Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by gnomexxx

What is hateful is taking your religious beliefs and pushing them on another human being.  Especially when you use the government to do so.  Whether that government be a state government or a federal government.

Look, I agree with a lot of what you write when it comes to economic arguments.  I'm a very strong conservative when it comes to the the economy.  But when it comes to someone's civil rights, I will fight and die for those in a heartbeat.

This is absolutely a civil rights issue.  There are people who's religious beliefs say that they are allowed to marry same sex couples.  These same people are being told by the government that their religious beliefs and practices are not valid.  Whether you agree with their religious beliefs or not is a mute point.  The fact of the matter is plain and clear.

Think about that.  They go to their church and they believe that they have a valid marriage before their God.  Then our government is saying that they are wrong.  Our government is saying that they're religion is invalid.  That is what you want going on in America????  Seriously?

 

You know, the thing is that it's not so much that I am against gay marraige.  Perhaps in principal I am not when it comes to the government saying who can and cannot marry.  It's more the reality that our society has devolved (yes, devolved) to the point that the people even have to consider the issue.  It's an ominous sign for the future of our country.  As recently as two decades ago if anyone of note had publicly proclaimed support for gay marraige, that person would have been regarded as a loon and relegated to the fringe of society.  Government didn't have to consider the matter because no more than a handful of individuals even thought it was a tenable position.  Today it's an issue that is splitting the country.

And you don't just have to look at that issue to support my position that morally, America is in big trouble.  Many of our parents love to talk about how when they were kids, they didn't even have to lock their doors because there was no need to feel unsafe in their own house or their own neighborhood.  Today we've got 15-year old girls being gang raped in public and crowds of people looking on without doing anything.

So perhaps, it's not whether the government has a right to say who should be allowed to get married; perhaps the issue is whether or not America's future looks promising.  You can take all the factors, add them up and say, "I'm not so sure."  You and I may agree that we are destroying our country economically, but we may differ on whether or not we are falling apart morally.  And I would venture to guess that the difference stems from the difference in our faiths.

If you believe that God at some time in the past destroyed the earth by a flood because of mankind's behavior (which I do) and you believe God destroyed a couple of cities in the past named Sodom and Gomorrah because of mankind's behavior (which I do), then why must I and others like me be vilified for seeing signs we find troubling and worrying that it's possible that our country could find itself in similiar dire circumstances at some point in the future if this country continues on the road that it's on?

Is it really hateful to be concerned about the well-being of our country when we see signs, both morally and economically, which may point to its eventual demise, and would likewise, be willing to give up our lives to not see that happen?

Where you see us devolving because of this issue, I see us instead becoming more liberated and free.

And yes, we do have a difference of faith.  I am a member of the Unitarian church.  And I love my country for its foundations that promise freedom of religion and also that the government will not recognize one religion over another.  That is our law.  And it is being broken by denying my churches beliefs from being recognized equally to others.

My church performs gay marriages.  My church recognizes the love between gay people as being real and meaningful on a positive level.  And yes, my church has protested that we feel we are being treated unfairly.  And we are, that is undeniable.

This country is not a democracy.  But some people are working really hard to turn it into one.  And that is way more scary and destructive than giving committed gays equal treatment under the law.

The problem is that when you use the word marriage, it has religious connotations to it. If you say domestic partnership or whatever, and give gay couples all the same rights as married couples, then there wouldn't be a problem. Terming it marriage and allowing it to pass could possibly be viewed as an infringement upon the separation of church and state, since many view marriage as a religious institution, and if the view gay marriage as wrong in a religious sense, then it is going to have a hard time passing.

I say give gay couples the legal rights they want/need, but just don't call it marriage.

EDIT: But then again, as others have pointed out, it could be viewed as religious infringement by the government if your church believes that gay marriage is fine, but they cannot legalize a union because the government says they can't. It's a very tricky subject, and I believe that society will either have to evolve to have a majority of people accept gay marriage, or things will stay the way they are. This is really an issue for the American people to decide, not legislature.

Originally posted by sijmister

The problem is that when you use the word marriage, it has religious connotations to it. If you say domestic partnership or whatever, and give gay couples all the same rights as married couples, then there wouldn't be a problem. Terming it marriage and allowing it to pass could possibly be viewed as an infringement upon the separation of church and state, since many view marriage as a religious institution, and if the view gay marriage as wrong in a religious sense, then it is going to have a hard time passing.

I say give gay couples the legal rights they want/need, but just don't call it marriage.

EDIT: But then again, as others have pointed out, it could be viewed as religious infringement by the government if your church believes that gay marriage is fine, but they cannot legalize a union because the government says they can't. It's a very tricky subject, and I believe that society will either have to evolve to have a majority of people accept gay marriage, or things will stay the way they are. This is really an issue for the American people to decide, not legislature.

There really isn't anything tricky about it.

As far as the government is concerned marriage is a contract. If it has all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, then it's marriage. Calling it by some other name is just a bullshit means of maintaining some nebulous sense of power and control by earmarking people in "civil unions" as outside of society.

The only problem with allowing gays to marry is that it sets a precident for the possible legalization of polygamy or consensual incestuous marriages. No, no one is going to marry their dog, since animals can't sign contracts, but it's entirely possible that they may want to marry their first cousin or sibling. This is already something of an issue for adopted kids that grow up separated from their siblings and then meet when they grow up. There's one noteable case in Germany.

My own view on polyamorous marriages is that if you're stupid enough to want more than one spouse, then you deserve what you get. But again, this conflicts with American values that tell us not to have more than one wife or husband at a time. You can have as many as you want in sequence however.

In the end it's an all or nothing deal. Church and state are legally separate so we have to look at gay marriage from a legal perspective. There is no logical or legal grounds for denying marital rights to homosexuals.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by sijmister

The problem is that when you use the word marriage, it has religious connotations to it. If you say domestic partnership or whatever, and give gay couples all the same rights as married couples, then there wouldn't be a problem. Terming it marriage and allowing it to pass could possibly be viewed as an infringement upon the separation of church and state, since many view marriage as a religious institution, and if the view gay marriage as wrong in a religious sense, then it is going to have a hard time passing.

I say give gay couples the legal rights they want/need, but just don't call it marriage.

EDIT: But then again, as others have pointed out, it could be viewed as religious infringement by the government if your church believes that gay marriage is fine, but they cannot legalize a union because the government says they can't. It's a very tricky subject, and I believe that society will either have to evolve to have a majority of people accept gay marriage, or things will stay the way they are. This is really an issue for the American people to decide, not legislature.

 

There really isn't anything tricky about it.

As far as the government is concerned marriage is a contract. If it has all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, then it's marriage. Calling it by some other name is just a bullshit means of maintaining some nebulous sense of power and control by earmarking people in "civil unions" as outside of society.

The only problem with allowing gays to marry is that it sets a precident for the possible legalization of polygamy or consensual incestuous marriages. No, no one is going to marry their dog, since animals can't sign contracts, but it's entirely possible that they may want to marry their first cousin or sibling. This is already something of an issue for adopted kids that grow up separated from their siblings and then meet when they grow up. There's one noteable case in Germany.

My own view on polyamorous marriages is that if you're stupid enough to want more than one spouse, then you deserve what you get. But again, this conflicts with American values that tell us not to have more than one wife or husband at a time. You can have as many as you want in sequence however.

In the end it's an all or nothing deal. Church and state are legally separate so we have to look at gay marriage from a legal perspective. There is no logical or legal grounds for denying marital rights to homosexuals.

Yes, I was thinking about bringing up polygamy and incest as possible follow ups to this precedent, should it hold, and bestiality even crossed my mind, as you pointed out, but I didn't want to take it to those extremes =P. And, as I said, there shouldn't be any problems with granting homosexuals all the legal rights that straight people have in marriage, or "hetorosexual" if straight isn't politically correct.

The only thing is that due to the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and Judeo-Christian influences, the word marriage, in western society, has religious connotations. Perhaps if Greco-Roman views of marriage and such unions had prevailed in Western society, this wouldn't be an issue, but the fact is that the Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible have deep set influences upon Western culture that would be hard to overturn after being so prevalent for over 5 centuries.

Originally posted by Enkindu

From my point of view your example attempts to compare two things that are completely different.

I think that any reasonable person understands the dangers that a busy road presents to children.

The child, because of lack of life experience and understanding of consequences, needs to be protected from the road.

I'm assuming that your analog to playing in the street is "sinful homosexual behavior" and that the world needs to be protected from the wrath of god that will be delivered as punishment for this sin.

Here's my problem:

It is very clear to ME that God CREATES people as homosexuals, and fully expects them to seek spiritual, emotional, and physical fulfillment with a partner.  I believe 100% that God is just as willfully present in a same-sex marriage as he is in a heterosexual marriage.

If i felt that i had the right to IMPOSE my beliefs on others (which I do not) I might suggest that the prejudice and willful malice demonstrated by many religious and cultural groups is a cancer that threatens humanity.  Because I respect your right to hold your own beliefs, I can't make the same analogy you used with keeping the child from the road.

You believe in the Bible.  That is great.  Many people believe in the Koran, or any number of sacred texts in uncountable versions, revisions, and translations across the globe.  Many people believe in NOTHING at all, and think that life ends with death.  I personally believe in patience, simplicity, compassion, and love.  I do not trust ANY written word to be free from human alteration or intent.  I DO know that I have directly experienced what i would call "the grace of God" and that for me personally it has happened in unspoiled, wild places.. most often climbing in the high mountains or far out at sea.

So here's the rub:

You think the Bible is True.  Period.  And I know that drives most of your intent with regard to this particular issue.  The trouble is, as SURE as you are that the Bible is true, you can NOT impose your beliefs derived therein on others.  EVER.

To your thinking you are "testifying" or "spreading the word" or "offering salvation."  To me, you are doing nothing more than attempting to impose a belief system on ME that contains elements that I find INCREDIBLY OFFENSIVE.  Imagine if someone were telling you that you HAD to become homosexual to submit to the will of God.  I'm pretty sure you would be horrified and angry.  

Well, that is EXACTLY what fundamentalist Christian doctrine and other homophobic religions and cultural traditions do to gay people.  It is EQUALLY offensive to them, because it conflicts with their very NATURE which I believe 100% to be God given.

You may or may not know that I had one grandfather who was a Baptist minister and one grandfather who was a Methodist minister.  I was kicked out of Sunday school when I was 7 or 8 because I told the teacher that the creation myth didn't make any sense.  I do NOT believe that "Buddha nature" or "Christ nature" requires ANY particular organized religion religion to achieve.  I was engaged to a Catholic woman when I was 25 and we split up because I flatly refused to promise in pre-cana classes to raise any children in the Catholic faith.

I guess the point of that detour is to try to demonstrate that I have DEEPLY examined my own faith, I know EXACTLY why I believe what I believe, and that my faith and worldview is as valid as any found in the pages of the Bible, Koran, or Tao te Ching.

I's not a perfect analogy, of course, but I thought it was pretty darn good. It represents physical danger, when in reality, the danger exists on a spiritual level. So to be more appropriate, the road would be invisible. That's why The Matrix is such a good movie. It shows how the physical world is simply an illusion of what's really going on. Take the red pill (Christ) and you become aware of more than just the physical.

And don't get hung up on your stereotypical impression of me as a "gay basher" by assuming that the road represents homosexual sin. It represents sin period. All sin. God does not distnguish one sin from another and I try not to either. Committing a homosexual act is no more heinous than committing adultery. Obviously, some sins have greater consequences than others. Murdering someone will have a greater negative impact on society than lying to someone. But in God's eyes, they are both sins and require forgiveness to be reconciled to Him.

You say that God creates homosexuals the way they are. I say that's a cop out to justify sinful behavior. God creates each and every one of us, but we are all born sinners. Not because of anything God did, but because of what we did, going back to the first man and woman. So being sinnners, all of us will experience the temptation to sin. Whether or not we do sin is our choice. Every single one of us, when we come to that crossroad make that decision to eiher commit or avoid sin. It happens so often that most of us never even notice it. But I would challenge you to examine yourself when you come to that point and see how difficult it is to resist the temptation to sin. Whenever you are faced with the decision to lie or tell the truth, to lust or not to lust, to be prideful or to be humble. Or number of other acts which are too numerous to mention.

Now I don't say these things to make you think I am hung up on sinning, I am not. I accept who I am and know that when I do sin I am forgiven because as Fisher and I both agree, Christ took my punishment for me and my relationship with God is secure. I simply recognize that what I did was wrong, confess it to God, ask Him to forgive me and move on.

You also say that you believe God blesses homosexual marriages. Ok, what's your doctrine for that? From where does this belief derive? Because if it's simply your own personal belief, what makes it any more valid than anyone's personal belief which directly contradicts yours? I don't believe in the doctrine of sin because I want to. How much easier would my life be if I believed that nothing I ever did was wrong? But I believe in it because I believe that God's Word, which is found in the Bible, is the universal standard that God handed down to all mankind as a guide on how to have a relationship with Him. Now you mentioned a couple other texts which many people regard as sacred and I won't do it in this post because it's already long enough, but what needs to be done in that case, is put each one to the test of what may or may not qualify as God's Word and see which, if any, pass the test. I believe the Bible is the only one which does so.

Another problem with my analogy is that I said I ran out and pulled your son off the street, implying that I personally intervene in other people's lives and try to impose my beliefs on them. I do not. I admit when I first became a Christian way back when that I tried to do that because I thought it was the right thing to do. But it took years of learning and maturing as a Christian to realize that it was counter productive. Each person is responsible for their own life. Trying to tell others how they should live their life will probably do more harm than good. I have never campaigned on behalf of banning gay marraige and I don't suspect that I ever will. The extent of my involvement is simply debating it on this board. I hope no one has a problem with that, and if anyone does, perhaps they should not be here. And like I said in a previous post, perhaps the correct position is that government has no business in banning gay marraige. But that doesn't make gay marriage right, and in fact, I believe that it is not. I also believe that our society trending in that direction is a bad sign for the future of our country.

But let's not forget that imposing beliefs is a two-way street. I don't know if you are aware of this incident, but a couple years ago, a couple of transvestites from the "sisters of perpetual indulgence" interrupted a Catholic service in a San Francisco church and made a spectacle simply because they oppose Catholic doctrine. There's no excuse for doing that. Their protests should be confined to public venues.

The final thing I would say is that both sides should try to learn to respect the other's position in order to try and keep the debate civil.

Actually, that's not the final thing I am going to say. The final thing I am going to say is that I am having serious problems with my keyboard for some reason. It took me forever to type this message, so I doubt I will be making any more posts tonight. I apologize.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Committing a homosexual act is no more heinous than committing adultery.

Offensive.  Discriminatory by nature.

You say that God creates homosexuals the way they are. I say that's a cop out to justify sinful behavior.

Offensive. Discriminatory by nature.

You also say that you believe God blesses homosexual marriages. Ok, what's your doctrine for that? From where does this belief derive?

I told you what my "doctrine" is.  Patience, simplicity, compassion, love.  I was born with it, and it applies in ALL situations.  No magic books or birthright required, and as such the ONLY religion a compassionate God would embrace.

Because if it's simply your own personal belief, what makes it any more valid than anyone's personal belief which directly contradicts yours?

Because your doctrine requires hate, judgment, cruelty.

I don't believe in the doctrine of sin because I want to.

No, you believe it because you have accepted a dominant cultural mythology.  Had you been born In Afghanistan, you would have accepted an entirely different cultural mythology.

How much easier would my life be if I believed that nothing I ever did was wrong?

Technically you would be a sociopath.

But I believe in it because I believe that God's Word, which is found in the Bible, is the universal standard

...wait WHAT?? The Bible is big in Tibet and Indonesia and Japan?  I'm not sure you have a precicely accurate world view here...

that God handed down to all mankind

(except the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc, etc)

as a guide on how to have a relationship with Him. Now you mentioned a couple other texts which many people regard as sacred and I won't do it in this post because it's already long enough, but what needs to be done in that case, is put each one to the test of what may or may not qualify as God's Word and see which, if any, pass the test. I believe the Bible is the only one which does so.

I will eagerly await this definitive test that will apparently reveal the ultimate nature of God and the universe definitively, since that is the ONLY way you will be able to tell one sacred text from another.

Another problem with my analogy is that I said I ran out and pulled your son off the street, implying that I personally intervene in other people's lives and try to impose my beliefs on them. I do not. I admit when I first became a Christian way back when that I tried to do that because I thought it was the right thing to do. But it took years of learning and maturing as a Christian to realize that it was counter productive. Each person is responsible for their own life. Trying to tell others how they should live their life will probably do more harm than good.

I would advise striving for the next step.  Try loving people for who they ARE.  I think Jesus would approve.

I have never campaigned on behalf of banning gay marraige and I don't suspect that I ever will. The extent of my involvement is simply debating it on this board. I hope no one has a problem with that, and if anyone does, perhaps they should not be here. And like I said in a previous post, perhaps the correct position is that government has no business in banning gay marraige. But that doesn't make gay marriage right, and in fact, I believe that it is not. I also believe that our society trending in that direction is a bad sign for the future of our country.

There is so much strife and fear and hatred in the world now that you really don't NEED a crystal ball to see the massive shitstorm coming.

But let's not forget that imposing beliefs is a two-way street. I don't know if you are aware of this incident, but a couple years ago, a couple of transvestites from the "sisters of perpetual indulgence" interrupted a Catholic service in a San Francisco church and made a spectacle simply because they oppose Catholic doctrine. There's no excuse for doing that. Their protests should be confined to public venues.

The Catholics Tortured people to death for 650 years for not being Catholic.  I'm gonna have to give the transvestites a little leeway here.

The final thing I would say is that both sides should try to learn to respect the other's position in order to try and keep the debate civil.

Quit telling me I'm a sinner, and I'll quit telling you that you are judgmental and hateful.

Actually, that's not the final thing I am going to say. The final thing I am going to say is that I am having serious problems with my keyboard for some reason. It took me forever to type this message, so I doubt I will be making any more posts tonight. I apologize.

In spite of the fact that I must remain as unmoved in my beliefs as you are in yours, this has been a generally civil debate that I have enjoyed.

Alas, at the end of the day we will have to once again agree to disagree.

OH.. but I really would like to see the definitive test for God's word.  At your convenience.

Originally posted by Enkindu

In spite of the fact that I must remain as unmoved in my beliefs as you are in yours, this has been a generally civil debate that I have enjoyed.

Alas, at the end of the day we will have to once again agree to disagree.

OH.. but I really would like to see the definitive test for God's word.  At your convenience.

Ok, I said my previous post was going to be my last for the evening, but I lied (forgive me Lord).  But this one will be pretty short, so I think I can handle it.

I find your position to be far more intolerant than my own.  You glossed over much of my post with little more than a superficial response.  You label two of my sentences as offensive and discriminatory "by nature".  How so?  You do not justify your position in any way.  And those positions are not my own, they are Biblical.  So what you are really saying is that the Bible is offensive and discriminatory by nature.  And I would agree with the discriminatory to this extent.  Yes, it discriminates between what is sinful and what is not.  If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the Bible, not my position.

Your doctrine is right because it involves patience, virtue, tolerence, blah, blah blah and mine is wrong because it is cruel and judgemental.  So I guess I am wrong in judging a person for murdering someone else?  I guess we cannot judge people for their actions and therefore we should let all the criminals in prison out.  I suppose if a bunch of rapists and murderers moved into your neighborhood, you would have no problem with that because you should not judge them and you would welcome them with open arms?

As far as me accepting a "cultural mythology", I was born in a non-Christian family.  My father is an atheist and my mother an agnostic.  I didn't accept anything at first. God came to me before I came to Him.

Just because the Bible is not as widespread in some places as in others does not disqualify from being God's Word.  For one thing, there some governments, such as China, which outlaw it.  But the reach of the Bible in the world as opposed to any other book in history is unmatched.  Nothing else even comes close.  Just one piece of evidence that gives it credibility over any other text for being God's Word.  But, I'll save more of that for another post.

You mentioned jews, muslims, agnostics, etc. as being void of the knowledge of the Word of God.  Well you would be wrong there.  For one thing, jews are the ones responsible for keeping God's Word alive from ancient times to the present day.  If it hadn't been for the work of jewish scribes in the times before Christ and Christian monks after Christ, we would not have the Bible today.  Making it available to all, including my agnostic mother.  It's available to her, whether or not she reads it is her choice to make.

What makes you think I don't love people for who they are?  Are you judging me?  Tsk, tsk.  Christ would approve.  He hung out with sinners, but he also did not excuse their sin.  When he saved the adulterous woman from being stoned, he showed her compassion by doing so, but the last thing he said to her was, "Go and sin no more."

So you excuse the behavior of the two people who interrupted the service because of the history of the Catholic church?   In other words, you are justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.  Even though it's highly unlikely that anyone in that church had anything to do with the Crusades, the Inquisition or any other thing the Catholic church did in its history.

When I get some time and my computer is working better, I'll pull out some of the evidence that makes the Bible unique among all the books that exist or have ever existed in the earth.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Enkindu

In spite of the fact that I must remain as unmoved in my beliefs as you are in yours, this has been a generally civil debate that I have enjoyed.

Alas, at the end of the day we will have to once again agree to disagree.

OH.. but I really would like to see the definitive test for God's word.  At your convenience.

 

Ok, I said my previous post was going to be my last for the evening, but I lied (forgive me Lord).  But this one will be pretty short, so I think I can handle it.

I find your position to be far more intolerant than my own.  You glossed over much of my post with little more than a superficial response.  You label two of my sentences as offensive and discriminatory "by nature".  How so?  You do not justify your position in any way.  And those positions are not my own, they are Biblical.  So what you are really saying is that the Bible is offensive and discriminatory by nature.  And I would agree with the discriminatory to this extent.  Yes, it discriminates between what is sinful and what is not.  If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the Bible, not my position.

Your doctrine is right because it involves patience, virtue, tolerence, blah, blah blah and mine is wrong because it is cruel and judgemental.  So I guess I am wrong in judging a person for murdering someone else?  I guess we cannot judge people for their actions and therefore we should let all the criminals in prison out.  I suppose if a bunch of rapists and murderers moved into your neighborhood, you would have no problem with that because you should not judge them and you would welcome them with open arms?

As far as me accepting a "cultural mythology", I was born in a non-Christian family.  My father is an atheist and my mother an agnostic.  I didn't accept anything at first. God came to me before I came to Him.

Just because the Bible is not as widespread in some places as in others does not disqualify from being God's Word.  For one thing, there some governments, such as China, which outlaw it.  But the reach of the Bible in the world as opposed to any other book in history is unmatched.  Nothing else even comes close.  Just one piece of evidence that gives it credibility over any other text for being God's Word.  But, I'll save more of that for another post.

You mentioned jews, muslims, agnostics, etc. as being void of the knowledge of the Word of God.  Well you would be wrong there.  For one thing, jews are the ones responsible for keeping God's Word alive from ancient times to the present day.  If it hadn't been for the work of jewish scribes in the times before Christ and Christian monks after Christ, we would not have the Bible today.  Making it available to all, including my agnostic mother.  It's available to her, whether or not she reads it is her choice to make.

What makes you think I don't love people for who they are?  Are you judging me?  Tsk, tsk.  Christ would approve.  He hung out with sinners, but he also did not excuse their sin.  When he saved the adulterous woman from being stoned, he showed her compassion by doing so, but the last thing he said to her was, "Go and sin no more."

So you excuse the behavior of the two people who interrupted the service because of the history of the Catholic church?   In other words, you are justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.  Even though it's highly unlikely that anyone in that church had anything to do with the Crusades, the Inquisition or any other thing the Catholic church did in its history.

When I get some time and my computer is working better, I'll pull out some of the evidence that makes the Bible unique among all the books that exist or have ever existed in the earth.

Rapists and murderers are violent criminals that infringe on others right to exist or make their own decisions.  And in doing so they have infringed on the laws of our society.  We separate these people according to our own laws intended to keep our liberties and freedoms safe from others tyranny.  That is our choice as a society.  It has nothing to do with us not having compassion or sympathy for them, it has to do with their disregard for others and our ideas of what are appropriate consequences to be placed upon them while they are on this Earth.

And the Bible is discriminatory; to people who read it that way.  It's all a matter of interpretation.  And if you feel that God is a loving creator that truly understands us and forgives us, then why choose an interpretation that pegs him otherwise????  That is going against what's in your heart and instead just tagging along with a majority or just taking the safe easy way out.  That is a cop out if I've ever heard one.

There are many scholars and there are many interpretations.  Which leaves the choice up to you.  And your choice, as it seems to me at least, should reflect how you see our creator. 

Personally, I see him as purely benevolent.  I also see him as knowing everything about us to the point of complete understanding and forgiveness.  Even when we do not accept that forgiveness, he still forgives.  Because he knows our faults as humans and he knows our limitations .

That's why I choose the interpretations that match what I believe.  What I truly believe.  Not what someone else told me is "right".

Other than that, there is one other important thing that we have to contend to.  And that is giving the people the freedom to worship and believe how they want and the ability to do that without the weight of government and it's influence.  No religion should be given special privilege by government.  That means state or federal.  And that is undeniably what is going on with the issue of gay marriage.  The government is recognizing the marriage ritual and definition of one religion over another.  Nobody can deny that.  And that is un-Constitutional.  If people cannot accept that, then they are trying to force this Republic into becoming a democracy. 

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Fishermage 

The Holy War was started against us in 1979 (well way before that, but that was it's official start in most recent years). Any wars we have been involved in a reaction to that war. Now, one can argue whether or not these actions were wise or handled properly, but we didn't start this in any way, shape or form.

Now as to what caused the economic meltdown or spending, it had little to do with any war. It had to do with domestic and monetary policy over the past few decades. It is entitlement programs that are bankrupting us, and monetary policy that is creating booms and busts, as well as destroying the dollar.

I agree with you about God though, and disagree with Zind. His selective Christ died for some sins and not others, or so it seems.

 

No Fisher, you are guilty of mischaracterizing me as well.  Just as you were when you claimed I was putting words in Christ's mouth on Enkindu's thread, "Why I reject organized religion."  I didn't respond to that post because it's obvious that you and I will never see eye to eye on this issue, and so I feel it's best to amicably disagree on it.

However, whether or not it is your intention to provoke the matter, I will respond this time.  On the other thread, you quoted from I Timothy 4:9-10.  I have no argument that Christ is the Savior of all men.  He is.  On this we agree.  Where we part is that you believe every human being who has ever lived from the beginning of time up to the present day has gone, is going or will go to heaven upon their death.  I do not believe that and it's not because I don't want to believe it, it's because I have to take the scriptures at their word.  The overwhelming amount evidence in the Bible clearly points to separation of humans into two places at the end of their lives.  That is not my opinion, that is God's Word.

Salvation is available to all, God is not a selective God, He freely grants salvation to all those who accept God's gift of forgiveness for their sins.  But does that mean that all will be saved?  My opinion is that it is you who must selectively choose those verses you like in order to arrive at that conclusion and ignore the mountain of verses that seem to contradict that.

We don't have to confine oursleves to the Book of Revelations or even the entire New Testament for that matter. In the Book of Daniel, the prophet Daniel is given a glimpse of what lies in store for the human race at the end of time.

Daniel 12:1-2, "But at that time your people - everyone whose name is written in the book - will be delivered.  Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."

If all are automatically saved simply by Christ's death, how can you explain that verse?  How can there be shame and contempt in heaven if everyone is going there?

Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter through the narrow gate.  For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few will find it."

If there are two gates and only one leads to life, how can you conclude that the other gate, which is destruction, leads to anything other than death?

Matthew 25:31-34,41, "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels come with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.  All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritence, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

Then he will say to those on the left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

How can you reconcile your belief in automatic universal salvation and that passage?  Because, I think it's easier to explain how your apparent passages which point to automatic universal salvation, actually do not, than it is to somehow dismiss these passages as anything other than two destinations after death.  Again, you and I agree that salvation is universally available to all, we disagree that it is universally found by all.  Also, you and I agree that nobody can work to achieve their salvation, but that does not mean that God does not give us free will to chose whether or not to accept or reject God's gift of eternal life.

Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."  Asking to know God's will, seeking it out and knocking at the door which leads to eternal life is not working for ones salvation.  Not in the sense of doing a certain number of good tasks in ones life and expecting it earn your salvation.

And another question I would ask you, is if we are all saved automatically, why is that not clearly stated in the Bible or come out of Christ's mouth himself?  I do not believe that God is a God of mystery.  I believe that His will is plain for all to see.  If all are automatically saved, I don't understand why Christ wouldn't say somewhere in the scriptures, "Hey, I'm going to die for all mankind and that is the end of your spiritual struggle.  You don't have to accept it, you don't have to acknowledge it, you don't have to do a thing.  Just go about your lives as you normally would and when you die, you will be pleastantly surprised that you were saved without even knowing it."

Now as far as God's love goes compared to His wrath, I would refer back to that sermon I shared with you by Tim Keller.  A God of love can only be a truly loving God by handing out judgement for the transgressions that have been committed against Him.  Each person can either pay that price themselves or they can ask Christ to do it for them, which he gladly will.  But you have to ask him to.  I's not that hard.

To go back to another child example.  Suppose you have a son who commits a murder.  Can you still not love your son while at the same time understanding that he deserves to be punished for him crime?  If I had a son who did that, I would accept the fact that he should serve a punishment for his crime, but I would not stop loving him.  Love and judgement are not irreconcilable.

So you would torture your son for all eternity for sin? I don't think God is like that. Again I see you believe in  Christ who dies for some sins, but not for the sin of unbelief. You seek our scripture to make your case because you want people who don't believe as you do to be tortured for all eternity. Sorry, I disagree.

God will punish everyone for all sin, even YOU -- but all punishment serves the purpose of redemption and reconciliation. That is more in line with the character of God, who is Love. The character of YOUR God is the character of the other guy.

We can both quote scripture all day, I can quote scripture that shows everyone is saved, you can quote those selective ones. I think it says more about US than about HIM.

Even IF there is a God & even IF he had a message for the writers of the bible....the Bible was still written by men who held certain preconceptions, Christianity as we know it was a splinter group of Judaism & therefore inherited a lot of it's preconcenptions.

Humans are fallible, humans have biases, most of us attempt not to act out our biases but it doesn't stop us having them in the first place, do you put your faith into the idea that a man, of basic Jewish beliefs, would give you Gods message in it's pure and unadulterated form with none of his own biases playing their part....if you do, boy are you living in ignorance of the very practical realities of human behaviour.

I'm spiritual, but God didn't make man, man made God in HIS ideal image as something to aspire to be like, mankind has always tried to understand & rationalise the world around him, we have evolved from worshipping natural forces like the wind & volcanoes to idols - representation of forces at work which we didn't understand yet saw evidence of, to gods, & most recently to science, religion is a function of humanity trying to understand what it doesn't have knowledge to know, & science will eventually itself be replaced by something even more profound, it's all part of the cycle of evolution of our social species, expressions of "what we have learned up until now".....but there will always be those who wish to hang on to outdated modes of understanding.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Actually you didn't win at all.

You lost due to a very noticable lack of logic.

Being Gay is not a choice. This is a fact that is agreed on by the vast majority of the scientific community. You can not chose your sexuality, a gay person can never be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Your other logic is also full of flaws. If 100% of the population is gay? Right. But 100% of the population isn't gay, so why use a fictional what if scenario that will never happen?

Allowing gay marriage is not the same as allowing you to marry a family member, a dog or whatever ridiculous example you thought up with. These are forbidden for all kinds of reasons. none of which apply to gay marriage.

You're trying to defend a postion that can't possibly be defended with logic.

Just out of curiosity, explain this.

The Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.

 

 

All it shows that the specific gene hasn't been found yet. That doesn't mean it isn't there and the vast majority of scientist agree it's there. There are lots of genes and it's a very complicated system, it's no surprise we haven't found it in humans yet.

We have found it in other species already. For instance, we already found it in fruitflies.

Even if we find out that genetics are not the cause, that doesn't strengthen your stance it is a choice in any way.

So we have to change the definition of Marriage because we "think?" it is hereditary. 

Just like we "think?" there is man made global warming we have to change the way we live.  Maybe we should create a new species because we "think?" there is an abominable snowman.

Sorry slick, you don't change something that has been around for thousands of years on a hunch or speculation.  That is why when it is put to vote, it is shot down.  Sure, many people look at the Religious aspect of it, but scientifically, the Gay agenda cant be backed up with hereditary proof.

EDIT: Wonder where Upallnight is?  He would be all over this thread.

Genes don't work that way, they're more like a recipe than a blueprint. So expecting some magic gene that is one value for gay and one value for straight isn't likely to happen. It's more likely that a combination of genes will be found which all have an effect to a different degree and when certain combinations are put together you have a homosexual child. It's regardless anyway because it's easy enough to prove to yourself that it's not a choice unless you're too stuborn to think about it.

Having sex with a person of the same gender: Choice.

Being attracted to people of the same gender: NOT a choice.

Being forced into either having relationships with people you're repulsed by or no relationships at all: Not fair.

How do I know? I'm straight, I didn't choose to be attracted to females, I was attracted to females before I even knew I was meant to be. Being straight wasn't a choice for me, why would it be a choice for gay people?

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Actually you didn't win at all.

You lost due to a very noticable lack of logic.

Being Gay is not a choice. This is a fact that is agreed on by the vast majority of the scientific community. You can not chose your sexuality, a gay person can never be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Your other logic is also full of flaws. If 100% of the population is gay? Right. But 100% of the population isn't gay, so why use a fictional what if scenario that will never happen?

Allowing gay marriage is not the same as allowing you to marry a family member, a dog or whatever ridiculous example you thought up with. These are forbidden for all kinds of reasons. none of which apply to gay marriage.

You're trying to defend a postion that can't possibly be defended with logic.

Just out of curiosity, explain this.

The Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.

 

 

All it shows that the specific gene hasn't been found yet. That doesn't mean it isn't there and the vast majority of scientist agree it's there. There are lots of genes and it's a very complicated system, it's no surprise we haven't found it in humans yet.

We have found it in other species already. For instance, we already found it in fruitflies.

Even if we find out that genetics are not the cause, that doesn't strengthen your stance it is a choice in any way.

So we have to change the definition of Marriage because we "think?" it is hereditary. 

Just like we "think?" there is man made global warming we have to change the way we live.  Maybe we should create a new species because we "think?" there is an abominable snowman.

Sorry slick, you don't change something that has been around for thousands of years on a hunch or speculation.  That is why when it is put to vote, it is shot down.  Sure, many people look at the Religious aspect of it, but scientifically, the Gay agenda cant be backed up with hereditary proof.

EDIT: Wonder where Upallnight is?  He would be all over this thread.

 

And I couldn't help but call out on this one. If there wasn't a "religious aspect of it" then there wouldn't be a problem whether it was a choice or not. If we were to look at homosexual relationships from a secular view point then there's no reason to forbid them. It's entirely a religious debate.

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Actually you didn't win at all.

You lost due to a very noticable lack of logic.

Being Gay is not a choice. This is a fact that is agreed on by the vast majority of the scientific community. You can not chose your sexuality, a gay person can never be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Your other logic is also full of flaws. If 100% of the population is gay? Right. But 100% of the population isn't gay, so why use a fictional what if scenario that will never happen?

Allowing gay marriage is not the same as allowing you to marry a family member, a dog or whatever ridiculous example you thought up with. These are forbidden for all kinds of reasons. none of which apply to gay marriage.

You're trying to defend a postion that can't possibly be defended with logic.

Just out of curiosity, explain this.

The Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.

 

 

All it shows that the specific gene hasn't been found yet. That doesn't mean it isn't there and the vast majority of scientist agree it's there. There are lots of genes and it's a very complicated system, it's no surprise we haven't found it in humans yet.

We have found it in other species already. For instance, we already found it in fruitflies.

Even if we find out that genetics are not the cause, that doesn't strengthen your stance it is a choice in any way.

So we have to change the definition of Marriage because we "think?" it is hereditary. 

Just like we "think?" there is man made global warming we have to change the way we live.  Maybe we should create a new species because we "think?" there is an abominable snowman.

Sorry slick, you don't change something that has been around for thousands of years on a hunch or speculation.  That is why when it is put to vote, it is shot down.  Sure, many people look at the Religious aspect of it, but scientifically, the Gay agenda cant be backed up with hereditary proof.

EDIT: Wonder where Upallnight is?  He would be all over this thread.

 

We're changing it because it's discrimination against a certain group of people.

Even though the only logical conclussion is that homosexuality is not a consciouss choice, it's completely irrelevant to the point.
Would Interracial marriage still be against the law if you could chose what race to be? Ofcourse not.

Don't pretend as if the definition of marriage has never been changed. It has changed before, the best example being interracial marriage which was actually against the law for a very long time. That's a huge change in definition.

You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why it's shot down to hide the real motivation. How about you start being honnest and mention the real reason you and the vast majority of anti gay marriage supporters are against gay marriage: Religion. You have a religious belief and you want to enforce that onto everybody else.

Originally posted by Jeffs

Being attracted to people of the same gender: NOT a choice.

 

No proof of this not being a choice.  Attraction can be taught through positive re-enforcement to apes, mice, and even cats.  Attraction to the visual, auditory, or offactory effects of a person, food, or other object are nothing more than chemical processes in the brain that can be trained and untrained through the course of life.  If you do not like carrots as a kid and suddenly like them when you get older you have not had your genes changed.  You have relearned that carrots are not bad even though you did not know it happened.  It is only a change in the release of chemical in the brain that changed not the genes.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Actually you didn't win at all.

You lost due to a very noticable lack of logic.

Being Gay is not a choice. This is a fact that is agreed on by the vast majority of the scientific community. You can not chose your sexuality, a gay person can never be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Your other logic is also full of flaws. If 100% of the population is gay? Right. But 100% of the population isn't gay, so why use a fictional what if scenario that will never happen?

Allowing gay marriage is not the same as allowing you to marry a family member, a dog or whatever ridiculous example you thought up with. These are forbidden for all kinds of reasons. none of which apply to gay marriage.

You're trying to defend a postion that can't possibly be defended with logic.

Just out of curiosity, explain this.

The Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.

 

 

All it shows that the specific gene hasn't been found yet. That doesn't mean it isn't there and the vast majority of scientist agree it's there. There are lots of genes and it's a very complicated system, it's no surprise we haven't found it in humans yet.

We have found it in other species already. For instance, we already found it in fruitflies.

Even if we find out that genetics are not the cause, that doesn't strengthen your stance it is a choice in any way.

So we have to change the definition of Marriage because we "think?" it is hereditary. 

Just like we "think?" there is man made global warming we have to change the way we live.  Maybe we should create a new species because we "think?" there is an abominable snowman.

Sorry slick, you don't change something that has been around for thousands of years on a hunch or speculation.  That is why when it is put to vote, it is shot down.  Sure, many people look at the Religious aspect of it, but scientifically, the Gay agenda cant be backed up with hereditary proof.

EDIT: Wonder where Upallnight is?  He would be all over this thread.

 

 

We're changing it because it's discrimination against a certain group of people.

Even though the only logical conclussion is that homosexuality is not a consciouss choice, it's completely irrelevant to the point.
Would Interracial marriage still be against the law if you could chose what race to be? Ofcourse not.

Don't pretend as if the definition of marriage has never been changed. It has changed before, the best example being interracial marriage which was actually against the law for a very long time. That's a huge change in definition.

You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why it's shot down to hide the real motivation. How about you start being honnest and mention the real reason you and the vast majority of anti gay marriage supporters are against gay marriage: Religion. You have a religious belief and you want to enforce that onto everybody else.

Keep Religion out of it for a moment.

Natural Law:

Then look at it biologically.  Man was created with a penis and a woman was created with a vagina. There is a reason for this configuration.  It is natural

Unnatural:

Man and Man? WTH   Woman and Woman?

Originally posted by Horusra

Originally posted by Jeffs

Being attracted to people of the same gender: NOT a choice.

 

 

No proof of this not being a choice.  Attraction can be taught through positive re-enforcement to apes, mice, and even cats.  Attraction to the visual, auditory, or offactory effects of a person, food, or other object are nothing more than chemical processes in the brain that can be trained and untrained through the course of life.  If you do not like carrots as a kid and suddenly like them when you get older you have not had your genes changed.  You have relearned that carrots are not bad even though you did not know it happened.  It is only a change in the release of chemical in the brain that changed not the genes.

There have been lots of homosexuals who have tried to like females and failed miserabely. Organizations which claim to be able to cure homosexuality has a terrible track record.

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Actually you didn't win at all.

You lost due to a very noticable lack of logic.

Being Gay is not a choice. This is a fact that is agreed on by the vast majority of the scientific community. You can not chose your sexuality, a gay person can never be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Your other logic is also full of flaws. If 100% of the population is gay? Right. But 100% of the population isn't gay, so why use a fictional what if scenario that will never happen?

Allowing gay marriage is not the same as allowing you to marry a family member, a dog or whatever ridiculous example you thought up with. These are forbidden for all kinds of reasons. none of which apply to gay marriage.

You're trying to defend a postion that can't possibly be defended with logic.

Just out of curiosity, explain this.

The Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.

 

 

All it shows that the specific gene hasn't been found yet. That doesn't mean it isn't there and the vast majority of scientist agree it's there. There are lots of genes and it's a very complicated system, it's no surprise we haven't found it in humans yet.

We have found it in other species already. For instance, we already found it in fruitflies.

Even if we find out that genetics are not the cause, that doesn't strengthen your stance it is a choice in any way.

So we have to change the definition of Marriage because we "think?" it is hereditary. 

Just like we "think?" there is man made global warming we have to change the way we live.  Maybe we should create a new species because we "think?" there is an abominable snowman.

Sorry slick, you don't change something that has been around for thousands of years on a hunch or speculation.  That is why when it is put to vote, it is shot down.  Sure, many people look at the Religious aspect of it, but scientifically, the Gay agenda cant be backed up with hereditary proof.

EDIT: Wonder where Upallnight is?  He would be all over this thread.

 

 

We're changing it because it's discrimination against a certain group of people.

Even though the only logical conclussion is that homosexuality is not a consciouss choice, it's completely irrelevant to the point.
Would Interracial marriage still be against the law if you could chose what race to be? Ofcourse not.

Don't pretend as if the definition of marriage has never been changed. It has changed before, the best example being interracial marriage which was actually against the law for a very long time. That's a huge change in definition.

You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why it's shot down to hide the real motivation. How about you start being honnest and mention the real reason you and the vast majority of anti gay marriage supporters are against gay marriage: Religion. You have a religious belief and you want to enforce that onto everybody else.

Keep Religion out of it for a moment.

Natural Law:

Then look at it biologically.  Man was created with a penis and a woman was created with a vagina. There is a reason for this configuration.  It is natural

 

Unnatural:

Man and Man? WTH   Woman and Woman?

 

Why keep religion out of it when you know that is your motivation? All the other things are just lousy excuses.

But i'll play a long

There is actually a scientific theory for the reason of the existance of homosexuality in nature.
With that said, Marriage isn't natural. It is something that we invented. Marriage isn't necessary for the reproduction of mankind.

Why should that be a reason to not allow gays to be married? Do you think that people will suddenly stop being gay if you don't allow them to marry? Do you think the amount of gays will rise if you allow them to be married?

Lets pretend for a moment and say that homosexuality isn't natural. Why is that a reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed?

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Actually you didn't win at all.

You lost due to a very noticable lack of logic.

Being Gay is not a choice. This is a fact that is agreed on by the vast majority of the scientific community. You can not chose your sexuality, a gay person can never be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Your other logic is also full of flaws. If 100% of the population is gay? Right. But 100% of the population isn't gay, so why use a fictional what if scenario that will never happen?

Allowing gay marriage is not the same as allowing you to marry a family member, a dog or whatever ridiculous example you thought up with. These are forbidden for all kinds of reasons. none of which apply to gay marriage.

You're trying to defend a postion that can't possibly be defended with logic.

Just out of curiosity, explain this.

The Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.

 

 

All it shows that the specific gene hasn't been found yet. That doesn't mean it isn't there and the vast majority of scientist agree it's there. There are lots of genes and it's a very complicated system, it's no surprise we haven't found it in humans yet.

We have found it in other species already. For instance, we already found it in fruitflies.

Even if we find out that genetics are not the cause, that doesn't strengthen your stance it is a choice in any way.

So we have to change the definition of Marriage because we "think?" it is hereditary. 

Just like we "think?" there is man made global warming we have to change the way we live.  Maybe we should create a new species because we "think?" there is an abominable snowman.

Sorry slick, you don't change something that has been around for thousands of years on a hunch or speculation.  That is why when it is put to vote, it is shot down.  Sure, many people look at the Religious aspect of it, but scientifically, the Gay agenda cant be backed up with hereditary proof.

EDIT: Wonder where Upallnight is?  He would be all over this thread.

 

 

We're changing it because it's discrimination against a certain group of people.

Even though the only logical conclussion is that homosexuality is not a consciouss choice, it's completely irrelevant to the point.
Would Interracial marriage still be against the law if you could chose what race to be? Ofcourse not.

Don't pretend as if the definition of marriage has never been changed. It has changed before, the best example being interracial marriage which was actually against the law for a very long time. That's a huge change in definition.

You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why it's shot down to hide the real motivation. How about you start being honnest and mention the real reason you and the vast majority of anti gay marriage supporters are against gay marriage: Religion. You have a religious belief and you want to enforce that onto everybody else.

Keep Religion out of it for a moment.

Natural Law:

Then look at it biologically.  Man was created with a penis and a woman was created with a vagina. There is a reason for this configuration.  It is natural

 

Unnatural:

Man and Man? WTH   Woman and Woman?

 

Why keep religion out of it when you know that is your motivation? All the other things are just lousy excuses.

But i'll play a long

There is actually a scientific theory for the reason of the existance of homosexuality in nature.
With that said, Marriage isn't natural. It is something that we invented. Marriage isn't necessary for the reproduction of mankind.

Why should that be a reason to not allow gays to be married? Do you think that people will suddenly stop being gay if you don't allow them to marry? Do you think the amount of gays will rise if you allow them to be married?

Lets pretend for a moment and say that homosexuality isn't natural. Why is that a reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed?

Game, I am not a religious person by all means.  I dont go to church on a regular basis.  Yes, I was brought up Catholic, went to all the Catholic Schools, did all the ceremonies, the whole kit and kaboodle.  

To me and many others, it is just not right in society.  There are still laws on the books about sodomy too.  Granted they are old, but they are still there.  I am sure one day Gay marriage may be accepted in society, but it will never happen in our lifetime.  Plus, I dont want my kids kids being fed this stuff in school.

What you're doing is pretty much using the just because argument.
imagine if we all started to introduce laws limiting other peoples freedom and just use just because as an argument.
What if a law was introduced that says you can't mow your lawn, just because?

I don't know if gay marriage will be accepted all across the US in our lifetime. I think it will considering there are already states accepting it.

Saying a group of people should not be allowed to get married is a huge violation of their freedom. If you want to cut on somebodies freedom like that, you better come up with a convincing argument.

What is so terrible about gay marriage that we should put a ban on it?

Originally posted by Gameloading

What you're doing is pretty much using the just because argument.
imagine if we all started to introduce laws limiting other peoples freedom and just use just because as an argument.
What if a law was introduced that says you can't mow your lawn, just because?

I don't know if gay marriage will be accepted all across the US in our lifetime. I think it will considering there are already states accepting it.

Saying a group of people should not be allowed to get married is a huge violation of their freedom. If you want to cut on somebodies freedom like that, you better come up with a convincing argument.

What is so terrible about gay marriage that we should put a ban on it?

Well, another point.

Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.

The world is moving on and becoming more tolerant. It's slow but there is enough traction to upset people who still think in the past. You can either follow or get out of the way. Plus I can't understand how one person thinks their liberties can be used to dictate what another persons liberties are. Grow up and act like an adult. Stop making excuses to justify your prejudices against another person. You are just wasting your time and energy, people will move on without you.

Originally posted by Briansho

The world is moving on and becoming more tolerant. It's slow but there is enough traction to upset people who still think in the past. You can either follow or get out of the way. Plus I can't understand how one person thinks their liberties can be used to dictate what another persons liberties are. Grow up and act like an adult. Stop making excuses to justify your prejudices against another person. You are just wasting your time and energy, people will move on without you.

The percentage of those above the age of 40 who oppose gay marriage seems to be significantly higher than those below 40.  So eventually, they'll die off, as will a lot of the hatred.  It'll happen, it just takes time.

Look at racism.  It's still here sure, but I doubt we could have elected Obama 15 years ago.  Too many people who opposed civil rights were still alive.

I think we should just trust in science to cure this disease.

Originally posted by Horusra

Originally posted by Jeffs

Being attracted to people of the same gender: NOT a choice.

 

 

No proof of this not being a choice.  Attraction can be taught through positive re-enforcement to apes, mice, and even cats.  Attraction to the visual, auditory, or offactory effects of a person, food, or other object are nothing more than chemical processes in the brain that can be trained and untrained through the course of life.  If you do not like carrots as a kid and suddenly like them when you get older you have not had your genes changed.  You have relearned that carrots are not bad even though you did not know it happened.  It is only a change in the release of chemical in the brain that changed not the genes.

You're my hero.