Gay Marriage

[when 4ever ends]

do you support gay marriage? i don't see whats wrong with it. if marriages are based on love and a man and a man love each other whats wrong with it?

[when 4ever ends]

sorry i spelled gay wrong at the top of the poll

[atticus_4132]

i accept it....in germany its allowed...so its ok

[venus/bacchus]

do you support gay marriage? i don't see whats wrong with it. if marriages are based on love and a man and a man love each other whats wrong with it?
If marriage is based on love and a man and a dog love each other, what's wrong with it? If a marriage is based on love and a man and his child love each other, what's wrong with it?

logical flaws galore.

[Justin_stacy]

sorry i spelled gay wrong at the top of the poll
garrrrrrrrrrrr marriage.... :luvu:

[richter915]

because it is not possible to "tell" if a dog loves a man in the way a man may love a dog. Children are easily influenced by adults (take any intro psych course) and them loving an adult can be the same as them loving a certain type of food. According to Freud, all 3 year old boys would marry their mothers if the father was outta the picture.

two grown (key word: grown) men loving each other is different because they are aware of their surroundings and have chosen to want to marry another man.

With this question...not necessarily for it...but I'm not against it. You should make that an answer choice.

[richter915]

garrrrrrrrrrrr marriage.... :luvu:
hahaha...the sea captain from simpsons! woo!

[Speyside]

If marriage is based on love and a man and a dog love each other, what's wrong with it? If a marriage is based on love and a man and his child love each other, what's wrong with it?

logical flaws galore.
The problem, if you want to deal with that logically, involves the establishment of consent. A marriage beyond being based on love is based on mutual consent (i.e. wedding vows). Since dogs both do not speak and do not represent the level of intelligence required to make good judgement with regards to a marriage or more specifically, the entering of one, they can not be married. Besides, it's fucking gross. The latter is also the reason why you cannot marry or have sex with children.

[Speyside]

because it is not possible to "tell" if a dog loves a man in the way a man may love a dog. Children are easily influenced by adults (take any intro psych course) and them loving an adult can be the same as them loving a certain type of food. According to Freud, all 3 year old boys would marry their mothers if the father was outta the picture.

two grown (key word: grown) men loving each other is different because they are aware of their surroundings and have chosen to want to marry another man.

With this question...not necessarily for it...but I'm not against it. You should make that an answer choice.
Beat me to it.

[BrandNew20]

I'm for it. But it won't be happening anytime soon.

[richter915]

I'm for it. But it won't be happening anytime soon.
unless you cross the border to canada, eh?!?!??!!?!?

[kchubb]

No on marriage. I'd support civil unions though...

[Speyside]

I can't wait to see what i<3mxpx has to say about this...

[ohlookitspaul]

ok i know the conservatives here will probably rip this apart but my friend sent this to me and i find it funny.

REASONS WHY HOMOSEXUALS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

[BrandNew20]

unless you cross the border to canada, eh?!?!??!!?!?

haha.

[UndefinedBoy]

ok i know the conservatives here will probably rip this apart but my friend sent this to me and i find it funny.

REASONS WHY HOMOSEXUALS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Awesome...just awesome.

Number 9 is my favorite, since thats by far the most ridiculous argument against gay marriage.

[venus/bacchus]

because it is not possible to "tell" if a dog loves a man in the way a man may love a dog. Children are easily influenced by adults (take any intro psych course) and them loving an adult can be the same as them loving a certain type of food. According to Freud, all 3 year old boys would marry their mothers if the father was outta the picture.

two grown (key word: grown) men loving each other is different because they are aware of their surroundings and have chosen to want to marry another man.

With this question...not necessarily for it...but I'm not against it. You should make that an answer choice.
It's not possible to "tell" if a man loves a woman when they get married. And love isn't even a prerequisite for marriage. And that wasn't even my point. My point was to show that just because there is mutual love does not mean that the marriage should be legal. Let's say for instance the child is grown, or they're kin even. Should those be allowed solely because there is love?
The problem, if you want to deal with that logically, involves the establishment of consent. A marriage beyond being based on love is based on mutual consent (i.e. wedding vows). Since dogs both do not speak and do not represent the level of intelligence required to make good judgement with regards to a marriage or more specifically, the entering of one, they can not be married. Besides, it's fucking gross. The latter is also the reason why you cannot marry or have sex with children.
Consent isn't even the only requirement for marriage. Should polygamy be allowed because all the parties are consenting? Or what about incest?

Why is marrying a dog gross? Because it isn't "natural"? (ironic eh?) And I never meant that the person was a minor, I just mean that they were the offspring of someone. If they're of legal age, should they not have the right to marry their parent?

[slicepaprwrists]

ok...here's what pisses me off. All of these hardcore conservative fundamentalists are against gay marriage because they want to preserve the sanctity of it. Yet half of all marriages end in divorce! Sorry, but it looks like the sanctity of marriage has already been trashed. I am pro gay marriage.

[venus/bacchus]

ok...here's what pisses me off. All of these hardcore conservative fundamentalists are against gay marriage because they want to preserve the sanctity of it. Yet half of all marriages end in divorce! Sorry, but it looks like the sanctity of marriage has already been trashed. I am pro gay marriage.
People kill people with guns. Let's make killing legal.

[UndefinedBoy]

It's not possible to "tell" if a man loves a woman when they get married. And love isn't even a prerequisite for marriage. And that wasn't even my point. My point was to show that just because there is mutual love does not mean that the marriage should be legal. Let's say for instance the child is grown, or they're kin even. Should those be allowed solely because there is love?

Consent isn't even the only requirement for marriage. Should polygamy be allowed because all the parties are consenting? Or what about incest?

Why is marrying a dog gross? Because it isn't "natural"? (ironic eh?) And I never meant that the person was a minor, I just mean that they were the offspring of someone. If they're of legal age, should they not have the right to marry their parent?

Incest is dangerous so its outlawed, the offspring could be deformed in a number of ways. And you REALLY need to give up this whole marrying animals argument. You normally have very valid arguments, but come on, you can't possibly believe thats a legitimate reason to ban gay marriage.

[Love As Arson]

Shouldn't there be proof that homosexuality has an adverse affect on society before outlawing homosexual marriage. The burden of proof is on those who are against it.

[UndefinedBoy]

Shouldn't there be proof that homosexuality has an adverse affect on society before outlawing homosexual marriage. The burden of proof is on those who are against it.

That is true...after all you guys do demand "evidence" for EVERY debate up here. Where's the evidence that gay marriage would hurt anything?

[mondeoman]

I support gay marriage but I'm not sure how I feel about gar marriage. Sorry couldn't resist.

[Bishop]

Two grown adults love each other and want to get married.

What's the big deal?

[Lueda Alia]

Two grown adults love each other and want to get married.

What's the big deal?

exactly.

[venus/bacchus]

Incest is dangerous so its outlawed, the offspring could be deformed in a number of ways. And you REALLY need to give up this whole marrying animals argument. You normally have very valid arguments, but come on, you can't possibly believe thats a legitimate reason to ban gay marriage.
Incest is not dangerous in the slightest (read up on anything post-1998), except for possibly passing on recessive diseases easier. It's solely banned because it's "taboo". I know the man-animal argument isn't realistic, I'm just using it to show the "slippery slope" of redefining marriage for one alternative lifestyle. If it makes you feel better, I'll stick to incest and polygamy.
Shouldn't there be proof that homosexuality has an adverse affect on society before outlawing homosexual marriage. The burden of proof is on those who are against it.
To make radical social change, the burden of proof should be on those who wish to make the change. When I want to make a physical change (let's say build a bridge on my land), I have to plea to the county that it isn't detrimental and can be done safely. This is along the same lines. Radical change needs to be justified, and people still have legitimate answers as to why it shouldn't be instated.

[richter915]

Incest is not dangerous in the slightest (read up on anything post-1998), except for possibly passing on recessive diseases easier. It's solely banned because it's "taboo". I know the man-animal argument isn't realistic, I'm just using it to show the "slippery slope" of redefining marriage for one alternative lifestyle. If it makes you feel better, I'll stick to incest and polygamy.

To make radical social change, the burden of proof should be on those who wish to make the change. When I want to make a physical change (let's say build a bridge on my land), I have to plea to the county that it isn't detrimental and can be done safely. This is along the same lines. Radical change needs to be justified, and people still have legitimate answers as to why it shouldn't be instated.
Incest has only been considered taboo lately in the United States. It's still being practiced all around the world...heck my mom tells me how easy it would be if I just married my cousin...Incest has been practiced in the United States mainly due to transportation problems...all you had around you was your family and you needed to procreate to tend to farm hands...that isn't the case anymore...and recessive genes cause major problems and diversity is key (take Ashkenazi (sp?) Jews or the existance of polydactalism (sp?) among the Amish community) recessive traits are disadvantageous to people, harmful to people and society...the only logical argument I can think of (which isn't sane at all) is saying that Gay people cause hate crimes (when in fact it's institutions like the Catholic church and Christian Right that do so...let's outlaw those...they indirectly breed hate, ignorance, and violence)...

You have to also take into considereation the relevancy of this all...how often do you go see a father and daughter wanting to get married (unless you're you know...that annoying director guy who got with his adopted asian daughter)...Homosexuality is far more apparant in modern day society than ever before...it's not like if you allow gay marriages there will be an uprising of men who want to marry horses ya know? It's a logical argument but it's not relevant in this day and age at all.

[UndefinedBoy]

To make radical social change, the burden of proof should be on those who wish to make the change. When I want to make a physical change (let's say build a bridge on my land), I have to plea to the county that it isn't detrimental and can be done safely. This is along the same lines. Radical change needs to be justified, and people still have legitimate answers as to why it shouldn't be instated.

How does one prove that something has no effect on society?

[BrandNew20]

How does one prove that something has no effect on society?

you have to allow it to happen, I'd guess...

[UndefinedBoy]

you have to allow it to happen, I'd guess...

Exactly, making it impossible for supporters to "prove" anything. Convenient.

[venus/bacchus]

Incest has only been considered taboo lately in the United States. It's still being practiced all around the world...heck my mom tells me how easy it would be if I just married my cousin...Incest has been practiced in the United States mainly due to transportation problems...all you had around you was your family and you needed to procreate to tend to farm hands...that isn't the case anymore...and recessive genes cause major problems and diversity is key (take Ashkenazi (sp?) Jews or the existance of polydactalism (sp?) among the Amish community) recessive traits are disadvantageous to people, harmful to people and society...the only logical argument I can think of (which isn't sane at all) is saying that Gay people cause hate crimes (when in fact it's institutions like the Catholic church and Christian Right that do so...let's outlaw those...they indirectly breed hate, ignorance, and violence)...

You have to also take into considereation the relevancy of this all...how often do you go see a father and daughter wanting to get married (unless you're you know...that annoying director guy who got with his adopted asian daughter)...Homosexuality is far more apparant in modern day society than ever before...it's not like if you allow gay marriages there will be an uprising of men who want to marry horses ya know? It's a logical argument but it's not relevant in this day and age at all.
No radical changes to DNA are the result of incest. No deformities, and many times, children are born with resistance to certain diseases (like malaria in Africa). Because there's the possibility to pass a certain disease, these people are denied the right to marry? Should that be applied to people with AIDS? Or how about hemophiliac mothers? "recessive traits are disadvantageous to people, harmful to people and society" That sounds a lot like eugenics to me. Only allowing those to reproduce who will be "beneficial to society."

No pun intended, but the relevancy is irrelevant. That's like saying it would be ok for only Burman-Americans to be denied the right to vote because they are a small minority of the population. I know that marrying an animal is an extreme example, but this can still apply to incest and polygamy. Those may not be as relevant, but there is still a bulk of the population who are "denied their right" to marry who they choose.
How does one prove that something has no effect on society?
You have a point, but it wouldn't be difficult to analyze society as it is now (gay couples adopting and whatnot) and discuss the possibilities if it were implemented.

[_astheruinfalls]

What about swingers? Since swingers can get married, why can't gays?

I mean, your whole reason for not letting gays get married can go around in a circle.

Just because you let one group get married doesn't mean everyone has to be allowed to marry whatever they want.

What is your exact problem with incest and polygamy...not including God?

[UndefinedBoy]

You have a point, but it wouldn't be difficult to analyze society as it is now (gay couples adopting and whatnot) and discuss the possibilities if it were implemented.

You're right...

So currently gays can adopt kids and live together. This is pretty much marriage right? Is society in the shitter right now because of this? No. So what else is there to discuss?

[Lueda Alia]

venus/bacchus, please tell me you're not against gay marriage.

[Lueda Alia]

okay, and what happened to the seperation of church & state? and same rights?


oh and how about, David? David was bisexual. you know, King David, the beloved of God, the guy from whom Jesus decends through Joseph.

He was bisexual; in the bible it says that the love he felt for his male friend was "beyond the love he felt for any woman."

1Sa 18:3 - Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

1Sa 18:1 - And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

1Sa 20:17 - And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

as far as I can see, nowhere in the bible does it say that David loved any woman as "his own soul".

[scitsofreaky]

Gay Marriage = :/ I'm opposed to it strictly because it's all biblical.
Leviticus 18:22, 23 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion."
Ahh, nothing like basing what one belives in on something so corrupt and blantly false.

[nards228]

okay, and what happened to the seperation of church & state? and same rights?


oh and how about, David? David was bisexual. you know, King David, the beloved of God, the guy from whom Jesus decends through Joseph.

He was bisexual; in the bible it says that the love he felt for his male friend was "beyond the love he felt for any woman."

1Sa 18:3 - Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

1Sa 18:1 - And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

1Sa 20:17 - And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

as far as I can see, nowhere in the bible does it say that David loved any woman as "his own soul".
None of that is clear at all. David could love a friend as much as he loved himself, or "as he loved his own soul." You're reading too much into that. It doesn't say, "And then David was bisexual, and God saw that it was good," nor does it say "And then David lay with a man as he lay with a woman, and God saw that it was good." You're interpreting ambiguous lines exactly as you want to interpret them.



Rennard

[Lueda Alia]

None of that is clear at all. David could love a friend as much as he loved himself, or "as he loved his own soul." You're reading too much into that. It doesn't say, "And then David was bisexual, and God saw that it was good," nor does it say "And then David lay with a man as he lay with a woman, and God saw that it was good." You're interpreting ambiguous lines exactly as you want to interpret them.



Rennard
None of the thing that GhostYouAre is clear at all either. It doesn't mention the word "homosexuality" or something like that. So when it comes to the Bible, EVERY line, is interepreted the way someone wants them to. I've read the Bible. Do I think it's anti-gay? Absolutely not.

[_astheruinfalls]

None of the thing that GhostYouAre is clear at all either. It doesn't mention the word "homosexuality" or something like that. So when it comes to the Bible, EVERY line, is interepreted the way someone wants them to. I've read the Bible. Do I think it's anti-gay? Absolutely not.
No, the bible actually does blatantly say that homosexuality is wrong.

[Lueda Alia]

Well the Bible says that Slavery is okay. And the majority of people used to be for it. So I guess it should've never changed?

The Bible says that women shouldn't vote and that they should be a man's slave, pretty much. So should we go back to that? Maybe some of you may want to go back to that, but I, and many others, don't. Because unlike some, we believe in equal rights. Which is the case of gay marriage too.


And maybe I should've said that to me personally, homosexuality isn't wrong, so I don't exactly focus on those parts of the Bible, just like when it comes to slavery etc.


Either way, there have been at least two homosexual/bisexual people in the Bible, and one of them was David. At least to me.

[_astheruinfalls]

I'm pro-gay rights.

I was just stating that your point was wrong.

[Lueda Alia]

yeah I know you are. I knew it'd would sound like I was attacking your views but yeah I wasn't. Was just staing some things. Sorry about that!

[venus/bacchus]

You're right...

So currently gays can adopt kids and live together. This is pretty much marriage right? Is society in the shitter right now because of this? No. So what else is there to discuss?
I guess we could debate about whether our society is in the shitter or not, but that's pretty pointless. The truth is, I don't think anybody really has looked into the effects of a child being raised by a homosexual couple (although this really doesn't bother me as much as the complete redefinition of marriage). If there has been some sort of study, I'd be curious to see it.
venus/bacchus, please tell me you're not against gay marriage.
I'm against gay marriage personally, but I think it should be a state's decision. I have no problem with a reworking of our system so that you could have one other person (spouse or not, hell, it could just be a best friend who you've lived with for a long time) for the purposes of tax breaks, hospital visiting, insurance, etc. It could be a "virtual" civil union. I do have a problem with completely redefining marriage to fit the desires of one section of the population, while denying it to others.

[OnLegendary21]

No radical changes to DNA are the result of incest. No deformities...

I think you need to take a biology class and study dominant and recessive genes.

Well the Bible says that Slavery is okay. And the majority of people used to be for it. So I guess it should've never changed?

The Bible says that women shouldn't vote and that they should be a man's slave, pretty much. So should we go back to that? Maybe some of you may want to go back to that, but I, and many others, don't. Because unlike some, we believe in equal rights. Which is the case of gay marriage too.


And maybe I should've said that to me personally, homosexuality isn't wrong, so I don't exactly focus on those parts of the Bible, just like when it comes to slavery etc.


Either way, there have been at least two homosexual/bisexual people in the Bible, and one of them was David. At least to me.

Don't forget Abraham's son who had his way with him while he was passed out drunk.

[venus/bacchus]

I think you need to take a biology class and study dominant and recessive genes.
Wow. Maybe it's you who needs to take the biology class. Just FYI. I'm a bioengineering major.

[ripmyheartout]

im not sure if my opinion counts here, because i AM a lesbian, bc obviously i support gay marriage. its not our fault we fall in love. im tired of religious nutcases saying im a sinner. they really have no idea.

[UndefinedBoy]

Prove to me how it's false, I bet No I know you can't.

Well of course...it's impossible to disprove something faith-based.

[PunkDrums182]

Gay Marriage = :/ I'm opposed to it strictly because it's all biblical.
Leviticus 18:22, 23 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion."
i love religion.
sarcasm

[UndefinedBoy]

If you could prove how the it contradicted itself then that pretty much voids it don't you think?

I don't fully understand your point...elaborate?

[OnLegendary21]

Wow. Maybe it's you who needs to take the biology class. Just FYI. I'm a bioengineering major.

Explain deformities due to incest then? Not all deformities are physical mind you. I no longer take science but in high school I recieved an A+ in Biology. Are you trying to tell me what I've learned through the educational system is wrong when it's straight out of a text book?

[punkrockfreedom]

to tru, in new zealand, we are about to give gay relationships the same rights as a married couple, but we have probs - example the christian society making it harder for all those gay (dont mean it in bad way) people to get a better life

[OnLegendary21]

You do realize just because school does teach it doesn't make it true, right?

Well considering he's a major in bioengineering in college that makes him right then. But since I learnt in High school that harmful recessive genes pairing with the same recessive gene as a result of incest has potential to cause significant damage I'm wrong? Get it together, you're a mess.

[Lueda Alia]

You do realize just because school does teach it doesn't make it true, right?
Same could be said about the Bible. Even more so actually. Since it's all about faith. There is NO evidence/proof that anything on the Bible is true.

[UndefinedBoy]

Same could be said about the Bible. Even more so actually. Since it's all about faith. There is NO evidence/proof that anything on the Bible is true.

Haha so true...and especially when you cite that as your only reason for being against gay marriage...

[Lueda Alia]

Haha so true...and especially when you cite that as your only reason for being against gay marriage...
I know. I have yet to hear a reason against gay marriage that's not religious.


But really, I couldn't care less about someone's religion. This is about equal rights. If people in the US want religion to rule the country, they can go pitch a tent next to Bin Laden.

[Lueda Alia]

You are kidding right? Obviously don't know what you are talking about if you say nothing in the bible has been proven true.
No, I'm not kidding. Religion is all about FAITH, not "facts".

[Lueda Alia]

oh and quick question. do you masturbate? I'm serious, do you?

if you do, you're going to hell. masturbation should be illegal.

[Lueda Alia]

So because you don't believe in "just a book and a guy who lived over 2000 years ago" you point of view is much more valuable than mine?
If he has facts, yes. Do you have facts that anything on the Bible is true? Besides having people say, "Oh I believe this! Deep in my heart, I know it's true!"??!?!

[Lueda Alia]

No, plenty of things have been proven true in the bible, it isn't just faith there are facts that make the bible more credible.
Okay, make a list of the facts.

And answer my question...

[UndefinedBoy]

So because you don't believe in "just a book and a guy who lived over 2000 years ago" you point of view is much more valuable than mine?

No but you look ridiculous when you say that we can't trust anything we learn in SCHOOL but that the words in the bible are untouchable...

I'd also be interested in these facts...

[Lueda Alia]

Look at prophecies.
In psalms david talks about the messiah being crucified (Before cruxifiction was even invented). Daniel talks about when christ is going to come and he nails it on the dot. God promises the jews the land of canaan and what do they get? that's right Canaan. Daniel Predicts the rulers of the eart. (Babylon, Medo-persia, Greece, and then rome.) he doesn't say "rome" but if you look at how it is prophecized than even an idiot could figure it out. Also archologist use the bible to find locations of ancient cities. You really don't know a thing about the bible if you are going to say it has no facts to support it.
But that's not a fact either. :headshake

[UndefinedBoy]

Look at prophecies.
In psalms david talks about the messiah being crucified (Before cruxifiction was even invented). Daniel talks about when christ is going to come and he nails it on the dot. God promises the jews the land of canaan and what do they get? that's right Canaan. Daniel Predicts the rulers of the eart. (Babylon, Medo-persia, Greece, and then rome.) he doesn't say "rome" but if you look at how it is prophecized than even an idiot could figure it out. Also archologist use the bible to find locations of ancient cities. You really don't know a thing about the bible if you are going to say it has no facts to support it.

Wasn't the bible written way after Jesus was crucified?

[Lueda Alia]

Do you know what "fact" means........???


What you just posted is something from the Bible, which again, is all about faith. Someone who doesn't believe in the Bible would ask you to SHOW him proof, and no, not something from the Bible, to make him believe that things on the Bible are facts indeed.


And by the way, I think I know your answer. You do masturbate. So why is homosexuality worse than masturbation? Isn't the Bible against both?

[UndefinedBoy]

Gay Marriage = :/ I'm opposed to it strictly because it's all biblical.
Leviticus 18:22, 23 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion."

You do realize just because school does teach it doesn't make it true, right?


I didn't twist anything. You said there you were opposed to it only because it says so in the bible, making the bible pretty untouchable I'm sure, why else would you base such core beliefs on it? Below you pretty much say not to trust everything in school.

Sorry but it's hard to take you seriously when it looks like you're following the bible so blindly, but will disregard normal education when you disagree with it.

[Lueda Alia]

Sins aren't equal. I'm sure you've heard that "No sin is greater than the other" well that's wrong. No where in the bible does it say that.
Oh so you now decide which Sin is worse? Interesting.

Pure discrimination right there. Against gay people.

[Lueda Alia]

Oh ok so if it is in the bible it can't be used as historical facts? Every single senator, ruler, king in the bible is correct with the time. I'm not saying that makes everything else correct but it does make it more credible.
Not to someone who doesn't believe in it. And a lot of people don't, trust me. And one of the reasons they don't is because of "modern" Christianity. I wouldn't even call it Christianity anyway, because so called Christians these days aren't tolerant, loving, peaceful, nice, non-judgemental, etc etc.. like the Bible tells you to be.

[UndefinedBoy]

Oh ok so if it is in the bible it can't be used as historical facts? Every single senator, ruler, king in the bible is correct with the time. I'm not saying that makes everything else correct but it does make it more credible.

You can't use the bible to prove the bible is true...common sense man...

[UndefinedBoy]

an ABOMINATION to the LORD.
Obviously God hates it.
Murdering is ALOT different and worse than cursing and lying don't you agree? That's how it works with sin.

Abomination - extreme disgust and hatred

Cause God wrote the bible right?

[Lueda Alia]

an ABOMINATION to the LORD.
Obviously God hates it.
Murdering is ALOT different and worse than cursing and lying don't you agree? That's how it works with sin.

Abomination - extreme disgust and hatred

No, that's how it works for YOU. Not for me.

Seriously, I'm almost suffocating from the hypocrisy. Can't you smell it too?

[UndefinedBoy]

I was using something called history. Just because it happend in the bible doesn't mean it didn't happen on earth.

Do you not understand what you're doing? You can't use the bible to prove that whats in the bible is true!!

[Lueda Alia]

Do you not understand what you're doing? You can't use the bible to prove that whats in the bible is true!!
:lol2:

[UndefinedBoy]

Read Daniel 2 That isn't just biblical it deals with the kingdoms of earth.
Babylon, Medo-persia, Greece, Rome. check your history.

You did it again...referring us to the Bible for proof that what's in the bible is true...

[UndefinedBoy]

Whoa I NEVER said this is how YOU have to live. I said why I'm against gay marriage and you attacked me for it. Don't blame me for standing up for what I believe.

We're debating, expect your beliefs to be questioned...that's the point.

[Lueda Alia]

Whoa I NEVER said this is how YOU have to live. I said why I'm against gay marriage and you attacked me for it. Don't blame me for standing up for what I believe.
Okay, so if a bunch of people think that masturbation, cussing etc.. should be banned, we should turn it into a law?

And if we also think that we should bring back slavery? Oh and if we think that religious people can't marry? How about that?

[UndefinedBoy]

Whoa I NEVER said this is how YOU have to live. I said why I'm against gay marriage and you attacked me for it. Don't blame me for standing up for what I believe.

And actually you are telling people how to live. You're telling gays how to live. But hey, you're just standing up for what you believe in!

[UndefinedBoy]

You just don't get it. You are more closed-minded than me. I never thought I would see the day.

Are you serious?

Is he serious?

[Lueda Alia]

Why are these people still in America? They belong in Middle East where religion rules everything.

[Lueda Alia]

Are you serious?

Is he serious?
hahaha.

[Lueda Alia]

Oh I know I just didn't like that whole "No, that's how it works for YOU. Not for me." After she attacked my point of view.

Btw where is the hypocrisy
The hypocrisy? Read your posts. Now you decide which sin to band and which one not to ban. How's that not being a hypocrite?

[UndefinedBoy]

Oh I know I just didn't like that whole "No, that's how it works for YOU. Not for me." After she attacked my point of view.

Btw where is the hypocrisy

The hypocrisy?

Someone said something about nothing in the bible being proven because it's based on faith. You said it had been proven, and referred us to the BIBLE for this proof. I told you you'd better find another source because you can't use the BIBLE to prove the BIBLE is true. Then you called me closed minded. And I laughed.

Get it now?

[Lueda Alia]

Christians aren't the only ones who don't support gay marriages, not all of us go around creating laws to piss everyone off.
Wait show me slavery in the bible.

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm



But that's the thing, you are not supposed to create laws based on Religion!! That's why there's the seperation of Church & State. Not everyone believes in the same thing you do! Why can't you understand that?

[Lueda Alia]

ABOMINATION
To me, personally, masturbation is worse than homosexuality. So should others who think the same, BAN masturbation???????????????????????

[Lueda Alia]

I still don't sorry buddy. If you can't accept ANYTHING not even historical referrences than it is pointless to argue. If you can't take some historical evidence from the bible why should I even think about being pro-gays?
Because gay people actually DO exist?

Man.. I can't believe you just said that.

[UndefinedBoy]

I still don't sorry buddy. If you can't accept ANYTHING not even historical referrences than it is pointless to argue. If you can't take some historical evidence from the bible why should I even think about being pro-gays?

YOU CANNOT PROVE THE BIBLE IS TRUE USING THE BIBLE.

I don't know what else to tell you.

[Lueda Alia]

Why do I feel that this is pointless to discuss with "religious" people? Hmm maybe it's because they don't know what equal rights means. Maybe.

[Lueda Alia]

Christians aren't the only ones who don't support gay marriages, not all of us go around creating laws to piss everyone off.
Wait show me slavery in the bible.
check this too, http://home.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html

[Lueda Alia]

haha I don't like my dog should I try to get it banned?
No, that's the point. Which I don't think you're getting. Just because you don't approve of something, doesn't mean it has to be a law. ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH & STATE. Does that honestly mean ANYTHING to you?

But whatever, I don't think you understand. Because none of YOUR rights are being taken away.

[Lueda Alia]

Alright science can't be used to prove anything in science is true.
Are you serious? :huh:

[UndefinedBoy]

Alright science can't be used to prove anything in science is true.

Your. Head. Is. Thick.

Science isn't a single DOCUMENT. Science is a fucking FIELD OF STUDY, used to RESEARCH and PROVE things.

I'm honestly shocked that you can't understand this.

[UndefinedBoy]

so the bible can't be researched, is tht what you are saying?

Of course it can, but you haven't been doing that or directing us to any source that HAS. You've continually referred back to the bible to prove that another part of the bible is true.

[Lueda Alia]

"1directing the slave owner to be kind to his slaves. I would just remind them that regardless of whether the master is sweet and gentle or mean and cruel the slave is still a slave and therefore is bereft of freedom and stripped of human dignity"


You do realize deffinitions change over time? Just because the slaves you think of are the whipped and beaten and underfeed black slaves, doesn't mean that is how it was in those days.
A slave is still a slave. Doesn't change the fact that the slave probably was the master's robot. I never said anything about them being beaten up or anything. That's not the point.

[Lueda Alia]

Whoa? Show me where it says that? And also keep in mind christians aren't the only ones who oppose same sex marriages.
Wait, are you saying there's no seperation of Church & State?

And no, I know they're not, but it's mostly religious people who are against it. Because no one has been able to come up with a valid reason, NOT RELATED TO RELIGION, as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

[UndefinedBoy]

"1directing the slave owner to be kind to his slaves. I would just remind them that regardless of whether the master is sweet and gentle or mean and cruel the slave is still a slave and therefore is bereft of freedom and stripped of human dignity"


You do realize deffinitions change over time? Just because the slaves you think of are the whipped and beaten and underfeed black slaves, doesn't mean that is how it was in those days.

What's your point? Are you trying to say THESE slaves were the happy kind?

And where is that quote from?

[UndefinedBoy]

No, just look at this don't cas this out aside so fast. Daniel foretold the coming rulers of the earth.
Just do me a favour read Daniel 2.

Babylon (where he was starting his prophecy, and foretold the rulers of earth)
Medo-persia (Who he came into power when after his prophecy)
Greece (Came into rule after his death)
"Rome" (Also after his death, He didn't say the word "Rome" Exactly but he did use the analogy of the toes, how it would break into 10 different kings, and coincidiently it did.)

Wasn't the bible written after this happened?

[UndefinedBoy]

I'm saying that they were just like anybody with a job that works in a field or farm.
and the quote came from her link.

Hahaha...how do you know this?

[Lueda Alia]

I'm saying that they were just like anybody with a job that works in a field or farm.
and the quote came from her link.
Um yeah sure it's the same, even though the masters could do whatever the hell they wanted with the slaves. Yeah they just worked on fields and farms.

[UndefinedBoy]

I dont, but how do you know they were mistreated?

You can never assume a slave was treated well. You'd better have something to back that up...because the GROSS MAJORITY of slaves are mistreated I don't think I have to prove anything...

[Lueda Alia]

I dont, but how do you know they were mistreated?
Because umm... if I remember correctly, wasn't uhh.. damn I can't think of his name. you know, the guy who was sold to Egyptians by his brother because they were jealous of him? He was a slave. Just how good was he treated?

[Lueda Alia]

cough.

[UndefinedBoy]

Slave master = Employer
slave = Employee.

Just because the term slave is used doesn't mean anything bad, it just means they worked for a master (employer)

You're kidding right? So now slavery isn't a big deal. Oh and I think those definitions are a little off:

Slave - One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.

[Lueda Alia]

Geez, I don't think you get my point. I'm talking about slavery here. To prove to you that slaves aren't exactly treated nicely.

[UndefinedBoy]

I think you do, I'm the only one answering questions.

That's cause you've dug yourself in a mighty deep hole...

[Lueda Alia]

And okay, let's say that slaves aren't mistreated. It's still ok for someone to be someone else's property? With less rights etc?

[UndefinedBoy]

And okay, let's say that slaves aren't mistreated. It's still ok for someone to be someone else's property? With less rights etc?

That's a pretty generous concession...haha

[Lueda Alia]

You associate "slavery" with the american idea of a slave.
Yeah, definitely "American" idea......

[UndefinedBoy]

You associate "slavery" with the american idea of a slave.

You don't understand what slavery is.

[Lueda Alia]

You don't understand what slavery is.
Nope, doesn't look like he does.

[UndefinedBoy]

I understand well what it is. I just don't think you get that deffinitions change and you are just making assumption.

YOU DEFINED SLAVE AS EMPLOYEE.

And if definitions change so much...why ya so scared bout changing the definition of marriage? (Couldn't resist...)

[Lueda Alia]

*sigh*


ok, since slavery isn't bad. should we bring it back?

[UndefinedBoy]

Abomination.

Well maybe that definition has changed too, eh?

[UndefinedBoy]

I'm gonna do a little recap for those who don't feel like reading everything and so I can try and get this straight. Give me a minute...

[UndefinedBoy]

Ok:
You (ghost) stated that you don't support gay marriage because of "strictly biblical" reasons. Someone then brought up the fact that nothing in the bible can really be true. You referred me, time and time again, to the bible for reassurance that the bible is true. I told you that you can't do this, you never really realized that (hopefully you have by now). Then someone brought up the fact that instruction for treatment of slaves is discussed in the bible. You didn't know this, and when we provided you the passage where its discussed you said the slaves were only employees. So does this mean that you support slavery as long as the slaves are treated alright?

I'm not trying to twist your words, just trying to get this all straight.

[UndefinedBoy]

Here comes everything I said twist and turned.

I would love for you to clear up the discrepencies (sp?). Feel free to!

[UndefinedBoy]

Ya That looks about right.

Are you serious?

[UndefinedBoy]

As a heart attack.

You admit you support slavery because it's in the bible?

[UndefinedBoy]

Here just think for one moment think that slavery isn't just whipping, mistreating, and just a job. Colossians 4:1directing the slave owner to be kind to his slaves. Now realize that Slaves were just employees, they had to work for food/money. They didn't have options to work at best buy or whatever. So yes I have no problem with this form of Slavery.

You do realize slavery DOESN'T PAY. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF IT.

[UndefinedBoy]

You do realize that people don't function without food?

Of course I realize this...how does that have any relevance whatsoever to the justification of slavery?

[Lueda Alia]

I'm probably just dreaming, right? I'm not actually reading all of this??

[UndefinedBoy]

I'm probably just dreaming, right? I'm not actually reading all of this??

Yeah now would be a good time to let us all know you're just kidding...

[UndefinedBoy]

Alright what did you want these people do to for food? Remember they aren't being whipped, beaten, oppressed, and disrespected.

How am I going to remember something that I have no idea is true or not?

So now I'm the bad guy for being anti-slavery? Where are you going with this?

[UndefinedBoy]

Don't attack like I'm attacking you, you know I'm right just admit it.

What? You're right for supporting slavery?

You can admit it's a joke now...I won't laugh but at least I won't cry.

[Lueda Alia]

Don't attack like I'm attacking you, you know I'm right just admit it.
yep, this has to be a joke.

[Speyside]

Alright guys. Here's my two cents. First of all, you HAVE to use the bible to argue for it's credibility, and Ghost did it in a perfectly reasonable way. On the other hand, the Bible and religion in general is about faith and the faith-based statements it makes are just that, faith, and are subject to much interpretation. Don't ridicule somebody for having faith, it's a hard thing to do. However, I support gay marriage because I believe in a separation of church and state. Furthermore though, there is a difference between saying "you shouldn't do something" and "you can't do something." Personally I feel it is okay to say for example, "girls shouldn't dress and act like sluts," but I don't feel it is okay, in a free society to say, "girls can't dress and act like sluts and therefore it must be illegal." Personally, as a spiritual person I would rather follow the tenants of my faith because it is my faith, not for fear of being thrown in jail or otherwise punished by my government. I believe faith can be an important source for personal morality but I don't believe it is the only one. Personally, I believe very strongly in the social contract theory. I actually think, as far as gay marriage goes, that the government shouldn't have a hand in "marriage" because I believe it is an institution of the church. I think the governments can hand down certain priviliges and define relationships in the context of civil unions (or something to the effect) but if a church wants to marry a gay couple, then so be it, but if not, we HAVE to respect that to.

[UndefinedBoy]

yep, this has to be a joke.

Or an exposed hypocrite/insane person trying to pass it off as one...

[UndefinedBoy]

Alright guys. Here's my two cents. First of all, you HAVE to use the bible to argue for it's credibility, and Ghost did it in a perfectly reasonable way. On the other hand, the Bible and religion in general is about faith and the faith-based statements it makes are just that, faith, and are subject to much interpretation. Don't ridicule somebody for having faith, it's a hard thing to do. However, I support gay marriage because I believe in a separation of church and state. Furthermore though, there is a difference between saying "you shouldn't do something" and "you can't do something." Personally I feel it is okay to say for example, "girls shouldn't dress and act like sluts," but I don't feel it is okay, in a free society to say, "girls can't dress and act like sluts and therefore it must be illegal." Personally, as a spiritual person I would rather follow the tenants of my faith because it is my faith, not for fear of being thrown in jai or otherwise punishedl by my government. I believe faith can be an important source for personal morality but I don't believe it is the only one. Personally, I believe very strongly in the social contract theory. I actually think, as far as gay marriage goes, that the government shouldn't have a hand in "marriage" because I believe it is an institution of the church. I think the governments can hand down certain priviliges and define relationships in the context of civil unions (or something to the effect) but if a church wants to marry a gay couple, then so be it, but if not, we HAVE to respect that to.

I don't think there is any way to prove the bible true...there's nothing wrong with that, it's religion and based on faith. But you certainly can't try to use the bible to prove the bible is true, I would HOPE everyone can understand that...

I'm not ridiculing him for having faith, I'm just debating.

The thing is marriage is not an institution of church anymore, plenty of non-religious people marry. Are their marriages not valid?

[UndefinedBoy]

Whoa you are going off topic ONCE again, stay on track. Slavery isn't this idea you have where they were beaten and abused and oppressed. Food doesn't just fall into your lap. You have to work for it. I'm not being mean, I'm being realistic.


Colossians 4:1directing the slave owner to be kind to his slaves

I never thought I'd have to be debating against SLAVERY on here...

You think slaves chose to be slaves? You really have no idea what you're talking about in terms of slavery and thats pretty sad. (Let me remind you that you defined slave as EMPLOYEE)

[UndefinedBoy]

Debating?


Ya nice debating with ya.

Those are side comments. But sorry, it's getting hard to take you seriously. Very hard.

[UndefinedBoy]

Because you have to work for food. Sorry I know my logic is hard to get but I'm just crazy like that.

You're saying slavery is okay because the people needed food. When exactly did they make this decision to be a slave? You're thinking of indentured servants if you think the slave had any say in this, which is an entirely different argument. Slaves are captured and sold, not paid.

[UndefinedBoy]

Wait I get to ask questions now, why is this form of slavery bad?

Because no one deserves to own another human being, and no human being deserves - wait, what the fuck? Why am I even bothering to answer that question?

Slavery is more of an abomination than homosexuality will EVER be.

[Speyside]

I'm sorry I misspoke a little there. Yeah in my eyes the marriages are definitely valid, I believe the important part of marriage is the committment it represents, but some feel it is about it's religious significance, so I suppose that in their eyes it would be invalid, which I don't agree with. But you bring up an interesting point, I wonder if anti gay marriage supporters had considered atheists getting married, and how that would "corrupt the institution of marriage." But also, listen man, I personally don't feel the Bible can be proved true because it's about faith, but if you wanted to try, you would have to analyze what it says and weigh it against independently established facts, that's just how you do it. You can't say "the bible is true because apples are red." That's just not how it works. But basically to rephrase I feel that the government should issue the privileges of marriage to individuals who partake in the committment it represents, basically to live life together and to love one another. The reason I said that earlier is because a lot of people are bitching over the term "marriage" itself and how it's applied, I was just basically saying that it shouldn't matter.

[UndefinedBoy]

I'm sorry I misspoke a little there. Yeah in my eyes the marriages are definitely valid, I believe the important part of marriage is the committment it represents, but some feel it is about it's religious significance, so I suppose that in their eyes it would be invalid, which I don't agree with. But you bring up an interesting point, I wonder if anti gay marriage supporters had considered atheists getting married, and how that would "corrupt the institution of marriage." But also, listen man, I personally don't feel the Bible can be proved true because it's about faith, but if you wanted to try, you would have to analyze what it says and weigh it against independently established facts, that's just how you do it. You can't say "the bible is true because apples are red." That's just not how it works. But basically to rephrase I feel that the government should issue the privileges of marriage to individuals who partake in the committment it represents, basically to live life together and to love one another. The reason I said that earlier is because a lot of people are bitching over the term "marriage" itself and how it's applied, I was just basically saying that it shouldn't matter.

Understood and I agree.

[Speyside]

Slavery is wrong because people aren't property, even if they're treated excellently.

[UndefinedBoy]

Here since we are dealing with biblical slavery, I'm entitled to use scripture if you can't take it then we might as well stop.

Deuteronomy 15:12-15
"If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed; you shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your wine press; as the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you..."

Yup, I guess slavery is okay then...

Are you still trying to defend this utopian slavery that actually is indentured servitude (which you didn't seem to know the definition of until I mentioned it...)?

[Speyside]

An indentured servant sells themselves to their "master." In the US it was used as a means of people to get to the new world if they couldn't afford it. The term indentured involves a contractural agreement not force or coersion.

[UndefinedBoy]

indentured servants were the 7 years to get accross the atlantic ocean thing right?

inden'tured serv'ant

Amer. Hist.
a person who came to America and was placed under contract to work for another over a period of time, usually seven years, esp. during the 17th to 19th centuries. Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution, persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers.

This is not slavery...

[UndefinedBoy]

I was never trying to defend all forms of slavery, just pointing out that the bibles form of slavery isn't what you thought it was.

You said yourself you'd support a "kind" slavery, which I still find disgusting because I could never support any form of slavery. Even the bible's "slavery" is horrible and wrong and STILL more of an abomination than homosexuality.

[scitsofreaky]

I'm sorry I misspoke a little there. Yeah in my eyes the marriages are definitely valid, I believe the important part of marriage is the committment it represents, but some feel it is about it's religious significance, so I suppose that in their eyes it would be invalid, which I don't agree with. But you bring up an interesting point, I wonder if anti gay marriage supporters had considered atheists getting married, and how that would "corrupt the institution of marriage." But also, listen man, I personally don't feel the Bible can be proved true because it's about faith, but if you wanted to try, you would have to analyze what it says and weigh it against independently established facts, that's just how you do it. You can't say "the bible is true because apples are red." That's just not how it works. But basically to rephrase I feel that the government should issue the privileges of marriage to individuals who partake in the committment it represents, basically to live life together and to love one another. The reason I said that earlier is because a lot of people are bitching over the term "marriage" itself and how it's applied, I was just basically saying that it shouldn't matter.
I have a problem seeing how you can use the Bible to prove itself because it is based on faith. Why should anyone have to toss aside their reason (a God-given gift) and not need any proof at all? You will say, "Faith". Well, where does the idea of faith come from? The Bible, which seems very self serving. It is basically saying "Believe in me because I say so."
Oh, and just because the all powerful, all knowing God thinks that homosexuality is wrong, it does not give you the right to judge anyone. Doesn't the bible say not to judge others? And isn't that a command (not commandment) from God. So now we can just ignore commands from God and put ourselves on the same level as Him?
It disgusts me that throughout the Bible God is stripped of His omnipotence. Why would an all powerful God have to sacrifice his only son to save his own creation from Satan just because Adam took a bite from an apple? Doen't this just show that Satan is more powerful than God? I mean, how powerful can God be if a fallen angel can take His creation away with a bite from an apple?

[LoyalSubject]

Will everyone start arguing about the real issue. In this Country we have Separation of Church and State. You cannot make laws based on biblical principles. The only argumnet people have against gay marriage is that it is immoral. Well it's immoral to them because of their beliefs. You have yet to argue about how gay marriage would affect your life. This is a thread about Gay Marriage, no one wants to read about how stupid GhostYouAre is.

[UndefinedBoy]

I have a problem seeing how you can use the Bible to prove itself because it is based on faith. Why should anyone have to toss aside their reason (a God-given gift) and not need any proof at all? You will say, "Faith". Well, where does the idea of faith come from? The Bible, which seems very self serving. It is basically saying "Believe in me because I say so."
Oh, and just because the all powerful, all knowing God thinks that homosexuality is wrong, it does not give you the right to judge anyone. Doesn't the bible say not to judge others? And isn't that a command (not commandment) from God. So now we can just ignore commands from God and put ourselves on the same level as Him?
It disgusts me that throughout the Bible God is stripped of His omnipotence. Why would an all powerful God have to sacrifice his only son to save his own creation from Satan just because Adam took a bite from an apple? Doen't this just show that Satan is more powerful than God? I mean, how powerful can God be if a fallen angel can take His creation away with a bite from an apple?

You're not alone in your criticism, don't worry.

[UndefinedBoy]

Will everyone start arguing about the real issue. In this Country we have Separation of Church and State. You cannot make laws based on biblical principles. The only argumnet people have against gay marriage is that it is immoral. Well it's immoral to them because of their beliefs. You have yet to argue about how gay marriage would affect your life. This is a thread about Gay Marriage, no one wants to read about how stupid GhostYouAre is.

Haha, I apologize. You'll soon realize that when it comes to gay marriage, there's no getting through to some conservatives. You'll rarely see a legitimate reason against it, only bible quotations and people who suddenly want to marry their pets.

[Lueda Alia]

Stupid huh? Show me where it says "Seperation of Church and state"

Go join the ACLU.
Are you saying there's no Seperation of Church & State?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Lueda Alia]

I'm saying it isn't in the constitution.
Uhh... so where the hell is it? Is it something we just made up?

[Lueda Alia]

It is what?

[Lueda Alia]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amen dmenti


.............

[UndefinedBoy]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amen dmenti


.............

Hahaha

[scitsofreaky]

God gave man free-will, he doesn't make us anything. Yes he knows we might not serve him and disobey his laws and commandments, but say you made a robot and made it love you, would that love be real or fake? Would you actually feel loved? I mean I rather be loved by some one who didn't have to love me, but realize my qualities and that's why they adore me.
Freewill is debated, even in the church. In fact, that is one contradiction in the Bible; the Bible doesn't really ever come out and say whether there is freewill or predestination (or a "great plan"), instead it says both. But, I guess christians are used to such instances. Like, I am confused about how to really be saved. Jesus says that we must follow God's law to get into heaven, and also says that the only way in is to believe that he is the son of God. And that isn't even going into the differences in denominations.
Anywho, back on what the topic is (kinda)... God does not force us to love him, everybody can agree on that, but why wouldn't God love us, I mean, he did create us. Why would God create something, keep it around for a long time (amount of time is disputed), yet not love us? So, he loves us for our "qualities"? Well, what about people like Domer and Bundy, they never cared about anyone else except themselves, what "qualities" does God love about them?
Oh, and I liked how you had no response for judging others. Thanks, that speaks volumes for you.

[scitsofreaky]

bah uhh ahh Ya I screwed my self over on that one, I uhh ya... I meant something else. yaa...
Sure you did...

[UndefinedBoy]

bah uhh ahh Ya I screwed my self over on that one, I uhh ya... I meant something else. yaa...

Haha at least you have the courage to admit it.

[UndefinedBoy]

unlike you two. Booya. :love: (that smiley has no relationship to that but I thought it was funny)

Only difference: I haven't yet screwed myself...

[Lueda Alia]

bah uhh ahh Ya I screwed my self over on that one, I uhh ya... I meant something else. yaa...
no, I don't think you did. like all other so called christians who are against gay marriage, you simply don't give a shit about the seperation of Church & State.


I really suggest you learn a bit more about your country though.

[scitsofreaky]

All of us have probably screwed up somewhere along the way. But, we are still more right. :ugly7:

[Lueda Alia]

All of us have probably screwed up somewhere along the way. But, we are still more right. :ugly7:
Hahaha. We are.

And I still am waiting to hear a reason against homosexuality that is NOT related to religion! It will really make my day, or week even, when someone comes up with one.

[scitsofreaky]

Ok, here is a reason against homosexuality that isn't religious: It is naturally improbable because no species can continue to exist if the members do not procreate.
Now, I have heard this arguement, I even used it once. But then I thought about it for like two seconds, and realized that it is full of gaping holes. One: humans would still procreate even if we wer all gay thanks to invitro. Second, humans are much more complex than just genes. Humans have a psychological side, which can be way more important than genes. Just because something is nurture instead of nature, doesn't mean it is wrong. No parents go out of their way to make their child gay. It could just be some psychological response to something of which we don't know.

[Lueda Alia]

Ok, here is a reason against homosexuality that isn't religious: It is naturally improbable because no species can continue to exist if the members do not procreate.
Now, I have heard this arguement, I even used it once. But then I thought about it for like two seconds, and realized that it is full of gaping holes. One: humans would still procreate even if we wer all gay thanks to invitro. Second, humans are much more complex than just genes. Humans have a psychological side, which can be way more important than genes. Just because something is nurture instead of nature, doesn't mean it is wrong. No parents go out of their way to make their child gay. It could just be some psychological response to something of which we don't know.
You're right, it is full of "gaping holes". Because if that were to be a reason against gay marriage, then I guess people who can't have children shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

And the Gay thing, hmm.. I was hearing one of my friends talk about how he felt (he's gay), and a lot of things he said, made me wonder - maybe he has a lot of female features? Or well his hormones? I don't know how to explain this. I asked my mom who used to be a doctor, if that could be why a lot of people are gay, and she said "maybe..", and I don't know, after hearing my friend talk, I'm sort of convinced that that's why people are gay. OK yeah I hope this makes sense.

[scitsofreaky]

Exactly, their logic does not hold (shockingly). Why? Because they don't think for themselves.

[Lueda Alia]

Exactly, their logic does not hold (shockingly). Why? Because they don't think for themselves.
They really don't and that's sad in my opinion. I honestly am shocked though. It's just hard to believe that someone can follow something so blindly and never question it. Not using your brain should be a sin.

[scitsofreaky]

They really don't and that's sad in my opinion. I honestly am shocked though. It's just hard to believe that someone can follow something so blindly and never question it.
The problem is that they are born into it and never had a fighting chance. I made it out because of my natural tendency towards science and my rebellion. Deists are born, not made.
Not using your brain should be a sin.
That is one of the best sentences I have ever read.

[scitsofreaky]

Yeah, but have you ever really questioned your faith? I seriously doubt it because you have "faith" drilled into the back of your brain, so instead of asking smart questions that would actually "question your faith", you will ask yourself loaded questions that lead to the answer "faith" wants. To truly question one's faith, you must have a completely opened mind, which most christians are unable to do.
How I found what I believed in was to just follow what my nature has been my entire life: science and art. Now, taking these two characteristics, which are not commonly found together, I learned as much as I could about religions, and I used my reasoning to figure out what made the most sense. It actually turned out to be blantly obvious: Deism. How many beliefs combine science and art?

[scitsofreaky]

I sure did, and I bet I am right because I know the mindset of a christian, I had to fake it for 18 years.

[Lueda Alia]

hahaha, I messed up ONCE. But I'm in school still.
yeah and? I'm in school still too. and I'm not American either....

[Lueda Alia]

Yet you act like you know what the american people want. I do recall you saying that the american people were extremely divided.
I never acted like that. and American people ARE in fact, divided. whether you like it or not. the election proved that.

[scitsofreaky]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that America is very polarized at the moment, or for the past four years. The first Bush election showed how divided this country is.

I don't really have to know what your home life was, because it is the nature of christianity and christians that led me to my assumptions. Christianity is a very powerful religion, it has the ability to quickly implant ideas, such as faith, into one's head. I was never even a christian and it took me some time to get "faith" out of my head.

[Brit_Ben]

it doesnt effect you personaly so people shouldnt have a problem.

[scitsofreaky]

But, they feel that it effects society negatively, therefore it is their business.

[Lueda Alia]

Well then, I think Churches effect society negatively. Can we please burn them down now?

[scitsofreaky]

First we have to get a law passed banning church because some people don't like, and are offended by church. Then we can burn them all down.

[Lueda Alia]

We should definitely do that. I'd be up for it. And if I were rich, I'd spend a lot of money on this case, too.. just to get rid of those pieces of shit. They uhh, "offend" me.

[scitsofreaky]

Actually, I am offended by most churches. For some reason, christians say that God is all powerful, yet the Bible itself syas many different things. Like, if he is so powerful and knowing, how was satan able to take His creation away just by disguising himself as a snake?

[scitsofreaky]

You are right, we are not all powerful, and Adam and Eve wouldn't have known what they were doing was wrong because they hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So, why didn't God better protect them from satan than just telling them not to do something? If you think about it, how would they know about evil until they had eaten from the tree? Why would God put such a temptation (the tree) if he knew that it would just lead to the downfall of man? And how did one man and woman condemn all of humannity?

[venus/bacchus]

Explain deformities due to incest then? Not all deformities are physical mind you. I no longer take science but in high school I recieved an A+ in Biology. Are you trying to tell me what I've learned through the educational system is wrong when it's straight out of a text book?
Find me 1000 cases of "deformities" due to incest. I know it's a difficult task. That's mainly because they just aren't there. The odds that there will be a problem with the child is between 2 and 3 percent higher than "average" couples. That would mean that the odds of a problem are about the same as a 40 year old woman giving birth to a child than a 30. Should we ban middle aged women from giving birth? There's a good article in Discover from about a year ago on this. I'll post the link at the bottom, but I doubt you can read it (you need a membership) so I'll post some highlights.

"A closer look reveals that moderate inbreeding has always been the rule, not the exception, for humans. Inbreeding is also commonplace in the natural world, and contrary to our expectations, some biologists argue that this can be a very good thing. It depends in part on the degree of inbreeding."

"Contrary to lore, cousin marriages may do even better than ordinary marriages by the standard Darwinian measure of success, which is reproduction. A 1960 study of first-cousin marriages in 19th-century England done by C. D. Darlington, a geneticist at Oxford University, found that inbred couples produced twice as many great-grandchildren as did their outbred counterparts."

"The consequences of inbreeding are unpredictable and depend largely on what biologists call the founder effect: If the founding couple pass on a large number of lethal recessives, as appears to have happened in Bradford, these recessives will spread and double up through intermarriage. If, however, Mayer and Gutle Rothschild handed down a comparatively healthy genome, their descendants could safely intermarry for generations—at least until small deleterious effects inevitably began to pile up and produce inbreeding depression, a long-term decline in the well-being of a family or a species.
A founding couple can also pass on advantageous genes. Among animal populations, generations of inbreeding frequently lead to the development of coadapted gene complexes, suites of genetic traits that tend to be inherited together. These traits may confer special adaptations to a local environment, like resistance to disease."

"Inbreeding may help explain why insects can develop resistance almost overnight to pesticides like DDT: The resistance first shows up as a recessive trait in one obscure family line. Inbreeding, with its cascade of double recessives, causes the trait to be expressed in every generation of this family—and under the intense selective pressure of DDT, this family of resistant insects survives and proliferates."

"Patrick Bateson, a professor of ethology at Cambridge University, argues that outbreeding has at times been hazardous for humans too. For instance, the size and shape of our teeth is a strongly inherited trait. So is jaw size and shape. But the two traits aren't inherited together. If a woman with small jaws and small teeth marries a man with big jaws and big teeth, their grandchildren may end up with a mouthful of gnashers in a Tinkertoy jaw. Before dentistry was commonplace, Bateson adds, "ill-fitting teeth were probably a serious cause of mortality because it increased the likelihood of abscesses in the mouth." Marrying a cousin was one way to avoid a potentially lethal mismatch."

"So where does this leave us? No scientist is advocating intermarriage, but the evidence indicates that we should at least moderate our automatic disdain for it."

http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-03/features/featkiss/

It's not as simple as "inbreeding will cause deformities." The odds that a recessive gene will express itself due to inbreeding are very minute and research has shown that moderate inbreeding causes very few problems, and also many local advantages.

[venus/bacchus]

Wow. I just got done reading the majority of that "debate" and here are some points that I think need to be made.

There is no such thing as "the separation of church and state." There is nothing wrong with making laws based on religious beliefs (when the majority wants it), assuming those beliefs don't prevent others from practicing their own religion.

There is a lot of evidence to support the existance of many people in the Bible (especially Jesus). Does this prove the stories are true? No. But they were real people and they lived in those places. We have no other documented evidence of their lives, there is really no reason to completely disregard the historical impact of the Bible solely because they use the idea of "God" in it.

When making a law, the impact on society is far more important than how the decision will offend the religious beliefs of one sect of society.

Most people who seem to believe they know anything about the Bible, in reality, know extremely little and are making rash generalizations and ridiculous stereotypes.

I think that's all.

[scitsofreaky]

Wow. I just got done reading the majority of that "debate" and here are some points that I think need to be made.

There is no such thing as "the separation of church and state." There is nothing wrong with making laws based on religious beliefs (when the majority wants it), assuming those beliefs don't prevent others from practicing their own religion.

There is a lot of evidence to support the existance of many people in the Bible (especially Jesus). Does this prove the stories are true? No. But they were real people and they lived in those places. We have no other documented evidence of their lives, there is really no reason to completely disregard the historical impact of the Bible solely because they use the idea of "God" in it.

When making a law, the impact on society is far more important than how the decision will offend the religious beliefs of one sect of society.

Most people who seem to believe they know anything about the Bible, in reality, know extremely little and are making rash generalizations and ridiculous stereotypes.

I think that's all.
Um, are you refering to me, in any way, with that last statement?
Yeah, it is likely that the majority of the people in the Bible did exists, and almost certainly Jesus. And, I am not sure if you meant to say "historical impact" because the impact cannot be denied, but the authenticity can and is debated.
Most laws are just common sense, and are contained in most religions, but that does not mean that the laws are based on those religions. For example, most people think that the founding fathers of America were christian, but they weren't, they were deists. They didn't base any laws (rights) on the Bible, but on common sense, they just happen to coinside with christianity in most cases.

[_astheruinfalls]

Wow. I just got done reading the majority of that "debate" and here are some points that I think need to be made.

There is no such thing as "the separation of church and state." There is nothing wrong with making laws based on religious beliefs (when the majority wants it), assuming those beliefs don't prevent others from practicing their own religion.
But it's ok when it infringes on someone's right as a person in a free country?

There is a lot of evidence to support the existance of many people in the Bible (especially Jesus). Does this prove the stories are true? No. But they were real people and they lived in those places. We have no other documented evidence of their lives, there is really no reason to completely disregard the historical impact of the Bible solely because they use the idea of "God" in it.
I don't know many people who deny the existence. And no one is disregarding the bible. The point trying to be made is that you can not fully prove the Bible using the Bible. Yes, you can use it to make points, but you can not say, "Refer to _____ which supports ____." That means nothing.

When making a law, the impact on society is far more important than how the decision will offend the religious beliefs of one sect of society.
But are the people not the society? Are the people of the society not into religions? Therefore, when people are affected, their religions are affected. The only possible to way to keep from people getting angry is to keep the choices open.

Most people who seem to believe they know anything about the Bible, in reality, know extremely little and are making rash generalizations and ridiculous stereotypes.

I think that's all.
Meh.

[UndefinedBoy]

There is no such thing as "the separation of church and state." There is nothing wrong with making laws based on religious beliefs (when the majority wants it), assuming those beliefs don't prevent others from practicing their own religion.

The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Sounds like separation of church and state to me...

And what about those who have no religion?

There is a lot of evidence to support the existance of many people in the Bible (especially Jesus). Does this prove the stories are true? No. But they were real people and they lived in those places. We have no other documented evidence of their lives, there is really no reason to completely disregard the historical impact of the Bible solely because they use the idea of "God" in it.

This is true and I should've made a point of that...regardless that doesn't mean everything that is in the Bible is authentic and therefore the untouchable law of the land (I know you didn't say that but others seem to believe so).

When making a law, the impact on society is far more important than how the decision will offend the religious beliefs of one sect of society.

You're right...

Most people who seem to believe they know anything about the Bible, in reality, know extremely little and are making rash generalizations and ridiculous stereotypes.

Again, you're right.

I think that's all.

Haha, I wonder what our "debate" looked like to a 3rd party...

[Justin_stacy]

The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Sounds like separation of church and state to me...
...

Where? Because it sure doesn't sound like it within the words you posted. What it really sounds like is that congress shall not establish a national, or binding, religion, such as the British did with the Church of England (<*cough*time conection*cough*history lesson*cough*) or Spanish with the Roman Catholics.


Wouldn't, if they had really wanted a complete separation of church and the state, as you say they did, that they would have somewhere in the 1st amendment put the words, "separation" along with the words "church" or "state,” or some similar wording? It’s a little perplexing, from your point of view, that they didn’t, isn’t it?

[UndefinedBoy]

Where? Because it sure doesn't sound like it within the words you posted. What it really sounds like is that congress shall not establish a national, or binding, religion, such as the British did with the Church of England (<*cough*time conection*cough*history lesson*cough*) or Spanish with the Roman Catholics.


Wouldn't, if they had really wanted a complete separation of church and the state, as you say they did, that they would have somewhere in the 1st amendment put the words, "separation" along with the words "church" or "state,” or some similar wording? It’s a little perplexing, from your point of view, that they didn’t, isn’t it?

No, it's really not. It's perplexing that people like you can't fucking read.

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

This means now law will be made because of religious beliefs...this has nothing to do with establishing a national religion, I have no idea where you came up with that.

[para ser libre]

ok i know the conservatives here will probably rip this apart but my friend sent this to me and i find it funny.

REASONS WHY HOMOSEXUALS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.



WOW, without all the sarcasm it's broken down that you have ironically contradicted yourself in ever statement...wow...this countries FUCKED UP


as for everyone else
IT"S NOT YOUR LIFE OR YOUR DECISION SO YOU DONT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING,,, THIS SHOULDNT EVEN BE A THREAD IT'S NOT A TOPIC OR SOMETHING TO DISCUSS IT"S SOMEONE ELSES LIFE

[para ser libre]

Find me 1000 cases of "deformities" due to incest. I know it's a difficult task. That's mainly because they just aren't there. The odds that there will be a problem with the child is between 2 and 3 percent higher than "average" couples. That would mean that the odds of a problem are about the same as a 40 year old woman giving birth to a child than a 30. Should we ban middle aged women from giving birth? There's a good article in Discover from about a year ago on this. I'll post the link at the bottom, but I doubt you can read it (you need a membership) so I'll post some highlights.

"A closer look reveals that moderate inbreeding has always been the rule, not the exception, for humans. Inbreeding is also commonplace in the natural world, and contrary to our expectations, some biologists argue that this can be a very good thing. It depends in part on the degree of inbreeding."

"Contrary to lore, cousin marriages may do even better than ordinary marriages by the standard Darwinian measure of success, which is reproduction. A 1960 study of first-cousin marriages in 19th-century England done by C. D. Darlington, a geneticist at Oxford University, found that inbred couples produced twice as many great-grandchildren as did their outbred counterparts."

"The consequences of inbreeding are unpredictable and depend largely on what biologists call the founder effect: If the founding couple pass on a large number of lethal recessives, as appears to have happened in Bradford, these recessives will spread and double up through intermarriage. If, however, Mayer and Gutle Rothschild handed down a comparatively healthy genome, their descendants could safely intermarry for generations—at least until small deleterious effects inevitably began to pile up and produce inbreeding depression, a long-term decline in the well-being of a family or a species.
A founding couple can also pass on advantageous genes. Among animal populations, generations of inbreeding frequently lead to the development of coadapted gene complexes, suites of genetic traits that tend to be inherited together. These traits may confer special adaptations to a local environment, like resistance to disease."

"Inbreeding may help explain why insects can develop resistance almost overnight to pesticides like DDT: The resistance first shows up as a recessive trait in one obscure family line. Inbreeding, with its cascade of double recessives, causes the trait to be expressed in every generation of this family—and under the intense selective pressure of DDT, this family of resistant insects survives and proliferates."

"Patrick Bateson, a professor of ethology at Cambridge University, argues that outbreeding has at times been hazardous for humans too. For instance, the size and shape of our teeth is a strongly inherited trait. So is jaw size and shape. But the two traits aren't inherited together. If a woman with small jaws and small teeth marries a man with big jaws and big teeth, their grandchildren may end up with a mouthful of gnashers in a Tinkertoy jaw. Before dentistry was commonplace, Bateson adds, "ill-fitting teeth were probably a serious cause of mortality because it increased the likelihood of abscesses in the mouth." Marrying a cousin was one way to avoid a potentially lethal mismatch."

"So where does this leave us? No scientist is advocating intermarriage, but the evidence indicates that we should at least moderate our automatic disdain for it."

http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-03/features/featkiss/

It's not as simple as "inbreeding will cause deformities." The odds that a recessive gene will express itself due to inbreeding are very minute and research has shown that moderate inbreeding causes very few problems, and also many local advantages.

as interesting as this is let me give you a first hadn knowledge of inbreeding. I live in Marathon...Cortland County NY....Cortladn COunty has teh HIGHEST rate of insest in the NATION... there are 33% abortions due to inbreed children (majority of which are born with defects due ot hgih rates of inbreeding. Those who are born are far higehr than 2-3% to have deformities, and where from simple curved legs to full out mental retardation. I respect your work and research but first hand i'm telling you...It's wrong...I see it everyday

[venus/bacchus]

Um, are you refering to me, in any way, with that last statement?
Yeah, it is likely that the majority of the people in the Bible did exists, and almost certainly Jesus. And, I am not sure if you meant to say "historical impact" because the impact cannot be denied, but the authenticity can and is debated.
Most laws are just common sense, and are contained in most religions, but that does not mean that the laws are based on those religions. For example, most people think that the founding fathers of America were christian, but they weren't, they were deists. They didn't base any laws (rights) on the Bible, but on common sense, they just happen to coinside with christianity in most cases.
I'm not referring to you, or anyone in particular at all. In all honesty, I didn't even read pages 13 through 17 or something (which is where the majority of your posts were from what I saw).
By historical impact, I mean that it can be used as a historical document despite the references to God. Most people completely disregard any substance it holds for those reasons. I still contend that the "authenticity" can be proven, although God's significance in it never can.
No law is common sense. Every moral fiber in us was learned as a result of society. To suggest that only "common sense" is a factor in creating laws would be to suggest that there is an "ultimate morality" (and thusly, a God).
But it's ok when it infringes on someone's right as a person in a free country?

I don't know many people who deny the existence. And no one is disregarding the bible. The point trying to be made is that you can not fully prove the Bible using the Bible. Yes, you can use it to make points, but you can not say, "Refer to _____ which supports ____." That means nothing.

But are the people not the society? Are the people of the society not into religions? Therefore, when people are affected, their religions are affected. The only possible to way to keep from people getting angry is to keep the choices open.
Which amendment is it that grants us the right to marriage? Last time I checked it was a privilege and certain criteria had to be met.

I understand what you're saying, but if you wanted to prove the predictions of Nostradamus, you would have to cite his works. You can't prove the Bible entirely with an outside source. It must be a combination of both.

Everyone is going to affected by every decision. That's inevitable. The only way that how they are affected is considered is if it hinders them from declaring/practicing their religion. And I don't mean the "personal" aspects of religion, not the societal.
The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Sounds like separation of church and state to me...

And what about those who have no religion?

This is true and I should've made a point of that...regardless that doesn't mean everything that is in the Bible is authentic and therefore the untouchable law of the land (I know you didn't say that but others seem to believe so).

Here is where you're misunderstanding. Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. Sure, some may be against it for religious reasons, but religion is not even a factor in the decision. So no religion is being forced upon anyone, only their beliefs. That'd be like saying we can't ban murder because the 10 Commandments also ban it.

I can't say I disagree with that. Like anything else, it should be taken with a grain of salt.
as interesting as this is let me give you a first hadn knowledge of inbreeding. I live in Marathon...Cortland County NY....Cortladn COunty has teh HIGHEST rate of insest in the NATION... there are 33% abortions due to inbreed children (majority of which are born with defects due ot hgih rates of inbreeding. Those who are born are far higehr than 2-3% to have deformities, and where from simple curved legs to full out mental retardation. I respect your work and research but first hand i'm telling you...It's wrong...I see it everyday
Wait. Are you using "personal observations" to disregard science? Wow. And I'd like to see figures of these deformities due to inbreeding. 33% of abortions means nothing and doesn't even make sense the way you stated it.

[UndefinedBoy]

Here is where you're misunderstanding. Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. Sure, some may be against it for religious reasons, but religion is not even a factor in the decision. So no religion is being forced upon anyone, only their beliefs. That'd be like saying we can't ban murder because the 10 Commandments also ban it.

I can't agree with that...it just is far too apparent that the majority of those opposed to gay marriage are part of the religious right and believe its an "abomination." You're one of the few people who has a non-religious reason for being against it that I've spoken with...

You didn't say it but I'm guessing you now admit there IS a separation of church and state?

[scitsofreaky]

No law is common sense. Every moral fiber in us was learned as a result of society. To suggest that only "common sense" is a factor in creating laws would be to suggest that there is an "ultimate morality" (and thusly, a God).
They why has there been a consistence throughout history (recorded) is many laws? Throughout the world and and history, murder has been considered wrong.

[Lueda Alia]

Here is where you're misunderstanding. Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with religion.


Ok. Give me some reasons NOT RELATED TO RELIGION, as to why gay marriage should be banned. Please, I am dying to hear some of them.

[venus/bacchus]

I can't agree with that...it just is far too apparent that the majority of those opposed to gay marriage are part of the religious right and believe its an "abomination." You're one of the few people who has a non-religious reason for being against it that I've spoken with...

You didn't say it but I'm guessing you now admit there IS a separation of church and state?
Someone's intentions shouldn't matter. No state voted to allow gay marriage. Did all of those people who voted on it have religious reasons? Obviously not. This is far more than just Christians vs. Homosexuals. The majority of society is against it for reasons going beyond the Bible.

I admit that there is a separation of church and state (and it's definitely a good thing), but that isn't stated anywhere in any of our "official" documents. Also, people tend to use that argument to justify things that really aren't "establishing" a religion, which is what the Constitution states.

[Lueda Alia]

And America is considered the land of "freedom" where everyone is "equal". I beg to differ.

[venus/bacchus]

They why has there been a consistence throughout history (recorded) is many laws? Throughout the world and and history, murder has been considered wrong.
Many different societies have different laws and morals in common, but that doesn't mean there is ultimate morality. In classical Greek society, it was encouraged to kill someone who had killed a relative of yours. Obviously "murder" in our society isn't "murder" in theirs.
Ok. Give me some reasons NOT RELATED TO RELIGION, as to why gay marriage should be banned. Please, I am dying to hear some of them.
Obviously you didn't read the first 4 pages of this thread. Go ahead and do that, if you have any questions after that, ask me.

[venus/bacchus]

And America is considered the land of "freedom" where everyone is "equal". I beg to differ.
Well then you'd be wrong. Everyone is free and has equal treatment under the law.

[_astheruinfalls]

Which amendment is it that grants us the right to marriage? Last time I checked it was a privilege and certain criteria had to be met.

I understand what you're saying, but if you wanted to prove the predictions of Nostradamus, you would have to cite his works. You can't prove the Bible entirely with an outside source. It must be a combination of both.

Everyone is going to affected by every decision. That's inevitable. The only way that how they are affected is considered is if it hinders them from declaring/practicing their religion. And I don't mean the "personal" aspects of religion, not the societal.
I never said there was an amendment. And yes, it is a privilege. Excuse my wording. But given that, do you not earn privileges? Who is to say, "You may not have this privilege on the ground I do not personally agree with how you live your life." How wrong is that? What if I wanted to ban all music. I would burn every cd, burn all production offices, etc. Would that be ok? Is playing music not a privilege?

Yes. I agree with you. But the problem is that Ghost did not use an outside source, just the Bible. And proving the Bible with only the Bible is impossible and shows a lack of a brain.

Ok, well is gay marriage hindering you from worshipping God? Or from giving communion? Or from praying? If it really is, then there is something wrong with you. ( That was just a general statement. )

[UndefinedBoy]

Someone's intentions shouldn't matter. No state voted to allow gay marriage. Did all of those people who voted on it have religious reasons? Obviously not. This is far more than just Christians vs. Homosexuals. The majority of society is against it for reasons going beyond the Bible.

I admit that there is a separation of church and state (and it's definitely a good thing), but that isn't stated anywhere in any of our "official" documents. Also, people tend to use that argument to justify things that really aren't "establishing" a religion, which is what the Constitution states.

How do you know this? Got any evidence?

The first amendment says nothing about establishing a religion, but making a law concerning an ESTABLISHMENT of religion...

[scitsofreaky]

Obviously you didn't read the first 4 pages of this thread. Go ahead and do that, if you have any questions after that, ask me.
The only none religious arguement I saw was the one that I gave. The other ones that I think you are refering to just used weird examples like loving a dog, but don't really argue anything.

[Lueda Alia]

I agree. The only thing I found was homosexuals being compared to an animal and what not. Didn't really find any reasons as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

Well then you'd be wrong. Everyone is free and has equal treatment under the law.
Yeah but Canada sure as hell beats America when it comes to equal rights. As do many other countries. So you Americans brag about something that's not even there.

[venus/bacchus]

I never said there was an amendment. And yes, it is a privilege. Excuse my wording. But given that, do you not earn privileges? Who is to say, "You may not have this privilege on the ground I do not personally agree with how you live your life." How wrong is that? What if I wanted to ban all music. I would burn every cd, burn all production offices, etc. Would that be ok? Is playing music not a privilege?

Yes. I agree with you. But the problem is that Ghost did not use an outside source, just the Bible. And proving the Bible with only the Bible is impossible and shows a lack of a brain.

Ok, well is gay marriage hindering you from worshipping God? Or from giving communion? Or from praying? If it really is, then there is something wrong with you. ( That was just a general statement. )
I don't care how they live their lives. They can have all the sex they want. They can kiss in public, they can hold hands, they can go on dates. That means nothing to me. No one is trying to stop that (well, some people are, but the vast majority aren't). The problem arises when you want to start redefining marriage to include an alternative lifestyle. I simply do not believe we should recognize their "marriage" much like you don't believe (I assume) we should recognize polygamy or incest.

He did use an outside source. I think he said something to the effect of talking about predictions the Bible has made about future world events that have been corroborated upon by archaeology and history.

No. And I've tried to stay away from talking about religion because I don't believe it should matter what your motive is, as long as the societal effects are analyzed and taken into affect.
How do you know this? Got any evidence?

The first amendment says nothing about establishing a religion, but making a law concerning an ESTABLISHMENT of religion...
Here's all I could dig up. According to the US Census Bureau as of 2003, Ohio was 57% Christian. Total number of eligible voters in 2000 (I couldn't find 2004) was 7,535,188. That would mean 4,295,057 of the possible voters claim to be Christian. Let's just assume there was about 65% turnout (that's slightly higher than in 2000, but around the same as 1996). And we'll also assume that there was an equivalent ratio of Christian to non-Christian voters as there are in the state. Now, that would mean that 2,791,787 of the voters who went to the polls were Christian. Coincidentally, Issue 1 (definition of marriage) passed in Ohio with 3,329,250 votes. So, assuming that every Christian voted for it (which is a pretty big assumption seeing as how they were about 50/50 on Bush and Kerry, why would they be unanmious on this?), that would mean that 84% of the votes for it were Christian. I don't see how you could claim this is solely a Christian issue. Of course I could try to look up other states, but Ohio was the easiest because I live here and it was the state most targeted for this election.

Exactly. The government can't favor one religion while oppressing another. Just because it happens to be a belief of one religion doesn't mean it's reason enough to force it into action when the majority are against it.

[venus/bacchus]

The only none religious arguement I saw was the one that I gave. The other ones that I think you are refering to just used weird examples like loving a dog, but don't really argue anything.
Loving an animal was the extreme example I used. The same could be said for polygamy or incest. Do you advocate recognizing those marriages?
I agree. The only thing I found was homosexuals being compared to an animal and what not. Didn't really find any reasons as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

Yeah but Canada sure as hell beats America when it comes to equal rights. As do many other countries. So you Americans brag about something that's not even there.
I guess you missed when I was discussing polygamy and incest? Do you also wish to legalize those marriages? Or are those too "unnatural" for you?

Wait. So you agree that America is equal, but you think they aren't as equal as other countries? I guess I didn't realize you could have levels of equality when both are already equal. But then again 1 = 1 is more equal than 4 = 4.

[em0_stars]

Loving an animal was the extreme example I used. The same could be said for polygamy or incest. Do you advocate recognizing those marriages?

I guess you missed when I was discussing polygamy and incest? Do you also wish to legalize those marriages? Or are those too "unnatural" for you?

Wait. So you agree that America is equal, but you think they aren't as equal as other countries? I guess I didn't realize you could have levels of equality when both are already equal. But then again 1 = 1 is more equal than 4 = 4.


you bring up quite interesting points. I look at this subject with a whole new light, thank you.

[when 4ever ends]

i think venus/bacchus is god

[UndefinedBoy]

i think venus/bacchus is god

You're right...THAT'S why he's against gay marriage!

[when 4ever ends]

You're right...THAT'S why he's against gay marriage!
:lol2: this whole thread is religion

[UndefinedBoy]

Here's all I could dig up. According to the US Census Bureau as of 2003, Ohio was 57% Christian. Total number of eligible voters in 2000 (I couldn't find 2004) was 7,535,188. That would mean 4,295,057 of the possible voters claim to be Christian. Let's just assume there was about 65% turnout (that's slightly higher than in 2000, but around the same as 1996). And we'll also assume that there was an equivalent ratio of Christian to non-Christian voters as there are in the state. Now, that would mean that 2,791,787 of the voters who went to the polls were Christian. Coincidentally, Issue 1 (definition of marriage) passed in Ohio with 3,329,250 votes. So, assuming that every Christian voted for it (which is a pretty big assumption seeing as how they were about 50/50 on Bush and Kerry, why would they be unanmious on this?), that would mean that 84% of the votes for it were Christian. I don't see how you could claim this is solely a Christian issue. Of course I could try to look up other states, but Ohio was the easiest because I live here and it was the state most targeted for this election.

Exactly. The government can't favor one religion while oppressing another. Just because it happens to be a belief of one religion doesn't mean it's reason enough to force it into action when the majority are against it.

The only problem with your data is your assumptions...you assume there were equal Christian and non-Christian voters. This is possible but unlikely. I personally feel the religious right would make a great effort to go out and vote against this, as they did in the actual election (Evangelical Christians are said to have made the difference, part of Karl Rove's "master plan"). And even using your numbers, 84% of the votes against were Christian...now this is a pretty significant percentage, and if my own assumptions are correct, that number could be even higher.

Truth is neither of us can be sure of this, but do you really find it hard to believe that to the majority of anti-gay marriage people, religion plays the biggest role in that? It's logical, so I'm not quite sure why you're so set against that.

[UndefinedBoy]

:lol2: this whole thread is religion

Unfortunately that seems to be the biggest part of this issue...with venus as a refreshing alternative (there's at least something to debate).

[UndefinedBoy]

Exactly. The government can't favor one religion while oppressing another. Just because it happens to be a belief of one religion doesn't mean it's reason enough to force it into action when the majority are against it.

True but I think you're adding to the amendment. It simply states that no law will be made concerning religion, nothing about favoring another really...it really just means separation of church and state unless I'm missing something...

Do you still believe separation of church and state isn't official?

[venus/bacchus]

The only problem with your data is your assumptions...you assume there were equal Christian and non-Christian voters. This is possible but unlikely. I personally feel the religious right would make a great effort to go out and vote against this, as they did in the actual election (Evangelical Christians are said to have made the difference, part of Karl Rove's "master plan"). And even using your numbers, 84% of the votes against were Christian...now this is a pretty significant percentage, and if my own assumptions are correct, that number could be even higher.

Truth is neither of us can be sure of this, but do you really find it hard to believe that to the majority of anti-gay marriage people, religion plays the biggest role in that? It's logical, so I'm not quite sure why you're so set against that.
I agree, I had to make a lot of assumptions (there's no other way of knowing how many Christians voted for it and against it), but I think they were fair enough, and if anything I felt I erred on the higher side. To assume that every Christian who voted on it voted for it is a very big assumption. Enough to negate assuming the ratios were the same as the population ratios, and could even be an overestimate.

I know neither of us can be sure of this, I was just pointing out to you that you believe so fervently that only the religious right are pushing for this, when in fact it's just the majority of America. I know religion plays a large role, I won't deny that. I just don't think it's fair to say that only the religious are keeping it from being accepted.
True but I think you're adding to the amendment. It simply states that no law will be made concerning religion, nothing about favoring another really...it really just means separation of church and state unless I'm missing something...

Do you still believe separation of church and state isn't official?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

"Respecting" in this sense means concerning or referring to religion. What about the gay marriage issue concerns or referrs to religion? Just because the religious support it doesn't mean it's a religious issue. The religious also support murder being outlawed, as do the non-religious.

The separation of church and state isn't an "official" doctrine of the United States. Why else would they be able to give tax breaks to churches, or have a national Cathedral? There is no "separation", but they have never made a law respecting one single religion or any religion at all. They are very different things.

[scitsofreaky]

I guess you missed when I was discussing polygamy and incest? Do you also wish to legalize those marriages? Or are those too "unnatural" for you?
Why not let anybody(thing) get married if they are willing to do so. But, it is hard to know if a dog is willing, but if it could, why should we be able to say no?

[UndefinedBoy]

I agree, I had to make a lot of assumptions (there's no other way of knowing how many Christians voted for it and against it), but I think they were fair enough, and if anything I felt I erred on the higher side. To assume that every Christian who voted on it voted for it is a very big assumption. Enough to negate assuming the ratios were the same as the population ratios, and could even be an overestimate.

I know neither of us can be sure of this, I was just pointing out to you that you believe so fervently that only the religious right are pushing for this, when in fact it's just the majority of America. I know religion plays a large role, I won't deny that. I just don't think it's fair to say that only the religious are keeping it from being accepted.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

"Respecting" in this sense means concerning or referring to religion. What about the gay marriage issue concerns or referrs to religion? Just because the religious support it doesn't mean it's a religious issue. The religious also support murder being outlawed, as do the non-religious.

The separation of church and state isn't an "official" doctrine of the United States. Why else would they be able to give tax breaks to churches, or have a national Cathedral? There is no "separation", but they have never made a law respecting one single religion or any religion at all. They are very different things.

I get why you did, but either or neither of us could be right. I still stand by my belief that if there was no religion involved in this decision, that it would not be an issue...I don't think enough people see it the same way you do to put up much of a fight.

But the religious cite the bible for their reasons for being against it, making it a religious issue. No member of the religious right that I've heard have brought up any of the points that you have, only that the Church is against homosexuality.

Understood.

[venus/bacchus]

Why not let anybody(thing) get married if they are willing to do so. But, it is hard to know if a dog is willing, but if it could, why should we be able to say no?
Ok, at least you're now on the record stating that you have no problem allowing incest and polygamist marriages, seeing as otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.
I get why you did, but either or neither of us could be right. I still stand by my belief that if there was no religion involved in this decision, that it would not be an issue...I don't think enough people see it the same way you do to put up much of a fight.

But the religious cite the bible for their reasons for being against it, making it a religious issue. No member of the religious right that I've heard have brought up any of the points that you have, only that the Church is against homosexuality.
That's very true, and I won't deny that the majority who are against it are for religious reasons, but that also isn't to say that they don't legitimately believe it's "wrong" either. Let's pretend there was no religion, the idea of two men or two women being "intimate" causes a lot of people to squirm, for ideas transcending religion. The fact that a religion outright says it is also against it could be a reason they chose the religion. Chicken or the egg?

Religion may be cited as a reason, but it is still not a religious issue. It doesn't hinder or support one religion, so therefore cannot be regarded as a religious rule. Remember, if someone said they wanted to outlaw murder for religious reasons, would you be against it?

[scitsofreaky]

I wouldn't be against outlawing murder, but not necessarily for their reasons. Oh, and unless you have no beliefs, you have some sort of religion because the most basic definition of religion is that it is just a system of beliefs.

[venus/bacchus]

I wouldn't be against outlawing murder, but not necessarily for their reasons. Oh, and unless you have no beliefs, you have some sort of religion because the most basic definition of religion is that it is just a system of beliefs.
The fact of the matter is, the only reason people claim that religion shouldn't be a factor is when they're in disagreement. If they wanted to outlaw the death penalty because we are all God's precious children and you (not necessarily you, the proverbial "you") supported it for different reasons, I would guarantee you wouldn't be as up in arms as you are now.

[scitsofreaky]

I, personally, would agree, but I would end up arguing the reason why.

[Lueda Alia]

Gay Marriage = :/ I'm opposed to it strictly because it's all biblical.
Leviticus 18:22, 23 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion."

okay, you made me dug out the bible.

so, you're a Christian, and what you quoted is from Leviticus, which is a guide for how the Hebrews should live to set them apart from the pagans living around them a few thousand years ago. When God wrote Leviticus, he wrote if for the Herbrews. not for the Christians. Christians follow Christ, not Hebrew laws. Leviticus is about keeping clean for God, so following the laws of Leviticus means that you don't believe that Jesus' blood has washed you clean. unless you are a Jew living in Caanan (and posting from a different time), it doesn't apply to you. it just doesn't apply to any Christians, especially not those who believe that Jesus' blood has cleanes them, thereby making religious cleansing rites unnecissary.

But if you insist on following Leviticus, you should at least read the whole thing. http://www.bbintl.org/bible/niv/nivLev1.html

Leviticus tells you to engage in animal sacrifice, to not tocuh a woman while she's on her period, and to not eat pork or shellfish. are you ready to do that?

Lying with a man as one would with a woman makes a man religiously unclean (some of the pagans of the area had ritual sex, including gay sex, and the Herbrews were not to mimic their ceremonies in any way), and thus unfit to take part of the religious ceremonies, which might in turn endanger his soul and whatnot. but those rules do not apply to the rest of us, especially not people who have no intention of ever entering into a temple and take part of the ceremonies there.

So basically, you don't have a reason to oppose gay marriage. not that I think you'll change your mind anyway, as it's too deeply rooted in you to be swayed by something as insignificant as God.

you can think whatever you want. but when you try to make thoughts of discrimination a reality, you are going too far.

[scitsofreaky]

okay, you made me dug out the bible.

so, you're a Christian, and what you quoted is from Leviticus, which is a guide for how the Hebrews should live to set them apart from the pagans living around them a few thousand years ago. When God wrote Leviticus, he wrote if for the Herbrews. not for the Christians. Christians follow Christ, not Hebrew laws. Leviticus is about keeping clean for God, so following the laws of Leviticus means that you don't believe that Jesus' blood has washed you clean. unless you are a Jew living in Caanan (and posting from a different time), it doesn't apply to you. it just doesn't apply to any Christians, especially not those who believe that Jesus' blood has cleanes them, thereby making religious cleansing rites unnecissary. Leviticus tells you to engage in animal sacrifice, to not tocuh a woman while she's on her period, and to not eat pork or shellfish. are you ready to do that?

This I completely agree with, which means that he doesn't have to sacrifice animals, so he can disregard that part. But that doesn't mean that he should disregard all of it. He only has to disregard the animal sacrifice because Jesus took the place of those animals. But, Jesus himself says that one must follow the teachings of His Father, ie the Old Testament.

[Justin_stacy]

No, it's really not. It's perplexing that people like you can't fucking read. .

Not being able to read is one thing, not understanding what you’re reading it another….

The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, .

This means congress shall make no law concerning (respecting) a establishment of a national religion (hence the name Establishment Clause)….i.e. no American equivalent to the Church of England.

Again this is where historical connections need to be made….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventicle_Act

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; .

This means congress shall make no law prohibiting the free choice of religion and the practicing of it…

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, .

This means congress shall make no law restricting (abridging) any of said issues…

and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. .

This means congress can make no law prohibiting an individuals ability to appeal (petition) the governments actions or an individuals ability to be compensationed/remeded (redress) for said charges (grievances)…

This means now law will be made because of religious beliefs...this has nothing to do with establishing a national religion, I have no idea where you came up with that.

No where does it say government must separate itself from religion, what it says is that government can not stop, or restrict, someone from worshiping or believing as they see fit…..that is why the very first statement is directed at the issue of an established national religion, and the prohibiting of it. Becasue that would place restriction on relgious freedom....

So again i ask, is it perplexing that nowhere in the 1st does it say anything about the idea that you are promoting?

[UndefinedBoy]

Not being able to read is one thing, not understanding what you’re reading it another….



This means congress shall make no law concerning (respecting) a establishment of a national religion (hence the name Establishment Clause)….i.e. no American equivalent to the Church of England.

Again this is where historical connections need to be made….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventicle_Act



This means congress shall make no law prohibiting the free choice of religion and the practicing of it…



This means congress shall make no law restricting (abridging) any of said issues…



This means congress can make no law prohibiting an individuals ability to appeal (petition) the governments actions or an individuals ability to be compensationed/remeded (redress) for said charges (grievances)…



No where does it say government must separate itself from religion, what it says is that government can not stop, or restrict, someone from worshiping or believing as they see fit…..that is why the very first statement is directed at the issue of an established national religion, and the prohibiting of it. Becasue that would place restriction on relgious freedom....

So again i ask, is it perplexing that nowhere in the 1st does it say anything about the idea that you are promoting?

I guess you're reading this a little differently than everyone else...read me and venus's discussion on this, we came pretty close to agreeing on what it meant.

[Justin_stacy]

I guess you're reading this a little differently than everyone else...

Everyone else here, maybe, but does that really matter? Because none of you seem to be able to interpret what is actually written literally, and are forming your conclusions based on outside documents and personal perspectives….which can fog an honest interpretation...


Have you read about the Establishment clause or about its intended purpose, at the time of its writing? It might help you to understand why the first line was written and why it was so important to the founding fathers...

[Love As Arson]

To make radical social change, the burden of proof should be on those who wish to make the change. When I want to make a physical change (let's say build a bridge on my land), I have to plea to the county that it isn't detrimental and can be done safely. This is along the same lines. Radical change needs to be justified, and people still have legitimate answers as to why it shouldn't be instated.
To create a law forbidding a certain type of behaviour, you must first prove the behaviour is somehow hurting society.

[venus/bacchus]

To create a law forbidding a certain type of behaviour, you must first prove the behaviour is somehow hurting society.
Here's the difference. It's always been against the law. The law isn't being created. Now, in this situation, you would have to provide reasonable cause to actually change or eradicate the law.

[Love As Arson]

Here's the difference. It's always been against the law. The law isn't being created. Now, in this situation, you would have to provide reasonable cause to actually change or eradicate the law.
My proof would be that you have no proof that affects society in an adverse way. If you don't have any proof to provide us with that says why we should keep the law, then the law shouldn't be in place anymore?
For example:

There is a law in Alabama that states that dominoes cannot be played on a Sunday. It has always been the law, yet there is no proof that playing dominoes on a Sunday is harmful to anyone. Should that law be allowed to stand? Using your rationale it should, because it's always been the law.

[venus/bacchus]

My proof would be that you have no proof that affects society in an adverse way. If you don't have any proof to provide us with that says why we should keep the law, then the law shouldn't be in place anymore?
For example:

There is a law in Alabama that states that dominoes cannot be played on a Sunday. It has always been the law, yet there is no proof that playing dominoes on a Sunday is harmful to anyone. Should that law be allowed to stand? Using your rationale it should, because it's always been the law.
You can't prove your "truth" by disproving mine.

That law should still stand until someone can give reason enough that it wouldn't be harmful to society.

[dayafterdayroks]

i say kill them all and let god sort them out..... :pengy:

[Justin_stacy]

:pengy:

i'm all about quirky pics, but this one didn't make a lick of sense...in that statement

[Love As Arson]

You can't prove your "truth" by disproving mine.

That law should still stand until someone can give reason enough that it wouldn't be harmful to society.
You can prove that the law was wrongly established.

[UndefinedBoy]

Good for Canada:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/12/09/canada.gay.ap/index.html

[Lueda Alia]

I don't know what the big deal is all about. Canada has same sex marriage and things still run. Maybe "American Homosexuals" should come to Canada and apply for refugee status as they are being persecuted by the U.S. religious right and the religious fanatic president.

It is amazing since Canada and USA are neighbours how this is such a huge issue in America whereas across the border in Canada it is barely a blip on the radar. Some people here are against it but not with the vicious persecution you see in America...

[UndefinedBoy]

I don't know what the big deal is all about. Canada has same sex marriage and things still run. Maybe "American Homosexuals" should come to Canada and apply for refugee status as they are being persecuted by the U.S. religious right and the religious fanatic president.

It is amazing since Canada and USA are neighbours how this is such a huge issue in America whereas across the border in Canada it is barely a blip on the radar. Some people here are against it but not with the vicious persecution you see in America...

Venus, Canada is your proof that same-sex marriages do not destroy society.

[forswornpromise]

there's a really funny article by a guy who supports gay marriage on angry liberal...it makes a ton of sense, too.

http://www.theangryliberal.com/02-24-04.htm

[theESCO]

Holy fuck...I can say after 8 pages of this my mind is numb.

The way I see it...There is no god, the bible is a lie, and gays should be getting married.

short...simple...like my penis.

[Justin_stacy]

Venus, Canada is your proof that same-sex marriages do not destroy society.


How does a "fanatical" (in the words of morningstar) court's opinion "prove" that redefining marriage doesn't "weaken" a society...?

And even with this “opinion,” it doesn't mean its a fore gone conclusion that the bill will pass....The Conservative Party makes up 99 votes in the House of Commons, and that means that if less then half (56) of the Liberal party votes against this measure the bill will fail.....

[Bishop]

Well... brimstone isn't raining down on them, they don't have people jumping on stage and gunning other people down, but they are kind of weird about hockey. Well very weird. But no more so than fanatical Americans.

[theESCO]

San Fran and Mass. are still here aren't they? They haven't fallen off the map into hell have they?

[sleepygrlgreen]

to tell you the truth, i wasn't all for it at first. i had that whole mindset "it's been a man and a woman for god knows how long. that's how it should stay". after hearing my parents saying that and even my american govt teacher saying it...i thought that was right. after really thinking about it...i don't see why not. if they're in love then so be it. it doesn't make them any less of a people just because they happen to be attracted to the same sex.

[richter915]

to tell you the truth, i wasn't all for it at first. i had that whole mindset "it's been a man and a woman for god knows how long. that's how it should stay". after hearing my parents saying that and even my american govt teacher saying it...i thought that was right. after really thinking about it...i don't see why not. if they're in love then so be it. it doesn't make them any less of a people just because they happen to be attracted to the same sex.
ya you're a dumbass...never listen to her...anyone.

[sleepygrlgreen]

ya you're a dumbass...never listen to her...anyone.

wow...you're not a total asshole. (and i'm being sarcastic if you didn't get that)

[Lueda Alia]

ya you're a dumbass...never listen to her...anyone.
*bitch slap*

[sleepygrlgreen]

*bitch slap*


:: thumbs up::

[Bishop]

*bitch slap*

I bet you he would enjoy that.

I know I would.

[Lueda Alia]

I bet you he would enjoy that.

I know I would.
I'll never understand why guys like mean girls!

[richter915]

I'll never understand why guys like mean girls!
I'll never understand girls...ever.

[Bishop]

I'll never understand why guys like mean girls!

I don't. I just like a girl who likes it rough.

[sleepygrlgreen]

I'll never understand girls...ever.

And they'll never understand you.

[sleepygrlgreen]

I don't. I just like a girl who likes it rough.


Well there are more than enough of those kind of girls to choose from.

[Love As Arson]

I think we should ban interracial marriages. They're destroying our family structure.

[turbonium]

i accept it....in germany its allowed...so its ok


in germany the allowed the burning of jews... and murder of black men... they allow boys to sex up old men...gay for germany.

btw the black men and nambla shit was a lie.

[Bishop]

Unless the girl is white right?

I'm an inter-racial child. My dad is white and my mom is latin.

[not_holden]

Why does it matter if they're married or not? It's like they have boy or girlfriends without all the commitments and all that shit. If I didn't have to get married to the girl I love, I wouldn't because it would be a hell of a lot easier just to pick up my shit and leave without legal repercussions.

[richter915]

And they'll never understand you.
that's exactly how I like it so...it's good.

[sleepygrlgreen]

Why does it matter if they're married or not? It's like they have boy or girlfriends without all the commitments and all that shit. If I didn't have to get married to the girl I love, I wouldn't because it would be a hell of a lot easier just to pick up my shit and leave without legal repercussions.

dude, maybe you should reconsider the whole marriage thing with her then.

[sleepygrlgreen]

that's exactly how I like it so...it's good.

you say that now dude. one day you're gonna hate it when you can't figure that one girl out. :: sigh::

[richter915]

you say that now dude. one day you're gonna hate it when you can't figure that one girl out. :: sigh::
or...no.

[sleepygrlgreen]

or...no.

you know... you understand girls a lot better than you think you do. you're able to figure me out pretty easily anyway.

[.:Autopilot:.]

I'm undecided because I don't really care... I know a few gay guys and if they want to get married then so be it.

[AliveOutOfHabit]

i think people should be able to do whatever they want if it is not harming anybody else... but at the end of the day do you need marriage to show everyone that you are in love???

[Sureshot182]

i am all for gay marriage, or unions. i realize that people do have religious beliefs and that some actually do believe, in their hearts, that gay marriage is wrong. i think it is rediculous, but these people's opinions have to be cosidered too. if not gay marriage, make it a union at least. these people deserve the same benefits and rights as those who are straight. it is outrageous that someone in this country can't get equal rights because they are homosexual.

[richter915]

you know... you understand girls a lot better than you think you do. you're able to figure me out pretty easily anyway.
that's cause you're more man than any guy I know.