DescentBB

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:for the second time in this thread there is NO separation of church and state in the constitution.

Did I say it was part of the constitution? no, i have not.

My only guess as to why you would say that is that either you greatly misunderstood what I said, or you're intentionally trying to twist what I have said.

ok then just for clarification what was your point in bringing up the "Separation of Church and State"?

because separation of church and state is supposed to prevent some narrow religious viewpoint running roughshod over what the vast majority of the people would rather have.

jeez, you're supposed to know this already.

Spider wrote:Nobody needs marriage to be happy

Nobody needs anything to be happy. (You could use that argument to argue against the right for anyone to be able to do anything.) I specifically identified the possibility that allowing gays to marry might be necessary for the free pursuit of happiness. This right guarantees more than just one narrow theoretical way to be happy. In general, it allows people the freedom to pursue happiness according to how they desire, not necessarily how someone else desires.

Spider wrote:Also: The argument is not indefensible…we have plenty of laws on the books to defend peoples sensibilities.

I asked: "Is what's right, what's just, or what's good determined by what a certain bunch of people find disgusting?" I did not ask if there were legal precedence. What's legal isn't always what's good, and vice versa. In any case, there are more important matters at stake, such as matters of rights and matters of justice and fairness, for this to just reduce to a matter of "sensibilities," in either ethical or legal discourse.

Spider wrote:And: your argument hinges on gay marriage being the right thing…this has yet to be proven

No it doesn't. Straight people such as I have described will still be happy to see gay couples be allowed to marry, even if they are wrong and gay marriage is wrong. You still need to include them in your formula.

what separation of church and state?????? you said yourself that its not in the Constitution. and since its not in the Constitution and not a law how can it prevent anything?

CUDA wrote:what separation of church and state?????? you said yourself that its not in the Constitution. and since its not in the Constitution and not a law how can it prevent anything?

go and read how it works. I'm done with you being obtuse.

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:what separation of church and state?????? you said yourself that its not in the Constitution. and since its not in the Constitution and not a law how can it prevent anything?

go and read how it works. I'm done with you being obtuse.

Nice Dodge dont be pusillanimous, answer the question if you can

Edit: P.S. By the way I know the stated "Theory" behind the So-Called "Separation of Church and State"

I view a world where the word marriage and family is associated with a man, women, two children, and the family dog and I don't want to see that word changed. At the same time I don't want homosexuals to be denied the right to happiness and a legal partnership, so, I like the word partnership as being associated with the union of two same sex partners.

However, you guys are missing something very important... Children. I don't want homosexuals to adopt and raise children and it annoys me when they do because like it or not, they aren't a normal family unit and never will me. Children need to grow up in a family with a mom and dad, not two gays or two lesbians.

So, what do we do about children?

Bee

If we were China we could just tie them to a chair.

Bet51987 wrote: However, you guys are missing something very important... Children.
Bee

Not me, I have two. Obviously I did not miss. At least on two occasions, anyway.

I have yet to see anything, short of \"well, I knew this couple...\", that stated that children in same sex couples turn out any worse than \"normally\" raised kids. It may very well be that the studies\\research will show such a thing, but I have yet to see it.

Guys, guys...

We really need to define some terms here; I think this is case where a little attention to semantics could save a lot of misunderstanding.

The word \"marriage\" is being thrown around with a number of different meanings. Rather than try to define it (which just tends to stir up the misunderstanding), I'll just use two distinct terms for the primary meanings that are being discussed here:
\"Spiritual union\"
\"Legal status\"

As a Christian, I of course believe that a spiritual union should mirror the principles found in scripture, including the fact that homosexuality is not supported as a Christian lifestyle.

However, as someone who enjoys the legal benefits of my relationship with my wife Michelle, I of course support the idea that marriage as a legal status should not be denied to any committed couples.

Over the last ten years or so, I have worked with at least three homosexual co-workers, and I am currently good friends with at least one homosexual that I know of. While it's true that I can't support that lifestyle, for me to hate or alienate or marginalize them would be one of the most un-Christ-like things I could possibly do.

It honestly often bothers me when I hear Christians talk about this issue, because it typically brings out some of the worst traits of the culture. I've heard some Christians say some of the most outright hateful things about homosexuals when they're among Christian peers. Even when it's not hateful, the dialogue typically ends up centering around some \"conspiracy\" or \"agenda\" threat as a way to rationalize discrimination. It's disappointing to say the least.

[I know I'll get some flak from people on both sides here. Oh, well. That's the cost of trying to be consistent with my faith, while simultaneously trying to treat people the way I would want to be treated.]

Bet51987 wrote:... Children. I don't want homosexuals to adopt... Children need to grow up in a family with a mom and dad, not two gays or two lesbians.

Would you support a single parent adopting?

Foil wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:... Children. I don't want homosexuals to adopt... Children need to grow up in a family with a mom and dad, not two gays or two lesbians.

Would you support a single parent adopting?

No.

Bee

'Marriage' was created by churches, and represents the union of a man and a woman. It has become a common symbol within society because of the vast majority people who do it. Marriage is strongly connected to church beliefs, which is why so many fight against it.

I don't think gays should be able to become married, though I think some different type of union unconnected to the church should be created, with very similar benefits to those who are in a marriage. That way, religious people don't feel offended by gay unions claiming they're in a marriage, and gays can feel like they have a partner and have the same benefits a marriage has. The only thing different between a gay union and a marriage, in terms of law, should be the inability for gays to adopt and raise children.

If you want children, marry someone of the opposite sex. If you're gay, accept the fact that you're removing yourself from the gene pool.

Wings wrote:'Marriage' was created by churches, and represents the union of a man and a woman.

I'd like to see some information on this. In any case, it wasn't created by any of the churches being vocal about marriage now. Considering the extent that religions go to to separate themselves from each other, I don't see why we should consider them as having all the same voice now.

Foil wrote:Rather than try to define it (which just tends to stir up the misunderstanding), I'll just use two distinct terms for the primary meanings that are being discussed here:
"Spiritual union"
"Legal status"

I think you're right to resist defining marriage. But I don't think that trying to break it down into discrete parts is going to work either. Maybe this fits well with your worldview. But as somebody who doesn't even believe in the spiritual union aspect, I wouldn't say that marriage just reduces to a legal status either. Marriage is marriage. I think we all already know what it is. If you're trying to slice it up into discrete parts and say that some people should only have some parts rather than others, you're missing something. I can't quite put it into words.

I also want to confirm what you mean when you say you object to spiritual unions. This is to say, you want to disallow gays being married in Christian churches, but you would not want to disallow them from being married in religion X's church, which allows gay marriages?

Since it's the Christians who have problems - why not define a special Marriage JUST FOR CHRISTIANS.
It can exclude gays and whatever they want.
Well call it "Christian Marriage".

And it will be considered a constricted version of normal marriage.

ONE Religion shouldn't define Marraige for the rest of us - but they can have their own lesser definition if they want, that only applies to their marriage ceremonies (if they choose to).
It won't effect the rest of us - nor Christians who choose to simply get married in a non Christian ceremony. And i doubt all Christian denominations will agree to ban gay marriage anyway - so calling it "Christian marriage" would be inaccurate. Perhaps it should just be called "Anti-Gay marriage", how about that?

spidey wrote:Not to mention that it’s the state that sanctions marriage in this country…you can get married any way you want in this country…but you still need a state issued license to do it.

coz it's a legal contract.
2 people can easily ellope - all you do is both sign an official paper. I've seen it happen.

The institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history. It certainly predates Christianity, In no way did Christianity invent marriage - some people here seem to think it did, this view is quite retarded.
People in most cultures and religions marry.

Spidey wrote:people who get married for things like Love & avoiding Loneliness usually end up divorced…that’s part of my comment about “getting married for the wrong reasons”.

this is true, but hilariously it's the exact opposite to what you think. CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS are statistically the most likely group to be divorced. So if you want the wrong reason to get married: look no further than CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANITY - The very group you are trying to champion here are in fact the worst thing to happen to marriage-retaining-rates so far. It's hilarious!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
"Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience."

This post have been removed due to inappropriate content.

Talk about a total failure of reasoning, Prime...you make absolutely no sense at all. How the ★■◆● does gay marriage equate to raping pregnant mothers? That's insane.

You are nothing but an animal, btw, we all are. Just animals. We have the herding instinct, the three F's, and we certainly exhibit the lack of intelligence and understanding.

Did you know Greeks were the most homosexual of all cultures? The classical world was great?! wtf...the classical world was extremely violent and brutal. And very gay.

Yes, saying the Greeks and Romans were the bastions of a marriage culture is a very strange point of view. I've read daft things on the DBB, but that's right up there.

You can't discuss Homosexuality, especially on this board, without discussing ones religious preferences. And since we know each others tastes in deity the conversation is always the same, we know each other too well.

Same sex relationships are cool, by the way, if one of my kids turns out to be gay, that's great...as long as he/she is not having more sex than i am. Anyone that disagrees with me is wrong...

Aggressor Prime wrote:If you don't believe human beings are better than animals, possessing choice, then I guess you can support anything. Society can be whipped any way one sees fit, since without higher powers there is no purpose to anything, no end, and therefore nothing of value in anything. You can't argue for anything fully if you ignore your true nature.

It's called Nihilism.

Marriage didn't USED to be a matter that was strictly under the control of the government. 100 years ago if you got married by a judge, and not by a pastor, your church would legally recognize your marriage, but they would frown upon it as being less legitimate than a \"church\" marriage.

The fact is, Christians have BLOWN it by giving control of marriage over to the state. It was an idiotic thing to do in the first place, and the result is as should have been expected. The standards of what a marriage is have followed a rapid decline. And no, I am NOT talking about gay marriage here. Heterosexual marriage has become a casual thing to jump into and out of at a moments whim.

And it's hardly surprising. Christians often act as if all Christians had a single standard of what \"marriage\" means. We don't. Different churches have radically different concepts of when divorce is allowed, who can get married and who can't, etc. There ARE a few Christian sects that approve of polygamy, or even stranger things. And that's only covering some of the differences between Christian churches. It gets wilder once you allow other faiths to have a say.

The definition of Marriage is a fundamentally RELIGIOUS question, and in trying to come up with a \"common\" standard the government has made a mess of the whole thing. And it's only going to get worse.

The only solution is to eliminate the concept of \"marriage\" as a government controlled subject. The government is no good at \"holding society together\" or at \"protecting the morals of the people\". They STINK at it. Just ask your grandparents what they think about the state of marriage today. Your great grandparents would have considered the current state of marriage to be proof that society was doomed. Don't ask government to do something they can't. What the government is OK at is enforcing simple contracts. And really, that's all they should be interested in.

SO, eliminate marriage at the government level. Make ALL government marriages a \"Civil Union\" contract that defines the terms and property rights very stringently. Not a moral question, just a contract. The government can understand that. The courts can easily enforce it. And the government could care less whether a man and a woman, 2 men, 2 women, a man and 3 women, or 2 women and 4 men enter into such a contract. Just so long as everyone signs on the dotted line and follows the terms.

CHURCHES will then regain control of marriage. Every marriage will include a \"Civil Union\" contract. But then those who want more will also have a \"Church Marriage\", and the terms of THAT will depend upon what church you choose. The Catholic Church will refuse to marry, not only gay couples, but many divorced couples. Some churches will have restrictions on age, many will not allow interfaith marraiges. The Episcopalians will allow gay marriages, the Baptist probably won't.

It will all be up to the individual church. And if you don't like the standards at one church, you are certainly free to go to some other church that DOES define marriage in a way that you agree with.

The Church is the bride of Christ. She doesn't NEED the support of the government in order to operate. Actually, as history has demonstrated over and over, she is much better off without it.

The ONLY effect of turning all legal marriages into \"Civil Unions\" will be a strenghthening of the Church's standard of what a marriage is, and more honesty among the folks who were never really interested in the way the Church defines marriage anyway.

Jeff250 wrote:...I wouldn't say that marriage just reduces to a legal status either. Marriage is marriage. I think we all already know what it is. If you're trying to slice it up into discrete parts and say that some people should only have some parts rather than others, you're missing something. I can't quite put it into words.

I didn't intend to say that marriage is either one or the other, or that certain people should only have one or the other.

My intent was to find a way to express my stance without blurring the lines separating my views on the matter.

Jeff250 wrote:I also want to confirm what you mean when you say you object to spiritual unions. This is to say, you want to disallow gays being married in Christian churches, but you would not want to disallow them from being married in religion X's church, which allows gay marriages?

Not quite. Where a marriage ceremony happens and whether or not a specific church/denomination allows the ceremony in their buildings isn't what I was getting at.

What concerns me are the following:
1. The claim that a homosexual lifestyle is supported by the Christian Bible - it's not.
2. The use of the above as rationale for personal and legal discrimination against homosexuals.


(P.S. Aggressor Prime, your argument that "homosexuality vs. heterosexuality is analogous to primal instincts vs. civilized society" is not only an extremely poor argument, it implies that homosexuals are somehow non-civilized. I sincerely hope that's not what you meant.)

This post has been removed due to the removal of another post.

Prime, get off the drugs man. You are ranting and your ENTER key is broken.

I read about 4 lines before I gave up. You are one of thos religious freaks who love to shove this sh*t down our throats and we are sinning if we don't agree.

Ok, wow, I tried reading more and it's just so frigin confusing. Jumping all over the place.

This post has been removed due to the removal of another post.

You talk about dumbing down to us? Have you looked at your typing skills? Grammar skills? Spelling skills? I highly even doubt you know 1/2 of the stuff you are preaching here.

It is not my fault I can't dumb it down to you, as such would degrade the quality of my message.

Your quality of your message sucks to begin with. Here's the thing, I'm trying to dumb myself down to understadn what you are talking about.

I merely speak here to encourage people to change. That change cannot and will not be fully explained from me. If you want complete understanding, take a theology, philosophy, classics class from a good liberal arts college.

Who says I haven't taken any of these classes? Or learned by reading on my free time?

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to conform to the majority. This means typing in a professional way so people can follow your train of thought. Typing 4 paragraphs in one solid line is not only lazy but shows lack of focus.


Also, do you actually have proof for any of the ramblings you typed in that monstrosity of a post?

This post has been removed due to the removal of another post.

Aggressor Prime wrote:Yes, homosexuals in so much as they act out their homosexuality are uncivilized.

That is a horrible thing to say.

Bee

Aggressor Prime wrote:The proof is found in the post along with Catholic documents. And I didn't say you didn't take these classes or studied these subjects. I'm saying you haven't studied enough if you disagree with me. Anyway, the time you have spent arguing with me the style I used in my post, which is just a post, not an official document, could have been spent better understanding the post and posting comments/counter arguments that contain content. You can be assured my official documents are much more professional.

Catholic documents? So you in essence think Catholics are above all us if you think that their documents are proof of everything?

I haven't studied enough because I disagree with you? What kind of b*llsh*t is that? So I guess everyone in every other religion or lack of one is wrong?

I'm spending this time arguing with you to make YOU uinderstand not many people will read your crap post because it's formatted wrong. It's to hard to read. And if you cared so much about your religion, you'd format it right so people could read it easily.

This post has been removed due to the removal of another post.

This post has been removed due to the removal of another post.

The funny thing about threads like this is that you can't really go against gay marriages without either admitting that you're a bigot or that you take the words of books made by men too seriously. Just because they were inspired by God doesn't mean that God wrote it through them.

And I always laugh at people who think their bigotry is a reasonable debating point.

This post has been removed due to the removal of another post.

Oh, I forgot to ask: what parts of the bible do condemn homosexuality again?

Aggressor Prime wrote:The basis of my logic is the Tradition of the Church, not the Book.

Right, I forgot about the 'everyone else is doing it'.

Aggressor Prime wrote:The Church has developed a logic in order to understand all things.

Actually, my last sentence doesn't apply to you. But how did you ever concieve of the idea that the Church knows everything? I mean, God and people blessed by God, sure; but the Church? Heck, even the Church doesn't believe that, so now you're going against what the Church says!

Just to point out, what you believe in is YOUR opinion, not everyone else's. I, for one, don't believe in forcing my opinion on everyone else in the metaphorical room.

This is supposed to be a free exchange of ideas, not a flame war. And if it is a flame war, you're supposed to respect others' opinions.

Opinions are not right or wrong, they just are.

This post has been removed due to the removal of another post.

This post has been removed due to the removal of another post.

Aggressor Prime wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:Oh, I forgot to ask: what parts of the bible do condemn homosexuality again?

Aggressor Prime wrote:The basis of my logic is the Tradition of the Church, not the Book.

Right, I forgot about the 'everyone else is doing it'.

Aggressor Prime wrote:The Church has developed a logic in order to understand all things.

Actually, my last sentence doesn't apply to you. But how did you ever concieve of the idea that the Church knows everything? I mean, God and people blessed by God, sure; but the Church? Heck, even the Church doesn't believe that, so now you're going against what the Church says!

I didn't say the Church knows everything. I said we have a logic in order to understand all things. We can understand all things because we are on the right path. Other religions always have and will always have a flaw in their argument.

That's your opinion. Mine is that just because something, for example Christianity, is right, it doesn't mean everything else is wrong.

No offense intended.

This post has been removed due to the removal of another post.

Aggressor Prime wrote: I agree. We must remember that the only thing we can be certain of is our existance. Everything else can be false. Anyway, I don't want to force my opinion on anyone here, only in political force. You don't have to agree that homosexual marriage is bad, you just are not going to be allowed to marry another guy (if you are a guy) or gal (if you are a gal).

It seems to me, from reading this thread, that that hasn't been decided yet.

Aggressor Prime wrote:I didn't say the Church knows everything. I said we have a logic in order to understand all things. We can understand all things because we are on the right path. Other religions always have and will always have a flaw in their argument.

Replace 'knows' with 'understands' then. And if you just mean 'the Church has the logic to understand everything, but doesn't actually understand everything', then I don't know what you're on about at all!