Is anyone here against gay marriage?

[Lyra Heartstrings]

I'd like to see if anyone here is. I won't bash you, and I hope nobody who is for gay marriage, will either. I simply want some opinions as to why gay marriage is wrong.

If this turns into a bash fest, it will receive a quick lock. You've been warned.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

Being a Christian I don't think gay marrige is right and if you are going to he wed in HOLY matrimony, you should at least meet the criteria of Man and Woman.

I don't have any problem with people who are gay I just don't think they should be able to get married.

[Lyra Heartstrings]

Being a Christian I don't think gay marrige is right and if you are going to he wed in HOLY matrimony, you should at least meet the criteria of Man and Woman.

I don't have any problem with people who are gay I just don't think they should be able to get married.

Fair enough. However, we have evolved. I'm sure you're wearing two different fabrics? Well..that goes against the bible. Have you eaten shrimp? That goes against the bible. Why is it that gay marriage is the only one still upheld?

[CharlieHorse]

Absolutely not! I think gay couples are so cute :)

[Gigablue]

Being a Christian I don't think gay marrige is right and if you are going to he wed in HOLY matrimony, you should at least meet the criteria of Man and Woman.

I don't have any problem with people who are gay I just don't think they should be able to get married.

Just a question, why are you against gay marriage just because you're a Christian. The bible bans many things, almost all of which are ignored today, and you people take the one verse about homosexuality and decide to listen to it.

Also, do you think gay couples should be able to get some sort of union to get all the legal benefits of marriage. That is the main reason people want gay marriage to be legal.

In my opinion, I think marriage should be defined as a union of two people, their gender has no relevance. People always talk about how gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. Same sex marriage has been legal for almost ten years here in Canada, and it hasn't destroyed marriage.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

Fair enough. However, we have evolved. I'm sure you're wearing two different fabrics? Well..that goes against the bible. Have you eaten shrimp? That goes against the bible. Why is it that gay marriage is the only one still upheld?

It's not the only 1 upheld...
I don't support abortion
Im agianst the death penalty
Obviously agianst gay marrige
Im agianst sex before marrige



1) where in the bible does it say i can't were two different types of clothing?
2) no ive never had shrimp ( father and both grand fathers are allergic and im too pariniod to try it. Soooo.....

[IAMWILL]

Fair enough. However, we have evolved. I'm sure you're wearing two different fabrics? Well..that goes against the bible. Have you eaten shrimp? That goes against the bible. Why is it that gay marriage is the only one still upheld?

Because the definition of marriage in the Church is a permanent, unitive, procreative bond between a man and a woman. The issue with gay marriage is that it is not procreative. Only a man and a woman can create children. Procreation is the most important part of the definition of marriage, which is why the Church opposes gay marriage. Its not because the Church is against gays or says that gays can't love, its that gay marriage isn't possible under the Church definiton. The Church calls those who have same-sex attraction to be chaste. Actually is calls everyone who isn't a married man and woman to be chaste. And I think marriage is a bit of a more important issue than shrimp or clothing. Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

Just a question, why are you against gay marriage just because you're a Christian. The bible bans many things, almost all of which are ignored today, and you people take the one verse about homosexuality and decide to listen to it.

Also, do you think gay couples should be able to get some sort of union to get all the legal benefits of marriage. That is the main reason people want gay marriage to be legal.

In my opinion, I think marriage should be defined as a union of two people, their gender has no relevance. People always talk about how gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. Same sex marriage has been legal for almost ten years here in Canada, and it hasn't destroyed marriage.


Weather or not the government want to admit it but this country was founded upon Christianity ( In God we trust & Under God ) if you want the rights then go to Canada. If you don't like the US whats keeping you here?

But yes the government has become so overly corrupted you would never have guessed that all the founding fathers were Christian.

[Lyra Heartstrings]

It's not the only 1 upheld...
I don't support abortion
Im agianst the death penalty
Obviously agianst gay marrige
Im agianst sex before marrige



1) where in the bible does it say i can't were two different types of clothing?
2) no ive never had shrimp ( father and both grand fathers are allergic and im too pariniod to try it. Soooo.....

I haven't read the bible, simply going off things I read about gay marriage.
Very few things upheld, then. Even then, those are all incredibly touchy subjects that are debated a LOT. Why are we following a book written..a really long time ago? (I obviously know history.)
Because the definition of marriage in the Church is a permanent, unitive, procreative bond between a man and a woman. The issue with gay marriage is that it is not procreative. Only a man and a woman can create children. Procreation is the most important part of the definition of marriage, which is why the Church opposes gay marriage. Its not because the Church is against gays or says that gays can't love, its that gay marriage isn't possible under the Church definiton. The Church calls those who have same-sex attraction to be chaste. Actually is calls everyone who isn't a married man and woman to be chaste. And I think marriage is a bit of a more important issue than shrimp or clothing. Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.

Delightfully ignore everything else, right? I understand that the church sees marriage as procreative. But gays cannot get married. They are being denied the perks of a true marriage. How are they any different than a straight couple? Love is love. We just want the same rights a straight couple gets.

Weather or not the government want to admit it but this country was founded upon Christianity ( In God we trust & Under God ) if you want the rights then go to Canada. If you don't like the US whats keeping you here?

But yes the government has become so overly corrupted you would never have guessed that all the founding fathers were Christian.

So basically, if you don't like it, leave? That's a pretty harsh statement. The U.S. needs to evolve, as well as humans in general. Even if it was founded on Christian beliefs, this was three hundred years ago. It's changed.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

I haven't read the bible, simply going off things I read about gay marriage.
Very few things upheld, then. Even then, those are all incredibly touchy subjects that are debated a LOT. Why are we following a book written..a really long time ago? (I obviously know history.)


Delightfully ignore everything else, right? I understand that the church sees marriage as procreative. But gays cannot get married. They are being denied the perks of a true marriage. How are they any different than a straight couple? Love is love. We just want the same rights a straight couple gets.




So basically, if you don't like it, leave? That's a pretty harsh statement. The U.S. needs to evolve, as well as humans in general. Even if it was founded on Christian beliefs, this was three hundred years ago. It's changed.


Your 14, never read the Bible, and your just going of of hear say... That's a great way to loose all credibility in your argument. Now yes it was a harsh statement but may I remind you you have that option. You don't have to stay here. And we live our lives based on a 2000+ year old book becuase its the word of God and it is OUR LIVES! why don't you stop listening to the atheists who think we're hypocrites ( we're not btw) and actually think for yourself... Perhaps read the Bible before making absurd statements.

Gays want the rights a str8 couple gets and criminals just want the freedom that innocent people have... So be a str8 couple and get the rights... Like if a criminal was just being innocent in the first place then...

[Harley Quinn]

Your 14, never read the Bible, and your just going of of hear say... That's a great way to loose all credibility in your argument. Now yes it was a harsh statement but may I remind you you have that option. You don't have to stay here. And we live our lives based on a 2000+ year old book becuase its the word of God and it is OUR LIVES! why don't you stop listening to the atheists who think we're hypocrites ( we're not btw) and actually think for yourself... Perhaps read the Bible before making absurd statements.

I'm gay, I've read the Bible, does that mean I have a good argument so far?

Personally, I never wanted the word marriage to be used in terms of gay people, I just wanted the same rights as straight people. I know the church doesn't agree with it, that's fine, but denying the rights that we shouldn't really have to fight for annoys me.

[IAMWILL]

Delightfully ignore everything else, right? I understand that the church sees marriage as procreative. But gays cannot get married. They are being denied the perks of a true marriage. How are they any different than a straight couple? Love is love. We just want the same rights a straight couple gets.

Every sexual act that isn't sex between a married man and woman without contraceptives is technically immoral, because it goes against the natural purpose of our sexual organs, which is reproduction. Tough to follow, and I doubt many people do, but logical. And you answered your own question. A gay couple is different from a straight couple in that they cannot be procreative. Also, I believe we are talking about two different types of marriage here. Legal marriage, and holy matrimony. In terms of legal marriage, I really have no objections. But in terms of Holy Matrimony, I do not see it as possible.

[Lyra Heartstrings]

Your 14, never read the Bible, and your just going of of hear say... That's a great way to loose all credibility in your argument. Now yes it was a harsh statement but may I remind you you have that option. You don't have to stay here. And we live our lives based on a 2000+ year old book becuase its the word of God and it is OUR LIVES! why don't you stop listening to the atheists who think we're hypocrites ( we're not btw) and actually think for yourself... Perhaps read the Bible before making absurd statements.

I fail to see what my age, or the fact that I have not read the bible, has to do with anything here. Saying that it is "our lives" makes your arguement completely uncredible as well. Because you are implying that Christianity is the only way to live. I don't listen to athiests, as a lot spout a lot of shit. There are extremists in every religion, and by saying that all athiests call you hypocrites..well, that makes you one. We do not need to live by a book. We can form our own thoughts and morals.

Every sexual act that isn't sex between a married man and woman without contraceptives is technically immoral, because it goes against the natural purpose of our sexual organs, which is reproduction. Tough to follow, and I doubt many people do, but logical. And you answered your own question. A gay couple is different from a straight couple in that they cannot be procreative. Also, I believe we are talking about two different types of marriage here. Legal marriage, and holy matrimony. In terms of legal marriage, I really have no objections. But in terms of Holy Matrimony, I do not see it as possible.

I simply wish for gay couples to have the same rights as straight couples do. Legal marriage. I don't mind if it's holy matrimony or not.

Gays want the rights a str8 couple gets and criminals just want the freedom that innocent people have... So be a str8 couple and get the rights... Like if a criminal was just being innocent in the first place then...

Telling me to become straight for rights that I deserve?

[NORTH.KN16HT]

It's not the general population that you have to convince.... It a comes don to the house and the senent... And most are Christian so behind closed doors of voting they aren't going to allow that to happen so. Why waste your breath on me? Im not changing my mind an you clearly aren't changing yours.
If you want to marry a guy move to a state that allows it or go to Canada .....

Like I've said before: im fine with the gays I just don't think they should be allowed to marry.

[Lyra Heartstrings]

It's not the general population that you have to convince.... It a comes don to the house and the senent... And most are Christian so behind closed doors of voting they aren't going to allow that to happen so. Why waste your breath on me? Im not changing my mind an you clearly aren't changing yours.
If you want to marry a guy move to a state that allows it or go to Canada .....

Like I've said before: im fine with the gays I just don't think they should be allowed to marry.

How do we not deserve the same rights you do?

[Gigablue]

1) where in the bible does it say i can't were two different types of clothing?
2) no ive never had shrimp ( father and both grand fathers are allergic and im too pariniod to try it. Soooo.....

Deuteronomy 22:11 and leviticus 11:9

Here are some other things the bible bans. (http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things_The_Bible_Bans,_But_You_Do_Anyway)

My point is the bible shouldn't be a basis for how to live.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

Out of the 11 I only conflict with the wearing gold, however it's directed to women if we want to be technical about everything.

And yes the Bible IS the basis on how we live

Please do not double post. --Lyra

[Troy35216]

1) where in the bible does it say i can't were two different types of clothing?
2) no ive never had shrimp ( father and both grand fathers are allergic and im too pariniod to try it. Soooo.....
Leviticus 19:19 "You are not to sow your fields with two different kinds of seeds. "You are not to wear clothing made from two different kinds of material.

also forbidden is getting your hair cut, getting tattoos, and sassing your parents. But people pick and choose which sins are the ones that "really count" and which ones can be ignored. that is hypocrisy to me.l

If you think that HOLY matriomony is only between a man and woman what about civil marriage done by a judge in the courthouse? Why do other people have to follow YOUR religious views? You'd have a fit if someone tried to force you to follow THEIR religious views. If you are against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

[Lyra Heartstrings]

Out of the 11 I only conflict with the wearing gold, however it's directed to women if we want to be technical about everything.

And yes the Bible IS the basis on how we live

Please do not double post. --Lyra

You conflict with one. However, I'm sure most Americans conflict with almost all of them. So why are we only upholding a few things from the bible?

Also, by saying the bible is the basis how we live..do we not have other religions?

[Gigablue]

Out of the 11 I only conflict with the wearing gold, however it's directed to women if we want to be technical about everything.

And yes the Bible IS the basis on how we live

Please do not double post. --Lyra

The bible also condones slavery, supports stoning for almost anything, and contains numberous genocides and other atrocities. It's not a good way to live.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

So we have people who agree with hitler does that mean they are right. Of course not that doesn't mean that other religions are right.

[Troy35216]

Out of the 11 I only conflict with the wearing gold, however it's directed to women if we want to be technical about everything.

Please do not double post. --Lyra
but the point is you don't force everyone else to not conflict with those 11 things. you don't care if other people play football or eat shrimp. but you try to impose your views on gay marriage on other people. it all goes back to picking and choosing which bible verses count and which ones don't. and it's awfully convenient that the ones that count are the ones that back up your own prejudices. just like when people used the bible to defend slavery or defend denying women the right to vote or defend segregation, or deny blacks and whites marrying each other.

[Lyra Heartstrings]

So we have people who agree with hitler does that mean they are right. Of course not that doesn't mean that other religions are right.

That doesn't mean Christianity is right, either.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

No. It contains such things but as does a traditional highschool history course like youve said you haven't read the bible. So I ask how would you know? And I say quit making absurd statements.

[Troy35216]

this is my last post cuz this is giving me a headache but i think it's interesting that Kyle is so worried about doing the christian thing and doing what the bible says but his other posts talk about how he wants to jerk off with another guy. so i guess the deal is you can touch guys sexually, make them cum, and they can make you cum, and you can feel each others dicks, as long as you don't get married. now i understand

[Maverick]

Well... I'm gay.

Marriage is a religious institution. Always has been. Religion prohibits homosexuality.... so it doesn't make sense to force religions to allow gay marriage when its their own creation and definition.

Do I personally have a problem if fags like me get married? No, but I don't understand the effort LGBT make to rewrite religion to suit them when it goes everything against their lifestyle (as wrong or incorrect it may be)

Why do we need marriage, a religious concept, to prove our love?

[NORTH.KN16HT]

but the point is you don't force everyone else to not conflict with those 11 things. you don't care if other people play football or eat shrimp. but you try to impose your views on gay marriage on other people. it all goes back to picking and choosing which bible verses count and which ones don't. and it's awfully convenient that the ones that count are the ones that back up your own prejudices. just like when people used the bible to defend slavery or defend denying women the right to vote or defend segregation, or deny blacks and whites marrying each other.

I never said that the gay marriage verse is the only important one. However I don't condone the other 11.... Im against and im not forcing gays not to marry thats the house and the senate...

[Lyra Heartstrings]

No. It contains such things but as does a traditional highschool history course like youve said you haven't read the bible. So I ask how would you know? And I say quit making absurd statements.

Because I haven't read the bible, I'm immediately wrong?
Well... I'm gay.

Marriage is a religious institution. Always has been. Religion prohibits homosexuality.... so it doesn't make sense to force religions to allow gay marriage when its their own creation and definition.

Do I personally have a problem if fags like me get married? No, but I don't understand the effort LGBT make to rewrite religion to suit them when it goes everything against their lifestyle (as wrong or incorrect it may be)

Why do we need marriage, a religious concept, to prove our love?

I want to get married because of the benefits. For one example, being able to visit the one I love in the hospital. I would be immediate family. Without marriage, I'm forced to wait in the waiting room. This is just one example.
I never said that the gay marriage verse is the only important one. However I don't condone the other 11.... Im against and im not forcing gays not to marry thats the house and the senate...

This is a debate on our opinions, not the opinions of the senate.

[Jess]

Weather or not the government want to admit it but this country was founded upon Christianity ( In God we trust & Under God ) if you want the rights then go to Canada. If you don't like the US whats keeping you here?

But yes the government has become so overly corrupted you would never have guessed that all the founding fathers were Christian.

The US was NOT founded on Christianity. The Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians. And I'm pretty sure the In God We trust on our bills were not added right away (someone correct me if I'm wrong -_-). Neither was the Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance (forgot the year it was added).

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/titleXI.jpg http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html (The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion")

Why should gays not be able to marry? They deserve every right to, there's no harm in it. We don't need to follow the laws of "traditional" marriage. Not everyone is religious and we don't need to follow the laws of the bible.

[Lyra Heartstrings]

This thread is coming to petty insulting. If it happens again, it's being locked.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

The US was NOT founded on Christianity. The Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians. And I'm pretty sure the In God We trust on our bills were not added right away (someone correct me if I'm wrong -_-). Neither was the Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance (forgot the year it was added).

image (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/titleXI.jpg)

Why should gays not be able to marry? They deserve every right to, there's no harm in it. We don't need to follow the laws of "traditional" marriage. Not everyone is religious and we don't need to follow the laws of the bible.

Ok let's pretend in a sick world gay marriage is approved... Where would a gay couple be wed? Certainly not in a church because 1) the church does not believe in that and 2) there's a depredation of church and state. Sooo.. I guess the new tradition is to elope and be wed be a judge.

[Cicero]

I agree 100% with Maverick. If a church wants to marry a gay couple, great, allow them. If they don't want to marry a gay couple, allow them to make that choice. Because some church's condemn homosexuality and no one should try changing a religion to fit their lifestyle. Stop deleting what I'm trying to say just cause you disagree with me Lyra Hartstrings.

[Jess]

Ok let's pretend in a sick world gay marriage is approved... Where would a gay couple be wed? Certainly not in a church because 1) the church does not believe in that and 2) there's a depredation of church and state. Sooo.. I guess the new tradition is to elope and be wed be a judge.

Not every church is against gay marriage. I'm sure some gay couples will be able to wed in a church that accepts them. Otherwise they can wed somewhere else -- it doesn't have to be in a church - marriage is not supposed to be religious...I mean, atheists don't get married in a church....

Also, how would it be a "sick world"? I see nothing sick about it. There are already several countries that legalized gay marriage.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

Not every church is against gay marriage. I'm sure some gay couples will be able to wed in a church that accepts them. Otherwise they can wed somewhere else -- it doesn't have to be in a church - marriage is not supposed to be religious...I mean, atheists don't get married in a church....

Also, how would it be a "sick world"? I see nothing sick about it. There are already several countries that legalized gay marriage.

And it wouldnt be a HOLY matrimony and a priest wouldn't be the one to say " you may now kiss the bride"

So what im totally 100% agianst gay marriage. There's nothing you can do about it. Besides its not me you have to convince ( although good luck trying ) its the house and sennet...!!

So move to those countries!! If you want to!! Remember you have that option....

[Maverick]

Because I haven't read the bible, I'm immediately wrong?


I want to get married because of the benefits. For one example, being able to visit the one I love in the hospital. I would be immediate family. Without marriage, I'm forced to wait in the waiting room. This is just one example.


This is a debate on our opinions, not the opinions of the senate.
If you could sign a written contract giving you those rights to your boyfriend without being married would you still want to peruse it even further and call it marriage?

You are right that it does have benefits but it does carry some disadvantages as well.... like divorce. If you were to breakup divorce is such a length, expensive, and ridiculous process. Suddenly you have to decide what happens to the joint bank account and who gets to keep the house, dog, the cars, the kids if you adopt any, and any other property. All of that gets put fourth a judge and you may end up getting screwed in the end. Should alimony be awarded? Would you want to be mandated to pay your ex a part of your salary?

I'm not bringing these up to change your mind but more so bringing to the discussion that half of straight marriages end in divorce and have implications. Sometimes I think its something that we'd be better off without.

[StoppingTime]

So what im totally 100% agianst gay marriage. There's nothing you can do about it.


Then why come into a debate if you won't be open minded?

[Cicero]

Then why come into a debate if you won't be open minded?

I don't see anyone else being open minded about religion or about opposing gay marriage. Why can't you be open minded about how the (majority) religious feel?

[Lyra Heartstrings]

If you could sign a written contract giving you those rights to your boyfriend without being married would you still want to peruse it even further and call it marriage?

You are right that it does have benefits but it does carry some disadvantages as well.... like divorce. If you were to breakup divorce is such a length, expensive, and ridiculous process. Suddenly you have to decide what happens to the joint bank account and who gets to keep the house, dog, the cars, the kids if you adopt any, and any other property. All of that gets put fourth a judge and you may end up getting screwed in the end. Should alimony be awarded? Would you want to be mandated to pay your ex a part of your salary?

I'm not bringing these up to change your mind but more so bringing to the discussion that half of straight marriages end in divorce and have implications. Sometimes I think its something that we'd be better off without.

That's a different debate entirely. Even if I could sign a contract and get the same rights, I'd want to marry. I see marriage as a special thing, and I want to experience it.

I don't see anyone else being open minded about religion or about opposing gay marriage. Why can't you be open minded about how the (majority) religious feel?

The majority? Take a poll of Christians and see how many are for gay marriage.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

Debates are are simply that... Stating your opinion with the hope of convincing your opponent. If you go with an open mind to every debate you might start believing everything you hear. Hey I just we her the sky is purple. Did you know if you close your eyes spinning in circles and jump off a cliff your wish will come true? If you come to a debate with an open mind it won't be what you think but what people make you think.

[StoppingTime]

I don't see anyone else being open minded about religion or about opposing gay marriage. Why can't you be open minded about how the (majority) religious feel?


I'm open minded. However, no Christian has ever shown be a convincing argument that says gay people shouldn't be legally married. All they have to back up claims is, "the bible said so."

[Cicero]

That's a different debate entirely. Even if I could sign a contract and get the same rights, I'd want to marry. I see marriage as a special thing, and I want to experience it.



The majority? Take a poll of Christians and see how many are for gay marriage.

Most Catholics disagree with gay marriage, the Vatican has always condemned it. I don't see how Maverick is off topic, sir.

[Lyra Heartstrings]

Most Catholics disagree with gay marriage, the Vatican has always condemned it.

Christians are not just catholics.

[Cicero]

Christians are not just catholics.

Yeah, Christians condemn homosexuality and gay marriage more than Catholics do, sir.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

I'm open minded. However, no Christian has ever shown be a convincing argument that says gay people shouldn't be legally married. All they have to back up claims is, "the bible said so."

And what's your "oh-so-convincing" claim?

[Lyra Heartstrings]

Yeah, Christians condemn homosexuality and gay marriage more than Catholics do, sir.

A broad and untrue statement. Not all Christians condemn homosexuality. In fact, most accept it.

[Cicero]

A broad and untrue statement. Not all Christians condemn homosexuality. In fact, most accept it.

Legit sources other than Wiki? Sir.

[Skyline]

Yeah, Christians condemn homosexuality and gay marriage more than Catholics do, sir.

What about Episcopalians, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, and a few more. All of these Christian denominations are affirmative LGBT...

[World Eater]

All they have to back up claims is, "the bible said so."

Which I find to be completely unoriginal and lazy on their part.

[Lyra Heartstrings]

I'm leaving this thread before I say something I regret, because it's honestly upsetting me.
Also, Cicero, go poll Christians and get back to me.

[StoppingTime]

And what's your "oh-so-convincing" claim?

That all people should have equal rights?

[Cicero]

I'm leaving this thread before I say something I regret, because it's honestly upsetting me.
Also, Cicero, go poll Christians and get back to me.
You're the one who made the claim, so you should provide the source. Sir.
What about Episcopalians, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, and a few more. All of these Christian denominations are affirmative LGBT...

So every church of those religions has said "We agree with homosexuality and gay marriage"?

Currently the church takes the stance that homosexuality is a sin, but maintains a concern for homosexual believers. (http://christianteens.about.com/od/homosexuality/f/PresbytHomosexu.htm)

[NORTH.KN16HT]

Ya this has definitely turned into a bash fest.... My final words on the topic...

Believe what ever you wish... For the final time i will say this its up to the house and sennet... So complain to them...

And most churches do not support lgbt. They still live the sinner but hate the sin.

[ProudConservative]

I don't have a problem with gays, or gay unions. I don't think the government should force the Church to wed a gay couple. It should be done in a Court house. I know they're not forcing Churches, but it does seem as if that's what they want. Also, some of the Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians.

[Skyline]

You're the one who made the claim, so you should provide the source. Sir.


So every church of those religions has said "We agree with homosexuality and gay marriage"?

Currently the church takes the stance that homosexuality is a sin, but maintains a concern for homosexual believers. (http://christianteens.about.com/od/homosexuality/f/PresbytHomosexu.htm)

Oh no! I wasn't saying that at all!! ... I was simply saying that all of them either accept it or they are have started to question whether or not homosexuality is a sin or not...

[Guillermo]

Yeah, Christians condemn homosexuality and gay marriage more than Catholics do, sir.

All Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholics. What's so hard for people to understand about this? The word that you're looking for in place of 'Christians' is Protestants.

Furthermore, this thread just disappoints me. Most everyone in here has exemplified a complete lack of debating skills and have instead resorted to their feelings being upset. I've not seen anything overly bashful in here, either. People are going to disagree with you and have no intentions on changing their views - it's still fun to try, though. But it's nothing to get upset over.

Now, back to the topic, what is marriage really? Marriage is nothing more than a contract. A mere piece of paper. Yes, one will get legal benefits, but the act of marriage is still nothing more than a slip of paper. Honestly, I don't really care much for marriage. It's such a silly and absurd topic to debate over. Unfortunately, that's the way the Western world works and we apparently must show our 'love' through marriage. But that's bullshit. Marriage isn't about love - it's really about money.

And by the way, if marriage is such a 'sacred' act in the U.S., then why is the divorce rate over 50%?

[teen.jpg]

Honestly, why would you want to start this thread? It's guaranteed to start a giant arguement. But, I suppose since this is the debate forum ....


I'm for Gay Marriage, seeing as though I'm bi ...

[PinkFloyd]

Well I mean Marriage is a special event between a man and a women. That does not mean that I don't think they should have an official event that bonds them. I think that Homosexuals should have their own ceremony with its own name, rules, etc. I'm definately not homophobic.

[Lost in the Echo]

Well I mean Marriage is a special event between a man and a women. That does not mean that I don't think they should have an official event that bonds them. I think that Homosexuals should have their own ceremony with its own name, rules, etc. I'm definately not homophobic.

I completely agree with this. ^
Marriage, is a sacred thing, between a man and a woman.
What's stopping the LGBT community from creating their own type of bonding event, that's like a marriage?

Oh, and an FYI: I'm not homophobic, i'm just posting my opinion on the topic.:)

[Mob Boss]

They [gay couples] should be allowed every right that straight couples are. There are homosexuals that are religious, and want to be honored under a church to marry their partner. I'm not saying every church has to agree with it, but those that do should be allowed to perform the same ceremony that straight couples have for two same-sex partners. This is 2013, this intolerant, bigotry that is still lingering around is pathetic.

[TheBassoonist]

I believe that marriage has changed from an agreement based on religion to a legal agreement between a couple and the state. The state provides certain rights and privileges if the couple stays married. As such, we need to decide what purpose a government serves. I think government exists to preserve the legal and social rights of its citizens. Since marriage is a legal agreement, governments are obligated to pass laws in favor of same-sex marriage, at least secular ones, like the United States government.

On another note, the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution should require states that don't allow same-sex marriage to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The problem here is DoMA, which declares marriage as being between a man and a woman, which will be examined by the Supreme Court later this year.

I personally see nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. Using religion as a defense against it should be inconsequential. The United States government is a secular one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Arguing that same-sex marriage should be banned based on something the Bible says, after millennia of constant editing and translating, is illogical and narrow minded.

[workingatperfect]

Why do other people have to follow YOUR religious views? You'd have a fit if someone tried to force you to follow THEIR religious views.

This is such an excellent point that I didn't see acknowledged much. Why are gay people being held back in their relationships by a religion that they don't follow? We have the freedom in the US to live by any religion we choose without being bound by the rules of other religions. So being denied the rights of a married couple based on a religion they don't follow is wrong.

However, as he also stated, it's not exactly fair to make Christians and any other religion against gay marriage go against their principles. And that's why I agree with this:

Well I mean Marriage is a special event between a man and a women. That does not mean that I don't think they should have an official event that bonds them. I think that Homosexuals should have their own ceremony with its own name, rules, etc. I'm definately not homophobic.

They could have all the rights and privileges of a married couple, it doesn't have to be in a church etc. Basically, a civil union. This should be legal in all states. Although, I think it could have a better name, civil union sounds so... blah. But basically, I don't see why civil unions aren't legal everywhere. In the United States, people shouldn't be bound to the principles of religions they don't follow, but only to the principles they choose to be bound by, by picking their religion for themselves.

I also think that if a church so pleases, they should be allowed to marry (or civilly unite) a gay couple. That doesn't mean that all churches have to, but I think they should have the option.

And I'd like to add that, ideally, in the eyes of the law, a marriage would be exactly the same as a civil union.

[Kriss41]

Personally... I don't care. I'm a Jehovah's Witness- we do not approve of homosexuality. But as long as people aren't coming up to me (And this is for ALL witnesses) and telling me about how they and their gay partner have done the deed or anything, I don't care. I just don't wanna hear about it.

Fair enough. However, we have evolved. I'm sure you're wearing two different fabrics? Well..that goes against the bible. Have you eaten shrimp? That goes against the bible. Why is it that gay marriage is the only one still upheld?

Hey Bud.
I just wanted to que you in on something. Everything you mentioned that's against the Bible is correct. BUT those beliefs (ie different fabrics) are now considered obselete. That was in the Mosaic law, the time before Jesus roamed the earth.
I do not personally like the idea. I know you're homosexual though. And that's okay. But the times have changed. The "old law" that you were reffering to now not only condones the meats and fabrics, but manslaughter. I know you're a good person, probably better than me in some ways. So you know killing is wrong, right?
Then, acting on what you said previously, not killing would still be in law. Right. Good.
But, in this "new law" Christ said that some parts of the other law, the Mosaic law, are are no longer used.
I am an avid reader of the Bible. It's like my guidebook. If you don't believe everything it says,great. I'm not here to push reading the Bible onto you.
Homosexuality was condoned in the Bible for it being somewhat unnatural. But I realize you cannot control your feelings. If I, as a girl, wanted to sleep with girls, I wouldn't be able to control that. Just as you, a guy, have feelings for guys. That's okay. That happens. But, sadly, that does not change facts that in the Bible it says it's unnatural.
If I just confused you or if you have questions lemme know. Sorry for the lengthy message.

Merged double post. -Gigablue

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I'm all for it.
I see it as one of the final steps to an equal society.
I have no religion that forces me to believe differently.
^my opinion.
As the OP said please don't bash me because I'm for gay marriage.

[Jonathan1998]

I may only be 14 but I support Gay Marriage and to me, love and marriage knows no gender it should be open to all types of couples, LGBT and heterosexual alike. I don't let a 2000+ year old book be the basis of my life, I may have certain Christian Beliefs but I'm not as extreme as people like Catholics, Orthodoxes etc. I believe God loves everyone, no matter who or what they are, and that he created people different and unique for a reason.

[StoneColdNicky]

I am not against gay marriage at all, however I do think a lot of people on both sides of the argument are making a lot of fuss over a minor issue. I fail to see any negative consequences of allowing gay couples to marry, but once it is allowed, I don't think the benefit will be all that great.

[WalkingOnDisaster]

Honestly I don't care.

[Apollo.]

Personally... I don't care. I'm a Jehovah's Witness- we do not approve of homosexuality. But as long as people aren't coming up to me (And this is for ALL witnesses) and telling me about how they and their gay partner have done the deed or anything, I don't care. I just don't wanna hear about it.



Hey Bud.
I just wanted to que you in on something. Everything you mentioned that's against the Bible is correct. BUT those beliefs (ie different fabrics) are now considered obselete. That was in the Mosaic law, the time before Jesus roamed the earth.
I do not personally like the idea. I know you're homosexual though. And that's okay. But the times have changed. The "old law" that you were reffering to now not only condones the meats and fabrics, but manslaughter. I know you're a good person, probably better than me in some ways. So you know killing is wrong, right?
Then, acting on what you said previously, not killing would still be in law. Right. Good.
But, in this "new law" Christ said that some parts of the other law, the Mosaic law, are are no longer used.
I am an avid reader of the Bible. It's like my guidebook. If you don't believe everything it says,great. I'm not here to push reading the Bible onto you.
Homosexuality was condoned in the Bible for it being somewhat unnatural. But I realize you cannot control your feelings. If I, as a girl, wanted to sleep with girls, I wouldn't be able to control that. Just as you, a guy, have feelings for guys. That's okay. That happens. But, sadly, that does not change facts that in the Bible it says it's unnatural.
If I just confused you or if you have questions lemme know. Sorry for the lengthy message.

Merged double post. -Gigablue

So once again the bible changes its mind and these "New laws" cut and change what it days to suit modern society but still allow people to have their homophobic beliefs? The bible is changed so often its ridiculous!
Also I find it ironic a Jehovah's witness is talking about not wanting it shoved in their face when 99% of people at my door are Jehovah's witnesses trying. to preach to me.

[EvaHlt]

I, personally also am Christian and I'm against gay marriage. Well actually I think they should get married because I mean they are humans but not in churches... Tho, i am against adoption. I just don't think someone should have 2 moms or 2 dads. If anyone disagree, fine. Everyone has different opinion :) X

[Professional Russian]

Personally. I dont give a fuck. you can marry who ever you want thats not my decision to make.

[CharlieFinley]

Against it from a religious standpoint, for it from a social standpoint.

[Korashk]

I'm only against gay marriage via technicality. I don't think that marriage should be a thing in any legal context.

[Bigfoot132]

No. It contains such things but as does a traditional highschool history course like youve said you haven't read the bible. So I ask how would you know? And I say quit making absurd statements.

I have read the bible. I am gay. And those remarks about wearing 2 kinds of fabrics, eating shellfish, genocide, and stoning others is all in there. You say you don't agree with some aspects of the bible. Well guess what, you can't pick and choose. Either you follow everything or you don't ok.

[Jess]

marrige is a lasting commitment between a man and a woman in which they completly deote themselves to each other and to God, in addition to creating and raising children. im a strong catholic so i guess my statment is pretty biased

Then that means divorce should be illegal too

Laws shouldn't be based on the bible...

[Avenida105]

As A Christian I can say this, the vast majority of Christians today have really forgotten what being a Christian is really about.
1. Jesus is asked, what is the greatest commandment, he responds with love others as you love yourself.
Any person with an average reading level can easily understand that, and no there is no exceptions like be mean to sinners, be mean to homsexuals, no that applies to every single person on the globe.
2. The bible states that all sins before God are the same, so if indeed homosexuality is a sin according to Christian belief, then being homosexual is as bad as lying and just how lying is bad as killing. Christians lately love to make big deal about homosexuality as if its a "capital" sin, a term made up by the Roman Catholic Church.
3. God has instituted government among mankind and he tells mankind to subdue to their leaders (again this doesn't mean become stupid slaves), but it rather means follow the law makers and you will be blessed.
So in the end the Bible itself, basically says that matters of government should not be matters of religion.

Now based on all of that stuff that comes from the Bible, I can say that politically and legally speaking gay marriage SHOULD be allowed.

Any Christians who disagree, well you should revise if you truly are a Christian.

[Korashk]

However, as he also stated, it's not exactly fair to make Christians and any other religion against gay marriage go against their principles.
Why do people who are anti-homosexual marriage say this kind of thing? Why would allowing gay marriage force religious people to go against their principals?

Marriage in the context that actually matters has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with religion. Literally nothing. It's just a legal contract. You can get married without ever stepping into a church or talking to a priest.

[workingatperfect]

Why do people who are anti-homosexual marriage say this kind of thing? Why would allowing gay marriage force religious people to go against their principals?

Marriage in the context that actually matters has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with religion. Literally nothing. It's just a legal contract. You can get married without ever stepping into a church or talking to a priest.

One, I'm not anti-gay marriage. Two, I'm not even religious. I should have been more specific. I'm talking about Holy Matrimony, not civil marriages. That is why I said it would be exactly like a marriage in the eyes of the law, just under a different name, like civil marriage. Just as a Christian marriage is holy matrimony and a secular marriage is a civil marriage. What I was saying was more making churches accept and perform gay marriage would be wrong.

[Jess]

Why do people who are anti-homosexual marriage say this kind of thing? Why would allowing gay marriage force religious people to go against their principals?

Marriage in the context that actually matters has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with religion. Literally nothing. It's just a legal contract. You can get married without ever stepping into a church or talking to a priest.

Exactly this! Marriage doesn't belong to religion...

[RedViper]

http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/389756_419773894708197_1753304726_n.jpg
This.

[Professional Russian]

Why does religion always come up in these threads. I don't even know what religion and gay marriage have to do with each other.

[Aggregate]

Why does religion always come up in these threads. I don't even know what religion and gay marriage have to do with each other.

Because religion lays claim to marriage and believes that this soils (for lack of a better word) their tradition.

The fault in religion is it can't adapt to the movement of society. The church does pick and choose whats right or wrong and everyone interprets the information in the bible in their own way. But still, not enough to let the church change as society wisens up.

Ultimately this is a big part in why religion is suffering. Whether or not there is a God or Gods looking down on you, which there might be, its hard to argue that the church is so very dated, and increasingly out of touch.

Re: gay marriage. Meh. I really don't care, I guess I'm pro in that I'd like to see it happen globally but I don't care in that I don't believe it should be an issue, and I personally feel that making a big deal over it justifies the idea I'm supposed to be upset over it. In saying that, I totally understand that this debate and fighting attitude needs to exist to make the change happen, I think like a lot of people I just don't want to be at the front line. Thats the job of politicians, some of these guys are putting their necks on the line for this and rightfully so, fact is there is a large enough area of society that opposes gay marriage for it to cause political turmoil.

[TapDancer]

Personally... I don't care. I'm a Jehovah's Witness- we do not approve of homosexuality. But as long as people aren't coming up to me (And this is for ALL witnesses) and telling me about how they and their gay partner have done the deed or anything, I don't care. I just don't wanna hear about it.



Hey Bud.
I just wanted to que you in on something. Everything you mentioned that's against the Bible is correct. BUT those beliefs (ie different fabrics) are now considered obselete. That was in the Mosaic law, the time before Jesus roamed the earth.
I do not personally like the idea. I know you're homosexual though. And that's okay. But the times have changed. The "old law" that you were reffering to now not only condones the meats and fabrics, but manslaughter. I know you're a good person, probably better than me in some ways. So you know killing is wrong, right?
Then, acting on what you said previously, not killing would still be in law. Right. Good.
But, in this "new law" Christ said that some parts of the other law, the Mosaic law, are are no longer used.
I am an avid reader of the Bible. It's like my guidebook. If you don't believe everything it says,great. I'm not here to push reading the Bible onto you.
Homosexuality was condoned in the Bible for it being somewhat unnatural. But I realize you cannot control your feelings. If I, as a girl, wanted to sleep with girls, I wouldn't be able to control that. Just as you, a guy, have feelings for guys. That's okay. That happens. But, sadly, that does not change facts that in the Bible it says it's unnatural.
If I just confused you or if you have questions lemme know. Sorry for the lengthy message.

Merged double post. -Gigablue

Sorry, but, the part that actually condemns homosexuality, wasn't that in the old testament? Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he always surrounded himself with the outcast. It is realistic to think that, homosexuals were part of said social cast.


Also, it has been scientifically examined and concluded that homosexuality appears in more species than just humans. From a religious point of view, humans ate from the wrong tree, got all the knowledge, both good and bad etc. But, it does not say anywhere that any other animal in that garden was affected by Adam and Eve's decision. Also, most animals will not know better. They will be following their natural urges. We do not know what causes people to have these feelings. It brings many ethical questions in to the equation when we consider if we should know what makes people homosexual (allowing people to change it, or worse, allowing parents the knowledge to abort their unborn babies on the basis that their child is gay), but, I can tell you, many homosexual people want to not feel the feelings they do. Many embrace their feelings, but, honestly, might rather still be straight due to the social complications. We know the churches stance, but I fear we may never know God's stance on this. Think of a game of Chinese Whispers. Imagine it to continue for 2000 years. Will what was said bee 100% accurate?

I completely agree with this. ^
Marriage, is a sacred thing, between a man and a woman.
What's stopping the LGBT community from creating their own type of bonding event, that's like a marriage?

Oh, and an FYI: I'm not homophobic, i'm just posting my opinion on the topic.:)

I see your point. But, many, many gay people want the sanctity of a marriage, many gay people will even respect it a heck of a lot more than a lot of straight people will. But, having a "civil union" makes homosexual people feel like second class citizens, because the are told they can't do what straight people can do. Also, a lot of it goes to contract law. Many health insurances will cover "families", depending on your country, depends on the definition of families and even couples. Many homosexual couples will have to pay for single health insurance each, because, they are not "in a marriage" but a civil bond. Different wording, I realise it seems meticulous, but, anything to make more money. Civil unions are not as sacred as marriages, because they can be broken with the signing of a few papers, and you can literally walk into a courthouse and come out with the legal paperwork three hours later. As ceremonious as signing legal documents is, it is not as sacred as a marriage ceremony, religious or not.


Posts Merged. Next time, please use the edit or multi quote button instead of posting consecutively. -StoppingTime

[xmojox]

I'm totally in favor of same-sex marriage. What I don't understand is, how, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the federal, or any state government, can be opposed to it. I can understand various churches not wanting to perform the ceremonies, as they are necessarily outside of governmental control. I think the attitude is both hypocritical and archaic, but, I can understand it. For the governments to disallow it, though, is blatantly unconstitutional.

To the earlier poster who suggested that those who want to marry a same-sex partner move to a country where it is currently allowed, I would suggest that he relocate to Iran or Saudi Arabia, where he will never have his delicate sensibilities offended by the possibility of a same-sex couple marrying. I'm not slamming on Islam, those were just two examples of countries that will likely never allow same-sex marriage that came readily to mind.

The argument over this subject is ridiculous to start with. Were it not for the religious-right attempting yet again to demonize that which they don't understand and to impose their will upon the rest of society, this would be exactly what it should it...a non-issue.

[WalkingOnDisaster]

I guess you could say I am slightly against it. But to each his own.

[Quiddity]

I guess you could say I am slightly against it. But to each his own.

Slightly against it? Why so?

[Jess]

Just wondering, how can you be slightly against it? :/

[Sugaree]

Just wondering, how can you be slightly against it? :/

Because not everyone is a staunch social liberal.

[Korashk]

I'm talking about Holy Matrimony, not civil marriages.
In discussion about this issue on the "pro-homosexual marriage" side basically nobody cares about holy matrimony, because holy matrimony carries with it no benefits or rights in a legal context. It's essentially just an ignorant (willing or otherwise) excuse to be against making gay marriage exactly the same as "traditional marriage".

[WalkingOnDisaster]

Slightly against it? Why so?

I don't know. I guess because I just feel something about it is off. I am not saying wrong per say, just off. Weird I guess you could say.

Just wondering, how can you be slightly against it? :/

Pretty easily.

[Kriss41]

So once again the bible changes its mind and these "New laws" cut and change what it days to suit modern society but still allow people to have their homophobic beliefs? The bible is changed so often its ridiculous!
Also I find it ironic a Jehovah's witness is talking about not wanting it shoved in their face when 99% of people at my door are Jehovah's witnesses trying. to preach to me.

If you don't like it then simply request to not have us visit anymore. if you do that then you'll be put on a list that makes sure that you don't get bothered by us anymore.
The bible never changes. You refuse to understand.

[Horizon]

Your 14, never read the Bible, and your just going of of hear say... That's a great way to loose all credibility in your argument. Now yes it was a harsh statement but may I remind you you have that option. You don't have to stay here. And we live our lives based on a 2000+ year old book becuase its the word of God and it is OUR LIVES! why don't you stop listening to the atheists who think we're hypocrites ( we're not btw) and actually think for yourself... Perhaps read the Bible before making absurd statements.

Gays want the rights a str8 couple gets and criminals just want the freedom that innocent people have... So be a str8 couple and get the rights... Like if a criminal was just being innocent in the first place then...

So you're telling me it's a crime to be gay? And it's not as simple as being a heterosexual couple. We don't choose this life.

And honestly, no one should care what the church thinks on marriage. Marriage is a state issue. Without a marriage license provided by your state, you aren't legally married and don't receive the benefits from it. And there are many hired professionals to do marriages, so people don't have to do it under the church.

Basically what I am saying is, no has to get married under the church, because really all the church is there for is for the ceremony.

I haven't read the bible, but I have been made aware that almost everything gets over looked, but most religious people choose to take and follow one verse that is denying other people's rights as humans. Regardless of how you feel, I am homosexual, and still human. I haven't committed any crimes because of sexuality, and it isn't a crime that I am homosexual.

And yes it was a harsh statement, but it's always an option for you as well, because I am sorry to tell you, the U.S. is headed down that road for marriage equality.

[Mabutati]

I didn't have time to read the whole forum but personally, I don't see the difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage. Who really cares who's marrying who? If you don't like it, don't look. Let other people be happy,

Some things to battle with:
1. The fact that gay marriage is not procreation - As of right now Earth's population is nearing 7 billion people; far past Earth's comfortable capacity.
2. "God" says its wrong - As it has been mentioned people are against homosexuality in general for their religious beliefs. First of all, we have a separation of church and state in America so that should not even be a legitimate factor. Secondly, I'm sure Jesus would be okay with gays because Jesus was all about people's happiness. He'd probably be in shock at the site of homophobia.
3. What the hell makes heterosexuals better than homosexuals? We're all human!

[MrMundane]

There is a major difference between the fire and brimstone of old testament and the giant fluffy bunny of the new testament. The old contadicts the new on a lot of things and the simple fact that a super being cares enough to tell us how to live seems kind of out there considering he doesn't really have a gender.
So I'm pro gay marriage just because of free choice, and by how much of life is limited living in faith.

[AbbaZabba]

To each his own, who am I to tell you how to live your life. Definitely not against it.

[CharlieFinley]

Sorry, but, the part that actually condemns homosexuality, wasn't that in the old testament? Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he always surrounded himself with the outcast. It is realistic to think that, homosexuals were part of said social cast.
It was also mentioned in the New Testament. More specifically, 1 Corinthians 6:9.

I'm totally in favor of same-sex marriage. What I don't understand is, how, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the federal, or any state government, can be opposed to it. I can understand various churches not wanting to perform the ceremonies, as they are necessarily outside of governmental control. I think the attitude is both hypocritical and archaic, but, I can understand it. For the governments to disallow it, though, is blatantly unconstitutional.

It's actually not blatantly unconstitutional until someone who wants to strike down DOMA provides evidence that sexuality is immutable, which is a key characteristic for determining whether something is a protected characteristic. Read the amicus curiae on the upcoming Windsor case.

[BanishU]

I am totally WITH gay marriage, not because I am bi, because there is nothing wrong with it. Its a guy and a guy, big deal. Incest is allowed in some countries, but in them same countries, gay marriage is wrong.

Two guys love each other, does that mean they should be killed? No, so why can't they get married?

[CharlieFinley]

So you're telling me it's a crime to be gay? And it's not as simple as being a heterosexual couple. We don't choose this life. Technically, you did. You didn't choose to be homosexual, but you certainly chose to be in a homosexual relationship. Please note that I'm not saying that's in any way a justification to deny you your rights, but I am saying that you should endeavor to be precise in your writing.

And honestly, no one should care what the church thinks on marriage. Marriage is a state issue. That's not strictly true. Marriage is also a religious issue. While that's not to say the government shouldn't be able to marry people, and that gay couples shouldn't be able to get married by the government, Christianity is an important aspect of the lives of a large proportion of Americans, who logically should care what the government thinks on marriage. Without a marriage license provided by your state, you aren't legally married and don't receive the benefits from it. Read up on common-law marriages.

I haven't read the bible, but I have been made aware that almost everything gets over looked, Making blanket claims about things you've never read is fun! Here, let me try. No, wait. I don't want to do that, because I have intellectual integrity.
but most religious people choose to take and follow one verse that is denying other people's rights as humans. [citation needed]. Saying homosexual intercourse is a sin is not in any way violating your human rights.
Regardless of how you feel, I am homosexual, and still human. Straw man, unless you can point to people saying you're not human because you're gay. I haven't committed any crimes because of sexuality, and it isn't a crime that I am homosexual. Who said it was?


Some things to battle with:
1. The fact that gay marriage is not procreation - As of right now Earth's population is nearing 7 billion people; far past Earth's comfortable capacity. That's not a reasonable counter to those who believe gay marriage is immoral, at all. A far better option would be mentioning the idea of secular government -- the idea that religious beliefs should not have any place in the laws of our country.

2. "God" says its wrong - As it has been mentioned people are against homosexuality in general for their religious beliefs. First of all, we have a separation of church and state in America so that should not even be a legitimate factor. Better. Secondly, I'm sure Jesus would be okay with gays because Jesus was all about people's happiness. Right! I forgot about that. He didn't care about immoral or sinful behavior; he was all about being happy! That's why he endorsed adultery, greed, polygamy, hedonism, and drug use.
3. What the hell makes heterosexuals better than homosexuals? We're all human!I don't think anyone reasonable said that heterosexuals are better than homosexuals. I think the idea is that mainstream Christianity holds that homosexual intercourse is immoral.

[TapDancer]

It was also mentioned in the New Testament. More specifically, 1 Corinthians 6:9.


It's actually not blatantly unconstitutional until someone who wants to strike down DOMA provides evidence that sexuality is immutable, which is a key characteristic for determining whether something is a protected characteristic. Read the amicus curiae on the upcoming Windsor case.

Okay, the bible was written by men, not Jesus or God. Many book pass on the commandments of God and the teachings of Jesus, but, the book was written by man, flawed man. Further more, I do not know what is missing, but when the Bible was officially commissioned, at the council of Nicaea, they chose what books were to be included and not included with the bible. This occurred 300 years CE. Things can get pretty twisted. The bible tells of a Man who would rather sell his daughter into slavery, than have a man who commits homosexual acts. That is twisted! The Bible contradicts itself, and, although classified as non-fiction, is as accurate as a game of Chinese Whispers! ( also known as telephone, operator, grapevine, broken telephone, whisper down the lane, gossip, secret message, the messenger game and pass the message). It has been translated several times, rewritten and published.

[PetrusRomanus]

I am a Roman Catholic. We do not support the same-sex marriage because first and foremost if you will consider the Bible as the written word of God it is gravely forbidden. Do you remember what had happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? They were punished by the Triune God because of this. In short it is an abomination in the sight of God. God created man male and female to procreate life through sex. So therefore sex is very sacred to Roman Catholics. We support those sexually non-preferential persons but not the homosexual activities since it is a grave sin.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

This is ridiculous.
1. The bible is just a opinionated piece of work first written by, in fact, Jesus himself. Not in exact form but he had similar teachings, pretty much his teachings rewritten.
2. Christianity shouldn't have anything to so with our lives if we aren't that religion.
3. Most everything in the bible is fictional. It's as ridiculous as the occult. In fact, it pretty much is the occult.
I know there will be protest, and comments about anti religion.
But chose to believe what you want to. I don't care. I'm just stating the flaws of the bibles credibility as a holy book.
This was invented because of the "marriage in holy matrimony" comments, that are just taken out of there. As well as the anti homosexual stuff in there. Which was the opinion of the writers.

[xmojox]

It's actually not blatantly unconstitutional until someone who wants to strike down DOMA provides evidence that sexuality is immutable, which is a key characteristic for determining whether something is a protected characteristic. Read the amicus curiae on the upcoming Windsor case.

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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. (Bolding added for emphasis)

How is a characteristic being immutable germaine to this? I admit I haven't had time to read the case you referenced. A link would be appreciated. It's not legal to discriminate based upon age once a person has reached majority, and age is certainly a mutable characteristic.

[Crazy Mad Teenager]

Personally I'm against it. In my opinion the whole meaning of marriage is to have children and raise a family and that's kinda impossible for a gay couple. Also marriage wasn't ever for same sex couples originally so why does it have to be now. Isn't a civil partnership good enough anyway??

[Gigablue]

Personally I'm against it. In my opinion the whole meaning of marriage is to have children and raise a family and that's kinda impossible for a gay couple. Also marriage wasn't ever for same sex couples originally so why does it have to be now. Isn't a civil partnership good enough anyway??

Infertile couples can't have children, and yet they can get married. Some people also just choose not to have children, yet they can still marry. Marriage isn't just about children.

The reason same sex marriage isn't traditional is because of discrimination. Also, if we based all our opinions on tradition, we would never make any progress.

If same sex couples want to get married, why shouldn't they be able to. What's so special about marriage? Why must it be reserved for opposite sex couples?

[Sugaree]

Personally I'm against it. In my opinion the whole meaning of marriage is to have children and raise a family and that's kinda impossible for a gay couple. Also marriage wasn't ever for same sex couples originally so why does it have to be now. Isn't a civil partnership good enough anyway??

Civil partnerships in the United States don't grant as many privileges as marriage does. Marriage gives you tax deductions, visitation rights, and many other things. Civil partnerships are pretty much just a piece of paper saying the state recognizes you as a couple and doesn't guarantee anything.

While one purpose of marriage is to have children and be part of a family, marriage is also largely about the love two people share for each other. If marriage is about love, why can't the love of two men or two women be recognized?

[IAMWILL]

Just a short note:

I think gay couples should have the same rights as straight, married couples. However, I don't think the way those rights should be attained is by rewriting the definition of marriage. In terms of the Catholic Church's opposition - well the teachings haven't changed in 2000 years or so, and aren't rooted in scripture or what the Pope says - so they are not going to change. I think the better solution for equal rights advocates is to individually try and change the laws regarding certain rights such as hospital visitation or inheritance rights, and so on. I think a large majority of the population would have no opposition to those changes. But trying to change such a fundamental aspect of society that has lasted thousands of years for the sake of about 3% of US population is a much bigger challenge. Taking one step at a time is a lot easier than attacking the entire issue at once.

[Jess]

Personally I'm against it. In my opinion the whole meaning of marriage is to have children and raise a family and that's kinda impossible for a gay couple. Also marriage wasn't ever for same sex couples originally so why does it have to be now. Isn't a civil partnership good enough anyway??

A gay couple can adopt. Also, there are straight couples who CAN'T have children...AND ones who DON'T want children. Should they be prohibited from marrying? Marriage doesn't have to end up with children.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Isn't a civil partnership good enough anyway??

No... not even close.
1. No Social Security Benefits.
2. No Life Insurance.
3. No adoption.

There are many others but trust me; a civil partnership is like the shareware version of doom (I know this discussion has nothing to do with video games :P) but the point is civil partnerships offer many less privileges than marriage.

[CharlieFinley]

Okay, the bible was written by men, not Jesus or God. Many book pass on the commandments of God and the teachings of Jesus, but, the book was written by man, flawed man. Further more, I do not know what is missing, but when the Bible was officially commissioned, at the council of Nicaea, they chose what books were to be included and not included with the bible. This occurred 300 years CE. Things can get pretty twisted. The bible tells of a Man who would rather sell his daughter into slavery, than have a man who commits homosexual acts. That is twisted! The Bible contradicts itself, and, although classified as non-fiction, is as accurate as a game of Chinese Whispers! ( also known as telephone, operator, grapevine, broken telephone, whisper down the lane, gossip, secret message, the messenger game and pass the message). It has been translated several times, rewritten and published. We actually have a great body of evidence demonstrating that it's utterly impossible for the Bible to have been mistranslated or the like nearly as badly as atheists sometimes pretend. We have access to direct copies of the original Hebrew texts!

Besides, you're clearly shifting the goalposts. Your original question was "isn't the stuff about homosexuality in the Old Testament?" I have just demonstrated that it was also in the New Testament.

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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. (Bolding added for emphasis)

How is a characteristic being immutable germaine to this? I admit I haven't had time to read the case you referenced. A link would be appreciated. It's not legal to discriminate based upon age once a person has reached majority, and age is certainly a mutable characteristic.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-144-12-307_merits-reversal-dpm.authcheckdam.pdf

Amicus Curiae for the upcoming Windsor Supreme Court case.
Page 14, "sexuality is not an immutable characteristic."

See also the Conclusion.

This Amicus Curiae explains very well why it is necessary that a quality be considered immutable to be deserving of 14th amendment protection. So, no. Copy-pasting the Constitution doesn't suffice for complicated legal issues.

[TapDancer]

[QUOTE=CharlieFinley;2169162]We actually have a great body of evidence demonstrating that it's utterly impossible for the Bible to have been mistranslated or the like nearly as badly as atheists sometimes pretend. We have access to direct copies of the original Hebrew texts!

Besides, you're clearly shifting the goalposts. Your original question was "isn't the stuff about homosexuality in the Old Testament?" I have just demonstrated that it was also in the New Testament.
QUOTE]

Okay. You have proved, the bible mentions it's stance on homosexuality in both testaments. You say "We have access to direct copies of the original Hebrew texts!" Well, it is my understanding, that we personally, don't have access. I suspect that such texts are locked up in some archive, probably the Vatican Archives. If my suspicions are wrong, I would love for you to provide me where the GENERAL public have access to these texts. Otherwise, we have to trust the word of the church, that their translations are true, and accurate. Further more, the bible was written by man. Man is flawed. Therefore, the bible is flawed. I am sure it says somewhere in the bible that Jesus loves everyone (If this is not the case, also please, let me know), therefore, my stance on this issue, is that Jesus loves homosexual people. Further more, Jesus spoke for the rights of the minorities of the communities that he visited. The blind, lame etc. Although the bible does not mention homosexuals (this could have been a human edit), based on the bibles obvious message that Jesus loved everyone, and his outspoken attitude to equal rights, I am going to assume that Jesus would be in favour of gay marriage. That is my argument on this issue.

[Swagamemmnon]

Okay. You have proved, the bible mentions it's stance on homosexuality in both testaments. You say "We have access to direct copies of the original Hebrew texts!" Well, it is my understanding, that we personally, don't have access. I suspect that such texts are locked up in some archive, probably the Vatican Archives. If my suspicions are wrong, I would love for you to provide me where the GENERAL public have access to these texts. Otherwise, we have to trust the word of the church, that their translations are true, and accurate. Further more, the bible was written by man. Man is flawed. Therefore, the bible is flawed. I am sure it says somewhere in the bible that Jesus loves everyone (If this is not the case, also please, let me know), therefore, my stance on this issue, is that Jesus loves homosexual people. Further more, Jesus spoke for the rights of the minorities of the communities that he visited. The blind, lame etc. Although the bible does not mention homosexuals (this could have been a human edit), based on the bibles obvious message that Jesus loved everyone, and his outspoken attitude to equal rights, I am going to assume that Jesus would be in favour of gay marriage. That is my argument on this issue.

I actually have several bilingual friends from Isreal (my area gets a lot of Isreali immigrants) who can read Hebrew and English, and they said certain parts of the Bible don't match up with the Hebrew Old Testament versions. Not to mention that in the early days of Christianity entire segments of the Bible were thrown away in order to gain converts.

Anyway, my stance on gay marriage is that the benefits of married couples should be allowed to those in civil unions without changing the definition of marriage. While I am gay and support my own rights, I think it would be simpler to avoid the controversy of changing marriage itself and simply create a new type of union for homosexuals.

[Harry Smith]

The bottom line is that I should be able to marry who ever I want, children are not an issue. Some book from 2000 years ago isn't an issue. Why should out of date views and bigots stop me from marrying the person I love?

[CharlieFinley]

Okay. You have proved, the bible mentions it's stance on homosexuality in both testaments. You say "We have access to direct copies of the original Hebrew texts!" Well, it is my understanding, that we personally, don't have access. I suspect that such texts are locked up in some archive, probably the Vatican Archives. If my suspicions are wrong, I would love for you to provide me where the GENERAL public have access to these texts. Otherwise, we have to trust the word of the church, that their translations are true, and accurate. Further more, the bible was written by man. Man is flawed. Therefore, the bible is flawed. I am sure it says somewhere in the bible that Jesus loves everyone (If this is not the case, also please, let me know), therefore, my stance on this issue, is that Jesus loves homosexual people. Further more, Jesus spoke for the rights of the minorities of the communities that he visited. The blind, lame etc. Although the bible does not mention homosexuals (this could have been a human edit), based on the bibles obvious message that Jesus loved everyone, and his outspoken attitude to equal rights, I am going to assume that Jesus would be in favour of gay marriage. That is my argument on this issue.
OH MY FUCKING SCIENTIFIC METHOD!
Love != acceptance of all behaviors. He showed love to the adulteress without endorsing her adultery. Nice try, play again next week.
Also, the Catholic Church doesn't have control over the original Hebrew texts of anything -- the Catholic Church is based in the writings of early Christians, not in Old Testament writings or anything of the kind, and they didn't just go around stealing every religious text they could get their hands on.
I actually have several bilingual friends from Isreal (my area gets a lot of Isreali immigrants) who can read Hebrew and English, and they said certain parts of the Bible don't match up with the Hebrew Old Testament versions. No, they don't. Those mistranslations are frequently the source of perceived inaccuracies. But everyone here playing amateur scholar needs to realize that conclusive disproof of the Bible is literally a career-defining -- no, a life-defining -- event. If someone could go "here's a massive mistranslation that invalidates the Bible!" with academically credible news, we would have already heard about it. Not to mention that in the early days of Christianity entire segments of the Bible were thrown away in order to gain converts.
You will, of course, support this claim. If you're talking about things like the False Gospel of Thomas or the False Gospel of the Cross, then you need to do some reading on those, because they were discarded for vastly different reasons than you're claiming.
The bottom line is that I should be able to marry who ever I want, children are not an issue. Some book from 2000 years ago isn't an issue. Why should out of date views and bigots stop me from marrying the person I love?
"Belief I don't like" = "Outdated belief."

How intellectually honest of you. :rolleyes:

[Harry Smith]

yes I don't like it because we live in a secular society, I'm fine for you to celebrate your religon but don't stop me marrying who I want to just to please the man in the sky. And why should the church tell me what to do, Im happy to go to the land of fire beneath the earth for fancying guys

[CharlieFinley]

yes I don't like it because we live in a secular society, I'm fine for you to celebrate your religon but don't stop me marrying who I want to just to please the man in the sky. And why should the church tell me what to do, Im happy to go to the land of fire beneath the earth for fancying guys

Which has zip to do with your characterization of Christianity as an "out of date view."

I expect you to provide evidence that Christianity is out of date.

[Harry Smith]

I will do, In britain they have refused to allow Female Bishops, this seems stupid when the most powerful women in Europe is a Women. The majority of the church does not approve of the fact that I'm homosexual or that anyone else is. Sexual acts for males was made legal in 1967, so in the eyes of the law I am able to sleep with a guy. Finally the church do not want me to able to get married because it messes up there perfect idea of the world. Look at the catholic church, condemns Homosexuality then the most senior roman catholic is accused of sexual advances towards young priests. The church is out of date and if it fails to modernize it will fade in the western world

[CharlieFinley]

I will do, In britain they have refused to allow Female Bishops, this seems stupid when the most powerful women in Europe is a Women. The majority of the church does not approve of the fact that I'm homosexual or that anyone else is. Sexual acts for males was made legal in 1967, so in the eyes of the law I am able to sleep with a guy. Finally the church do not want me to able to get married because it messes up there perfect idea of the world. Look at the catholic church, condemns Homosexuality then the most senior roman catholic is accused of sexual advances towards young priests. The church is out of date and if it fails to modernize it will fade in the western world

That has nothing to do with Christianity being out of date. Christianity is predicated on the view that Christ was divine, died, and was resurrected. If that is untrue, our beliefs are meaningless. If, however, it is true, then we should follow His teachings regardless of whether they disagree with popular sentiment.

[Harry Smith]

That has nothing to do with Christianity being out of date. Christianity is predicated on the view that Christ was divine, died, and was resurrected. If that is untrue, our beliefs are meaningless. If, however, it is true, then we should follow His teachings regardless of whether they disagree with popular sentiment.

Well didn't Jesus say that you should 'love thy neighbour', I don't think Christians really did much loving in the crusades when they captured Jerusalem for ''God''

I accept that jesus existed, but have you any credible historical sources saying that he rose from the dead?

Also your last question seems to have a bit of cult sounding to it, I believe the SS followled someone's teachings even if it disagreed with popular sentiment. This is also a prime example of christianity being out of date but its believers are Delusional

[CharlieFinley]

Well didn't Jesus say that you should 'love thy neighbour', I don't think Christians really did much loving in the crusades when they captured Jerusalem for ''God'' I don't really see how that's relevant. All it shows is that some who professed Christianity did not always act in keeping with His commandments.

I accept that jesus existed, but have you any credible historical sources saying that he rose from the dead? Several, actually. For a beginner-level summary, read The Case for Christ or There is a God.

Also your last question seems to have a bit of cult sounding to it They're also logically correct.
Can we agree that if Jesus rose from the dead, his claim of being divine has credence? I

If He rose from the dead, He is God, or He has the approval of God. If He speaks for God, it is logical to follow His teachings regardless of popular sentiment. This stuff is really simple.

, I believe the SS followled someone's teachings even if it disagreed with popular sentiment. That's the crappiest non-argument I've ever seen. Ever. You couldn't even be bothered to actually try to discredit my beliefs, you just jumped straight to a comparison with Nazism.

Baseless comparisons to Nazism are usually fallacious anyway, but this one has a special place in my heart. The SS followed the "teachings" of Hitler in the same sense that biologists follow the "teachings" of Darwin. I hope this analogous statement makes it readily obvious how completely any faint wisps of logical thought you may have possessed deserted you when you made that comparison. Not only was it intellectually dishonest and a sign of moral turpitude (or you're just too stupid to realize that this was an unjustifiable comparison) but it also was blatantly poor etiquette for you, as a debater, to leap straight to a comparison to Nazism.

This is also a prime example of christianity being out of date but its believers are Delusional
What is a prime example of that? Your flawed, feeble, phenomenally stupid comparison to Nazism?

[Snookers]

I actually find it amusing that some people are allowed to marry objects, and many seem pretty okay with it, but when it comes to marrying a same-sex person everyone is butt hurt.
Baww the bible says it's forbidden baww gays need to be cured baww...

If people were truly religious they would mind their own business, pray for themselves, for others and just live their lives happily.
I think if there were truly a god up there, he would rather love homosexual people than "religious" people who spread hatred wherever they go.
Isn't this what this whole religion based on? Love, respect and tolerance? By the looks of 90% of its followers it seems that I am wrong.

All people seem to like hating something. These stupid wars between atheists and religious people. Pfft... many atheists say that they are smart, but if they truly were that way, they wouldn't act like drama queens towards religion.

Butthurts, butthurts everywhere.

Just relax, take that dick out of your ass and be more respectful, life is more than sexuality/ nationality/ religion/ ethnicity.

For others who hardly care about such things, I salute you.

~<3

[CharlieFinley]

If you're actually religious in the Judeo-Christian sense, that is, if you believe that there is a higher power and that the purpose of life is to give Him glory, I fail to see how it's possible to trivialize religion.

Also, Christianity isn't happy-fun-ism. Why do people keep making that mistake?

[Swagamemmnon]

sorry, double post

[Swagamemmnon]

O If someone could go "here's a massive mistranslation that invalidates the Bible!" with academically credible news, we would have already heard about it.

Most of them are relatively minor, such as exchanging the words "wife" for "woman." These mistranslations are mostly based upon the nature of most Semitic writing systems, where often times words will consist of strings of consonants. For non-native speakers, this is an issue. If we were to do the same in English, for example, then C-R might be translated as "car" when it is intended to be "cure." As a result people will argue about the translations of specific words. A few of those have been particularly argued for, like the "Jesus had a wife" claim based on a different interpretation of some words, but that is subject to opinion and really doesn't matter. Not to mention that there are already a lot of arguments about the credibility of the Bible so I doubt anyone would care about another story.

You will, of course, support this claim. If you're talking about things like the False Gospel of Thomas or the False Gospel of the Cross, then you need to do some reading on those, because they were discarded for vastly different reasons than you're claiming.

I mean many of the segments pertaining to the adherence of Christians to Jewish customs were discarded or ignored. Most of Levictus was ignored during the Middle Ages, and in fact they even had gay marriages sanctioned by some parts of the Catholic Church.

Well didn't Jesus say that you should 'love thy neighbour', I don't think Christians really did much loving in the crusades when they captured Jerusalem for ''God''

I accept that jesus existed, but have you any credible historical sources saying that he rose from the dead?

Also your last question seems to have a bit of cult sounding to it, I believe the SS followled someone's teachings even if it disagreed with popular sentiment. This is also a prime example of christianity being out of date but its believers are Delusional

The SS followed Hitler's teachings, not the Bible's. Also Hitler wasn't even all that religious, he even had a Jewish friend from childhood who he smuggled out of Europe. The SS was more of a violent nationalist movement, and I think the precedent for it comes from the militarism of Germany's predecessor, Prussia, which gained most of its power through its military. You'll even notice that the war plans used in WWII were mostly the same as those used by Prussia in WWI.

[Harry Smith]

I don't really see how that's relevant. All it shows is that some who professed Christianity did not always act in keeping with His commandments.
Several, actually. For a beginner-level summary, read The Case for Christ or There is a God.
They're also logically correct.
Can we agree that if Jesus rose from the dead, his claim of being divine has credence? I

If He rose from the dead, He is God, or He has the approval of God. If He speaks for God, it is logical to follow His teachings regardless of popular sentiment. This stuff is really simple.
That's the crappiest non-argument I've ever seen. Ever. You couldn't even be bothered to actually try to discredit my beliefs, you just jumped straight to a comparison with Nazism.

Baseless comparisons to Nazism are usually fallacious anyway, but this one has a special place in my heart. The SS followed the "teachings" of Hitler in the same sense that biologists follow the "teachings" of Darwin. I hope this analogous statement makes it readily obvious how completely any faint wisps of logical thought you may have possessed deserted you when you made that comparison. Not only was it intellectually dishonest and a sign of moral turpitude (or you're just too stupid to realize that this was an unjustifiable comparison) but it also was blatantly poor etiquette for you, as a debater, to leap straight to a comparison to Nazism.


What is a prime example of that? Your flawed, feeble, phenomenally stupid comparison to Nazism?

In the words of Tony Blair he only gets angry when he's losing. The nazis were strongly opposed to homosexuality, as are you. But I am in no way comparing you or the church to the National Socialists. I'm just saying you have elements which are in similar and that it is a faithless loyalty to a leader. But please lets get back to hand?

Why can't I marry who I want?
Why should something I have no interest or belief in ( the church) stop me from marrying a man?

Please answer these rather than throwing some rhetoric around

[CharlieFinley]

Most of them are relatively minor, such as exchanging the words "wife" for "woman." These mistranslations are mostly based upon the nature of most Semitic writing systems, where often times words will consist of strings of consonants. For non-native speakers, this is an issue. If we were to do the same in English, for example, then C-R might be translated as "car" when it is intended to be "cure." Out of random curiosity, I see Jewish sources typically write G-d instead of "God." Are the two issues related at all? As a result people will argue about the translations of specific words. A few of those have been particularly argued for, like the "Jesus had a wife" claim based on a different interpretation of some words, but that is subject to opinion and really doesn't matter. Not to mention that there are already a lot of arguments about the credibility of the Bible so I doubt anyone would care about another story.
I think there are arguments that can be made from appeals to motive (I obviously don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean I think they're bad arguments), but arguments from translation are kind of a non-starter. If I'm reading you right, we agree on that.

I mean many of the segments pertaining to the adherence of Christians to Jewish customs were discarded or ignored. Most of Levictus was ignored during the Middle Ages, and in fact they even had gay marriages sanctioned by some parts of the Catholic Church. I'm sorry; I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying something along the lines of "what we call the canonical Bible today is missing some bits that were in it at one point."

I've actually heard law scholars discussing how gay marriage and gay families used to be recognized -- for example, back in the day when there was a tax on single men (to encourage marriage, I believe) a gay couple came before the judge and said, "we're not two single men. We're a family," and the judge said, "okay, you're a family." I'm certainly not against gay marriage; I'm definitely not against gay people; I just want to see a more thorough explanation of the context of verses that talk about sexual morality as including homosexual acts before I say that the church can endorse homosexuality.

The SS followed Hitler's teachings, not the Bible's. Also Hitler wasn't even all that religious, he even had a Jewish friend from childhood who he smuggled out of Europe. The SS was more of a violent nationalist movement, and I think the precedent for it comes from the militarism of Germany's predecessor, Prussia, which gained most of its power through its military. You'll even notice that the war plans used in WWII were mostly the same as those used by Prussia in WWI.
No, what he was trying to do wasn't say Christianity is Nazism; he was trying to say that Christianity is like Nazism in that we fanatically follow the teachings of a leader. Which, again, could be said of thousands of groups.
In the words of Tony Blair he only gets angry when he's losing. And in the words of Chuck Finley, I only get angry when confronted with intellectual dishonesty. The nazis were strongly opposed to homosexuality, as are you. The Nazis were strongly opposed to honest debate, as are you. But I am in no way comparing you or the church to the National Socialists. You mean "in no way apart from the ways I just did," right? I'm just saying you have elements which are in similar
com·par·i·son noun \kəm-ˈper-ə-sən, -ˈpa-rə-\

Definition of COMPARISON

1
: the act or process of comparing: as
a : the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another
b : an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities <his faults seem minor by comparison>
2
: identity of features : similarity <several points of comparison between the two>
3
: the modification of an adjective or adverb to denote different levels of quality, quantity, or relation
See comparison defined for English-language learners »
See comparison defined for kids »

You seem to be having trouble with that definition.

and that it is a faithless loyalty to a leader. But please lets get back to hand? That's literally true of 90% of ideological groups in history.

There are one of two ways this can go:
1. You can try to present some kind of point that follows from your facile comparison of Christianity and Nazism,
or
2. You can admit that your comparison was meaningless because there is no point that follows from your facile comparison of Christianity and Nazism.

There is no middle ground. Either you have a point, or you do not.

Why can't I marry who I want? You can.

Why should something I have no interest or belief in ( the church) stop me from marrying a man? It shouldn't. Did I say it should?

Please answer these rather than throwing some rhetoric around
OMG he talks smarterer than meeee! :rolleyes:

[Swagamemmnon]

Out of random curiosity, I see Jewish sources typically write G-d instead of "God." Are the two issues related at all? I think there are arguments that can be made from appeals to motive (I obviously don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean I think they're bad arguments), but arguments from translation are kind of a non-starter. If I'm reading you right, we agree on that.
I'm sorry; I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying something along the lines of "what we call the canonical Bible today is missing some bits that were in it at one point."

I've actually heard law scholars discussing how gay marriage and gay families used to be recognized -- for example, back in the day when there was a tax on single men (to encourage marriage, I believe) a gay couple came before the judge and said, "we're not two single men. We're a family," and the judge said, "okay, you're a family." I'm certainly not against gay marriage; I'm definitely not against gay people; I just want to see a more thorough explanation of the context of verses that talk about sexual morality as including homosexual acts before I say that the church can endorse homosexuality.

No, what he was trying to do wasn't say Christianity is Nazism; he was trying to say that Christianity is like Nazism in that we fanatically follow the teachings of a leader. Which, again, could be said of thousands of groups.


Actually the G-d thing is different. What my Jewish friends have told me is that they don't spell his full name in English out of respect, although that is now a mainly orthodox thing. The Hebrew writing of God is Y-H-W-H, which most people read as "Yahweh" although that could be debated. To be honest though, I think the only real reason the church can endorse homosexuality is because there is a historical precedent for it. Otherwise, there's no reason they should, other than the obvious moral ones.

And now I see what he meant about Nazism. Well, I think that it is acceptable to "follow the teachings of a leader" so long as you can keep morals and others' rights/opinions in mind. So it's sort of like following Martin Luther King vs following Hitler in a sense. I have a lot of Catholic friends who say that they would condone gay marriage if not for the pope/Bible/whatever. My opinion is you can believe whatever you want but that doesn't mean that you should intrude on others' rights. Sorry if this is sort of unclear, I'm a horrible writer.

[CharlieFinley]

Actually the G-d thing is different. What my Jewish friends have told me is that they don't spell his full name in English out of respect, although that is now a mainly orthodox thing. The Hebrew writing of God is Y-H-W-H, which most people read as "Yahweh" although that could be debated. To be honest though, I think the only real reason the church can endorse homosexuality is because there is a historical precedent for it. Otherwise, there's no reason they should, other than the obvious moral ones.

And now I see what he meant about Nazism. Well, I think that it is acceptable to "follow the teachings of a leader" so long as you can keep morals and others' rights/opinions in mind. So it's sort of like following Martin Luther King vs following Hitler in a sense. I have a lot of Catholic friends who say that they would condone gay marriage if not for the pope/Bible/whatever. My opinion is you can believe whatever you want but that doesn't mean that you should intrude on others' rights. Sorry if this is sort of unclear, I'm a horrible writer.

No, I get what you're saying, but I disagree about the Martin Luther King vs. Hitler bit. The entire idea behind Jesus' authority is that he is God incarnate -- morals don't enter into it. It is impossible to actually be a devout Christian while not believing that Jesus was God incarnate, and, believing that he is God incarnate, I don't see how anyone could in good faith justify deviating from His commands. This is not like following an earthly leader, whose authority comes from his actions.

[Swagamemmnon]

No, I get what you're saying, but I disagree about the Martin Luther King vs. Hitler bit. The entire idea behind Jesus' authority is that he is God incarnate -- morals don't enter into it. It is impossible to actually be a devout Christian while not believing that Jesus was God incarnate, and, believing that he is God incarnate, I don't see how anyone could in good faith justify deviating from His commands. This is not like following an earthly leader, whose authority comes from his actions.

I see what you mean. Religion is pretty tricky like that, I suppose. I don't think Catholics could ever agree with homosexuality, then, at least so long as the Vatican maintains that view.

[Harry Smith]

Chuck you were opposed to Gay marriage, I've given honest debate on the subject by using examples of how I think that the church needs to modernize. I disagree with your views on religion just how you disagree with mine. Calling me incompetent dosen't really help your argument. I admit that the Nazi comparison was a weak point I was just trying to allude to the fact that you don't have be so rigid about God. I still can't understand why you are opposed to gay's marrying?

[CharlieFinley]

I see what you mean. Religion is pretty tricky like that, I suppose. I don't think Catholics could ever agree with homosexuality, then, at least so long as the Vatican maintains that view.
Meh. I think I phrased my religious position a bit strongly -- I'm not convinced it's compatible with Christianity, but neither am I convinced it's incompatible. The translations of those passages are a bit odd in context.

Chuck you were opposed to Gay marriage, I've given honest debate on the subject by using examples of how I think that the church needs to modernize. No, you haven't. You've posted examples of why you don't like the church. You haven't given any reason that should place an obligation on the church to modernize. I disagree with your views on religion just how you disagree with mine. That's certainly true. Calling me incompetent dosen't really help your argument. I would think it only doesn't enhance my argument in the sense that it's obvious, just as one would not begin an informal proof with x=x. I admit that the Nazi comparison was a weak point Was there a point to it, or was there not? There is not a middle ground here. I was just trying to allude to the fact that you don't have be so rigid about God. In what way did comparing Christianity to Nazism serve that purpose? I still can't understand why you are opposed to gay's marrying?
The reason I'm reluctant to endorse gay marriage is that there's a passage in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that explicitly condemns homosexual sex as being immoral. However, I have heard convincing arguments from others that this was referring to homosexual sex as practiced in idolatrous rituals, rather than homosexual sex in the context of a homosexual relationship. However, this brings up the counterargument that homosexual relationships weren't even a thing back then, so of course they wouldn't be mentioned.

It's just not something I feel qualified to determine.

[Harry Smith]

The reason I'm reluctant to endorse gay marriage is that there's a passage in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that explicitly condemns homosexual sex as being immoral. However, I have heard convincing arguments from others that this was referring to homosexual sex as practiced in idolatrous rituals, rather than homosexual sex in the context of a homosexual relationship. However, this brings up the counterargument that homosexual relationships weren't even a thing back then, so of course they wouldn't be mentioned.

It's just not something I feel qualified to determine.

I gave examples of the church needing to modernize.
1) Female bishops not allowed.
2) Certain sections trying to actively disprove evolution.
3) Opposition to Homosexuality
I would like to make you aware that we live in a secular state. The church has no right to influence civil laws. Also you quote the bible above, so your saying you don't approve of me loving another man because a book written 2000 years ago says its immoral. The bible is a terrible historical source. Also extracts where used by the Dutch reform church to endorse Apartheid in south Africa

[CharlieFinley]

I gave examples of the church needing to modernize.
1) Female bishops not allowed. That's something you don't like. How does that mean the church needs to modernize?

2) Certain sections trying to actively disprove evolution. Only in the US, pretty much. As Gould's Rocks of Ages points out, there's really no conflict between theism and evolution, and religious groups, predominately Christians, around the world recognize this.

3) Opposition to Homosexuality That's something you don't like. How does that mean the church needs to modernize? If I were a polygamist, I could just as easily say the church's opposition to polygamy means it needs to modernize. If I were a fornicator, I could say that the church's opposition to fornication means it needs to modernize. You have yet to demonstrate that the church should be obligated to "modernize" just because it does things you don't like. The church is not a fancy social group -- its obligation to "stay with the times" is outweighed by its obligation to remain true to the commandments of Jesus.

I would like to make you aware that we live in a secular state.
Did I say we didn't?
The church has no right to influence civil laws. Did I say it did? Also you quote the bible above How perceptive of you., so your saying you don't approve of me loving another man Did I say that? I have no problem with homosexual relationships, and on a personal level I don't even have a problem with homosexual intercourse.
because a book written 2000 years ago says its immoral. You're really not understanding how this whole "religion" thing works, aren't you?
The bible is a terrible historical source.
[citation needed]

I did you the courtesy of providing beginner-level sources for my information; provide a scholarly credible source for yours. I suppose it would be too much to assume that you've even looked at my sources, wouldn't it?

Also extracts where used by the Dutch reform church to endorse Apartheid in south Africa
In what way is that relevant? The Theory of Evolution was used by the Nazis to justify their eugenics program. Does that have any bearing, whatsoever, on the truth or falsity of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

You just keep making shitty comparisons.

[Harry Smith]

The church does need to modernize, the reason is because every other aspect of life has allowled women to have a greater role in society. I ask you this... Why doesn't the church allow female bishops? Every other workplace has let women hold equal rank and office. Example of the church needing to modernize. Women have a right to be bishops, the only difference is that they don't have anything between there legs, how is that at all relevant to there skills as bishop?

In History you look at the POC, just because you provide a source dosen't mean that it is a reliable one. And yes I did look at your sources, however I'm not great with sources at all in History especially one's which are thousands of years old due to the fact that it is hard to not only see them but to analyse them in great depth

The thing about religion is that no-one has been able to prove that the bible is even related to god. Someone said that god told them it in a dream and then they published it a dream. I agree with you that Jesus of Nazareth was alive and real however he was at best a philosopher. He didn't rise from the dead, not after 2 days. The amount of blood loss obtained from the not only the nails but the spear wound followed by being announced dead two days earlier.

Your argument hinges on the fact that the church is able to hold Homophobic and sexist views purely because they have been holding them for the last 2000 years

[CharlieFinley]

The church does need to modernize, the reason is because every other aspect of life has allowled women to have a greater role in society. I ask you this... Why doesn't the church allow female bishops? Every other workplace has let women hold equal rank and office. Example of the church needing to modernize. Women have a right to be bishops, the only difference is that they don't have anything between there legs, how is that at all relevant to there skills as bishop? You're literally just saying "this thing that is modern is something the church isn't doing; therefore, the church needs to modernize," only with shittier grammar and spelling. How about you actually make an argument, rather than just pointing out things that the church doesn't do that are modern?

In History you look at the POC, just because you provide a source dosen't mean that it is a reliable one. And yes I did look at your sources, however I'm not great with sources at all in History especially one's which are thousands of years old due to the fact that it is hard to not only see them but to analyse them in great depth A Case for Christ is fifteen years old. There is a God is less than ten. You don't get to just blindly assert that my sources are bad without actually providing some reasoned arguments or sources of your own. That's not how logic works.

The thing about religion is that no-one has been able to prove that the bible is even related to god. Someone said that god told them it in a dream and then they published it a dream. I agree with you that Jesus of Nazareth was alive and real however he was at best a philosopher. He didn't rise from the dead, not after 2 days. You're a moron; really, you are. The gospels are transcriptions of eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life. The other books of the New Testament are letters between believers. The only time a dream even entered into it was Revelations. The amount of blood loss obtained from the not only the nails but the spear wound followed by being announced dead two days earlier. You have a predicate here, but no subject. What are you even trying to say?

Your argument hinges on the fact that the church is able to hold Homophobic and sexist views purely because they have been holding them for the last 2000 years

Actually, my argument here is that the church's need to modernize is second to its purpose of remaining true to the teachings of Jesus, because, and I'll say this again because you seem to have serious problems with comprehending normal language, THE CHURCH IS NOT A SOCIAL CLUB. It is based on sincere beliefs, and if those beliefs happen to disagree with whatever is contemporary -- too bad.

Now how about you stop skimming over my points that you don't like and address all of them? For example:

Also extracts where used by the Dutch reform church to endorse Apartheid in south Africa
In what way is that relevant? The Theory of Evolution was used by the Nazis to justify their eugenics program. Does that have any bearing, whatsoever, on the truth or falsity of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

You just keep making shitty comparisons.

3) Opposition to Homosexuality
That's something you don't like. How does that mean the church needs to modernize? If I were a polygamist, I could just as easily say the church's opposition to polygamy means it needs to modernize. If I were a fornicator, I could say that the church's opposition to fornication means it needs to modernize.

[Harry Smith]

Firstly I have dyslexia so spelling is an issue for me, however I try to make my posts easy to read and understand.

1)My argument is that the Church should not be sexist. Women are just as capable as men. If they follow the teachings of God then they should be able to teach them as a Bishop. Men and Women have equal rights.
2) I didn't referrer to the books because I haven't read them so In turn I haven't had a chance to see if they are reliable or accurate.
3) I was referring to the old testament there, I admit I need to improve my wider Biblical knowledge. Also I ask you CAN YOU PROVE TO ME that Jesus rose from his tomb with factual and water tight evidence. And in regards to the injuries I was purely saying how with the injuries sustained by Jesus it would be impossible for him to of survived or even came back to life after those wounds.
4) I understand that the church is not a social club, I understand that it had a very proud tradition which has helped a lot of people. A group of Baptists in my area are making amazing progressive in regards to there views on gay marriage and female bishops. Under British employment law of 1974 it is illegal to indiscriminate based on gender, age or homosexuality.
5) I was purely mentioning that there are extracts of the old testament which actively support slavery- 'Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them" Titus 2:9. Do people still follow this passage word to word?
6) Thats like saying to the American Civil rights movement you only care about civil rights because it affects you. Of course I care if the church are stopping me marry the person I love. Homosexuality is accepted and now after article 48 being repelled actively endorsed with Education, Polygamy is not. Bad example.
And please cease with the personal attacks, I respect your passion but calling me an idiot really doesn't help, I've tried to remain respectful please do the same

[Swagamemmnon]

Firstly I have dyslexia so spelling is an issue for me, however I try to make my posts easy to read and understand.

1)My argument is that the Church should not be sexist. Women are just as capable as men. If they follow the teachings of God then they should be able to teach them as a Bishop. Men and Women have equal rights.
2) I didn't referrer to the books because I haven't read them so In turn I haven't had a chance to see if they are reliable or accurate.
3) I was referring to the old testament there, I admit I need to improve my wider Biblical knowledge. Also I ask you CAN YOU PROVE TO ME that Jesus rose from his tomb with factual and water tight evidence. And in regards to the injuries I was purely saying how with the injuries sustained by Jesus it would be impossible for him to of survived or even came back to life after those wounds.
4) I understand that the church is not a social club, I understand that it had a very proud tradition which has helped a lot of people. A group of Baptists in my area are making amazing progressive in regards to there views on gay marriage and female bishops. Under British employment law of 1974 it is illegal to indiscriminate based on gender, age or homosexuality.
5) I was purely mentioning that there are extracts of the old testament which actively support slavery- 'Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them" Titus 2:9. Do people still follow this passage word to word?
6) Thats like saying to the American Civil rights movement you only care about civil rights because it affects you. Of course I care if the church are stopping me marry the person I love. Homosexuality is accepted and now after article 48 being repelled actively endorsed with Education, Polygamy is not. Bad example.
And please cease with the personal attacks, I respect your passion but calling me an idiot really doesn't help, I've tried to remain respectful please do the same

Well just because the Church shouldn't do something doesn't mean it won't. It's like asking Catholics not to hold Communion, to which they would disagree because it's tradition. If you want to change that interpretation, there's always Protestantism.

[Harry Smith]

Well just because the Church shouldn't do something doesn't mean it won't. It's like asking Catholics not to hold Communion, to which they would disagree because it's tradition. If you want to change that interpretation, there's always Protestantism.

We can still live in hope, just because a corrupt system refuses to change dosen't mean that we shouldn't try and fight it

[Swagamemmnon]

We can still live in hope, just because a corrupt system refuses to change dosen't mean that we shouldn't try and fight it

We can, but they have no reason to. I could pray that Oprah will fly to my house and give my 1 million dollars, but seeing as she has no reason to, she probably won't.

[Harry Smith]

We can, but they have no reason to. I could pray that Oprah will fly to my house and give my 1 million dollars, but seeing as she has no reason to, she probably won't.

I'm talking about trying to make an active political change within my society, your talking about Oprah and Money. Not a very wise example.

The British Government have introduced Gay marriage, article 48 has been repelled. The laws in this country recognize homosexuals and there marriages why can't all branches of religion?

[Swagamemmnon]

I'm talking about trying to make an active political change within my society, your talking about Oprah and Money. Not a very wise example.

The British Government have introduced Gay marriage, article 48 has been repelled. The laws in this country recognize homosexuals and there marriages why can't all branches of religion?

Well as you mentioned there is a separation of church and state. In a state, if the members don't like it the state changes. In a religion, if the members don't like it, then they scram. The last attempt to change Catholicism ended in Lutheranism/Calvinism/Eastern Orthodoxy, while Catholicism itself did whatever it damn pleased.

[Harry Smith]

Do you Personally support Gay Marriage?

[Swagamemmnon]

Do you Personally support Gay Marriage?

Yeah I'm gay of course I want to get married.

[Apollo.]

You're literally just saying "this thing that is modern is something the church isn't doing; therefore, the church needs to modernize," only with shittier grammar and spelling. How about you actually make an argument, rather than just pointing out things that the church doesn't do that are modern?
A Case for Christ is fifteen years old. There is a God is less than ten. You don't get to just blindly assert that my sources are bad without actually providing some reasoned arguments or sources of your own. That's not how logic works.
You're a moron; really, you are. The gospels are transcriptions of eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life. The other books of the New Testament are letters between believers. The only time a dream even entered into it was Revelations. You have a predicate here, but no subject. What are you even trying to say?


Actually, my argument here is that the church's need to modernize is second to its purpose of remaining true to the teachings of Jesus, because, and I'll say this again because you seem to have serious problems with comprehending normal language, THE CHURCH IS NOT A SOCIAL CLUB. It is based on sincere beliefs, and if those beliefs happen to disagree with whatever is contemporary -- too bad.



I totally disagree with nearly everything you have said. The fact that you try to sound intelligent makes me laugh, believing in the magic man in the sky is laughable also the fact you resort to libel and name calling is ridiculous and is making you look like an angry little boy but I suppose thats just what you are. Calling Harry a moron is totally unnaceptable, commenting on grammar is petty and just unnescessary it's an online forum for teens NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT GRAMMAR!

Marriage isn't something totally controlled by the Catholic church so why should they stop me marrying my boyfriend? The Catholic church should probably be keeping quiet these days after all the kids they raped anyway. I don't care if the church refuses to modernize as long as they don't interfere with my life which they are doing by opposing gay marriage. Why should an organisation like the church have any say in what I do with my life?

Your point of the church not being a social club shocked me though, I thought it was a club that gathered on sundays to rape choir boys and discriminate against homosexuals?

I really see no point in debating with you, so I'm going to leave you a few words and questions for you to answer that may help you out in life. Are you a pompous little twat all the time or only to people online? I can tell you now that with your attitude you won't go far in life nobody likes a jumped up little scrotum. If you speak to people in real life like you have spoken to Harry you are likely to end up with a sore face. You are a silly little boy trying to act like the big dick on an online forum, grow up, get a life and stop trying to put others down!!

[CharlieFinley]

Firstly I have dyslexia so spelling is an issue for me, however I try to make my posts easy to read and understand. I understand, and I apologize for being insensitive.
1)My argument is that the Church should not be sexist. Women are just as capable as men. If they follow the teachings of God then they should be able to teach them as a Bishop. Men and Women have equal rights. What you don't seem to be understanding is that Christianity is not merely moralism. It is predicated on a sincere belief that God gave us certain commandments, that He was incarnate, and so on, and so forth. "I don't see any reason we shouldn't do x" is not a sufficient reason to do x if He forbade us to do x.
2) I didn't referrer to the books because I haven't read them so In turn I haven't had a chance to see if they are reliable or accurate. And your reason for not presenting sources of your own was...?
3) I was referring to the old testament there, I admit I need to improve my wider Biblical knowledge. Also I ask you CAN YOU PROVE TO ME that Jesus rose from his tomb with factual and water tight evidence. Of course not. That would violate the principle of non-coercive evidence, which roughly means that God cannot reveal himself in a way that proves beyond all doubt that He exists while still preserving the ability of a rational man to freely choose whether or not to follow Him. And in regards to the injuries I was purely saying how with the injuries sustained by Jesus it would be impossible for him to of survived or even came back to life after those wounds. So you'd accept that he was magically resurrected, if not for the severity of his wounds? :confused:
4) I understand that the church is not a social club, I understand that it had a very proud tradition which has helped a lot of people. A group of Baptists in my area are making amazing progressive in regards to there views on gay marriage and female bishops. Under British employment law of 1974 it is illegal to indiscriminate based on gender, age or homosexuality. I don't see what that has to do with anything at all.

5) I was purely mentioning that there are extracts of the old testament which actively support slavery- 'Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them" Titus 2:9. Do people still follow this passage word to word? I don't think so, because I'm pretty sure slavery has been eradicated in the Christian world. Slavery was tempered by the Biblical commands regarding slavery to the point where it truly was nothing more than a firm but gentle sort of indentured servitude.
6) Thats like saying to the American Civil rights movement you only care about civil rights because it affects you. Of course I care if the church are stopping me marry the person I love. Homosexuality is accepted and now after article 48 being repelled actively endorsed with Education, Polygamy is not. Bad example.So your only difference between the two is that polygamy is not currently accepted? Just like interracial marriages weren't even legal 100 years ago? Just like fornication was illegal 100 years ago? Come on. My point was that popular acceptance of a thing does not obligate the church to accept it.
And please cease with the personal attacks, I respect your passion but calling me an idiot really doesn't help, I've tried to remain respectful please do the same
You're right. I apologize.

[Swagamemmnon]

Marriage isn't something totally controlled by the Catholic church so why should they stop me marrying my boyfriend? The Catholic church should probably be keeping quiet these days after all the kids they raped anyway. I don't care if the church refuses to modernize as long as they don't interfere with my life which they are doing by opposing gay marriage. Why should an organisation like the church have any say in what I do with my life?

I agree that the church shouldn't have a say in daily life. But there isn't much you can do about it. I mean you could change the members' opinions, but then they wouldn't technically be Catholics anymore. My solution is to just move to Canada, although I'm also just a quitter like that.

[CharlieFinley]

I totally disagree with nearly everything you have said. The fact that you try to sound intelligent makes me laugh, believing in the magic man in the sky is laughable also the fact you resort to libel and name calling is ridiculous You are correct, and for that I apologize. and is making you look like an angry little boy but I suppose thats just what you are. Calling Harry a moron is totally unnaceptable, commenting on grammar is petty and just unnescessary it's an online forum for teens NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT GRAMMAR! You are incorrect. I care about grammar. In fact, you will find that most reasonable people care about grammar. The amazing thing about evolution, both of concepts and of organisms, is that you don't normally acquire useless structures. If grammar was useless, we would not have grammar. Incorrect argument your useless and is petty.

Marriage isn't something totally controlled by the Catholic church so why should they stop me marrying my boyfriend? If you can point out where I said that gays shouldn't be able to marry, I'll paypal you fifteen dollars. The Catholic church should probably be keeping quiet these days after all the kids they raped anyway. Ad hominem. :rolleyes: I don't care if the church refuses to modernize as long as they don't interfere with my life which they are doing by opposing gay marriage. Why should an organisation like the church have any say in what I do with my life? Did I say they should?

Your point of the church not being a social club shocked me though, I thought it was a club that gathered on sundays to rape choir boys and discriminate against homosexuals? And you accused me of poor debating etiquette.

I really see no point in debating with you, so I'm going to leave you a few words and questions for you to answer that may help you out in life. Are you a pompous little twat all the time or only to people online? Have you stopped beating your boyfriend?

See? I can do misleading questions, too. I can tell you now that with your attitude you won't go far in life nobody likes a jumped up little scrotum. Truly, you have elevated the level of discourse far beyond my ability to comprehend. If you speak to people in real life like you have spoken to Harry you are likely to end up with a sore face. It's a good thing I keep the debating where it belongs, then. You are a silly little boy trying to act like the big dick on an online forum, grow up, get a life and stop trying to put others down!!"Stop trying to put others down," says the man who just said that "[the church is] a club that gathered on sundays to rape choir boys and discriminate against homosexuals." Oh, wait. I guess it's only okay to do that if you disagree with them.

[Apollo.]

You are correct, and for that I apologize. You are incorrect. I care about grammar. In fact, you will find that most reasonable people care about grammar. The amazing thing about evolution, both of concepts and of organisms, is that you don't normally acquire useless structures. If grammar was useless, we would not have grammar. Incorrect argument your useless and is petty.
If you can point out where I said that gays shouldn't be able to marry, I'll paypal you fifteen dollars. Ad hominem. :rolleyes: Did I say they should?
And you accused me of poor debating etiquette.
Have you stopped beating your boyfriend?

See? I can do misleading questions, too. Truly, you have elevated the level of discourse far beyond my ability to comprehend. It's a good thing I keep the debating where it belongs, then. "Stop trying to put others down," says the man who just said that "[the church is] a club that gathered on sundays to rape choir boys and discriminate against homosexuals." Oh, wait. I guess it's only okay to do that if you disagree with them.

It's nothing personal I just hate seeing someone attempt to belittle another member. I am going to reply to you properly in the morning due to the fact I'm far to tired and rather irate tonight.

[Sugaree]

A good point was brought up about the modernization of the Catholic Church when it comes to gay marriage. My answer is a question: who really feels the need to give a damn what an organized religion thinks and why do they think another power has the right to come in and tell them otherwise?

I mean, really, why do every single one of you people on this damn forum subject yourself to this debate? It's simple, sometimes dudes love dudes and sometimes broads love broads. Sometimes they marry. Who cares!? This is a pointless debate to have, but I sure as hell know it'll be on this forum until the day I die. The Church is not going to care either way things go. If gay unions are recognized, the Church won't give a damn. Why force them into it?

That's the problem, this forum shows overwhelming support of forcing parishes to conform to a social standard. Religions shouldn't be forced into doing what the majority wants, be it socially acceptable or unacceptable. These churches have rights too, and by forcing them to marry gay couples is taking away their rights of religious freedom because it impedes on that particular belief. If they don't want to marry a gay couple or even recognize gay unions, fucking LET THEM.

On another note, there's also support on this forum for the government to be involved in marriage. Why the hell are there so many statist-like arguments about this on here? Nearly all of you call yourselves progressive liberals, and you're neither of those things if you want government involvement in an area that it has no interest in. What does the government have to gain from getting involved in marriage? Marriage has been religious tradition for centuries, you just can't change it by putting it through Congress. The government should recognize, grant the same rights as, and offer the opportunity for unionship between gay couples and straight couples, whether they went through the marriage process or went to a justice of the peace for a civil union. But it shouldn't put its hand in a religious process. That's wrong and a huge infringement on the liberties of the churches in this country.

[Harry Smith]

1)So your going to govern your own life not based on morals but what the man in the sky told you to do about 6000 years ago. Did you know according to the Bible you shouldn't wear clothes made of more than one fabric-Leviticus 19:19. Do you follow that law because your divine lord said it?
2)That seems rather convenient doesn't it? You have no direct evidence that can prove to me that the man in sky doesn't want gay marriages or that he even exists. My argument is that you have never seen, heard, or even had any scientific evidence about God. So why base your life's teaching on something as realistic as fairies
3)No I wouldn't, I was saying it was medically impossible. A man cannot rise from the dead, it's physically impossible.
4)Gay marriage isn't only popularly accepted, but soon it will be accepted under British Law.

[JustAnotherGay]

As a Gay teenager and also a Christian, I believe that Homosexuals should be allowed to marry, providing that the religious institution carrying out the marriage is okay with same-sex marriages. This is a big debate in Scotland at the moment, where i'm from, about if it should be allowed. Although, there is a lot of opposition to it, with my church (being Church of Scotland) being one of the main opposer's. I actually received an email from them yesterday asking me to sign a petition against same-sex marriage. I am sad that this is the stand that they have taken on this issue, when so many other issues in the bible have been "swept under the carpet".
At the end of the day, who is the church to stop two people who love each other and wish to spend the rest of their life together from getting married. I can only hope that our Government pushes though with this law, and it becomes legal, so that at least gay couples have made a start in the long journey of achieving Equality regardless of Sexual Orientation.

[nfs4394]

I still don't see why this is even an issue. I'm Catholic and yes, it's against my religion, but I could care less. It has absolutely no effect on me, or anyone else for that matter, when two people get married. Their sexuality and their relationship has zero impact on other people

[drew6]

i'm not against it. it's a legal thing imo. not sure what the USA is doing makes sense though because it's legal in New York, but illegal where in Georgia where I live. Wonder what happens to a gay couple who got married in NY for example and then they move to a state where gay marriage isn't legal. It's time to have a national policy or we're going to have a mess on our hands.

[xmojox]

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-144-12-307_merits-reversal-dpm.authcheckdam.pdf

Amicus Curiae for the upcoming Windsor Supreme Court case.
Page 14, "sexuality is not an immutable characteristic."

See also the Conclusion.

This Amicus Curiae explains very well why it is necessary that a quality be considered immutable to be deserving of 14th amendment protection. So, no. Copy-pasting the Constitution doesn't suffice for complicated legal issues.


Apologies for having taken so long to respond. I've been mad busy.

First, let us define amicus curiae for those who aren't familiar with the term. Amicus curiae is latin, and it means, literally, friend of the court. An amicus curiae is a person who is either requested by, or, petitions the court to be allowed to, provide an opinion in an upcoming case.

We must bear in mind that the opinion of an amicus curiae is just that: an opinion. It has no legal weight. It is proof of nothing. It is an opinion.

Dr. McHugh (this particular acicus curiae) seems to be of the opinion that sexual orientation doesn't even exist. How ridiculous is that? If sexual orientation didn't exist, there would obviously be no need for this discussion at all.

As to whether or not sexual orientation constitutes a class, I would humbly refer you to the Matthew Shepard Act that was signed into law by President Obama in October of 2009, which makes it a hate crime under Federal Statute to cause or attempt to cause bodily injury to any person because of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as the more obvious, and previously protected, things such as race, religion, national origin, et. al. .

So, Dr. McHugh's arguments against sexual orientation constituting a protected class is a moot point at best because it already is under federal law.

As to my copy/pasting the Constitution, I thought the language was fairly simple and cut through the arguments in this complicated legal issue. The rights of some must be extended to all.

Please understand, Mr. Finley that I am not attacking your beliefs as they are your own and you are certainly entitled to live your life by them. However, simply because they are your beliefs, does not in any way mean that I, or anyone else, should do the same. In the United States we have a separation of church and state, and it is counter to that separation to base legislation upon anyone's religious beliefs. Those are between the individual and whatever power the individual venerates and have no place in what is or is not legal in this country.

[Horatio Nelson]

This subject makes me so mad. Especially when ignorant people think they "understand" the bible. Leviticus 20:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." So we understand that and it applies in a "vice-versa" situation. Now someone was saying the bible bans other things (I did not read all of the posts) but I would like to see what else the bible "bans". Just incase.... Romans 8:2 says "2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

[Caver]

It's up to the individuals; no one else can judge unless you are in a gay relationship or marriage.

[randomnessqueen]

i understand why many folks disagree with gay marriage, since its usually religious, in which case, im totally ok with.
however there is no possible justification for hating on gay marriage

[Harry Smith]

i understand why many folks disagree with gay marriage, since its usually religious, in which case, im totally ok with.
however there is no possible justification for hating on gay marriage

So you're okay with people disagreeing with Gay marriage but you don't like people hating on gay marriage? Thats two conflicting views and makes absolutely no sense

[Prodigy17]

Seems to make perfect sense. It's fine to be against gay marriage but not fine to go around protesting about it, attacking people who are in favour of it etc?

[Harry Smith]

Seems to make perfect sense. It's fine to be against gay marriage but not fine to go around protesting about it, attacking people who are in favour of it etc?

Give it a rest Justin, I can practically feel you breathing down my neck

[Sugaree]

So you're okay with people disagreeing with Gay marriage but you don't like people hating on gay marriage? Thats two conflicting views and makes absolutely no sense

Actually, it makes perfect sense. Recognizing that someone disagrees with your opinion and not feeling offended or otherwise inflamed by that opinion is a good step in this debate. However, respecting an opinion you disagree with and seeing outright hatred being thrown about are two different things. No one should say they respect someone being deliberately hateful to someone else. It's fine to disagree on opinions, but it is NOT fine to turn a blind eye to hate.

[Harry Smith]

I admit that was an error on my behalf I just feel it's unfair that say for example where I live there is a Methodist church who are very pro gay rights and pro marriage but there are unable to act on it due to the higher up powers in there religion. I reckon just like most liberal leaning acts in britain over time it will broaden, I mean look homosexuality made legal in 1968, Then age of consent was lowered to 16 regardless of sexual orientation since 2001. Discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity is illegal in all areas and the Armed Forces allows . The Gender Recognition Act also gave transgender people the right to change their legal gender in 2004. Same-sex couples have had the right to adopt since 2002, article 28 was also repelled and to enter into civil partnerships, a parallel legal structure to marriage, since 2005. I know that most aspects of church strongly oppose gay marriage but I see it as a fight that over time they are going to lose

[Prodigy17]

Give it a rest Justin, I can practically feel you breathing down my neck

You might be a bit too sensitive for this internet thing Harry. All that happened is you said something silly I corrected it - end of story.

Seriously though, are you going to go running to your mummy to ask for a thread to be closed every time I disagree with you?

[Harry Smith]

You might be a bit too sensitive for this internet thing Harry. All that happened is you said something silly I corrected it - end of story.

Seriously though, are you going to go running to your mummy to ask for a thread to be closed every time I disagree with you?

I have never asked for a thread to be closed. I was merely pointing out the fact that you seem to have this inherent need to argue about nearly every single post I make, sure I'm fine for open debate and I respect your right to I'm just fucking sick of the personal jabs you seem to make on every single on of my posts. I was tired last night and merely couldn't be bothered to enter another argument with you. The end.

[Prodigy17]

I have never asked for a thread to be closed.

So who did ask for the Marx thread to be closed and why? I assumed it was you - I think we should be told :)

Seriously mate the personal jabs are in your head - if I wanted to make a jab against you (no reason to as yet) it would be very direct. If anything I've tried to be polite to you because you're obviously a very sensitive guy.

[Harry Smith]

I didn't ask for the Marx thread to closed, ask the moderator. I was getting into the full swing of the debate, I had my Tony Blair book out ready to quote him of the ideas of Keynes along with about 5 tabs about Stalin and lenin. I didn't close that thread

[Prodigy17]

OK, I'll message him and ask. You can probably understand why I would suspect your good self of asking for it's closure.

If you're looking at UK and Keynesian best look at Gordon Brown rather than Blair - obviously as chancellor responsibility for economic policy was his.

I'm not a Labour supporter by any means so not approving of Browns policies just pointing out after the financial crisis they were Keynesian, Brown himself acknowledged this at the time. To be fair to Brown he was not in power long enough for his polciies to bear fruit so he may have been right but we'll never know.

[Prodigy17]

I know that most aspects of church strongly oppose gay marriage but I see it as a fight that over time they are going to lose

Why do you see it as a fight with a winner and a loser?

The problem is with gays they always ask for tolerance from non gays but show absolutely zero tolerance toward anyone who disagrees with their views. Gay thinking goes like this - I'm gay - therefore I'm right - if you don't like it you're wrong.

I'm not religious or gay so have no dog in this fight but do you accept the right of the church (or anyone else) to oppose gay marriage and have their views respected?

[Apollo.]

Why do you see it as a fight with a winner and a loser?

The problem is with gays they always ask for tolerance from non gays but show absolutely zero tolerance toward anyone who disagrees with their views. Gay thinking goes like this - I'm gay - therefore I'm right - if you don't like it you're wrong.

I'm not religious or gay so have no dog in this fight but do you accept the right of the church (or anyone else) to oppose gay marriage and have their views respected?

Why do you categorise all homosexual people as the same? "Gays always ask for tolerance" of fucking course, would you like me to say to you "your straight I believe you should not be able to marry a woman and your love for her is going to make you burn for an eternity" how would you feel about that?

Your not gay so how do you know gay thinking? Your argument would also mean it is unacceptable to disagree with the KKK! If people have views that discriminate against another group of people for an attribute they can not change it is not to be respected but discouraged.

I am ok with the church not SUPPORTING gay marriage it is when people use the church to preach hate on gay people that I have a problem. Also marriage isn't something controlled by the church so I dislike when they have a say in politics and telling people who can marry. I have no desire to marry in a church whatsoever I'd rather cut my left ball off and eat it than listen to some god botherer ramble away when I'm marrying my boy.
I find the way you put all gay people in one group and think you can read their minds quite offensive.

[Harry Smith]

Why do you see it as a fight with a winner and a loser?

The problem is with gays they always ask for tolerance from non gays but show absolutely zero tolerance toward anyone who disagrees with their views. Gay thinking goes like this - I'm gay - therefore I'm right - if you don't like it you're wrong.

I'm not religious or gay so have no dog in this fight but do you accept the right of the church (or anyone else) to oppose gay marriage and have their views respected?

I accept that they have a universal human right to oppose gay marriage but I believe that there argument not only lacks foundation but that there tactics to oppose gay marriage in Britain where at the best dirty and underhanded.

Also I'm personally not very militant when it comes to homosexuality on a personal level. I'm fine for people not to be 100% comfortable with, I only become militant when a whole organisation not only slanders it but invented 101 lies to cover that.

Also don't make such sweeping statemented about all homosexuals, we do not all share the same viewpoint about social issues. There is no such thing as gay thinking...

[baseballfan]

Not against it as long as they keep to themselves

[Prodigy17]

Why do you categorise all homosexual people as the same?

I'm sure they're not the same - but I can only judge those homosexuals who make their views known.

I've never heard a homsexual say (for example) he'd like to be married but he respects the right of others to oppose that view.

[Harry Smith]

I'm sure they're not the same - but I can only judge those homosexuals who make their views known.

I've never heard a homsexual say (for example) he'd like to be married but he respects the right of others to oppose that view.

Your trying to condone yourself tarnishing all homosexuals with the same brush. We are not all militants, we do not need to be judged as you mentioned above I know personally that I want to be able to marry the person who I love. Thats all that should matter, as my good friend Apollo mentioned I would never want to get married in a church, but for some gay people the church is a big part of there life. A lot of homosexuals are open,friendly and respectful. We've been through our battles for the last 40 years, we respect the views of other but we are going to fight for our rights just like many other before us have. We are all Equal

[Apollo.]

I'm sure they're not the same - but I can only judge those homosexuals who make their views known.

I've never heard a homsexual say (for example) he'd like to be married but he respects the right of others to oppose that view.

I am ok with the church not SUPPORTING gay marriage

Did you read my post? My point is would you be ok for me to scream and shout about hetero marriage? Telling you it's a sin and your going to be raped by the fiery dick of Satan while ypu spend an eternity burning in hell for marrying the person you love? Don't support it but dont preach hate is my point, if you don't like it then stay the fuck out of it!!

[Prodigy17]

I am ok with the church not SUPPORTING gay marriage

Did you read my post? My point is would you be ok for me to scream and shout about hetero marriage? Telling you it's a sin and your going to be raped by the fiery dick of Satan while ypu spend an eternity burning in hell for marrying the person you love? Don't support it but dont preach hate is my point, if you don't like it then stay the fuck out of it!!

Yes I read your post. As you may know hetero marriage has been accepted for over 2000 years so if you opposed it you'd just look like an idiot.

Do you think anyone who opposes gay marriage should shut up?

[Prodigy17]

Your trying to condone yourself tarnishing all homosexuals with the same brush. We are not all militantsl

I'm sure you're not.

Are you able to accept that the only way a non-gay person can judge gays is by listening to their views - by definition the only views heard would be militant ones?

[Apollo.]

Yes I read your post. As you may know hetero marriage has been accepted for over 2000 years so if you opposed it you'd just look like an idiot.

Do you think anyone who opposes gay marriage should shut up?

Well there should be no difference I cannot choose to be gay or straight, so why should I be persecuted just because I love a man and not a woman? What's the difference? Why does the pope and his fancy fucking hat and glorified paedophilia ring have any right to tell me who I can marry? Or anyone else for that matter?

Gay people have been persecuted for to long so people are still of a mindset that they should not have to change, the same as the majority of the south thought they had every right to have black slaves and be racist just because is accepted for so long. As for your point that hetero marriage has been accepted for so I would be an idiot to disagree that is totally voiding your argument, you say everyone should he able to say what they think?

Yes I do think everyone against gay marriage should fuck off, shut up and keep it to themselves, just because everyone has been against it for so long it does not make it acceptable to discriminate, having said that I understand the catholic church has been the same way for years and dont expect overnight change.

You are coming across as a homophobe at the moment!

[Prodigy17]

Yes I do think everyone against gay marriage should fuck off, shut up and keep it to themselves

I'm sure you do. But you may realise 90% of the world is not gay so might be better to try and influence opinion with your intelligence rather than just telling them to fuck off?

This might be nosey so don't answer if you don't want - when did you "decide" you were gay?

[Apollo.]

I'm sure you do. But you may realise 90% of the world is not gay so might be better to try and influence opinion with your intelligence rather than just telling them to fuck off?

This might be nosey so don't answer if you don't want - when did you "decide" you were gay?

The thing is I generally dont care what people think of It as long as they dont get in my way, that's why I'm of the mindset think what you want and if you have an organization that is openly against gays it disgusts me but I realise it won't change overnight. All I want is for them to keep it to themselves, if somebody said to my face that they hate gays and that marriage between two men is unnatural and wrong I guarantee I would swing for them for example as a black man would being faced with racism.

Your point of most the world not being gay is invalid because that is essentially saying minorities should be discriminated. That view should have been erradicated a long time

I knew I liked boys all my life but when I was younger I didnt know what that meant, I'd say around 12 was when I knew I was gay. It took a long time to accept though.

[Jean Poutine]

I don't see why hateful, backwards speech should receive any protection.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I dont see why people dont support it. Every reason I heard of why it was "wrong" is complete bullshit.

I have everything to gain from it myself, im gay as fuck. (I said my point a way homophobes might often say it)

[Harry Smith]

Thank you to the two people who posted above, and cheers Nick, knew I could count on you. Prodigy 17 seems to enjoy playing divide, you can't just class us as a different sub section. You've provided no valid reasons why the church should oppose gay marriage, you've said that all gays are militant and that we preach hate and scream at religous believers. Your completely wrong mate, your out of touch, out of place and as you know your out of support

[Prodigy17]

Hang on Harry. Two obvious points you're missing
1/ im not gay so obviously have nothing to gain from gay marriage
2/ im not religious so have nothing to lose
As i said earlier "no dog in the fight." Thus my opinion is neutral - neither for or against.

That said I can appreciate why those of a religious persuasion would oppose - hardly fair to force them to abandon what they believe in just because you say so.

[Apollo.]

Hang on Harry. Two obvious points you're missing
1/ im not gay so obviously have nothing to gain from gay marriage
2/ im not religious so have nothing to lose
As i said earlier "no dog in the fight." Thus my opinion is neutral - neither for or against.

That said I can appreciate why those of a religious persuasion would oppose - hardly fair to force them to abandon what they believe in just because you say so.

The points you are putting forward hardly seem like you are neutral, therefore Harry is not missing anything you come across as though you are against it.

My point that you refuse to answer is why should hateful and discriminating views be encouraged, supported or even given the light of day?

[Harry Smith]

Hang on Harry. Two obvious points you're missing
1/ im not gay so obviously have nothing to gain from gay marriage
2/ im not religious so have nothing to lose
As i said earlier "no dog in the fight." Thus my opinion is neutral - neither for or against.

That said I can appreciate why those of a religious persuasion would oppose - hardly fair to force them to abandon what they believe in just because you say so.

I think that most people who are not religious have something to gain, you can gain the pride from knowing that Britain will become an open and liberal leaning country in regards to marriage. You can take pride that people in Britain will no longer be subjected to out of date ideas

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I think that most people who are not religious have something to gain, you can gain the pride from knowing that Britain will become an open and liberal leaning country in regards to marriage. You can take pride that people in Britain will no longer be subjected to out of date ideas

Or any country for that matter. Unless.... You piece of conservative shit!!! Im just joking :P

[Prodigy17]

I think that most people who are not religious have something to gain, you can gain the pride from knowing that Britain will become an open and liberal leaning country in regards to marriage. You can take pride that people in Britain will no longer be subjected to out of date ideas

OK but that's not enough to make me fight for (or against) gay marriage.

If you guys want it then fight your own battles and good luck to you :)

[Prodigy17]

My point that you refuse to answer is why should hateful and discriminating views be encouraged, supported or even given the light of day?

They shouldn't - but it's a 2 way street.

Why do you think it's acceptable to hate people who oppose what you think?

[Apollo.]

They shouldn't - but it's a 2 way street.

Why do you think it's acceptable to hate people who oppose what you think?

Because I don't preach hate, I dont discriminate against people and my views aren't old fashioned and offensive to people! That was quite an obvious answer I would of thought?

Do you accept and respect the KKK's views?

[Prodigy17]

Because I don't preach hate, I dont discriminate against people and my views aren't old fashioned and offensive to people! That was quite an obvious answer I would of thought?

Do you accept and respect the KKK's views?

Well obviously your views are offensive to some people, as I'm sure mine are. What you mean is your views are right so if they offend somebody else they can fuck off?

I'm not familiar with KKK's views so can't answer that.

[Apollo.]

Well obviously your views are offensive to some people, as I'm sure mine are. What you mean is your views are right so if they offend somebody else they can fuck off?

I'm not familiar with KKK's views so can't answer that.

My views only offend bigots so why should I change? I am not the one discriminating against a group of people that cannot change how they are and who they love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop

That is a link to information about the KKK so you can answer my question.

[xmojox]

It's important that neither government nor religion are able to force their views one upon the other. The governments should make same sex marriage carry all the benefits of traditional marriage and then butt out. As for the various churches, if Church A isn't interested in marrying same sex couples, then that's their right. Simply go to Church B which is more than happy to marry same sex couples.

While it isn't right for those opposed to force their beliefs upon those who would wish to marry someone of the same gender, neither is it right for the same sex couple to expect a church to change its views. If you don't like McDonald's hamburgers, but do like Burger King, doesn't it make more sense to go to Burger King rather than to try convincing McD's to change how they make their hamburgers?

Both sides of this issue need to simply agree to disagree and live and let live. I've never understood straight guys who hate gay guys. Straight guys should thank gay guys because, hell, it means less competition.

And, as a side note, an earlier post said that hetero marriage has been around for at least 2000 years. There have been societies that recognized same sex relationships far back into antiquity as well. Just saying.

[Sir Suomi]

I'm more neutral than anything. I don't really like Homosexuality, but I won't speak out against it. That being said, I also will never advocate for it.

[Harry Smith]

I'm more neutral than anything. I don't really like Homosexuality, but I won't speak out against it. That being said, I also will never advocate for it.

why don't you like it?

[Jean Poutine]

That said I can appreciate why those of a religious persuasion would oppose - hardly fair to force them to abandon what they believe in just because you say so.

Why not?

When a schizophrenic believes nazi UFOs are after him, draining his blood as the last descendant of Adolf Hitler to fuel an army of Hitler clones to eventually conquer the world, we send him in a mental hospital. When people believe in an invisible man in the sky and talk to him to ask Him to make them win the Lotto, that is suddenly alright.

Faith is a disease of the human mind, not an ability. It's the faculty of accepting the unacceptable, bending the rules of logic and reason, it's doublethink, it's 2+2=5. Why should we protect and even promote to a degree the adherence to one of multiple Parties when we all know how toxic and nocive they are, not just for humankind's progress, but for millions and millions that religion entraps and keeps prisoner with threats and emotional blackmail?

There is no valid reason to oppose gay marriage. Homosexuals are people too and feel the same needs, wants and emotions as we do. For the sake of their dignity they should be afforded every single right that heterosexual people have. Religious officers, invested with public power to proclaim marriage as recognized by the State shouldn't have the right to turn back a request for a gay marriage, no more than other officers invested with the same power. Why should, for example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with its dispositions against discrimination based on sexual orientation, stop being applicable because of religion? Why can't you sue a priest for that but you could have a notary's ass if he turned down the same request? Discrimination is discrimination and the discrimination being religious in nature doesn't make it okay or rosier. Why is freedom of religion so important that many Western countries still strip 10% of their population the most fundamental right of all : the right to love and have that love sanctioned in a binding contract before the State?

Marriage left the care of the Church to move forward to a better future in lay hands. We should recognize this. I have no love for institutionalized religion or religious protection - I hope I made that clear.

[Gigablue]

Why should, for example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with its dispositions against discrimination based on sexual orientation, stop being applicable because of religion?

The charter of rights and freedoms doesn't actually mention sexual orientation. It prohibits discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. I think it should mention sexual orientation, but it doesn't.

[Jean Poutine]

The charter of rights and freedoms doesn't actually mention sexual orientation. It prohibits discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. I think it should mention sexual orientation, but it doesn't.

No, the Charter does "mention" sexual orientation and protects against discrimination based on it. It's meant to be read-in according to Vriend v Alberta.

http://canlii.ca/t/1fqt4

[Sir Suomi]

why don't you like it?

Meh, the thought of man on man, even women on women seems odd to me, so I prefer to not be around it. But like I said, I won't ever speak out against it. It's kind of like having a teacher you don't like. You arn't going to go out in their face and scream "I hate you!" and demand they be fired. You just choose not to take their classes if possible.

[xmojox]

Meh, the thought of man on man, even women on women seems odd to me, so I prefer to not be around it. But like I said, I won't ever speak out against it. It's kind of like having a teacher you don't like. You arn't going to go out in their face and scream "I hate you!" and demand they be fired. You just choose not to take their classes if possible.

Austin, I have a hypothetical for you. What if your best-friend were to tell you tomorrow that he's figured out that he's gay?

[Apollo.]

Meh, the thought of man on man, even women on women seems odd to me, so I prefer to not be around it. But like I said, I won't ever speak out against it. It's kind of like having a teacher you don't like. You arn't going to go out in their face and scream "I hate you!" and demand they be fired. You just choose not to take their classes if possible.

So you hate gays but don't have the balls to admit it?

[chetbonare]

I believe a marriage is between a man and woman. I believe a man to lust after another man with emotions is unnatural. Note: I'm not speaking about hormones here, we all understand that can alter the way a teen sees things. I'm speaking about a man, not a Teen or kid.

I am a Christian. I do understand that people will not agree with what I believe because it is not what they want. But, what I don't seem to get is why it matters to them what I believe. I don't hate gays. I've never tried to kill one nor even cursed one. Instead I pray for them, try to give hope for those who are trying to leave it.

I know it is wrong and unnatural to be gay. And please, lol don't pull out the slaves, shrimp and other crazy comments about the Bible trying to down what it says. I know what it says otherwise I wouldn't live by it. I don't get stuck in the old testament I read the new as well. What speaks on matters of the old. But also, if u were to attempt to prove the Bible wrong, does that mean that the whole Bible is wrong?

Anyways haha, back to what was originally asked. I don't agree with gay marriage. Simply put.

[Apollo.]

I believe a marriage is between a man and woman. I believe a man to lust after another man with emotions is unnatural. Note: I'm not speaking about hormones here, we all understand that can alter the way a teen sees things. I'm speaking about a man, not a Teen or kid.

I am a Christian. I do understand that people will not agree with what I believe because it is not what they want. But, what I don't seem to get is why it matters to them what I believe. I don't hate gays. I've never tried to kill one nor even cursed one. Instead I pray for them, try to give hope for those who are trying to leave it.

I know it is wrong and unnatural to be gay. And please, lol don't pull out the slaves, shrimp and other crazy comments about the Bible trying to down what it says. I know what it says otherwise I wouldn't live by it. I don't get stuck in the old testament I read the new as well. What speaks on matters of the old. But also, if u were to attempt to prove the Bible wrong, does that mean that the whole Bible is wrong?

Anyways haha, back to what was originally asked. I don't agree with gay marriage. Simply put.

I beg of you do not pray for me, heaven stuck with a bunch of homophobic bigots is more like hell for me. Being gay is not unnatural whatsoever I find that statement very offensive. Where is your proof that being gay is unnatural? If you "know" then surely you have evidence? People like you are the reason religion is hated by many.

[chetbonare]

I beg of you do not pray for me, heaven stuck with a bunch of homophobic bigots is more like hell for me. Being gay is not unnatural whatsoever I find that statement very offensive. Where is your proof that being gay is unnatural? If you "know" then surely you have evidence? People like you are the reason religion is hated by many.

I'm guessing your not a fan of the Bible.. Just a guess. Let's say it the way u should have. You believe gay is not unnatural, or to put it simple, you believe it is natural. Same way I said I believe it is not. K?

What is the definition of Faith?

People who hate religion do not hate because of people like me, seeing you don't know me how can you judge me? Calling people like me prejudice, and judgemental would make u a big Hippocratic.