebutted your very weak arguments. Simple as that. It isn't closed-minded to see weak sauce and call it what it is.

You don't understand. I don't give a shit if the law was that every child after the firstborn must be slaughtered upon birth for population control, okay? I am not religious! I don't care about homosexuality one way or another! But, hell, do you rob a bank just because you don't want to "live with" mediocre wealth? No. It... is... the... law. Obey it.
Who isn't? Do you see whole hordes of gays illegally getting married in California? No, you don't. What you do see is people decrying an injustice and planning to undo it, in accordance with our democratic system and our rights.

Really? Well, I hired a lawyer to defend my poisoning of my wife. The law is unfair; I should be allowed to poison her if she talks back.

Not a real example, obviously, but same gist. No, I am not likening gay marriage to anything negative, I'm just saying that Prop. 8 opponents are looking for an escape from reality.

In the example you just made up, disobeying the law and questioning it are indeed two very separate acts. So thank you for backing me up.

Yeah, you're right about the finger thing. If the textbook explanation of male and female gametes doesn't work, even a basic elementary demonstration like that will fail.

Snideness doesn't help your argument. It makes you look childish and petulant, and strengthens your opposition. By all means, keep it up.

Really? Well, I hired a lawyer to defend my poisoning of my wife. The law is unfair; I should be allowed to poison her if she talks back.

No you shouldn't. It's against the law. However, that's not what those working to overturn Prop 8 are doing, is it? No. They're gearing up to do exactly what Prop 8 supporters did, only the other way. Petitioning the government for redress of grievances is not illegal. It's American.

Not a real example, obviously, but same gist. No, I am not likening gay marriage to anything negative, I'm just saying that Prop. 8 opponents are looking for an escape from reality.

How? By doing EXACTLY what Prop 8 supporters did? How can you not understand that the same process is being followed here? Appeals are built into the system. Pro and Con can keep at this until one side has built a majority that stands against any attempt at repeal. That's democracy. I am sorry you don't understand that.

Yeah, you're right about the finger thing. If the textbook explanation of male and female gametes doesn't work, even a basic elementary demonstration like that will fail.



Really? Well, I hired a lawyer to defend my poisoning of my wife. The law is unfair; I should be allowed to poison her if she talks back.

Not a real example, obviously, but same gist. No, I am not likening gay marriage to anything negative, I'm just saying that Prop. 8 opponents are looking for an escape from reality.
Are you unaware that it takes only two years for amendments to California's constitution to become subject to referendum again? There is no "escaping from reality" necessary. This law can be overturned, and it will be, even if we have to keep hammering away at it every time it can be put to ballot for a very long time.

I am afraid I have hit a brick wall here. Any point I attempt to make is taken completely out of context. You see what you want to see. There you have it: my black and white view of the world shows that my examples have one purpose only; you guys with your shades of gray are finding supposedly self-evident contradictions that, even if present (which I doubt), were never intended to be taken as such.

The wife poisoning thing is saying that I am attempting to get out of an illegal situation by hiring lawyers to talk for me and banking on some miracle to say that, wow, poisoning my wife is Constitutional!

Even though this'll have some meaning that you find in it... I just want to remind you that the Prop. 8 was, basically, a repeal of a repeal. Funny, that. It seems that, after a year of having the law allowing homosexual marriages, the people of CA decided that it wasn't the right thing after all. People who were neither for nor against (that is, were influenced by ads) Prop. 8 passed its predecessor (forgive my lack of knowledge of the name); then, when more people were attracted to the polls by the primaries, it turns out the majority of Californians don't like it so much.

EDIT: I'm not saying an open mind is a bad thing, or anything against you! I know that my absolutist view is a narrow one. I'm just saying that coherent debate loses its meaning when I attempt to make what I thought was a clear argument, and it turns out that it has applications to either side. (No longer editing. Have at me, good Sir Knights.)

Abrahamic Religions are the problem, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage.

EDIT: First off, why would anyone bash religion? Religion is the reason we have marriage. Marriage was made for men and women to join together, under a single household, have children. Marriage really is only for religious people. So eventually it makes now sense for L/G to marry at all. Since it is purely a religious joining of men and women.

First off, why would anyone bash religion?

Because its a mental illness caued by taking 2000+ year old fairy tales as the truth and results in violence and bigotry?

Religion is the reason we have marriage. Marriage was made for men and women to join together, under a single household, have children. Marriage really is only for religious people. So eventually it makes now sense for L/G to marry at all. Since it is purely a religious joining.

You couldnt be more wrong. But its cute that youre trying.

First off, why would anyone bash religion? Religion is the reason we have marriage. Marriage was made for men and women to join together, under a single household, have children. Marriage really is only for religious people. So eventually it makes now sense for L/G to marry at all. Since it is purely a religious joining.

Yeah, see, this? This is the sort of thing that I want it made clear that I am not.

EDIT: First off, why would anyone bash religion? Religion is the reason we have marriage. Marriage was made for men and women to join together, under a single household, have children. Marriage really is only for religious people. So eventually it makes now sense for L/G to marry at all. Since it is purely a religious joining of men and women.
Sigh -- where do they keep coming from?

No, marriage is not a purely religious joining. Millions of people receive completely non-religious civil marriages before a judge or justice of the peace every single year. Millions of atheists get married. They do not go to churches for that.

Marriage was not made for men and women to join together and have children. Marriage WAS made for people to create households -- units of property and assets with two people (or more, depending on where you are) recognized by the government and/or community as the exclusive owners of same with rights to dispose of it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with making children. For tens of thousands of years, people have been making babies without marriage, and for thousands of years, people have been getting married but not having children.

Seriously, where do you people come up with this nonsense?

Seriously, where do you people come up with this nonsense?

Church.

If it were defined as a law? Yep. You see, I'm a big one with following the law of the land. It's not the subject matter that pisses me off about Prop. 8, it's the fact that people are bitching about it. Popular vote dictated a change in policy. Live with it.

The law of the land once said that it was fine to hold black people as slaves, and that they were only 3/5ths of a person.

Because its a mental illness caued by taking 2000+ year old fairy tales as the truth and results in violence and bigotry?

Yeah because their is only one religion. :rolleyes:

And all of them from this one religion are like this too. :rolleyes:

Church.

Unfortunately for your theory (assuming that, as an opponent, I'm one of 'them'), I'm not religious.

BTW, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of arguments from incredulity and fables strung together to make a story about the creation of the world; 100% has been BSed by modern science.

Yeah because their is only one religion. :rolleyes:

And all of them from this one religion are like this too. :rolleyes:

No, all of them more or less are.

I am afraid I have hit a brick wall here. Any point I attempt to make is taken completely out of context.

How can we take out of context exactly what you're saying? We quote what you say and respond to it. If you're having trouble convincing us, guess what? It's not our fault. We see what you're typing and say what we see.

You see what you want to see. There you have it: my black and white view of the world shows that my examples have one purpose only; you guys with your shades of gray are finding supposedly self-evident contradictions that, even if present (which I doubt), were never intended to be taken as such.

How convenient for you to be able to tar those who oppose you with that brush! How is it shades of grey to say that rights extended to one group should be extended to all groups? Churches don't have to marry gay couples if they don't want to. This is the state marriage, with state-issued licenses. That means the state cannot discriminate. There's absolutely no grey there. Maybe it's you wearing the shades?

The wife poisoning thing is saying that I am attempting to get out of an illegal situation by hiring lawyers to talk for me and banking on some miracle to say that, wow, poisoning my wife is Constitutional!

The difference being that no lawyer can argue that murder is Constitutional. They might be able to use some legal technicality to get you acquitted of the charges -- say, you weren't read your rights, or your house was searched without a warrant. That's not arguing murder, that's arguing police procedure. You are the one mixing apples and oranges here.

Even though this'll have some meaning that you find in it... I just want to remind you that the Prop. 8 was, basically, a repeal of a repeal. Funny, that. It seems that, after a year of having the law allowing homosexual marriages, the people of CA decided that it wasn't the right thing after all. People who were neither for nor against (that is, were influenced by ads) Prop. 8 passed its predecessor (forgive my lack of knowledge of the name); then, when more people were attracted to the polls by the primaries, it turns out the majority of Californians don't like it so much.

There was no predecessor. That's what makes your arguments so weak -- you have little understanding of the situation. The "predecessor" was the CA Supreme Court overturning an initiative banning gay marriages because it was unconstitutional. Prop 8 was the next step for opponents of gay marriage: gather signatures to allow a vote to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. It passed. Now guess what? In California, concerned groups can gather signatures to propose that proposition be overturned! IN THE MEANTIME, they'll all be following the law, just like you want them to.

EDIT: I'm not saying an open mind is a bad thing, or anything against you! I know that my absolutist view is a narrow one. I'm just saying that coherent debate loses its meaning when I attempt to make what I thought was a clear argument, and it turns out that it has applications to either side. (Still editing, so hold on!)

Decent of you to admit. However, your decency loses some of its flavor when you sprinkle it with accusations of your opponents being closed-minded and other such rhetorical pin-pricks.

It seems you merely want people to leave Prop 8 as law and be done with it. I'm sure many will. However, many will also continue to believe that a fundamental right (as defined in the SCOTUS case Loving v Virginia) has been withheld without reason from a segment of the population. They will organize a repeal-Prop-8 campaign and in 2010, California will vote again. Democracy in action.

No, all of them more or less are.
No, actually, they are not.

No, all of them more or less are.

Well if you say so, because people will never use religion and twist it as an excuse to push forward their own agenda.

the First men and women (adam and eve or not), had priests to joint them into marriage. Atheist have religions too. India had a few atheistic religion. Marriage as we know it was only create for creation of children . L/G therefor can't have marriage.

the First men and women (adam and eve or not), had priests to joint them into marriage. Atheist have religions too. India had a few atheistic religion. Marriage as we know it was only create for creation of children . L/G therefor can't have marriage.
You're just trolling right?

EDIT: First off, why would anyone bash religion? Religion is the reason we have marriage. Marriage was made for men and women to join together, under a single household, have children. Marriage really is only for religious people. So eventually it makes now sense for L/G to marry at all. Since it is purely a religious joining of men and women.

Except that it isn't. If what you say is true, the state wouldn't have gotten involved. You wouldn't need a license to wed, would you? There wouldn't be such a hassle over property during a divorce, would there? It's a political institution. Even royalty understood that you could save a lot of money (oh, and by the way, lives, if you're into that kind of thing, being royalty) by marrying your adversaries into allies as opposed to fighting them.

So no. Your flowery rhetoric about marriage is cute, but it's not reality.

Yeah, see, this? This is the sort of thing that I want it made clear that I am not.

Fair enough.

the First men and women (adam and eve or not), had priests to joint them into marriage. Atheist have religions too. India had a few atheistic religion. Marriage as we know it was only create for creation of children . L/G therefor can't have marriage.

Yeah, no. Now you're just trolling.

Adam and Eve had a priest? What, the snake? Come on.

No, actually, they are not.

Ignore me my dear, Im just feeling vicious.

Whatever. Gay marriage will be legal, then illegal, then legal, etc.

Schedule weddings accordingly.

I'd continue this tomorrow, but by the time I get out of school, it will be too late.

Is it really so hard to see my point about my statements? It's like, at least to me, like I'm saying "The sky looks blue today," and you start saying that that's my perception, how do I know it isn't green?

I mean, seriously, no bullshit: Please tell me you understand? I say something... and you find things that were never meant to be there. If you refuse to see that, and for that matter find something wrong here (which I see how that last clause could be seen as a 'pin-prick', as is that quote I just made, etc), then I will never make a point here. I mean, really:

"We see what you're typing and say what we see."

Yes, you do. You say what you see. And you see self-contradiction. I look at a sentence, it makes a solid point, and then you find things in it that are only drawn from your suppositions, and were never meant to be there.

Good night.

the First men and women (adam and eve or not), had priests to joint them into marriage.

Must have missed that part of Genisis.


Atheist have religions too. India had a few atheistic religion. Marriage as we know it was only create for creation of children . L/G therefor can't have marriage.

You are either trolling or an idiot. I think we're done here.

Decent of you to admit. However, your decency loses some of its flavor when you sprinkle it with accusations of your opponents being closed-minded and other such rhetorical pin-pricks.

It seems you merely want people to leave Prop 8 as law and be done with it. I'm sure many will. However, many will also continue to believe that a fundamental right (as defined in the SCOTUS case Loving v Virginia) has been withheld without reason from a segment of the population. They will organize a repeal-Prop-8 campaign and in 2010, California will vote again. Democracy in action.

I couldn't give a care less if a gay man wants to join with another man in some form of a household. But for it to be called marriage, is not only stupid, but an oxymoron. Religion created marriage, Christianity, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucianism (w/e). Marriage is made for men and women, because it started within a religious compound, who said they needed to even marry? Couldn't they just fuck and live together? Marriage is purely religious.

I couldn't give a care less if a gay man wants to join with another man in some form of a household. But for it to be called marriage, is not only stupid, but an oxymoron. Religion created marriage, Christianity, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucianism (w/e). Marriage is made for men and women, because it started within a religious compound, who said they needed to even marry? Couldn't they just fuck and live together? Marriage is purely religious.

I want to know where youre getting your information, because someone should tell them to stop telling you fairy tales. You have a habit of believing them.

I couldn't give a care less if a gay man wants to join with another man in some form of a household. But for it to be called marriage, is not only stupid, but an oxymoron. Religion created marriage, Christianity, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucianism (w/e). Marriage is made for men and women, because it started within a religious compound, who said they needed to even marry? Couldn't they just fuck and live together? Marriage is purely religious.

No, it isn't. Marriage is political, and has been for long before religion got involved. The state controls who gets married. If the state's motto is "equal protection under law" and determines that gay people are equal, then guess what? That means legal state-allowed marriage. I know you don't agree, but your reasons are without merit or claim to fact in reality.

If all you're going to do is come back with this religious mumbo-jumbo, then I'm done with you.

Alright then, When did marriage start?

Edit: Also for those of you jumping to the conclusion that I'm even religious, you would be sadly mistaken, I believe in something, just not sure what.

I couldn't give a care less if a gay man wants to join with another man in some form of a household. But for it to be called marriage, is not only stupid, but an oxymoron. Religion created marriage, Christianity, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucianism (w/e). Marriage is made for men and women, because it started within a religious compound, who said they needed to even marry? Couldn't they just fuck and live together? Marriage is purely religious.
No, it isn't. This has already been explained to you. You have now failed to address civil marriage and marraiges of atheists twice. Ignore it again, and win a free Troll dismissal.

Alright then, When did marriage start?
Already addressed. Read the past two pages (since your first post).

Alright then, When did marriage start?

Since humans wanted to consolidate property. Probably around the times of the first villages.

Marriage is economic. Children are produced (or were initially) to provide an heir to futher consolidate property and keep it in the family. This was the case long before Abrahamic religions and their ilk hijacked it.

Everything TL;DR except for prompted question.

Answer:

Okay, really simple. Take your left hand, and make a ring with your index finger and thumb. Now, take your right index finger and put it in the ring. It goes right in!

Now, try making your two index fingers enter each other. It doesn't work! It defies the laws of nature! Hence, my opposition.

Since I'm sure you've already been ripped apart on this subject, I'd like to add this (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docking) to your oh so sad argument of "but penises don't fit together so it's bad!"

If it were defined as a law? Yep. You see, I'm a big one with following the law of the land. It's not the subject matter that pisses me off about Prop. 8, it's the fact that people are bitching about it. Popular vote dictated a change in policy. Live with it.

You would have been a barrel of laughs in Germany around 1940, wouldn't you?

I give up. Obviously people missed the memo, that humans haven't been ass deep in religion since we first came to this earth, and that everything afterwords wasn't pretty much from religious purpose. But w/e can't argue with you.

Screw it, I'm gonna post once more before bed. This is the sort of trolling, flaming bullshit I expected.

Since I'm sure you've already been ripped apart on this subject, but I'd like to add this (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docking) to your oh so sad argument of "but penises don't fit together so it's bad!"


I see that you are living about 3 pages in the past.

I give up. Obviously people missed the memo, that humans haven't been ass deep in religion since we first came to this earth, and that everything afterwords wasn't pretty much from religious purpose. But w/e can't argue with you.

See, saying things doesnt make it so. Archeological evidence shows that humans didnt care much about religion until they had nothing better to wory about.

Rebuttal isn't whining.

Great, let me know when you get around to posting any sort of "rebuttal".

I give up. Obviously people missed the memo, that humans haven't been ass deep in religion since we first came to this earth, and that everything afterwords wasn't pretty much from religious purpose. But w/e can't argue with you.
Funny troll is funny.

Whatever. Gay marriage will be legal, then illegal, then legal, etc.

Schedule weddings accordingly.

Yes, it could indeed be like that for a while. And that's the point we were trying to get you to see. I'm sorry you thought we were twisting your words, but I can assure you we weren't. You typed things, we responded by quoting your things and telling you that you were incorrect.

Is it really so hard to see my point about my statements? It's like, at least to me, like I'm saying "The sky looks blue today," and you start saying that that's my perception, how do I know it isn't green?

Except that it's not the plain fact you thought it to be, was it? Besides, look at your wording in that very sentence: "the sky LOOKS blue today" -- that leaves room for interpretation, doesn't it? If the sky does, in fact, NOT "look" blue to someone else, then you've opened the door for them to say so, haven't you? If the sky IS blue, then it is -- various rod/cone/retina disorders notwithstanding.

I mean, seriously, no bullshit: Please tell me you understand? I say something... and you find things that were never meant to be there. If you refuse to see that, and for that matter find something wrong here (which I see how that last clause could be seen as a 'pin-prick', as is that quote I just made, etc), then I will never make a point here. I mean, really:

"We see what you're typing and say what we see."

What do you want me to say? You came in and said "OBEY THE LAW, DAMMIT!" And we said "we are, but we also aim to get it changed", and that seemed to set you off because you A) ADMITTEDLY didn't bother to read the thread because you claimed to know what it was full of, and B) didn't understand how the referendum/initiative process in US politics and government works. Hopefully we've rectified that oversight and you dig that laws can be overturned or rewritten if enough people get a proposition on the ballot and that proposition passes. Even laws you might not like.

Yes, you do. You say what you see. And you see self-contradiction. I look at a sentence, it makes a solid point, and then you find things in it that are only drawn from your suppositions, and were never meant to be there.

Good night.

Then you need to A) choose your words with more care, and B) come in with the intent to discuss the following of the law versus changing the law and C) NOT come in with some condescending "finger poking" analogy trying to denounce gay marriage just because you can't stick a penis into a penis. Please tell ME that YOU understand how deliberately inflammatory and obviously provocative that particular idea was. Even if you think it's icky, you know how gay men and women get busy, and that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a state-issued license to marry should be granted to them.

First: KoL, look at post count:

Posts: 6,666

Secondly: Redwulf, stop quoting me as if it matters and find somewhere else to spam.

Thirdly: IT ISN'T THAT IT'S FUCKING ICKY, IT IS NOT WHAT EVOLUTION TOOK 3 BILLION YEARS TO CREATE! Talk about juvenile. Now, that is an immature way to put it. You assume that: because I insist that, hell, men produce sperm and women produce eggs for a reason, I think that it's revolting for homosexual couples to attempt copulation. Have at it! You aren't making children, though, because that isn't the way the genetics programmed things.

the First men and women (adam and eve or not), had priests to joint them into marriage. Atheist have religions too. India had a few atheistic religion. Marriage as we know it was only create for creation of children . L/G therefor can't have marriage.

Those mushrooms on the pizza you ate tonight? I think they were the wrong kind . . .

See, saying things doesnt make it so. Archeological evidence shows that humans didnt care much about religion until they had nothing better to wory about.

Religion is a set of beliefs centered around an idol or idols. Idols being either a god, or the earth or, sun, a piece of clay for Christ sake, don't tell me humans haven't done that from the start because it is fundamentally impossible for a human to not follow something.

Religion is a set of beliefs centered around an idol or idols. Idols being either a god, or the earth or, sun, a piece of clay for Christ sake, don't tell me humans haven't done that from the start because it is fundamentally impossible for a human to not follow something.

Just because they had a few idols doesnt mean religion was a big part of their lives or that marriages were religious. Look, I know people like you dont put much stock in Archeology, because it disproves your theory that Jesus rode the dinosaurs, but that doesnt mean its not true.

Screw it, I'm gonna post once more before bed. This is the sort of trolling, flaming bullshit I expected.


There isn't a bit of troll, flame, or bullshit in the post you quoted. Guess they were right about the persecution complex.

Since I'm sure you've already been ripped apart on this subject, but I'd like to add this (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docking) to your oh so sad argument of "but penises don't fit together so it's bad!"

You would have been a barrel of laughs in Germany around 1940, wouldn't you?

Great, let me know when you get around to posting any sort of "rebuttal".

Redwulf, I appreciate your ardent defense, but have you read our responses to him? He's admitted he came in half-cocked (pardon the pun), so there's no need to give him what he was falsely expecting when nobody else did. In short, lay off. Tiger gets it.

I give up. Obviously people missed the memo, that humans haven't been ass deep in religion since we first came to this earth, and that everything afterwords wasn't pretty much from religious purpose. But w/e can't argue with you.

Uh, no.

You can't argue because you don't make sense. Religion wasn't first. Even in Genesis, Adam and Eve didn't have religion first, they had the Garden first, and God, directly.

You come in here and beat us over the head with something you admit to not even really believing, and then claim that YOU can't argue with US? Gimme a break.

Organized religion developed after tribal shamanism developed. Marriage was a way to keep the family's jewels within the realm of the family jewels (where do you think that metaphor CAME from?).

Don't bust in here with the same point over and over again, then refuse to respond to Muravyets' point about atheist weddings and civil ceremonies, and then tell US that WE are the ones who are inflexible.

I agree. Unfunny troll is unfunny.

Just because they had a few idols doesnt mean religion was a big part of their lives or that marriages were religious. Look, I know people like you dont put much stock in Archeology, because it disproves your theory that Jesus rode the dinosaurs, but that doesnt mean its not true.

Oh how snide of you, making jokes. Religion can't be small a part of someone's life, because religion is all around us, just like politics. Religious people are those who embrace there religion, and atheists are the ones who run away from it. There is always something someone does every day. Some are religious workers (working all the time), Drinking (can be Alch, or not). In fact you might say my religion is Mt. dew and video games. Religion is a ritual and belief system, and it is the biggest part of people's lives. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

the First men and women (adam and eve or not), had priests to joint them into marriage. Atheist have religions too. India had a few atheistic religion. Marriage as we know it was only create for creation of children . L/G therefor can't have marriage.

Someone should really define the word Atheist for you.
India has a POLYTHEISTIC religion, that's where you have more than one deity.
ATHEISM is the doctrine or belief that there is no God
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
OR
(Greek, a "without"; theo "god"): The religious doctrine that deities do not exist.
13thdruidofavalon.tripod.com/druidplanet/id88.html
OR
The lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. The position held by a person or persons that 'lack belief' in god(s) and/or deny that god(s) exist.
www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm

As many other people have also mentioned, childless couples and those who are actually Atheist also have marriages. Do you know why? Because its a legal partnership and union, not something special to religions.

Cs = pwnt

Thirdly: IT ISN'T THAT IT'S FUCKING ICKY, IT IS NOT WHAT EVOLUTION TOOK 3 BILLION YEARS TO CREATE! Talk about juvenile. Now, that is an immature way to put it. You assume that: because I insist that, hell, men produce sperm and women produce eggs for a reason, I think that it's revolting for homosexual couples to attempt copulation. Have at it! You aren't making children, though, because that isn't the way the genetics programmed things.

So we're to all obey the Laws of Genetics? Are we genetically programmed to sit at desks all day? That's not our biology. We were designed to hunt and gather. But wait, you might say, we've used our minds to evolve a lifestyle that involves programming computers for eight or more hours a day and that we can now exercise our hunter-gatherer bodies for recreation! Okay. Then doesn't it follow that those same minds make obsolete the absolute necessity for "the plumbing to fit" with regard to procreation? We've used our minds to artificially inseminate ourselves. Your "plumbing" argument holds no water.

By the way, you still haven't said that you DON'T think it's revolting. You're right that it doesn't much matter, but you continue to bring it up and then fail to set us straight (again, pardon the pun) on the matter. It isn't juvenile to point out that MANY people have NO OTHER objection to homosexuals BEYOND "it's icky". Sure, they use phrases like "it isn't natural", and don't even blink an eye when shown that the animal world is filled with examples of homosexual activity, rendering it as natural as it can be. You have to understand that "icky" is a word I like to use to expose "it's not natural" for what it really is.

Religion is a set of beliefs centered around an idol or idols. Idols being either a god, or the earth or, sun, a piece of clay for Christ sake, don't tell me humans haven't done that from the start because it is fundamentally impossible for a human to not follow something.

Okay, you're talking about animism or shamanism. That's not organized religion. That a tribal thing. Lots of very early societies didn't care who you got busy with. They cared about property and who got it when the big man of the family passed away. Before states and laws got involved, it devolved into a fight over who of the remaining men were strong enough to wrestle the deceased's good away and make them his own (including the deceased's wife and/or kids). Laws helped preserve family integrity and bloodlines. It just so happened that the concept kept the royalty business afloat for a few millennia as well, but hey. Organized religion stepped in when it was determined that some other folks who were NOT royalty wanted in on the action. Religion and royalty have had an uneasy partnership ever since. Sometimes they worked well together, sometimes not. Regardless, they did conspire to make sure that family property got passed along. The state sanctioned the marriage (remember Braveheart and prima noctem?), and religion consecrated it. Two great tastes that taste like control.

re⋅li⋅gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I see nothing in regards to god here... HMMM... Wait that means it includes Atheism and Darwinism. Godly religions are only part of religion ;).

Oh how snide of you, making jokes. Religion can't be small a part of someone's life, because religion is all around us, just like politics. Religious people are those who embrace there religion, and atheists are the ones who run away from it. There is always something someone does every day. Some are religious workers (working all the time), Drinking (can be Alch, or not). In fact you might say my religion is Mt. dew and video games. Religion is a ritual and belief system, and it is the biggest part of people's lives. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

ROFLMAO.


Right

Religion is a set of beliefs centered around an idol or idols. Idols being either a god, or the earth or, sun, a piece of clay for Christ sake, don't tell me humans haven't done that from the start because it is fundamentally impossible for a human to not follow something.

Even if they did.

Why does that preclude gays from marrying? Some religions perform weddings for them.

ROFLMAO.


Right

See something where we will never win, because it is philosophical. As we know, there is no one right philosophy.

Oh how snide of you, making jokes. Religion can't be small a part of someone's life, because religion is all around us, just like politics. Religious people are those who embrace there religion, and atheists are the ones who run away from it. There is always something someone does every day. Some are religious workers (working all the time), Drinking (can be Alch, or not). In fact you might say my religion is Mt. dew and video games. Religion is a ritual and belief system, and it is the biggest part of people's lives. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

You invite jokes.

I can go through a whole day without even thinking about religion. In fact, if I'm looking the right way, I can even drive to and from work without seeing a church.

Look, I don't know what's going on in your life right now to make you so jumpy about religion, but rest assured, it's quite possible to live without it as an overwhelming presence in your life. I choose, for example, to respect religion in the choice of music for my choirs. I know that I work at a secular college, but I also know that without the Catholic church, specifically, most of the greatest pieces of choral music would not exist (either because they were written for or about God or because the Church preserved them). I can't afford to ignore religion, so I have learned enough about it to make religious imagery and doctrine relevant to the music I choose, in order to elicit the emotional response from my singers and my audience. One needn't be devout in any one religion to understand great emotion or great symbolism.

Again, I hope that whatever is worrying you is resolved to your satisfaction, and I hope it's not as painful as it seems to be, based on what I've read from you here. Take care.

Even if they did.

Why does that preclude gays from marrying? Some religions perform weddings for them.

It means, that Religion is and has always been involved in humans lives, and that the whole creation of marriage was created for the fact of creating children, keep in mind that they didn't have sperm banks back then ;).

re⋅li⋅gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I see nothing in regards to god here... HMMM... Wait that means it includes Atheism and Darwinism. Godly religions are only part of religion ;).

Uh...bolded part much? "Esp. when considered as the CREATION of a SUPERHUMAN agency or agencies"? Sounds kinda godly to me. Come on, man, relax. You're getting completely bent out of shape over very little. What's really bugging you?

You invite jokes.

I can go through a whole day without even thinking about religion. In fact, if I'm looking the right way, I can even drive to and from work without seeing a church.

Look, I don't know what's going on in your life right now to make you so jumpy about religion, but rest assured, it's quite possible to live without it as an overwhelming presence in your life. I choose, for example, to respect religion in the choice of music for my choirs. I know that I work at a secular college, but I also know that without the Catholic church, specifically, most of the greatest pieces of choral music would not exist (either because they were written for or about God or because the Church preserved them). I can't afford to ignore religion, so I have learned enough about it to make religious imagery and doctrine relevant to the music I choose, in order to elicit the emotional response from my singers and my audience. One needn't be devout in any one religion to understand great emotion or great symbolism.

Again, I hope that whatever is worrying you is resolved to your satisfaction, and I hope it's not as painful as it seems to be, based on what I've read from you here. Take care.

As I've said, religion isn't merely a gathering of people, but a belief or ritual you do. Video games, work, eating. By definition I'm am correct.

the whole creation of marriage was created for the fact of creating children

Still wrong. No matter how many times you say something, it doent get "more right".

It means, that Religion is and has always been involved in humans lives, and that the whole creation of marriage was created for the fact of creating children, keep in mind that they didn't have sperm banks back then ;).

Children were created long before marriage was, sorry for bursting your bubble.

And even so, that's hardly relevant now.

As I've said, religion isn't merely a gathering of people, but a belief or ritual you do. Video games, work, eating. By definition I'm am correct.

Youre on crack.

As I've said, religion isn't merely a gathering of people, but a belief or ritual you do. Video games, work, eating. By definition I'm am correct.

Look at the definition you posted. By definition, you are incorrect. ONe can use what they like as an analogy for religion. "Video games are my religion" is a metaphorical statement, since I don't think many people pray to Solid Snake (well, nobody I'd want to meet).

Regardless, a ritual is a ritual and religion is religion. The former can be part of the latter, but the former and latter are not equals.

I give up. Obviously people missed the memo, that humans haven't been ass deep in religion since we first came to this earth, and that everything afterwords wasn't pretty much from religious purpose. But w/e can't argue with you.

Ummm, I take it you don't take very many history classes, do you?
Lets see...the first civilizations in the Mesopotamia area had a very basic idea of religion, but those were only created AFTER stabilization in villages, so about 10,000 years ago, when agriculture was first found to work. Disappointingly for you though, the ancient religions seemed to have no problem with homosexuality. Specifically, I'd like to point out the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Aboriginal religions, which all either accept homosexual families or place queer people in an exalted position in society.
Gettting back on track though, religion in all of these societies had different purposes, but marriage wasn't one of them. The Greeks and Romans especially had their marriages in civil services, the only role religion had was before the wedding, to choose a date which augered well for the couple, and after the fact to bless the married pair.
Have fun learning.

Uh...bolded part much? "Esp. when considered as the CREATION of a SUPERHUMAN agency or agencies"? Sounds kinda godly to me. Come on, man, relax. You're getting completely bent out of shape over very little. What's really bugging you?

Again I said godly religion is part of religion, is said "especially" that still leaves parts open ;). Nice try.

Again I said godly religion is part of religion, is said "especially" that still leaves parts open ;). Nice try.

*sigh*

You claim to be correct BY DEFINITION. The definition you QUOTED has SUPERHUMAN CREATION right smack in the middle of it. How much more made of fail can your argument be?

I will state once again, for those of you who can't get this past your ignorance of the meaning religion. Yes i know scary stuff, getting all dressed up, sitting in a church, singing church songs :O. Let's say we have a man with a Blunt, he loves it so much, he won't give it up, he clings to it. Same could be said for cigs, alch, eating. Religion in essence is addiction. Addiction, is what humans have in there lives, no matter who they are.

*sigh*

You claim to be correct BY DEFINITION. The definition you QUOTED has SUPERHUMAN CREATION right smack in the middle of it. How much more made of fail can your argument be?

Because that is what most people consider religion, as a godly thing, you fool.

Edit: When they said SUPERHUMAN CREATION, that was an example of religion.

I will state once again, for those of you who can't get this past your ignorance of the meaning religion. Yes i know scary stuff, getting all dressed up, sitting in a church, singing church songs :O. Let's say we have a man with a Blunt, he loves it so much, he won't give it up, he clings to it. Same could be said for cigs, alch, eating. Religion in essence is addiction. Addiction, is what humans have in there lives, no matter who they are.

You are so utterly wrong its not even funny anymore.


/Ignore

re⋅li⋅gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I see nothing in regards to god here... HMMM... Wait that means it includes Atheism and Darwinism. Godly religions are only part of religion ;).

Actually, Atheism doesn't particularly count as a religion, seeing as its a DISMISSAL OF RELIGION. If you can understand that Atheism cannot dismiss itself and thus cannot be a religion, then give yourself a cookie for being able to follow a simple logical pathway.
Darwinism isn't a religion, its a theory, same as the theory of gravity or the theory of the Big Bang.

Theory
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ...
hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was ...
a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
OR
An explanation for some phenomenon that is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/glossary.php3
OR
The body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a particular subject.
www.edgateway.net/pub/docs/pel/glossary.htm

Now, what does all your dancing around your own chosen topic show? It shows that you don't actually have an argument, and your only pitiful defence is to try and find fallacies in our own arguments, mostly by avoiding the issue.
Now, go find a coherant point and maybe we'll talk to you like you're not a troll.

You are so utterly wrong its not even funny anymore.


/Ignore

you are an utter moron. I will do my best not to debate with you again (but you know how those wishful thinkings end up).

It means, that Religion is and has always been involved in humans lives, and that the whole creation of marriage was created for the fact of creating children, keep in mind that they didn't have sperm banks back then ;).

Your point is easily dismissed. Religion, as we have already TOLD you, did not exist first, not even in the Bible, not in any other religious text. Second, there are many, many couples in the world who cannot conceive a child naturally because of one reason or another. These couples get married, yet they do not create children, should they lose their ability to marry too? I sincerely hope you don't use sperm banks, I really mean that.

It means, that Religion is and has always been involved in humans lives, and that the whole creation of marriage was created for the fact of creating children, keep in mind that they didn't have sperm banks back then ;).

That does not necessitate that marriage was a religious thing. After all, the need for fresh human beings does not depend on the burning shrubbery declaring it.
Of course, it does explain why religions encourage it. Lots of fresh believers are after all quite useful if you want influence and power.

In any case, nowadays marriage isn't all about making kiddies anymore, at least in western societies. You do not have to be pregnant to marry (in fact, religions even encourage virginity), old people well past the fertility stage can still tie the knot and if your marriage remains childless it is not automatically anulled by the state.

I will state once again, for those of you who can't get this past your ignorance of the meaning religion. Yes i know scary stuff, getting all dressed up, sitting in a church, singing church songs :O. Let's say we have a man with a Blunt, he loves it so much, he won't give it up, he clings to it. Same could be said for cigs, alch, eating. Religion in essence is addiction. Addiction, is what humans have in there lives, no matter who they are.

Right, so now you're arguing that religion is an addiction? Well, that just means it should be stamped out, as there's never, ever been a good addiction in the world.
You know what most people have in their lives instead of addiction, its called moderation.
Someone should call in a person active in their religion and have them read this quote. It could prove interesting...from a distance of course.

Atheism: An oxymoron, Thanks to you stating it throws away religion, which it can not do. As for the other statement on darwinism not being a religion, would be falsely leading people. Religion as i keep saying, IS NOT ABOUT ORGANIZED GATHERINGS. It is beliefs and rituals


be⋅lief
   /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bi-leef] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.



Click Here!
ritual
Sponsored Links Ritual Men's Care
Free Ritual Shave Rinse with $25 purchase.$17 value. Shop now.
www.smallflower.com
8 dictionary results for: ritual
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
rit⋅u⋅al
   /ˈrɪtʃuəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rich-oo-uhl] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an established or prescribed procedure for a religious or other rite.
2. a system or collection of religious or other rites.
3. observance of set forms in public worship.
4. a book of rites or ceremonies.
5. a book containing the offices to be used by priests in administering the sacraments and for visitation of the sick, burial of the dead, etc.
6. a prescribed or established rite, ceremony, proceeding, or service: the ritual of the dead.
7. prescribed, established, or ceremonial acts or features collectively, as in religious services.
8. any practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner.
9. a prescribed code of behavior regulating social conduct, as that exemplified by the raising of one's hat or the shaking of hands in greeting.
10. Psychiatry. a specific act, as hand-washing, performed repetitively to a pathological degree, occurring as a common symptom of obsessive-compulsive neurosis.
–adjective
11. of the nature of or practiced as a rite or ritual: a ritual dance.
12. of or pertaining to rites or ritual: ritual laws.

o⋅pin⋅ion
   /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

Well, I see you still haven't shown how religion is needed for marriage, considering that Callisdrun, Knights of Liberty, and myself have all shown different historical examples where your belief that religion is the only way to get a marriage is wrong. Come on, actually prove a point to us and we'll start to take you seriously.

All my fucking point is, i mean the only fucking point, is that leave marriage to those who are religious, and have separate things for those who aren't. Gays can have there civil unions, atheist can have court joining, and the religious can have there marriage.

Well, I see you still haven't shown how religion is needed for marriage, considering that Callisdrun, Knights of Liberty, and myself have all shown different historical examples where your belief that religion is the only way to get a marriage is wrong. Come on, actually prove a point to us and we'll start to take you seriously.

Religion is not needed within a marriage, but that doesn't destroy the fact that it was a religious creation.

Edit: I could debate and debate and debate on several things. But in the end why the hell do we still do these threads? All we get is anger towards each other, and no one goes away with anything good.

Right, because separate but equal institutions have always worked well, just like separate Black schools worked in the 1960's.
Did you know that internationally, only marriages are legally recognized? That means that even if we settled for your civil unions in this country, they would still be considered unjoined in every other country in the world?
Oh, and by the way, in all those societies that have come up, especially the Greek and Roman ones, marriage was entirely done by civil society. But I see you completely ignored that point, hooray for you for picking and choosing what to see in a post.

Religion is not needed within a marriage, but that doesn't destroy the fact that it was a religious creation.

Edit: I could debate and debate and debate on several things. But in the end why the hell do we still do these threads? All we get is anger towards each other, and no one goes away with anything good.

already replied to a few times, shall I go quote myself just to show you where I said it?

All my fucking point is, i mean the only fucking point, is that leave marriage to those who are religious, and have separate things for those who aren't. Gays can have there civil unions, atheist can have court joining, and the religious can have there marriage.

Three questions:
1. Would they all be the same thing in the eyes of the state ?
2. Why would the religious get the existing term ? Why not call the state unions "marriage" and the religious thing "holy union" for instance ?
3. Can all religions play ? As in - polygamy, childmarriage, marriage to inanimate objects and so on is all fine as long as your religion says it is ?

Religion is not needed within a marriage, but that doesn't destroy the fact that it was a religious creation.

Edit: I could debate and debate and debate on several things. But in the end why the hell do we still do these threads? All we get is anger towards each other, and no one goes away with anything good.

Actually, those of us fighting for equal rights gain more motivation to make sure that we obtain those rights, rights you seem to think only belong to the religious and should be treated as their (oh my here's the irony) divine right.
Well, bad news; we live in a secular society, that means that religion and the state are supposed to be separate.

All my fucking point is, i mean the only fucking point, is that leave marriage to those who are religious, and have separate things for those who aren't. Gays can have there civil unions, atheist can have court joining, and the religious can have there marriage.

What about those who are religious (especially those in churches that will perform weddings for homosexual couples)?

All my fucking point is, i mean the only fucking point, is that leave marriage to those who are religious, and have separate things for those who aren't. Gays can have there civil unions, atheist can have court joining, and the religious can have there marriage.

OK, my turn to play with the troll.

Why can't religious gays have a religious marriage performed by the clergy of a religion that allows gay marriage? :confused:

OK, my turn to play with the troll.

Why can't religious gays have a religious marriage performed by the clergy of a religion that allows gay marriage? :confused:

That's just unkind. Not to mention somewhat confusing at first glance.

Three questions:
1. Would they all be the same thing in the eyes of the state ?
2. Why would the religious get the existing term ? Why not call the state unions "marriage" and the religious thing "holy union" for instance ?
3. Can all religions play ? As in - polygamy, childmarriage, marriage to inanimate objects and so on is all fine as long as your religion says it is ?

Gonna be my last post, then bed.

1. Well yes and no. For instance take into account if they have kids.
2. Call them w/e the fuck you want, i don't care. Just give everyone there separate name and leave it at that.
3.As I've said religious. Atheistic, Abrahamic. Except for polygamy which in the case of children, would be a strain on the state since marriages/joinings/unions, have some benefits. And polygamist could just use that to milk the state.

Gonna be my last post, then bed.

1. Well yes and no. For instance take into account if they have kids.
2. Call them w/e the fuck you want, i don't care. Just give everyone there separate name and leave it at that.
3.As I've said religious. Atheistic, Abrahamic. Except for polygamy which in the case of children, would be a strain on the state since marriages/joinings/unions, have some benefits. And polygamist could just use that to milk the state.

So, once again, what about religious gays who are in churches that will wed them?

Well, bad news; we live in a secular society, that means that religion and the state are supposed to be separate. Could debate, not gonna, bed.


What about those who are religious (especially those in churches that will perform weddings for homosexual couples)? Didn't think i need to explain this. considering i already stated the religious marriage was for men and women. Don't confuse me with saying gays can't be religious.

Why can't religious gays have a religious marriage performed by the clergy of a religion that allows gay marriage? Now you turning this whole thing upside down... Religion in it's first form, when people first used it, used marriage for men and women to create a household and children. religion also created most of the structure of the state (but here is a chicken, or egg debate, so let's not go into that).

Well, bad news; we live in a secular society, that means that religion and the state are supposed to be separate.

That rather turns your entire argument against gay marriage on it's head, doesn't it?

Why can't religious gays have a religious marriage performed by the clergy of a religion that allows gay marriage? Now you turning this whole thing upside down... Religion in it's first form, when people first used it, used marriage for men and women to create a household and children.

Prove it.

Because that is what most people consider religion, as a godly thing, you fool.

Edit: When they said SUPERHUMAN CREATION, that was an example of religion.

No. The very definition that YOU YOURSELF QUOTED said "ESPECIALLY when referring to CREATION of the world by A SUPERHUMAN AGENCY or AGENCIES."

That is NOT an example, that's an ESPECIALLY. That means that the definition applies MOSTLY TO THAT POINT. You have been sunk by the very definition you chose to post, and yet all you can do is insult those who have pointed that out. I am done posting to you until you learn how debate works.

you are an utter moron. I will do my best not to debate with you again (but you know how those wishful thinkings end up).

Warned for flaming.

All my fucking point is, i mean the only fucking point, is that leave marriage to those who are religious, and have separate things for those who aren't. Gays can have there civil unions, atheist can have court joining, and the religious can have there marriage.Marriage is a legal contract, not a solely religious one. Simple. My evidence for this; I am an atheist and I am married. Which brings me to a problem with your 'separate but equal marriage plan.' I am married to someone who does believe in god. Should we ban marriages between the religious and the non-religious?

That rather turns your entire argument against gay marriage on it's head, doesn't it?He was quoting someone else. Without the quote box or quotation marks just to make it clearer.

Children were created long before marriage was, sorry for bursting your bubble.

And even so, that's hardly relevant now.

The question is which came first the child or the marriage? :wink:

The question is which came first the child or the marriage? :wink:

And when did the shotgun get involved?

Now you turning this whole thing upside down... Religion in it's first form, when people first used it, used marriage for men and women to create a household and children. religion also created most of the structure of the state (but here is a chicken, or egg debate, so let's not go into that).

Hmmm. Let us take this a tad bit further.

Sofar we are at the same time throwing all "religions" on a heap, while at the same time acknowledging there are many, many different types. That seems a bit silly.

So - why do we keep debating on whether marriage is religious in origin or not while the originating religion isn't practiced anymore at any significant scale ? If the ancient Egyptians for instance thought something up it is a tad bit silly to claim the rights now belong to Christianity. If the Inca's produced wonderful architecture, it is silly to credit the moslims. If the Celts made beautiful music, it does not belong to the Hindus now.

The people who originally thought up marriage are long dead. The originating religion or state is long dead. Let us not concern us with that anymore and focus on today.

Hmmm. Let us take this a tad bit further.

Sofar we are at the same time throwing all "religions" on a heap, while at the same time acknowledging there are many, many different types. That seems a bit silly.

So - why do we keep debating on whether marriage is religious in origin or not while the originating religion isn't practiced anymore at any significant scale ? If the ancient Egyptians for instance thought something up it is a tad bit silly to claim the rights now belong to Christianity. If the Inca's produced wonderful architecture, it is silly to credit the moslims. If the Celts made beautiful music, it does not belong to the Hindus now.

The people who originally thought up marriage are long dead. The originating religion or state is long dead. Let us not concern us with that anymore and focus on today.

That seems far too rational for CS. Well said.

leave marriage to those who are religious, and have separate things for those who aren't. Gays can have there civil unions, atheist can have court joining, and the religious can have there marriage.Brilliant, but what about the religious gays that want to marry; and which coincidentally belong to a church which will happily marry them. Shouldn't their union simply be called marriage?
Why should the nay-sayers get their way?

Actually I have heard a neo-nazi proclaim he was against it because "it would allow people that are biologically able to aid the nation through reproduction but refuse to do so to formalise their selfish attitude".

Yes. Quite. Fortunately I do not believe our dear Hitlerloving friend reproduced himself.

Considering how many LGBT folks have kids of their own (i.e., biologically), I wonder how many of these yahoos actually bothered to research the subject in any depth. There's having kids before you realize you're gay, there's gay men doing stud service for lesbian friends, there's artificial insemination.

FFS, "gay" does not translate as "sterile."

Well, bad news; we live in a secular society, that means that religion and the state are supposed to be separate. Could debate, not gonna, bed.

What about those who are religious (especially those in churches that will perform weddings for homosexual couples)? Didn't think i need to explain this. considering i already stated the religious marriage was for men and women. Don't confuse me with saying gays can't be religious.

Why can't religious gays have a religious marriage performed by the clergy of a religion that allows gay marriage? Now you turning this whole thing upside down... Religion in it's first form, when people first used it, used marriage for men and women to create a household and children. religion also created most of the structure of the state (but here is a chicken, or egg debate, so let's not go into that).

1. Religion fail. Religion != Christianity. Religion also != Abrahamic faiths. There are lots and lots of religions out there. Many of them predate yours. So don't presume to speak for all of them.

2. Anthropology fail. People had religious inclinations long before the state existed. Also, the original unit of humanity was the tribe, not the one-man one-woman married couple. The isolated nuclear-family household did not then exist.

3. Logic fail. If we all have to behave the way we first did when religion first came on the scene, as with your implication that marriage has to remain one-man-one-woman because "religion" (whatever that is) decrees it that way and "religion" set human families and the state in motion (debatable), we should all still be nomadic hunter-gatherers today and there should be a whole lot fewer of us. No Internet, no houses as we know them, no state, no Christianity. You wanna go there, or will you finally admit that human society evolves and changes? Wow, you may feel yourself capable of arguing against biological evolution but you sure can't deny the socio-cultural.

I think some of the arguments about what homosexuality means and whether it's chosen are kinda flawed, and I am somewhat prejudiced against adoption as it's practiced*, but I still think gays should be eligible for the same marriage-related legal rights as straight people.

-----
*I think adoption should be reserved for kids with no extended family, or who would be permanently damaged or killed if they were returned to their family of origin. Otherwise I see it as child-stealing, in most cases.

*snip -- it was all good until this*

*I think adoption should be reserved for kids with no extended family, or who would be permanently damaged or killed if they were returned to their family of origin. Otherwise I see it as child-stealing, in most cases.

What now?

How is it stealing if the biological parents have given the child up for adoption?

There's no way I'd trust my extended family to take care of any child of mine. Oh hell no... Or any child, for that matter. *shudder*

All my fucking point is, i mean the only fucking point, is that leave marriage to those who are religious, and have separate things for those who aren't. Gays can have there civil unions, atheist can have court joining, and the religious can have there marriage.

"Marriage" is the name for the LEGAL institution. If you want separate words for the legal and religious institution, you are welcome to the words "wedding" and/or "matrimony", which are not used in the legal codes.

Straight men don’t want to get married anynore, and gays are rioting in the streets for the right to be married. Too bad we can’t arrange a trade: outlaw heterosexual marriages and legalize it for gays. Men won’t need to worry about a relationship getting too serious anymore, women won’t need to worry about never getting a proposal, and gays will keep the wedding planners in business. Everyone’s a winner.

personally I'm for gay marriage, but let me ask something why would they want to get married anyway? It's not like being married gives you super rights

personally I'm for gay marriage, but let me ask something why would they want to get married anyway? It's not like being married gives you super rights

There are over 1000 protections that fall under marriage law - some of which you cannot get outside of civil marriage. Those that you can are also much more difficult and costly.

personally I'm for gay marriage, but let me ask something why would they want to get married anyway? It's not like being married gives you super rights

1) As Dem1 as said, being married DOES give you extra rights, protections, and benefits

2) Gays and lesbians want to get married for the same reason anyone would want to get married.

3) Gays and lesbians have an extra incentive to seek to have their relationships recognized, given they have been discriminated against for so long.

4) Marriage itself is a fundamental right recognized by the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Human Rights.

I read somewhere that gay marriages in California alone would generate some $640M in revenues for licenses and businesses (caterers, halls, wedding singers, etc.).

How can any self-respecting fiscal conservative turn that down?

I read somewhere that gay marriages in California alone would generate some $640M in revenues for licenses and businesses (caterers, halls, wedding singers, etc.).

How can any self-respecting fiscal conservative turn that down?

because the republican party has been invaded by insane right wing christians like sarah palin and doesn't stand for old school conservatism any more

the only thing wrong with gay marriage is that it offends god apparently but I don't think anyone has ever stopped and asked this god if it really objects to two men or women expressing there love for each other by becoming one in the eyes of the laws of the land.

because the republican party has been invaded by insane right wing christians like sarah palin and doesn't stand for old school conservatism any more

the only thing wrong with gay marriage is that it offends god apparently but I don't think anyone has ever stopped and asked this god if it really objects to two men or women expressing there love for each other by becoming one in the eyes of the laws of the land.

Exactly. You are a bright young poster. *bows in respect*

Also, if you look at the laws of many religions, it seems the the Word of God is open to at least some interpretation from time to time. We're no longer smote for dressing in mixed fabrics or handling pigs. Unless you're a full-on Jew or Muslim. We're not forced to sell unmarried daughters into slavery. So the whole "god doesn't like it" thing rings kinda hollow anyway.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL -- except...

I keep saying it, but those arguing against gay marriage from a religious perspective can't seem to get it into their heads that some gays are religious, and that some religions/churches are perfectly happy to perform weddings for them.

Classic example of people ignoring what doesn't fit into their world view.

Marriage has been around as an anthropological "feature" for as long as there have been human beings leaving one tribal family and joining another tribe, or starting a new tribe.

People bonding together is a survival tactic. There's some good evidence that the prehistoric nomadic tribe would have consisted of some kids, three to five childbearing women, thirty to fifty bachelor males, and one, sometimes two, "alpha" males. You don't really need to ask what the bachelor males did on cold nights, do you? (The answer is ~not~ "Sit outside the mouth of the cave and watch the Alpha fuck the women.")

Marriage from the oldest time has been "self-administered" -- two people stood in front of their families and friends and neighbors and said "We're together."

That was it.

(Yes, some families bartered their children in marriage; it was long thought that too much affection interfered with a "good" marriage. Romantic love is a wholly modern feature of marriage.)

Some rituals were added along the way -- dower and dowry, rings, vows, stamping on the glass, etc., as symbols attached to the act of announcing a marriage or more practically, to ensure economic viability of the new family, because "shit happens."

Until the fifteenth century in Europe, when busybodies in the church and state decided that there had to be some "official" recognition of marriage, and official records. Still, for example, the RC church considers the sacrament of matrimony to be the one sacrament that is administered by the two people getting married -- the priest is just a witness.

In China, marriage became formalized as an economic and social (and explicitly non-religious) event about 5000 BC, because Chinese civilization began so much earlier.


So ... marriage as a religious construct? Not so much. Though perhaps religion-invested folks would like to think so, and might like you to think so too. There's not much left for religions to lay a claim to other than weddings and funerals.