He has said it, it's in His word, called the Bible.
An unproved assertion. Indeed, the evidence indicates that the bible is simply the culmination of oral traditions and myths of antiquity and from various cultures -Akkadian, Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite, Caananite, etc. Nothing is demonstrated to be divine and every indication is that it is completely the work of man. Therefore it is irrelevant for a discussion of civil matters.
And what has humanity gotten us? Nothing but death.
Humanity has offered great works of literature (including this bible of yours), art, technology, improved subsistance strategies, etc. To see only the "death" is to simply be pessimistic. A simple application of math demonstrates that humanity has offered more than "death" when the population growth rates, infant mortality rates, and expected life-spans of humanity are compared through history.
What has Christianity "gotten us?" should be the question. Inquisitions, crusades, slavery, witch crazes, bigotry, etc, etc. is, of course the answer along with any charitable and positive contributions gained.
I re-assert: there is no logical, reasoned argument that can be made to disallow same-sex marriage. There are some very logical, reasoned arguments that can be made to ensure it as a right for those that wish to take advantage of it.
wait one hot second I hate religion I don't dislike people because they are religious if that is what you thought.
And most of the people against gay marriages hate homosexuality, not homosexuals. So how does that make you any better than them?
second I believe in tolerance which there is none towards other religionsAnd which you have none towards any religion apparently.
so stop and just the fact that you are argueing with me is another sign of intolerance amoung religionsAnd yet you argue right back. That statement is part of an argument, which makes it among the more hypocritical aspects of this thread.
Let's cut the bickering about one person and focus on the topic, please. I'm tempted to go through and prune the spammy/flamey posts, but it doesn't seem to be an easy or fair task, so I ask that we turn back toward the topic of same-sex marriage and whether or not it should be allowed.
If, however, you are going to assert that a religion or personal belief is reason for this, then that is open to scrutiny and criticism. But whether or not one person 'hates religion' is irrelevant and borders on ad hominem argument.
I still don't see an answer to my previous question: 'Is anyone who is opposed to homosexual unions (nothing more) an agnostic or atheist?'
"God gave man free will;
Christians are doing there utmost to take it away again" - erm, me, actually
Saying you hate religions because you dont agree with their view points and values isnt really hypocrisy.
It is when you constantly call someone else intolerant, just to turn around and be intolerant.
The only non-religious person I can think of that is opposed to homosexuality is Al.
I'm opposed to homosexuality in the same way I'm opposed to liver and onions. I just have no appetite for it. But I won't stand for anyone imposing their religious taboos on you, keeping you from eating liver and onions.
I think Revan noticed the decidedly anti-religious slant of many of the posters here (perhaps even me :cool: ) and was attempting to appeal to them with his statements. I didn't infer that he was particularly intolerant in general, but more likely that his new-found skepticism of religion is bringing forth an "epiphany" (if you will) that presents religion in a new light. One that he is eager to share and discuss as he explores what that means to him.
I, for one, can relate to that. My "epiphany" regarding the true nature of religion began years ago and is on-going even now.
But wanting to express oneself in the relatively anonymous forum of the internet while exploring his new opinions and attitude doesn't automatically imply total intolerance. Many of you are right to question his position and point out his fallacy, but lets not simply offer harsh critique without the hand of friendship. Otherwise, you become as intolerant as you accuse.....
Well I never said I wasn't intolerant. I'm only human.
(The way I see it)It's not religion that is bad, but general human nature. Religion is merely the tool.
dude I used to got to church and the whole nine yards so DON'T lecture me I know both sides
Uhhh, that means nothing.
I mean I can say I understand C++ I have attended a few classes and read a few books... I got this. In reality, its possible I know nothing. Judging from your posts, you don't have a great understanding of the Bible. Your just going along with the usual religious gossip crap and rumors spreading around.
and I have read the bible cover to cover and lets say "GOD" is in tolerant of those who don't believe as he thinks they should. now how the puck is that treating other fairly I ask you. answer it isn't so how is your "god" right I ask. this is just one of the many values of mine that religion goes against.
Lets say I spit in your face- Do I deserve your respect? Think about it.
You know, I guess its not enough that created you, and that he sustains your life... I guess its not enough that he is willing to open his home to a people who have spat in his face their entire lives. If I punch you in the face, the next time you see me will you say "Hey come on in, in fact, why not move into my house?" You might, but you might not. The fact is, people do worse to God, and He is still willing to save them.
If thats not tolerant, what is?
you don't know me so DON'T make conclusions that you have no proof of
Prove it to me then, what do you know of the Bible- so far not a lot of what your saying is fact, and when it is, its taken out of context. Reading and understanding are two different things.
so stop and just the fact that you are argueing with me is another sign of intolerance amoung religions
so how can you say that you are right you can't geeze
What the... ? Hah, really? If I am not mistaken, your arguing with me aswell! Am I correct? Wouldn't that make you intolerant?
and as for being gay is a sin who the heck said that and what makes you think he is right jeeze (yet another one of my values that is looked down on by religions)
Good question. I have answered it, but I will restate: He made you, me, and everything else. Of course, all this is written from a religious perspective- I think he knows what He is talking about, and has the right to define what a sin is.
Besides, you and Aash Li are the only ones questioning whether its a sin or not. The fact is, it is. This is solid fact.
Well I never said I wasn't intolerant. I'm only human.
(The way I see it)It's not religion that is bad, but general human nature. Religion is merely the tool.
Yup, human nature. Its never the religions fault, its just human nature, like I have been saying all along...
The crusuades, extremists killing people/blowing up stuff, hate crimes - All human people acting, not the religion, and that certainly means there is no reason to attack the religion, but the individual person(s) who did the actual crime.
Point: the bible says man should not lay with man... and while that is a pretty sexist view point, we could go along with that to the other extreme and say that it says nothing about women laying with women.
OH NOES! YOUR RIGHT! AND YOU KNOW WHAT? The Decleration of Independence uses the word "MEN" when it says "All men are created equal"
Man, must suck to be a woman right now. Of coarse, all of that was sarcasm, I really don't mean that. What I am saying is that many documents use the word "MEN" in general, as in the whole "population" or all people... or something.
I think Revan noticed the decidedly anti-religious slant of many of the posters here (perhaps even me )
Didn't notice... :D
edit: I am leaveing this thread alone for a while
Thats too bad, but when you return you can check out whats happend and post accordingly. A lot of people leave threads temporarily, or even permanently... I know I have in the past. Sometimes its a good thing, I guess. It lets the debate continue and move to a new point and you sort of restart when you return...
The crusuades, extremists killing people/blowing up stuff, hate crimes - All human people acting, not the religion, and that certainly means there is no reason to attack the religion, but the individual person(s) who did the actual crime.
True, but you must also protest to their tool. Religion was used as a means to destroy. And when you find people using religion as a tool to oppress you must protest and argue if their religion truely approves of what they're seeking. Jesus was not exactly someone that saught the oppression of other humans.
Embrace your enemy with love, not turn them away with anger.
Why is there a problem with Gay marriage? You think someone just said "HEY !!!! GUYZZZ I H4T3 TEH GAY PEOPELZ!"?Actually, yes, but because he claimed that god had told him, everyone accepted it. I remember someone posting that the New Testament is all we are supposed to follow these days, and we should ignore the old, I'd be very interested where they got this idea from, because if it is true, that answers the whole question here and now. I still find it hard to believe that a religion supposedly built around love and peace can be so vindictive, oppresive and judgemental, and have yet to see one person give a reason defending implementation/retaining a law based on religious teaching. You believe it's wrong, fine, don't propose to a guy. It's a sin. But who are you to stop others doing it? Last time I checked, adultery was a sin. People don't get arrested for it. I am a vegetarian, but I don't press for eating meat to be illegal. This is not rhetorical, why do christians have such a big problem with live and let live?
This is not rhetorical, why do christians have such a big problem with live and let live?
A simple question, with a simple answer: They want to spread the good news all over the world. They won't allow you to live your life the way you want it if they perceive it to be bad, even if you truly benefit from it.
Actually, yes, but because he claimed that god had told him, everyone accepted it. I remember someone posting that the New Testament is all we are supposed to follow these days, and we should ignore the old, I'd be very interested where they got this idea from, because if it is true, that answers the whole question here and now.
Actually, Aash Li said that... and Im not sure, but wasn't she arguing against the religion? Lol. Reguardless, the New Testament restates that we shouldn't engage in sexual sin, and lists men with men as one of those.
So is homosexuality okay if you just don't engage in sexual acts?
*I'll admit, I haven't read the bible*
we could go along with that to the other extreme and say that it says nothing about women laying with women.
Found where it says some stuff..
Romans 1: 15-32
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I'll be interested in what religion has to say about social issues when the religious can figure out how to keep themelves from commiting crimes and being socially deviant. When christians don't fill our prisons, rape each other, kill each other, cheat on each other, steal from each other, etc., then they can try to convince me that two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to form civil contracts that afford them all 1200 or so legal rights that come with marriage. Particularly when said civil contract has nothing to do with their religion or anyone outside their marriage.
Until such time as when Christianity has solved these other, more serious and socially disruptive violations of their faith, let's not quote large amounts of scripture. Particularly quotes that aren't accompanied with some sort of commentary. Small, relevant quotes will suffice.
I'll be interested in what religion has to say about social issues when the religious can figure out how to keep themelves from commiting crimes and being socially deviant. When christians don't fill our prisons, rape each other, kill each other, cheat on each other, steal from each other, etc., then they can try to convince me that two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to form civil contracts that afford them all 1200 or so legal rights that come with marriage. Particularly when said civil contract has nothing to do with their religion or anyone outside their marriage.
Until such time as when Christianity has solved these other, more serious and socially disruptive violations of their faith, let's not quote large amounts of scripture. Particularly quotes that aren't accompanied with some sort of commentary. Small, relevant quotes will suffice.
So do you expect Christians to be perfect? WE can't make mistakes, but YOU can? You honestly have no idea about Christianity do you? And it's pointless to try and explain it to you. I can see that there is absolutely no way to get you to understand.
Mistakes are fine. I just don't want to be preached to about how a particular segment of society is evil or counter to christian doctrine, certainly not while it cannot demonstrate that said doctrine is important enough to follow. I hypothesize that if you were to go through and physically count all the references in the bible to homosexuality then do the same for adultery, you'd see a huge disparity in favor of the latter. That indicates to me that adultery is considered by the ancient authors of the bible to be far more serious a problem then homosexuality. Yet, I see far less effort on the part of christians to do away with adultery. Indeed, adultery is even legal (unless you are in the military).
As to whether or not I have any idea "about Christianity," I assert that I am fully aware of Christianity -better than the vast majority of "christians." Indeed, I assert that, as an atheist, I'm a better Christian than most so-called "christians." But you are right, there is no way I'll ever understand the hypocrisy of those that claim to be "faithful" and use their faith as a weapon to suppress and oppress others. Those that are so eager to "cast stones" without first acknowleging their own weaknesses and "sins."
The argument against same-sex marriage that cites religion as its reason is invalid. We must toss this argument out.
What logical arguments against same-sex marriage remain?
But SkinWalker this whole debate is about homosexuality, why would we talk about anything other than homosexuality?
What logical arguments against same-sex marriage remain?
Can't it cause physical "problems"?
Until such time as when Christianity has solved these other, more serious and socially disruptive violations of their faith, let's not quote large amounts of scripture. Particularly quotes that aren't accompanied with some sort of commentary. Small, relevant quotes will suffice.
Shall I requote Sith? Its not the religion, its the people. Whats so hard to understand that people act on their own, reguardless of the religion?
One of the major points in Christianity is basically admitting, yeah, Im a dirty rotten sinner who deserves to burn for my sins. I need help!
Beside Skin, havn't you agreed in the past that the Bible contains one of the greatest moral codes ever written?
But SkinWalker this whole debate is about homosexuality, why would we talk about anything other than homosexuality?
I don't think I've suggested any line of discussion other than homosexuality or same-sex marriage. I'm saying that the religious argument against same-sex marriage is invalid and therefore must be tossed out of any discussion that seeks explore the subject in a rational and logical manner.
I'm not making that statement as a moderator, but as a participant in the discussion. As a moderator, however, I *am* asking that we not quote large tracts of scripture or any other source when small, relevant quotes will suffice and particularly not with out detailed commentary by the poster.
Can't it cause physical "problems"?
I edited your post to include the word "marriage" after I edited my own. I typed fast and didn't review and omitted the word by mistake. I'm assuming that you inferred the meaning of the sentence, however. If so, then are you asking if same-sex marriage can cause "physical problems?" None that I'm aware of.
Shall I requote Sith? Its not the religion, its the people. Whats so hard to understand that people act on their own, reguardless of the religion?
I've no problem with understanding that at all. In fact, I agree with it. But until such time as religion can be considered a social success, it has no business attempting to push its agenda on civil matters. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: religion can restrict same-sex marriage all it wants. Within its own cult. But outside of the cults of religion, it is the government's responsibility to determine if there is legitimate reason to disallow same-sex marriage. And government should reach this decision by applying logic and reason not religious superstition.
I've yet to see one logical reason to disallow same-sex marriage and many logical reasons *for* allowing it.
One of the major points in Christianity is basically admitting, yeah, Im a dirty rotten sinner who deserves to burn for my sins. I need help!
Beside Skin, havn't you agreed in the past that the Bible contains one of the greatest moral codes ever written?
I don't recall ever using the words "greatest moral codes." I do agree that the bible contains some of humanities greatest literature and, like many great works, one can find wisdom or inspiration. Shakespeare, Milton, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, Twain, and Harper Lee provide wisdom and inspiration as well. Moral "codes" of the bible were clearly written for the people of antiquity and do not apply to modernity.
Any of those authors above are far better reads than biblical authors and their messages are far more relevant.
As to whether or not I have any idea "about Christianity," I assert that I am fully aware of Christianity -better than the vast majority of "christians." Indeed, I assert that, as an atheist, I'm a better Christian than most so-called "christians." But you are right, there is no way I'll ever understand the hypocrisy of those that claim to be "faithful" and use their faith as a weapon to suppress and oppress others. Those that are so eager to "cast stones" without first acknowleging their own weaknesses and "sins."
I wonder Skinwalker, do you not understand Christianity because you can't or because you won't? I'm a hypocrite, how can I say do not sin, when I sin. I'm simply saying what it is that God has already said. I do not claim these words as my own. And again it all goes back to my beliefs, which in my opinion, is more than enough to say what is right and what is wrong.
The problem with alot of people is that they don't follow the Bible word for word; They find something that stirs their petty hatreds(Homosexuality, in this case), and they dwell on what the Bible says on that, ignoring the bigger issues. As SkinWalker said, adultery is worse than homosexuality in the Bible - its even got its own damn commandment! - but people would still rather do some gay-bashing then, oh I don't know, anything constructive for the betterment of mankind.
I wonder Skinwalker, do you not understand Christianity because you can't or because you won't?This isn't a thread about christianity. What, with regard to same-sex marriage, are you suggesting that I don't understand about Christianity? If you want to challenge my understanding of Christianity (I believe I understand it far better than yourself and am willing to take any challenge you might issue on that assertion), create another thread or use an existing one.
The topic of this thread is same-sex marriage and whether or not it should be allowed. I assert, as a member of the discussion not a moderator, that religion (regardless of which cult) has nothing to offer us in argument against the idea. No more than it does on what to teach in science classes. Marriage is a civil contract and it's authority is government, not religion.
If religion doesn't want to allow same-sex marriages in its ceremonies, then, by all means religious cults shouldn't allow it. But these same cults have no business interfering in government and civil contracts. If you don't want to marry someone of the same gender... don't.
Let me add that my use of the word "cult" is one of objective perspective, and not intended to be an insult. I don't see the word "cult" as perjorative but descriptive. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "cult" as: "Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies."
And my criticism of religion (be it Christianity or any other) is fair. Religion (particularly Christianity) is attempting to muscle its way into government, politics and education. If religion is going to be cited as reason for legislature, then it should be willing to withstand scrutiny and criticism. My criticisms are certainly not intended to be directed toward any individual in this forum and certainly not in this thread. Lukeskywalker1 and I go back a ways and I consider him a friend, in spite of my disagreement with his beliefs. Many of my best friends are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist (two of them) and Hindu (1).
If my comments about religion have offended you personally, please accept my apologies. But I stand by my convictions.
Aha! The mighty Kain returns to the Senate Chambers!
Let me add that my use of the word "cult" is one of objective perspective, and not intended to be an insult. I don't see the word "cult" as perjorative but descriptive. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "cult" as: "Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies."
Yeah, I think a lot of people misunderstand the meaning of that word. When I hear it I think about underground freaks with crazy rituals involving blood and fire... O.O Its just not a word used to describe popular religions... even though, technically, it does mean a "religious group." :-\
I think it all boils down to what we can control (in response to kain awell) Believe me, if we had the power to make adultery illegal, it would be. We can't control whether or not a man has sex with another man, because how we would know it happend? We can't possibly know what happens in another persons house, legally, anyways. But, on the other hand we can control the marriage part.
Lukeskywalker1 and I go back a ways and I consider him a friend, in spite of my disagreement with his beliefs.
Yup, plus being friends helps lighten the mood a lot. You know, we can throw jokes around here and there. Plus, outside the Senate a lot of us actually agree on things! :D Well, we agree in the Senate too, like in that video game thread, but thats sorta biased, because most of us are gamers :D
But controlling marriage isn't Religions place, my friend. The ceremony belongs to the established religion - the actual law should not be swayed by religion in ANY shape or form. If the church as an entity doesn't want to perform the sevice so be it. I won't go around with a sign saying 'Allow Ceremony' - its not my style or my place. Just like its not relgions place to say who can be miserable and who can't :p
Well, thats where certain other arguements come into it. The wording of some of the countries documents put religion into this whole mess. Like I was arguing earlier- The Decleration clearly mentions God, and clearly says "created" and clearly says "Creator."
The only argument refuting that, is that TJ wasn't speaking about the Christian God, the Islamic God, or the Jewish God.
And of course the Declaration was written in a time when religion WAS law. It was written when african americans were still SLAVES. It was written when we were scalping Dancing Horse and his lovely daughter for the territories west of Virginia.
And now look at how things have changed. We're less about the Bible and more about Equality...more or less.(Lets face it, no matter what there are gonna be zealous idiots)
The problem with alot of people is that they don't follow the Bible word for word;
Like they do in Afghanistan? \rolleyes
Well, thats where certain other arguements come into it. The wording of some of the countries documents put religion into this whole mess. Like I was arguing earlier- The Decleration clearly mentions God, and clearly says "created" and clearly says "Creator."
The only argument refuting that, is that TJ wasn't speaking about the Christian God, the Islamic God, or the Jewish God.I put it to you that while it is the business of religions to restrict ceremonies within their own cult (as has been previously agreed upon), and your declaration is clearly relevant in any matter of state, the laws of a country are not, or at least should not be, immutable, and I fail to understand why what the founders of your country believed is important to you today. In fact, I put it to you that you are referencing your declaration in the same way as you reference the bible, despite the fact that, unlike a religion's doctrine, a countries laws should never be treated as being unchangeable. I submit that there is an almost religious reverence held for your founders, which to a citizen of an older country, like me, is completely unfathomable.
Like they do in Afghanistan? \rolleyes
I think what Kain (welcome back, btw) was implying was that they pick/choose those parts that suit them whilst ignoring those that are inconvenient. Which leaves us with statements like, "god hates homosexuality," but doesn't remind us to stone to death that same person's daughter and new born who were born out of wedlock.
This is the type of "worshipper" that demands effigies of the ten-commandments to be present in public architecture but, perhaps, only knows four of them and follows three.
I think what Kain was implying was that they pick/choose those parts that suit them whilst ignoring those that are inconvenient. Which leaves us with statements like, "god hates homosexuality," but doesn't remind us to stone to death that same person's daughter and new born who were born out of wedlock.
Exactly. Well said Kain.
Its the same with Islam and many other religions. These religious works are so large, complex, ancient in speach, and often confusing that its possible to find parts in there to support or denounce almost anything you want... so people find the bit in there that happens to have some relation to whatever THEY CARE ABOUT and bash on about it, ignoring the inconsistency with other issues that they don't care about.
There are large numbers of things banned or frowned upon in the bible that almost all christians now do on a monthly basis without batting an eyelid. There are many other laws that are ignored, or at least not taken as very important. But the homosexual marriage issue seems to be taken as something hugely important that will cause you to burn in hell. If an outsider based his views of christianity on the views of christians he heard inthe US media he'd think jesus went around the whole time warning of the dnagers of homosexual marriages. Wheras as far as i can tell he didn't even think it was an important enough issue to mention once.
So does the current outcry against homosexual marriages say more about religion's viewpoint on the issue, or more about the prejudices of the people who believe in the religion?
--
I think marriages should be a purely civil affair, for the purpose of running the state in an efficient manner, next of kid, tax, etc...
If they are treated in such a way then they should be open to everyone.
Individual religions could still hold religious cerimonies to "legitimise" these civil unions in the eyes of their god, and if certain religions wished not to bless certain couples then that would be up to them.
I don't know about the US, but in the UK the LEGAL part of the marriage is the civil registration, not the dressing in the church. And muslims, chinese people, buddists, etc.. can all get married in whatever way they see fit... never setting foot in a church if they don't need to... as long as they complete the civil registration part.
is this the same in the US?
Given that non-christians can get married, it seems daft to base the selection process on christian values.
Its like not letting people join lucasforums.com because they are too young to join suicidegirls.com... daft.
Exactly. Well said Kain.
Its the same with Islam and many other religions. These religious works [and traditions] are so large, complex, ancient in speach, and often confusing [and inconsistent]that its possible to find parts in there to support or denounce almost anything you want... so people find the bit in there that happens to have some relation to whatever THEY CARE ABOUT and bash on about it, ignoring the inconsistency with other issues that they don't care about.
My inserts.
A lot of people in here seem to focus solely on the documents of the cults we debate as the source of validity of any claim for or against a practice. It is important to remember the role tradition and precedent plays in the formulation of ideals for any group. Scripture plays a relatively minor role in setting different relgions apart, and virtually no role in determining how they interact with society.
I put it to you that while it is the business of religions to restrict ceremonies within their own cult (as has been previously agreed upon), and your declaration is clearly relevant in any matter of state, the laws of a country are not, or at least should not be, immutable, and I fail to understand why what the founders of your country believed is important to you today. In fact, I put it to you that you are referencing your declaration in the same way as you reference the bible, despite the fact that, unlike a religion's doctrine, a countries laws should never be treated as being unchangeable. I submit that there is an almost religious reverence held for your founders, which to a citizen of an older country, like me, is completely unfathomable.
I didn't start the Decleration thing, the other side did. Revan used it as an arguement for pro homosexuality.
You guys fail to understand that the new testament changed things. On the other hand, God's view of homosexuality hasn't. How do I know this? It says so in the New Testament.
Like they do in Afghanistan? \rolleyes
They don't follow the Bible in Afghanistan. :p
The bible is irrelevant in this discussion. We're talking about legislation not religion. If the religious don't want to marry the same gender then they shouldn't. I don't think we want laws saying we have to stone to death adulterers/adultresses. Nor do we want laws that forbid us from doing work on Saturday. Nor do we want laws saying how we must wear our hair and beards.
These are all religious rules.
The bible is irrelevant in this discussion. We're talking about legislation not religion. If the religious don't want to marry the same gender then they shouldn't. I don't think we want laws saying we have to stone to death adulterers/adultresses. Nor do we want laws that forbid us from doing work on Saturday. Nor do we want laws saying how we must wear our hair and beards.
These are all religious rules.
Aha. I would say that this includes banning gay marriages, no? :D
They don't follow the Bible in Afghanistan. :p
That comment was made in response to a comment about religions and their relationships with their Scriptures... Not Christianity specifically.
Christianity is an element in the group Religion, but not the sole element.
I'm not saying that they focus ONLY on the fact that the Bible says 'man shall not lay with another man blah blah blah'. I'm just saying that when someone wants to get something done and someone wants it to remain the same(in this case equal CIVIL rights for homosexuals vs Christian Church), they'll find something in a source(Declaration of Independence[Equallity and such] vs the Bible) that is against what the other side wants(Equal rights vs God's word = law). Usually the bad side(IMO: Church) will forget everything else said source says(love thy neighbor and such) just to kick the otherside in the shin.
Speaking of love thy neighbor why aren't the Christians saying 'Don't kill them Iraqi peoples! They mights be wrong but the Bible says killing is teh wrong!'? Because they only focus on certain aspects - and thats wrong.
As for the Afghani remark - I'm sure somewhere in the Quran it says that people who don't believe that Muhammad(he was the last prophet right? I'm tired and not thinking straight)should be smiten. If it doesn't say it directly it may imply it, I don't know. The terrorist then use that as a TOOL to say that since America does not follow the Quran's teachings, but is not being smited that they should be the tools of Allah and carry out the 'smiting' in his name. But I deter from the topic - but you see how SOME(SOME SOME SOME - not ALL, understand me) people only focus on a SINGLE SOLITARY thing and act on it fanatically.
Touchй... Actually the Taliban parallel was out on a limb. In reality religious practices and scripture vary so wildly that anything can be justified or even mandated by the correct references. And you usually don't even need to quote mine (very much). The problem being that in a greater than average amount of cases, religion promotes barbarism.
Its weird that the same people who are dead keen on replacing all these religious governments in the middle east with democracies are the same people who are dead keen on basing all their laws on religious reasoning.
So suddenly its wrong for the taliban, or the saudis, or the iranians to force women to wear head-gear or to ban homosexuality because their religious books tell them to, but its ok for the US to ban homosexual marriages or gay adoption because THEIR religious books tell them to. Er. Ok.
Please note: I have not read any of the posts, but this is an issue I feel very strongly about, and would like to voice my opinion.
To begin, I'm a Republican, pretty staunch, unless the party does something stupid like get Bush elected again will support the party GOGO REPUBLICAN type. So you would assume, like all good republicans, i would support the party line and say "GAY MARRIAGE=BAD, OH NOES!!!111!exclamationpoint!!!".
This is not the case, because of the Constitution forbids banning it.
This was probably said before, but the United States Constitution was amended to include the provision, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 14th Amd.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14)
It seems to me banning a gay person, whom is a citizen, with the priviledges and immunites grantered thereof, and, has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, should, by legal definition, via the 14th amendment, can get marriered, if it is thier personal PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, which there in it is. they want to be happy, marriage makes them happy.
More power too them.
WHat I find in the current debate is that the polticians who are there to uphold LAW, are bringing into the secular government, religious values. now i have no problem with religion, it teaches basic human values we should all uphold, but to bring them into question with law, clearly written at the federal level, is rediculous. I mean, i have values, which, if i ever get elected, will make me question whether or not to vote for any given legislation, this is natural. but it will not, and should never, get in the way of making choices which would be better for the whole.
So yes, let them get married. it doesn't really effect me in anyway, that, and really, one person said it best....... comedian... for got the name....
"I think why the politicians and the older folks are disgusted and against gay marriage is because they hate the idea of gay people <explicitive deleted>. if they want to make gay people stop <explicitive deleted>, then they should go the route straight people do when they want to stop <explicitive deleted> and let them get married".
As for the Afghani remark - I'm sure somewhere in the Quran it says that people who don't believe that Muhammad(he was the last prophet right? I'm tired and not thinking straight)should be smiten. If it doesn't say it directly it may imply it, I don't know. The terrorist then use that as a TOOL to say that since America does not follow the Quran's teachings, but is not being smited that they should be the tools of Allah and carry out the 'smiting' in his name. But I deter from the topic - but you see how SOME(SOME SOME SOME - not ALL, understand me) people only focus on a SINGLE SOLITARY thing and act on it fanatically.
Yeah, kill all infedels, pretty much.
"I think why the politicians and the older folks are disgusted and against gay marriage is because they hate the idea of gay people <explicitive deleted>. if they want to make gay people stop <explicitive deleted>, then they should go the route straight people do when they want to stop <explicitive deleted> and let them get married".
Genius! :D