first good thing to happen in canada..............

[Justin_stacy]

Toronto Issues Gay Marriage Licenses After Ruling
Tue Jun 10, 4:00 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Jeffrey Hodgson and Randall Palmer

TORONTO/OTTAWA (Reuters) - The city of Toronto started issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on Tuesday after an Ontario provincial court issued a landmark ruling setting aside the heterosexual definition of marriage.


Reuters Photo


Reuters
Slideshow: Toronto Men Wed After Gay Marriage Ruling

If the ruling is not appealed, the province of Ontario would be the first jurisdiction in North America to legalize gay marriage. Vermont and Quebec have allowed gay civil unions but not full marriage.


Already a marriage ceremony between two men who had helped bring the case was set for Tuesday afternoon in Toronto, Canada's largest city.


Retroactively, the court decision also recognized two religious gay marriage ceremonies that took place in Toronto in 2001, ordering the province to register those marriages.


"They're married, as effective today," said Joanna Radbord, a lawyer for several of the couples who had lodged the case.


Canada's federal government, which is responsible for the marriage law, was putting up no immediate roadblocks.


"I think it's time for us to recognize that same-sex marriages are part of our societal norm," Deputy Prime Minister John Manley said in Ottawa after a cabinet meeting.


If the government had wanted to block speedy gay marriages, it would have had to have quickly sought a stay of the ruling while deciding if it wants to appeal. Cauchon said he would make a decision on an appeal later on Tuesday or on Wednesday.


"I know the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ontario has immediate effect so we have to move quickly," he said. But his spokesman said later no stay would be sought on Tuesday.


The three-person Ontario court ruled that the federal law limiting marriage to heterosexuals violated the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the Canadian Constitution.


The decision was one of three rulings expected this year by appeals courts in provinces across the country.


A decision in May by a British Columbia appeals court had given the federal government until July 2004 to change its law to include homosexual marriages, and Cauchon had said he was mulling an appeal.


But the Ontario court ruled that to wait for federal action would deny the gay couples their constitutional rights.


The court redefined the common law definition of marriage as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others." In so doing, it substituted "two persons" for "one man and one woman" -- the phrasing Parliament had reaffirmed as recently as 1999.


"The common law definition of marriage is inconsistent with the Charter to the extent that it excludes same-sex couples," the court ruled.


Cauchon said the House of Commons justice committee, which has conducted hearings across the country on what should be done about the definition of marriage, had to play a role in determining the government's response.


Committee member Vic Toews of the opposition Canadian Alliance, an opponent of gay marriage, asked Cauchon to launch an urgent appeal to the Supreme Court declaring that the courts had usurped Parliament's role.

"The definition of marriage is a matter that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament," he said.

[WithStamin]

Yeah, and the story came along with this (http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/mdf295888.jpg) picture. It's kind of sad seeing the cross and that in the same picture. Marriage means nothing in Toronto now.

[The Nephilm]

Cal And Stamin...

if there is a god, he is going to send you to hell.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
Cal And Stamin...

if there is a god, he is going to send you to hell. Except for the fact that religion condemns homosexuality...

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Except for the fact that religion condemns homosexuality...

do really think God is going to get pissed because two people are in love with each other and want to make it final, despite being same sex? There are far worse things.

[The Nephilm]

Religion may or may not condemn homosexuality depending on how you look at it...

however Religion has also approved murderous crusades, incest and sexual misconduct, WORL CONQUEST...

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
Religion may or may not condemn homosexuality depending on how you look at it...

however Religion has also approved murderous crusades, incest and sexual misconduct, WORL CONQUEST...

I don't know about other religions, but Christianity explains incest in the first testament/Hebrew scriptures in this way:

"If incest is scripturally forbidden, according to the Mosaic law, how do we explain all this marrying of siblings? Since Adam and Eve were created directly by God, and perfect, it can be presumed that their genes were perfect.

When sin entered the world at the Fall, bringing with it death, disease, and destruction, the gene pool would gradually become corrupted. At first, no harm would result from marriage of brothers and sisters, and had sin not entered the world, presumably no harm would have ever entered.

As the generations passed, however, disease, environment, and sin took their toll on the genetic pool, which resulted in mutant and defective genes. Incest was prohibited in Moses' time, from a biological standpoint, because it now was dangerous and resulted in deformed, moronic, or otherwise defective offspring."

God forbids incest because it corrupts the genes, and makes future generations inferior.

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
Cal And Stamin...

if there is a god, he is going to send you to hell.

Dude, your a fucking hypocrit. You preach the seperation of the church and government then you say this. Marriage can only be issued by a priest, thus meaning that it is religious. If you knew shit about the Bible, then youd know that gay relationships are discouraged, and that means the church has the right to do whatever the fuck they want to do, whether they want to wed homosexuals or not. The government has no right to say what the fuck should happen in church.

Personally, Id like a conservative athiest in office right now...

[evil zach]

Originally posted by cal1082
lets pray not

i think i'll weigh my choice's on what the Bible teaches me. Not what Neph's opinion is.

Originally posted by WithStamin
Except for the fact that religion condemns homosexuality...

If jesus could forgive the people who crucafied him, do you really think he had much of a problem with gays?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Yeah, and the story came along with this (http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/mdf295888.jpg) picture. It's kind of sad seeing the cross and that in the same picture. Marriage means nothing in Toronto now.

actually it didn't come with that picture, at least in the article i got.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=840&ncid=737&e=2&u=/nm/20030610/wl_canada_nm/canada_gays_col

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
Marriage can only be issued by a priest, thus meaning that it is religious.

actually the "state" issues marriages in this country, NOT priest, the priest is only for cerimonial purposes........

[Justin_stacy]

You guys do understand that some churches allow gays to be members and hold office.......such as the Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran, anglican church (canada), United Methodist, Presbyterian and Roman Catholics...........

[evil zach]

wonderful! then there is no problem.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
wonderful! then there is no problem.
but god forgives murderers as well. so on problem?

[evil zach]

I can't belienve you just compared a muder to a homosexual. If you were trying to prove your ignorance, bravo!

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
I can't belienve you just compared a muder to a homosexual. If you were trying to prove your ignorance, bravo!
if you can compare an unborn child to a germ, a homosexual and a murderer being compared is just fine

[NOFXdesendents5]

Neph just got owned:eek:

[evil zach]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
if you can compare an unborn child to a germ, a homosexual and a murderer being compared is just fine
i can compare a fetus to a germ becuase the both function exaclty the same. But untill you can show me that a homosexual and a murderd finction the same, that argument dosn't hold up. Not to say that their are no gay murderes, but you get my point

[Matthew]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Yeah, and the story came along with this (http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/mdf295888.jpg) picture. It's kind of sad seeing the cross and that in the same picture. Marriage means nothing in Toronto now.

that is horrible. i mean, i know that if i were a prophet who preached love and acceptance, i would be horrified to see love and acceptance practiced in my name. its so much more entertaining when they just kill each other in my name.

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
that is horrible. i mean, i know that if i were a prophet who preached love and acceptance, i would be horrified to see love and acceptance practiced in my name. its so much more entertaining when they just kill each other in my name.

point accepted

[Matthew]

yeah, this isnt really a political issue. at least not right v. left. mor elike fascist fundamentalists v. sane people.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
i can compare a fetus to a germ becuase the both function exaclty the same. But untill you can show me that a homosexual and a murderd finction the same, that argument dosn't hold up. Not to say that their are no gay murderes, but you get my point
easy. they both function the same. and i would say more than an unborn child and a germ. homosexual intercourse is illegal, so is murder. homosexual intercourse is a sin in the eyes of the lord, so is murder. So they are comprable. More so than an unborn child and a germ.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
easy. they both function the same. and i would say more than an unborn child and a germ. homosexual intercourse is illegal, so is murder. homosexual intercourse is a sin in the eyes of the lord, so is murder. So they are comprable. More so than an unborn child and a germ.

but murder is always an act of hate, and sex is typically an act of either love or affection. Thats not functioning the same.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
but murder is always an act of hate, and sex is typically an act of either love or affection. Thats not functioning the same.
but from an unborn child can come an astonaut, a lawyer, a pilot, a firefighter, an athlete, a president, a doctor. From a germ comes disease and death. Thats not fucntioning the same.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
but from an unborn child can come an astonaut, a lawyer, a pilot, a firefighter, an athlete, a president, a doctor. From a germ comes disease and death. Thats not fucntioning the same.

but you really can't compare the severity of gay sex to the severity of murder. I mean, yes, you can contract AIDS if you arn't careful, but passing on AIDS is almost never intentional. murder is. its cold blood. a man and a man having sex is not in cold blood.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
but you really can't compare the severity of gay sex to the severity of murder. I mean, yes, you can contract AIDS if you arn't careful, but passing on AIDS is almost never intentional. murder is. its cold blood. a man and a man having sex is not in cold blood.
I know. the comparisson i was making is that they are both sins. both are illegal. sure one doesnt involve malice, but thats not the point. i was trying to make a point to zach that comparissons arent all that accurate. comparing a germ to an unborn child is just wrong and disgustin. at least gay men and murderers have some parallel. so really i was just trying to prove something else. but both are sins, both are illegal

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
homosexual intercourse is illegal,

only in a few, backwards (?), states..............

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
. comparing a germ to an unborn child is just wrong and disgustin. at least gay men and murderers .

how is your comparison not "disgusting or wrong"?

[Matthew]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
homosexual intercourse is illegal, so is murder. homosexual intercourse is a sin in the eyes of the lord, so is murder.

i know it exists, im not doubting that, but just for clarity could someone psot the bible verse(s) that condemn homosexuality? thanks.

anyway, if you look at it from a religous standpoint, gay sex is not as severe as murder. murder is condemned by the ten commandments, the founding doctrines of behavior behind christianity, islam, and judaism. gay sex is not.

also, gay sex is not illegal in most states. futhermore, being illegal doesnt make something wrong. it is possible for unjsut laws to exist, evin in, GASP! , america. it may be hard for you to accept that your government is wrong, but were talking about the institution that didnt grant blacks sequal rights until the 60's.

[evil zach]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
homosexual intercourse is illegal
Only in a few states, and nowere in canada

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
i know it exists, im not doubting that, but just for clarity could someone psot the bible verse(s) that condemn homosexuality? thanks.

anyway, if you look at it from a religous standpoint, gay sex is not as severe as murder. murder is condemned by the ten commandments, the founding doctrines of behavior behind christianity, islam, and judaism. gay sex is not.



"Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination" Leviticus 18:22. However, "abomination" does not mean a mortal sin. Murder is a mortal sin. Mortal sins turn you away from God. Its a sin worthy of punishment in Hell. Gay sex is not a mortal sin.

and sadly, the 10 commandments do, in a way, condenm gay sex. They use the general term, "thou shall not commit adultry" to encompass all sins of flesh outside of marriage. I know "adultry" implies something a little different and more specific, but in God's eyes, we are to be loyal to our destined spouse from birth till official marriage, and if we have no destined spouse, the person you are fornicating with may have one, so its disrespectful to that future relationship.

Also, when people go to confession, they sometimes hand out these sheets with the 10 commandments, and sins that violate them, and under the adultry one was masturbation, ill thoughts, gay sex, ect. ect. ect.

And there are more than 10 commandments. Those are just the popular ones, the blueprints. The book of Leviticus has them all. Some of them are certainly crazy and out of date. I'm not sure if Jewish people still consider the other commandments, but I know that after Jesus came, Christian began to focus mostly on the main 10.

[evil zach]

Couldn't one argue thats kind of a strech though?

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by evil zach
Couldn't one argue thats kind of a strech though?

Under God, no.
In the eyes of God, sexual, or intimate acts are meant within the bounds of marriage.
Its something like, you're supposed to save yourself until marriage, so that you may give your entire body to your spouse. Marriage is only recognized by God if the two people love each other completely and unselfishly. So that when they finally have sex they arn't doing it for their own gratification, but for the gratification of their spouse.
and if sexual acts are commited before marriage, then in God's eyes it is seen that the lovers were too selfish to wait to make it official, and did not love each other or respect each other enough to wait it out.
If you have sex before marriage with anyone other than your future spouse, regardless if you are with the boy/girlfriend of them already, than it is an ultimate disrespect to your husband/wife. It is seen as selfishness and taints the purity that marriage is supposed to be made of. You cannot give yourself wholly, in a sexual way, to someone if you have had previous sexual encounters with others.
In that sense, any sexual act you commit before marriage is an act of adultry. And since gays are not married, or can't get married, they are commiting adultry. Gay marriages are not recognized by the church because they cannot have babies.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
how is your comparison not "disgusting or wrong"? because mine is true, it may not be your opinion, but it is true. both are sins. zach's comment however was purely disgusting and selfish. to compare a germ and an un born child is saying that a child is an incovineince and a plauge. thats just wrong. its selfish to think that. its just wrong to compare a parasite with a child. its....its uncomprehendable how disgusting that is. and nothing to back it up to besides all of that "womyn" bullshit. the only reason i made that comment was to question zach's horrible comment on germs and children. dude, that was just wrong

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
because mine is true, it may not be your opinion, but it is true. both are sins.

yours is not any truer then his.......its just an ignorant opinion, (much like his)........religous beliefs and what is and isn't a sin is basically an opinion of the one speaking, religion is not fact or absolutely provable........

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
yours is not any truer then his.......its just an ignorant opinion, (much like his)........religous beliefs and what is and isn't a sin is basically an opinion of the one speaking, religion is not fact or absolutely provable........
good point. but mine has some moral base to it. zach's ideas are pulled straight from his ass. germ and a baby, come on. there is NOTHING other than dumbasses who consider a child to be a germ. You see what Im saying? I understand what you say about religion not being fact and all, and I accept that. But at least my comment has some GROUNDS for it.

[evil zach]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
because mine is true, it may not be your opinion, but it is true. both are sins. zach's comment however was purely disgusting and selfish. to compare a germ and an un born child is saying that a child is an incovineince and a plauge. thats just wrong. its selfish to think that. its just wrong to compare a parasite with a child. its....its uncomprehendable how disgusting that is. and nothing to back it up to besides all of that "womyn" bullshit. the only reason i made that comment was to question zach's horrible comment on germs and children. dude, that was just wrong
I wasn't comparing a germ to a CHILD. I was comparing a germ to fetus.

[evil zach]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
good point. but mine has some moral base to it. zach's ideas are pulled straight from his ass. germ and a baby, come on. there is NOTHING other than dumbasses who consider a child to be a germ. You see what Im saying? I understand what you say about religion not being fact and all, and I accept that. But at least my comment has some GROUNDS for it.
How can you say that you'rs has ground when it is based purley and faith, and dismiss mine which is based on scientific fact.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
A germ and a fetus on a big picture have very few similarities. They are way more diffrent then alike, and also the fact they are totally diffrent things makes that a bad comparison for an argument.

Gay sex / marriages and murder have nothing in common except for the fact they are seen immoral, and against the law in some places. They can only be compared by that.

So in the long run both are more different then similar, but each has some stuff in common, but not enough to make a good comparison.

I don't want to be a dildo guys, but it's a scientific fact that an embryo has more in common with a germ (or essentially any bacteria) than a developed human child. I'm one year away from an honours science degree, and I've had a few profs discuss this.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
I don't want to be a dildo guys, but it's a scientific fact that an embryo has more in common with a germ (or essentially any bacteria) than a developed human child. I'm one year away from an honours science degree, and I've had a few profs discuss this.
ok, but how many germs turn into important figures in the world. when was the last time that salmonella became a president or a doctor or a lawyer or a pastor or whatever. theres the HUGE difference. I was solely basing my gay/murderer comparison on what the bible reads. and the eyes of the law. thats it

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
ok, but how many germs turn into important figures in the world. when was the last time that salmonella became a president or a doctor or a lawyer or a pastor or whatever. theres the HUGE difference.

Now you're talking potential, which is a different (more solid) argument

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
Here's my question. What makes a 2 month old infant more of a human than a 4 month old fetus?

it can survive under the care of someone other than its biological mother.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
Here's my question. What makes a 2 month old infant more of a human than a 4 month old fetus?

The presence of cognitive, sapient function

And a nervous system...or any complex organ system for that matter

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
so it still depends on a human to survive? I've seen babies born premature that survive in a hospital.

Not after 2 months
you can only get an abortion in the first trimester (at least in Canada)

[bossydacow]

alot of things are alive that whose rights don't lord over anothers.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
so you're saying that it is alive, so is there a certain point where it shouldnt be aborted? Like so many months

yeah, I'm against partial-birth abortion. As soon as the fetus is fully viable, abortion should not be an option.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
By like 7 weeks the child has a heart beat, and brain activity. You dont get much more alive than that.

On the contrary, you get ALOT more alive than that.

Brain activity, yes, but bare minimum, just the beginnings.

If someone suffers head trauma, or has brain damage in some other manner in which they are on life support and no longer exhibit higher brain function, it's perfectly legal for the family to pull the plug. Yes, a fetus will eventually become a human while this person is almost certainly going to become a vegetable, but the fact remains the same: We no longer consider this person to be a true "person", just like the fetus isn't a true "person".

[evil zach]

Originally posted by cal1082
By like 7 weeks the child has a heart beat, and brain activity. You dont get much more alive than that.
brian waives and heart beats are only some factors in what in means to be alive

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
you are considered alive if you have brain wave activity, and a heartbeat.

Legally you aren't

The legal definition of death is brain death, and brain death has been further defined as higher brain death (i.e. the frontal lobe and the cortex).

These areas are the focal points of our humanity. Without them, we're a sack of cells with a heartbeat.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
but like a said children are born premature all the time.

yeah, and with intensive medical care they've got 50/50 chance of surviving. Its survival isn't as certain, and it takes a ton of effort to even try to help it live. at week 24, only 40% of fetuses will survive outside of the womb, with intensive care.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
So even if a child is born premature it's not a human? Also what's your point, thats still a 40% chance of survival. 40% chance is not a bad percentage.

of course its human. The question is not whether its alive, or human. Birds are alive, and the hair on your head is technically human. The question is: does it qualify for the same rights as, or more rights than, the woman that held it in her belly?

At 24 weeks it is barely making it, it really needs the woman's body. It would need help breathing. Two weeks earlier and there would be no chance of survival without major disablities.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
do you know if a premature child has these functions?

Yes

they don't

scientific fact

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
so a child born premature is brain dead?

A fetus can only be aborted during the first trimester
If a child were removed from the womb during this time, I'm almost positive it has a 0% chance of survival.
And during this time, it has no higher brain function AT ALL, so it is what we consider brain dead, yes.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
i'm pretty sure here in the U.S it's legal to have abortions after that.

your right..........which is one of the things that needs to be changed right away...........

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
your right..........which is one of the things that needs to be changed right away...........

Hey, I can agree with that.

[BustaNutz]

Holy shit you're on to abortion now? It's always going to end the same way, so I don't even want to argue.

Now for what I wanted to say, there is nothing wrong with being gay. Nothing at all, it's not a sin nor should gays have to be forgiven, it's not even a choice that is made. You're born that way. Now let me go two ways. First I'll prove you're born gay (as biblebeaters will debate this to make their arguements look stronger). First of all I have two cousins, twins, each is gay. To me that is evidence enough that it is genetic. Also I doubt very much anyone would choose a lifestyle that would subject them to constant ridicules from bigots like BrandNewRock and Cal.

Next, gay union is perfectly acceptable. If the church doesn't want to grant gay's the right to marry, the state should. It's the right thing to do. Enough said, don't argue, there is no reason the state shouldn't allow gay marriages, as there is a seperation of church and state.

Last, I doubt very much God cares whether or not you're gay. And just because the bible says something doesn't mean it's true. Did God write the bible? Did Jesus? NO! So it's not their exact teaching it's people's interpretations of those teachings. And even if God inspired the writers to write the texts, the texts we read are not what they wrote, it's not the original text, it's a modified, translated smoothed out version. The original texts are most likely far from the text you biblebeaters follow to the furthest extent.

[devin]

I have a very simple opinion on gay marriages: If straight couples can not succeed in marriage more than 50% of the time, why should allowing gays to try disgrace marriage anymore. I feel that the government has no place in dictating the sexual practices of consenting adults. Forbidding gay marriages is merely another way of marginalizing homosexuals.

Ronin expressed the medical aspects of abortion wonderfully, so I'll just add a little. I feel abortion is horrible. I don't want there to be abortions. Ultimately, I am a realist. I accept that there will be abortions. What I want is to limit the number of them. That isn't done by attacking the practice, it's done by attacking the causes. Educate younger children about sex properly, rather than abstinence only which has shown no benefits. Make contraceptives available, which have been shown not to increase sexual activity. Maybe you don't like the idea of teens having sex, but if they're using birth control, the pregnancy rates will drop. If you decrease unwanted pregnancies, you decrease the need for abortions. Of course, people will still make mistakes and women will still get raped. Abortion has been practiced for as long as people have known how to get rid of a child. It will not go away. Be reasonable and try to limit the need.

[papathomas]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Holy shit you're on to abortion now? It's always going to end the same way, so I don't even want to argue.

Now for what I wanted to say, there is nothing wrong with being gay. Nothing at all, it's not a sin nor should gays have to be forgiven, it's not even a choice that is made. You're born that way. Now let me go two ways. First I'll prove you're born gay (as biblebeaters will debate this to make their arguements look stronger). First of all I have two cousins, twins, each is gay. To me that is evidence enough that it is genetic. Also I doubt very much anyone would choose a lifestyle that would subject them to constant ridicules from bigots like BrandNewRock and Cal.

Next, gay union is perfectly acceptable. If the church doesn't want to grant gay's the right to marry, the state should. It's the right thing to do. Enough said, don't argue, there is no reason the state shouldn't allow gay marriages, as there is a seperation of church and state.

Last, I doubt very much God cares whether or not you're gay. And just because the bible says something doesn't mean it's true. Did God write the bible? Did Jesus? NO! So it's not their exact teaching it's people's interpretations of those teachings. And even if God inspired the writers to write the texts, the texts we read are not what they wrote, it's not the original text, it's a modified, translated smoothed out version. The original texts are most likely far from the text you biblebeaters follow to the furthest extent. adding to this you say that being gay is a sin when many of you have committed worse sins i am sure. don't get mad at people just because they aren't like you. do you follow everything the bible says? no, because god gave you the right to think for yourself, if you did i would say your ignorant. somewhere in the bible it says its o.k. to eat meat. i'm not gonna preach to ya'll about this, but i beleive that it is wrong should i do it because the bible says its ok?

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
First I'll prove you're born gay (as biblebeaters will debate this to make their arguements look stronger). First of all I have two cousins, twins, each is gay. To me that is evidence enough that it is genetic.

They haven't been able to link homosexuality to genetics, as in, they're fairly sure you don't inherit it. But they've also conclusively proven that it's not a chosen lifestyle, it's inherent in you when you're born. So it's not genetic, but it's biological.

Bible-eaters...GOLD

[BustaNutz]

Yes but it's oral tradition, the bible is based on stories passed down through oral traditions, so obviously the stories aren't the original versions.

Maybe bigot was too strong, I apologize that was unfair. But I wouldn't choose to be gay in a world that is so unaccepting. The religious aspects of it, I don't think that being gay is a sin, and I'm willing to accept as simply an alternative lifestyle. Your beliefs are different, that's fair enough, I just wish that christianity was more accepting of people who practice alternative lifestyles rather than being so discriminative. I believe maybe the teachings could change with the times, I think that no homosexuals teaching and the birth control teachings should be the first to go, those are just opinions.

As for Colin's statement about it being biological, that was what I was getting at. Genetic was the wrong word.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
A sin is a sin, it's simple. I sin every day, but the diffrence is i know i'm sinning and ask God for forgiveness all the time. My sins are no better than the sins of practicing homosexuality, the diffrence is i know what i do is wrong and ask for forgiveness.


So if a gay couple continues to live together "in sin", but they ask god for forgiveness every day, is that kosher with you? You keep "sinning", but you don't stop doing what you're doing.

And "sinning" is a fucking horrible term, because it has no definition. A sin to one religion is nothing to another. I'm Catholic, so it's a sin for me to...well, to do most anything besides drink and molest little boys. The beliefs of your religion are good and fine, but they have no bearing on anyone else.

And I didn't say that you aren't born gay, because you are. I said it wasn't genetic (i.e. you don't get it from your parents like you would albinism). OK, they haven't come up with a conclusive study (meaning they haven't found the "gay gene" yet) but there is literally a mountain of evidence suggesting that your sexual orientation is a characteristic you have at birth.

edit: Canada will be only the 3rd country in the world to legalize gay marriages. Chretian is finally doing a good job

[Justin_stacy]

i personally have no problem with very religious people finding something wrong with "the gay lifestyle", so long as they dont try and restrict the (equal) rights of those that are gay........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
i agree

so then you'd have no problem with ss couples being allowed to marry under the state.....................

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
Of course I do. If i dont condone homosexuality how could I condone that? I've always said they should create something like marriage, but not define it as marriage, and let gay couples get all the benifits as any other couple.

something like marriage is not marriage.....i'm saying that it should be the same, done by a judge instead of priest............

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
What do you think the ceremony of marriage is for?

you do know that people get married in court house and in non religious ceremonys where god is not mentioned right? Religioion isn't apart of marriage unless you want it to be...........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
What do you think the ceremony of marriage is for?

I see it as two parts:

1. Biblical terms: marriage is something between a man and a women to show their unity under God

2. For Government benifits

What else is there?

whether or not you see it as a biblical term, doesn't make it so with every one else...........in this country and in most others it is a state sponsored and instituted idea, that doesn't have to be apart of any religion..............

should we alos take away the right to marriage of muslums, hindus, jews, mormans, and anyone else who doesn't belive in the same bible as you?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
i also dont know how a muslum marriage, hindu marriage, jewish marriage, and mormon marriage take place. I dont know their rituals, or their beliefs in marriage enough to say.

but it doesn't matter to you.......because there not getting married under the Christian god, so inturn there marriages dont count, right.............

[devin]

If junky-pagans could get married without having met each other, I don't see how a long-term, loving gay couple could be excluded. Justin, I usually disagree with you, but I am glad that you defy the mold of simple words like "conservative."

[BustaNutz]

Are you Catholic cal?

[BustaNutz]

Ooh, even worse...

[BustaNutz]

Well maybe not worse, unless it's a southern baptist church, some of those can just be downright hateful...

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Are you Catholic cal?

whats so bad about being catholic in today's world?

[ms y o o n]

Originally posted by evil zach
If jesus could forgive the people who crucafied him, do you really think he had much of a problem with gays?

craap i didn't read anything
but i think if they also love God.. and are homosexual..then i think its ok
we dont really have a right to say what is going to happen to them or wahtever,

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by bossydacow
whats so bad about being catholic in today's world?

Nothing, I was going to point out that Cal's avatar is a sin, because by the Catholic church's teaching if you think it, you did, and that avatar can lead to some pretty impure thoughts (heh)...

[ms y o o n]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Nothing, I was going to point out that Cal's avatar is a sin, because by the Catholic church's teaching if you think it, you did, and that avatar can lead to some pretty impure thoughts (heh)...

i was gonna say the exact same thing
cuz follows the bible..
LUSSSTTTTTT impureeee!!!! hahaha

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
If it's there own form of marriage for their own form of belief that's diffrent. Being gay is not a religion.

but arent the other religions promoting the worship of a false idol? so wouldn't that make them even worse then gays?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by devin
Justin, I usually disagree with you, but I am glad that you defy the mold of simple words like "conservative."

simple words can't define a person..............

[devin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
simple words can't define a person..............

I hate to be cynical, but that isn't always true. Many people are all too happy to blindly follow the guidelines of "conservative" or "liberal." Maybe some of this people really are passionate in precisely the ways they claim to be on each issue. I suspect that many are more interested in toeing the line.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by devin
I hate to be cynical, but that isn't always true. Many people are all too happy to blindly follow the guidelines of "conservative" or "liberal." Maybe some of this people really are passionate in precisely the ways they claim to be on each issue. I suspect that many are more interested in toeing the line.

well then we'll change the word "person" to "individuals".........hows that?