Crusade against same-sex marriage: Going to far?

[Cygnus]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/22/house.samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

It just might have, and although the legislation has only passed in the Republican controlled House of Representatives and still has to be passed in the closely divided senate, could be using possible unconstitutional legislation to bar the Federal courts from making a state recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. Thus this means that certain citizens can't take their cases to court, because well Congress said so.

I’d have to agree with the Democrats on this one, that it does seem unconstitutional to prevent a group of citizens to go to the federal courts and present their cases. It seems almost like a desperate effort to prevent the spread of same-sex marriages at all costs, even at the loss of citizens rights and causing an “unbalancing” Federal powers. Hopefully this doesn’t set a precedent for Congress for it to rein in the courts to there wishes by preventing courts from hearing cases which might actually change something against the “majority” view. Almost like hmm… the south in the ‘60s?

Here’s a nice quote, that Sun Tzu showed me, that I think goes with this issue:

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.”
-Abraham Lincoln

I know that quotes by a famous person doesn’t suddenly make it the truth, but maybe saying it to a few of the men and woman who seem to be so gung ho about defending marriage at all costs and saying something along the lines of “Marriage is under attack”.

[Carnage]

Marriage is under attack. Just going with the flow and defending something in the name of political correctness is BS. Homosexuals should be free to do whatever they want behind closed doors, in the woods, or gym showerooms, but when it comes to marriage, it's not the same as Heterosexual. They should have civil unions, but calling it marriage is just a mockery to an age old institution. Believing that letting them have marriage is enlightenment and intelligent thinking is foolishness. Let's see... what civilizations have lasted after homosexuals were granted marriage? Rome fell a few years after. Sodom and Gomarra, we all know where that went.

There's tolerance and then there's just foolishness.

UPDATE: What I identify most with is the general anger from the African American community towards homosexuals who claim their plight is part of the Civil Rights Movement. They worked hard for equal rights and the homosexuals are just tagging on? That offends me.

Then again, I'm a straight white Christian male and that's the worst thing you can be in this country it seems. :D

[Cygnus]

Marriage is under attack. Just going with the flow and defending something in the name of political correctness is BS.What's under attack also seems to be the very foundations of what our
country. Those believing that marriage is under attack seem to be so desperate that they'd sacrifice the privledge of citizens to exercise their consitutional rights. This isn't political correctness and in this situation, going with the flow means allowing this to come to pass. Luckily this still has to go through the senate.

Homosexuals should be free to do whatever they want behind closed doors, in the woods, or gym showerooms, but when it comes to marriage, it's not the same as Heterosexual. They should have civil unions, but calling it marriage is just a mockery to an age old institution. Believing that letting them have marriage is enlightenment and intelligent thinking is foolishness. Yet why is it foolishness? Why would you like to deny someone else this right? I think that they should be allowed to have the same rights as all other citizens of the United States and should not be resticted by something "seperate but equal". This isn't believing in enlightenment and intellegent thinking, this is the right thing to do. Speaking of making a "mockery to an age old institution", how about they just go ahead and ban divorces next? Maybe we'll have to wait until the next election year...

Let's see... what civilizations have lasted after homosexuals were granted marriage? Rome fell a few years after. Sodom and Gomarra, we all know where that went.

There's tolerance and then there's just foolishness.So you're using this to justify why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry? I already can see some glarring illogic here.

So now Rome didn't fall because of invasions by barbarians and a corrupt, dying empire but instead collapsed due to internal pressures caused by homosexuals. I'm sure that every textbook and historian would probably tell you otherwise. And about Sodom and Gomarrow... when fire from heaven comes down and destroys the United States please tell me. Oh and by the way, don't you think god's a bit late anyways? I mean we've had homosexuals here since basically the founding of the country. :rolleyes:

UPDATE: What I identify most with is the general anger from the African American community towards homosexuals who claim their plight is part of the Civil Rights Movement. They worked hard for equal rights and the homosexuals are just tagging on? That offends me.Why should that offend you? Of course their plight is a part of the Civil Rights movement, perhaps *COUGH* dare I say it, homosexuals are also trying to work hard for equal rights? The African American community as well as yourself are being hypocritical when you say that homosexuals are just "tagging along".

[riBd]

Marriage is under attack. Just going with the flow and defending something in the name of political correctness is BS. Homosexuals should be free to do whatever they want behind closed doors, in the woods, or gym showerooms, but when it comes to marriage, it's not the same as Heterosexual. They should have civil unions, but calling it marriage is just a mockery to an age old institution. Believing that letting them have marriage is enlightenment and intelligent thinking is foolishness. Let's see... what civilizations have lasted after homosexuals were granted marriage? Rome fell a few years after. Sodom and Gomarra, we all know where that went.

There's tolerance and then there's just foolishness.

UPDATE: What I identify most with is the general anger from the African American community towards homosexuals who claim their plight is part of the Civil Rights Movement. They worked hard for equal rights and the homosexuals are just tagging on? That offends me.

Then again, I'm a straight white Christian male and that's the worst thing you can be in this country it seems.
Who cares if it's an age old instaution? So was racism. Just because something has been going on for a long time does not make it right.

Marriage is a symbol of devotion and dedication, a bond. It's the ultimate sign of love. Gay couples love eachother too, why shouldn't they be able to show it? Just because it isn't the way it was doesn't mean we shouldn't change.

Marriage is not holy. Marriage is not an act of god. Marriage is a symbol of love and dedication. And frankly, if we don't let gay couples, who love eachother just as much or in some cases more then straight spouses, show their dedication to one another.

And in the end, tolerance, as you said, is fine as long as it doesn't involve you. How does two men getting married have more to do with you then them having sex in their home does?

And your Rome argument is void. The wheels were set in motion hundreds of years before Gay marriage, it had no impact.

[TheBB]

Great! Excactly what this forum needs. A thread with some furious quote-posts. Anger venting. Whoo! :D

calling it marriage is just a mockery to an age old institution

The past has less to say in this case than deformed earthworms do. How the fuck does a long history justify a practice? Some -- no, in fact MOST (if not ALL) the major mistakes and embarrassing practices in our history are found in the past:

- Racism.
- Slavery.
- Genocide.
- Witch hunts
- Inquisitions.
- ... I don't know WHAT.

This pile of stinking human waste would probably knock dead most mountains if it were to be represented in a physical form. Age doesn't defend anything.

Let's see... what civilizations have lasted after homosexuals were granted marriage? Rome fell a few years after. Sodom and Gomarra, we all know where that went.

Booyah. Lock up the fags... they are inherently evil and if we don't brutally slay every single one of them, any major city will be destroyed by raining fire [because a book (that is age old, btw, see my first paragraph) says so!] and ravenous liberal hordes will sweep the country like the huns and vandals did with Rome [becase some random WB lunatic claims so!].

They worked hard for equal rights and the homosexuals are just tagging on? That offends me.

Hmm.. yeah.. you're definitely right on that one. We should deliberately make them suffer for centuries, torturing them, enslaving them, mass-murdering them, and just generally build their character, and only THEN, after some 500-600 years of EXTREME discrimination, can they join US, the STRAIGHT WHITE CHRISTIAN MALES! WHAT A PLAN!

[EdvardMunch]

I've never quite understood what of marriage is under attack when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage. It's not like marriage for heterosexuals will stop or be hindered, nor will heterosexuals lose marriage benefits. The Netherlands and Belgium have legalized same-sex marriages, and their institution of marriage is doing fine.

[Montgomery]

Yeesh... Americans.

I'm not an opponent of same sex marriage - I'm not a supporter, either. I just stay away from the whole thing, since people get so pissed off about it. Not here.

But basically, you're all wrong. Marriage is an age-old institiution, and we shouldn't be so damn rash about changing it. But we shouldn't ignore the complaints of homosexuals totally. They do have reasons (and I support gay rights in most ways - except here), and should be given definitive civil unions that are VERY CLOSE to marriage, but there should still be a difference. Marriage has been around for many, many, many years - we shouldn't change it within the span of one.

Think of it this way, however. If, say, 3% of the people in your country speak a different language, then do you make that language official just for their sake? Probably not. So while they do have complaints and reasons, why should we bother changing everybody's legal systems so quickly and without much thought?

[Carnage]

Where's the line when it comes to freedom?

As long as people believe something is right, it's their freedom to do it?

Let the rapists and murderers out of prison right this minute. They're entitled to their constitutional right to the persuit of happiness! Let them out NOW or I'll picket and bitch and moan until I have enough of the media supporting me that it affects the senate's decision and it is made right because enough people believe it!

This is why I believe in Communism. Democracy is bullspit. Idiots in numbers. :D

UPDATE: Violence and threats of violence change minds quickly. If gay marriage is legalized, fanatics will rise up and blood will spill. I will be among those fanatics, so feel free to chip in your two cents because it doesn't matter in the end. You thought the Stonewall Riots were bad? You ain't seen SHIT yet. :)

Damn straight, I'm a lunatic BB. Don't you forget it, fag. :P

[riBd]

So much for intellectual discussion :)

You've been beaten down to comapring same-sex marrige to rape? I think my argument is made for me.

Or, y'know, if your last post was completely a joke, I'm pre-flushing my cheeks to let off some of the embarassment before hands.

CAN YOU FEEL THE FLUSH!?!?!

[Carnage]

So much for intellectual discussion :)

You've been beaten down to comapring same-sex marrige to rape? I think my argument is made for me.

Enjoy my new sig. :)

http://www.yoxio.com/img/69553.jpg

[TheGreatBrain]

As long as people believe something is right, it's their freedom to do it?Uh, can you say hypocrite? Let me just rephrase your statement a bit.

"As long as some people believe barring gays from marrying is right, it's their freedom to stop homosexual marriage?"

That's just as valid as your statement.

Let the rapists and murderers out of prison right this minute. They're entitled to their constitutional right to the persuit of happiness! Let them out NOW or I'll picket and bitch and moan until I have enough of the media supporting me that it affects the senate's decision and it is made right because enough people believe it!
Comparing homosexuality to rape and murder? I'm not sure what exactly you think homosexuality is, but I think you must be very confused.

This argument is so erroneous and flawed I don't even know where to start. I certainly hope that back when former slaves were given the right to vote, or women were given the right to vote, or interracial marriage became comman practice, you wouldn't have been spouting stuff like this, Carnage. I'm sure that there was plenty of opposition to those things. I'm sure plenty of people in elder day America were simply horrified at this awful lack of morals. Does that mean that they were right? Let me answer for you. No.

UPDATE: Violence and threats of violence change minds quickly.I'm sorry, but that was simply nutty.

EDIT-
On NAMBLA: What makes NAMBLA repulsive is not it's homosexual nature, but the fact that it's made up of pedophiles. If NAMBLA was suddenly NAMGLA (North American Man Girl Love Association) it would be no less horrifying. Any attempt to relate the two issues is invalid.

[Carnage]

OKAY OKAY. I BETTER STOP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. ^^;;;;

The title of the thread was : Going to far?

Even before I got into the blood spillage thing, it wasn't serious. I was going for sarcasm, but now I know I wasn't too good at it. Just need to clear some stuff up.

I really don't advocate violence towards Gays. I'm friends with one at my high school. He's a really nice guy, so I have nothing against them. ^^;;;

It was all in the name of humor, but now I see some people are taking offense at this, so I'm changing my sig and avy back before this explodes. :o

[GiaDragoness]

...and only THEN, after some 500-600 years of EXTREME discrimination, can they join US, the STRAIGHT WHITE CHRISTIAN MALES! WHAT A PLAN!
Watch your mouth BB. More people would take offence to that than all of carnages arguments put together.

I personally, would like to agree with carnage on this one, unfrotunatly, I, myself, am in no position to make any arguments either way about such an arguement. I will, however, bring to light that marrage was instituted by God Himself, for a man, and a woman. Check your bible if you don't beleive me.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Darkslayer633]

just join us canadians and let them get married they deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us are when we get married

[riBd]

Watch your mouth BB. More people would take offence to that than all of carnages arguments put together.

I personally, would like to agree with carnage on this one, unfrotunatly, I, myself, am in no position to make any arguments either way about such an arguement. I will, however, bring to light that marrage was instituted by God Himself, for a man, and a woman. Check your bible if you don't beleive me.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:Currently, agreeing with Carnage means your argument has been thrown to the ground, punched in the face, shot with a pistol, and peed on multiple times by various animals. And fenguin.

Whether god sanctioned it or not is of null importantce. Marriage is now state sanctioned too, and that should have nothing to do with religion. Moral reasons notwithstanding, there are many reasons same-sex couples would rather be "married" then "joined" or whatever they used to do. Tax breaks, among other things, come with marriage and only marriage.

Even if religion could be used to argue this point, why would you do something just because god said so? What moral or logical reason did god have? Back in those days, tolerance was much, much lower, and the Bible was probably written with that in mind.

[Neo]

Mostly I think this stems from fear. Becuase if Gays were allowed to marry the divorce rate would go down ^_^

Truly. Gay Couples tend to stay together for a longer time then most straight couples (that is, to death most of the time.)

I find the whole thing retarded. Marriage is not Christian -- its not a church thing. Its a State thing. Thats all gays want, they want some tax breaks (rich people get them all the time) and they want to be married. How wrong is that?

ANyways.. whatever. Not like anyones mind will change, but you need to understand a few things that got blown out of proportion:

Marriages ARE STATE INSTITUTIONS. They are NOT RELIGOUS. They CAN BE, but DONT HAVE TO BE.

The only reason that marriages should not be extended to gay people is becuase of its definition in the bible. Big fucking deal.

Homosexuality has existed in all forms for all of human history, so I dont want to hear how "un natural it is" or how "it doesnt exist in nature" Since it does.

Anyways, bleh. Gays should be allowed to marry, But then, that wont happen until we get a new president. And hell maybe not even then, since apparently christian thinking runs the country.

-Neo

[singo]

Then again, I'm a straight white Christian male and that's the worst thing you can be in this country it seems. :DIn any country would be closer to the truth

And using "Its unconstitutional" as an argument seems to me like it is clinging to tradition at all costs.....admit it, the constitution was written for a very different society than what we have now and is therefore obsolete.

[Cygnus]

And using "Its unconstitutional" as an argument seems to me like it is clinging to tradition at all costs.....admit it, the constitution was written for a very different society than what we have now and is therefore obsolete.The amazing thing about the constitution is in fact it's ability to transend generations even centuries. It's an amazingly well written document and infact if studied you'd have to understand that it's not obslete, how it set up allows for it to be viewed in new ways and allows for it to work even in these modern times.

[TheBB]

Watch your mouth BB. More people would take offence to that than all of carnages arguments put together.

Yeah, well great. That was half the point.

[riBd]

OKAY OKAY. I BETTER STOP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. ^^;;;;

The title of the thread was : Going to far?

Even before I got into the blood spillage thing, it wasn't serious. I was going for sarcasm, but now I know I wasn't too good at it. Just need to clear some stuff up.

I really don't advocate violence towards Gays. I'm friends with one at my high school. He's a really nice guy, so I have nothing against them. ^^;;;

It was all in the name of humor, but now I see some people are taking offense at this, so I'm changing my sig and avy back before this explodes. :o
Hah! I'm not embarassed because my cheeks were pre-flushed, PRE-FLUSHED I SAY :)

[GiaDragoness]

Whether god sanctioned it or not is of null importantce. Marriage is now state sanctioned too, and that should have nothing to do with religion. Moral reasons notwithstanding, there are many reasons same-sex couples would rather be "married" then "joined" or whatever they used to do. Tax breaks, among other things, come with marriage and only marriage.
Even if religion could be used to argue this point, why would you do something just because god said so? What moral or logical reason did god have? Back in those days, tolerance was much, much lower, and the Bible was probably written with that in mind.Tolerance was much much lower? Just who's tolerance exactly? God's?

My point I was stating is that it is interesting what humans will come up with, to justify their wants, or desires, as stone cold rights or what they need.

The question that marrige does not require anything spritual invovled? Well, that is just another effect come about today, of some atheist not wanting to accept the fact that a God can exist or something to that effect. I know it may be possible for a marrige without God involved, but tell me this: How many of you have EVER seen, or heard, of a marrage that does'nt involve a preist or holy man of some sort to come in and marry them? I never said poeple won't ever some up with way to acheive marrige without God, I was just pointing out the ironic idiocy that some people come up with.

I think we should leave the damn consitution alone myself. Less and less people in this day in age are responsible, let alone, wise enough, to decide what people truley need these days. I hardly think a bunch of people holding white sings, singing chants, who are either being mislead by politicians' white lies, or want to change a law just to convenince them, are wise enough to be doing the "right" thing. If they want to share is tax breaks or crap like that, than call it "legally joined" or something. Don't call it marriage, that's just stupid. Webster defines: "Marriage refers to the state of, or relation between, a man and woman who have become husband and wife or to the ceremony marking this union." Read those big old books in the corner of your bookshelves growing dust and cobwebs, they have the effect of making you smarter. If we change a rule that has stood ever since the dawn of time, just to fit our personnal lives and conveinces in this day in age, what's next? ANYTHING. Nothing would be safe from being repealed, revoked, tampered with, etc. The problem is that in this day in age, people are too used ot getting what they want. TOUGH. There are so many ways around rules in our society and there should'nt be! If a law states something about goats, and anceint warfare, or crap like that, then I can see needing a bit of updating, but for something that is clearly universal, I don't think so.

I did'nt want to say it at first, and I have my reasons, but this is my opinion on the subject. Thoughts, anyone?

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[EdvardMunch]

Tolerance was much much lower? Just who's tolerance exactly? God's?
I think riBd meant people's tolerance. Although, since the Bible forbids homosexuality, it would sound like God's tolerance is pretty low as well.


The question that marrige does not require anything spritual invovled? Well, that is just another effect come about today, of some atheist not wanting to accept the fact that a God can exist or something to that effect. I know it may be possible for a marrige without God involved, but tell me this: How many of you have EVER seen, or heard, of a marrage that does'nt involve a preist or holy man of some sort to come in and marry them?
My parents, both atheists, were married by a Justice of the Peace 22 years ago. No holy people were involved at all.

[TheGreatBrain]

And using "Its unconstitutional" as an argument seems to me like it is clinging to tradition at all costs.....admit it, the constitution was written for a very different society than what we have now and is therefore obsolete.
Oh yeah, freedom of speech, basis of the system of the American Republic, what an obsolete document.

[GiaDragoness]

Er, forgive my blondeness, but what precisly is a justice of the peace? A judge? A police officer? Carnage? Fenguin? Am I close?

(sorry, I just thought the last two would be funny)

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smashy:

[EdvardMunch]

Yep. A Justice of the Peace is a judge. You just go down to the courthouse and have a judge marry you. One nice thing about it is that all of the necessary documents are within walking distance :)

[singo]

Oh yeah, freedom of speech, basis of the system of the American Republic, what an obsolete document.
Okay, freedom of speech?. ABSOLUTE FREEDOM?? erm, no

Freedom of speech as long as.....
1) you dont say what you really think about people.
2) you dont insult the government
3) you dont complain (or you are "breaching the peace")

Didnt someone say something along the lines of "if the government ceases to represent the people then it is their right nay their OBLIGATION to take it back by their vote if or by force of arms if necessary"?

if so then that gives license to ALL forms of domestic terrorism if those people feel misrepresented.

"Freedom of speech"? a naive dream.

[riBd]

You're kidding, right?

Alright. Maybe that was true during some times a century or two ago, when the U.S. threw activists in jail and stuff. But now? You can complain about the government allll you want. You don't say what you really think about people? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I can walk up to my enemy and say he's a dumbass and that's covered by freedom of speech. Uh. You can complain. people do it all the time. Have you seen the internet? Have you seen all the anti-bush arguments, flashes, movies, images? Yeah. That's complaining. That's also insulting the government. That's also saying what you really want to say about people. Guess what? It's all covered by freedom of speech.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[BowlinParkBeaner]

gay marriage is wrong, it destroys the sanctity of marriage and a bond between a man and a woman. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. So there.

[Cygnus]

gay marriage is wrong, it destroys the sanctity of marriage and a bond between a man and a woman. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. So there.
But why is it destroying the "sanctity" of marriage? Will suddenly more men and women not get married? Are you afraid that homosexuals, since they are known to continue to have stable relationships with a same partner their whole lives, might actually have stable marriages? Afraid that homosexuals might make just as good parents to adoptive children? What's your point? Will fire and brimstone rain down from heaven?

It hasn't and I believe we all know that it won't. :rolleyes:

All I see here is fear of change. Just like during the haydays of slavery (which still exist today), the early prodestant reformation, the civil rights movement, interracial marriages. Why are you scared, the world changes, don't be a militant reactionary who fights to retain the status quo at all costs.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[riBd]

Where is the proof that gay marriages are any healthier than striaght? I say that's bullshit. A marriage only "dies" if you will, when the couple stop loving each other, or begin to take their marriage for granted. There is no proof that striaght people are more bound to do this than gays, this setting knows no peticular sex. Since stright marriages are more common (duh, i know) that's why you would obviously hear about disruptions in striaght marriages. You're avoiding his point completely, which is, "how will it destroy the sancicity of marriage". We're not here to bicker about which kind lasts longer.

Yea, that happened before, to a couple of cities named Sodom and Gammorah. It's in the bible. So there.And why should I believe the bible?

Listen, that's gonna get us into the whole "does god exist" thing, which is basically spam and will have no real goal. You can't really quote logical evidence from the bible and take it as direct fact. It just doesn't work.

Sometimes, yes, change is good, but when you start to pick at laws and rules that have stood for centuries, just to meet your own personnal conveinences, that just opens the flood gates for all kinds of wrong.That is appeal to tradition and is a logical fallacy. *Is very proud of himself* ^^; Did'nt you read what I said earlier? If people want to screw people of their same gender, fine. If they also want to have tax breaks and crap like that, fine. If they also want to raise children, fine. Don't however, call it "marriage". Marriage is something God created for a man, and a woman. Not two of the same sex. Look it up, Gia pointed that out as well. Not only would people get offended very easily (myself included), it is just like saying you can marry without God. Marriage is something God created, we just thought that like every other rule we made, that this day in age, we can change it just because we want to, and that's not right. I mean think about it, if you created something, and then someone else took the idea, then turned it all around to the way that they wanted it, completely butchering it, it is no longer the same, why should it still be called the same thing if it is clearly different? Getting married in ways that God clearly says that he does'nt like, is like lying and saying "it's god approved!" All I'm saying is, you want to have sweet little sex and have tax breaks and raise kids, fine, but don't say your "married" when you are clearly not.Marriage is state sanctioned, and you have no grounds arguing the point that God says it must be a man and a woman so it must be a man and a woman because the church should have no involvement with the state.

Oh, and the title of your post was just blatant idiocy. This has nothing to do with my argument but just thought I'd point that out :)

[GiaDragoness]

You're avoiding his point completely, which is, "how will it destroy the sancicity of marriage". We're not here to bicker about which kind lasts longer.
He was replying to someone else's thought, not yours. Get over it.
And why should I believe the bible?
I don't beleive he was saying you HAD to beleive in the bible, but the fact that god exists whether you beleive in him or not. He was merely explaining for those who were'nt in constant denial, about his points.
Listen, that's gonna get us into the whole "does god exist" thing, which is basically spam and will have no real goal. You can't really quote logical evidence from the bible and take it as direct fact. It just doesn't work.
Yeah, I guess your right, a compilation of actual documentation and arctifacts depicting historic events are all made of cheap plastic in china. Now, 500 years from now, people can go ahead and deny your existance, becuase markers of the past are clearly no way of determining things that actually happened, they were just made up by some crack pot. Please forgive my extreme sarcasm.
Marriage is state sanctioned, and you have no grounds arguing the point that God says it must be a man and a woman so it must be a man and a woman because the church should have no involvement with the state.
You might want to actually put some intelligence and research into your posts before you go all out denoucing people like that. The bible, dictionary, World book encyclopedia, encarta, etc. All say that marriage is between man and woman. And just why should the church have no invovlment in the state? Oh yeah, because the government is so afraid to stand up for the Christian principles on which this country was founded upon, and thereby lets anyone railroad their ways of life whenever they want.

Oh, and the title of your post was just blatant idiocy. This has nothing to do with my argument but just thought I'd point that out :)
Your argument? In case you did'nt notice, he was talking to CYGNUS. Not you. Please read more carefully before you get so gung-ho on trying to prove someone wrong you overlook countless facts and points you really should pay attention to.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[EdvardMunch]

He was replying to someone else's thought, not yours. Get over it.
But he wasn't responding to the correct part. We have not seen how same-sex marriages will destroy the sanctity of marriage. This is the quote Seraph responded to:

But why is it destroying the "sanctity" of marriage? Will suddenly more men and women not get married? Are you afraid that homosexuals, since they are known to continue to have stable relationships with a same partner their whole lives, might actually have stable marriages? Afraid that homosexuals might make just as good parents to adoptive children?
Seraph responded to the part about same-sex marriages being stable, not the part about the sanctity of marriage.

I don't beleive he was saying you HAD to beleive in the bible, but the fact that god exists whether you beleive in him or not. He was merely explaining for those who were'nt in constant denial, about his points.
And us atheists do not believe in the Bible, therefore evidence cited in the Bible is too questionable for us to accept. As a rule of thumb, it's good to avoid presenting religious texts as evidence.

Furthermore, The Netherlands, Belgium, and parts of Canada have legalized same-sex marriage, yet have not suffered fire and brimstone.

You might want to actually put some intelligence and research into your posts before you go all out denoucing people like that. The bible, dictionary, World book encyclopedia, encarta, etc. All say that marriage is between man and woman.
History shows that marriage has never been exclusively between a man and a woman. I think that speaks louder than dictionary definitions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History_of_same-sex_unions)

And just why should the church have no invovlment in the state? Oh yeah, because the government is so afraid to stand up for the Christian principles on which this country was founded upon, and thereby lets anyone railroad their ways of life whenever they want.
The gay community is not railroading its way of life onto us. A gay conspiracy to make everyone else gay does not exist. Also, a gay conspiracy to make every male marry every other male and every female marry every other female does not exist.. Gay people want the right to marry for their own personal benefit and because, under the 14th amendment, it is their right.

Second, there are a few reasons the government doesn't pay lip-service to specifically Christian principles:
1. 76.5% of Americans are Christian, meaning 23.5% of Americans are not. Not listening to nearly 1/4 of the population is not a good idea.
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
2. The policy of separation of church and state (I know separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, but rather in a letter Benjamin Franklin wrote to a Baptist church in 1802. That's why I call it a policy), which exists to ensure a pluralistic holding of power, so no one group has too much. Fewer people's rights are trampled this way.

Not only would people get offended very easily (myself included), it is just like saying you can marry without God.
Gay people are offended that they can't marry.

You can marry without God. I noted earlier my parents were married by a Justice of the Peace.

[riBd]

He was replying to someone else's thought, not yours. Get over it. The thought is very pertinent to my argument and a good point to make, thus it is very much my buisness to help out with it.


I don't beleive he was saying you HAD to beleive in the bible, but the fact that god exists whether you beleive in him or not. He was merely explaining for those who were'nt in constant denial, about his points.God may exist, god may not. It may be accepted by some of the country. But it is anything but a fact.

Yeah, I guess your right, a compilation of actual documentation and arctifacts depicting historic events are all made of cheap plastic in china. Now, 500 years from now, people can go ahead and deny your existance, becuase markers of the past are clearly no way of determining things that actually happened, they were just made up by some crack pot. Please forgive my extreme sarcasm.Still, it's not a fact. Many, many, many americans question the existence of God and therefore it is not a fact and you can not use his existence, or the bible's truth and consider them as fact in a logical argument.

You might want to actually put some intelligence and research into your posts before you go all out denoucing people like that. That was just a straight out ad hominem attack. You have no basis on which to insult my post like that.

The bible, dictionary, World book encyclopedia, encarta, etc. All say that marriage is between man and woman.The earth was the center of the world once.

And just why should the church have no invovlment in the state?Seperation of church and state. It's probably one of the greatest American laws/points/amendments/whatever.

Oh yeah, because the government is so afraid to stand up for the Christian principles on which this country was founded upon, and thereby lets anyone railroad their ways of life whenever they want.You want to know what other Christian principles this country is founded on? Racism, Sexism, Witchunts, Slavery, Driving native americans from house and home.

And now you're insulting Freedom of religion? Freedom of religion is one of the GREAT things about this country. It embodies everything that this country stands for. Freedom.


Your argument? In case you did'nt notice, he was talking to CYGNUS Not you. You can't talk to specific people in a debate. You're making a point and putting it out there on the cutting board.

Please read more carefully before you get so gung-ho on trying to prove someone wrong you overlook countless facts and points you really should pay attention to.The only countless "facts" that you made a point of me overlooking was the "fact" that God exists and the "fact" that the bible is true. Neither of which, as I have explained earlier, are facts at all.

[TheGreatBrain]

Not that it's really pertinent to the argument, but let me state that I'm a believer in God. Just so it's known that all advocates of gay marriage aren't "godless heathens".

Yea, that happened before, to a couple of cities named Sodom and Gammorah. It's in the bible. So there.Yes, "it's in The Bible". What a convenient retreat it is.

Sometimes, yes, change is good, but when you start to pick at laws and rules that have stood for centuries, just to meet your own personnal conveinences, that just opens the flood gates for all kinds of wrong.
Slavery existed for thousands of years before it started getting "picked at". I certainly hope you don't think this same argument would be valid then. Let me give you a hint: it isn't.

Did'nt you read what I said earlier? If people want to screw people of their same gender, fine.
It amazes me how so many people manage to break down meaningful relationships into two people of the same gender f*cking eachother. One couldn't do this with straight relationships, so why do some try with gay relationships?

[Cygnus]

*cracks knuckles* I love it when people dodge my questions, makes it all the more fun. Also, thank you, riBd and EdvardMunch for posting while I was unable too. Now let's start at the beginning.

http://img.orgnetwork.com/wb/icons/icon4.gif Cygnus: gay, or moron?I really don't like it when people decide to act childish and make personal attacks instead of debating. First, it does nothing to add anything intellegent to a discussion. Secondly, it only makes you show how low you'd go in an argument. Next, it can result in the topic no longer being an intelligent discussion and instead become a flame war, which I will not give you the pleasure of. Now let me explain a little about myself so you can understand a few details.

My name is Steven and I'm 17. I am not "gay", I am a heterosexual. Ontop of that I've been dating a very lovely lady for almost eight months now. Now the part about me being a "moron", sure you can call me that if you wish but let me say this: calling me names does not suddenly make what I said go away. It only makes you look foolish. I'd rather you debate and argue. But don't sucker punch me, because if you pull something like that again I won't be very civil. In fact I might get a mod on your ass.

But enough of worrying about something like this, back to the debate at hand!

Where is the proof that gay marriages are any healthier than striaght? I say that's bullshit.Wait a second, just a second. Let's see what I said.

Are you afraid that homosexuals, since they are known to continue to have stable relationships with a same partner their whole lives, might actually have stable marriages?Bit of a difference, correct? What I was saying was that homosexuals could have just a stable relationships just as heterosexuals. Also I added another tid bit about how Homosexuals are known to stay with there partner's there whole lives. Did I say that they're relationships were any more stable as 'straights'? No.

A marriage only "dies" if you will, when the couple stop loving each other, or begin to take their marriage for granted. There is no proof that striaght people are more bound to do this than gays, this setting knows no peticular sex. Since stright marriages are more common (duh, i know) that's why you would obviously hear about disruptions in striaght marriages. Of course you're right here, there are many examples of healthy heterosexual marriages and many examples of marriages that have fallen apart. There will be divorces or falling apart of homosexual marriages, they're just as human as you and I. Mistakes can be made.

But never did I say that homosexual marriages can be "healthier" than heterosexual marriages.

Yea, that happened before, to a couple of cities named Sodom and Gammorah. It's in the bible. So there.First off, I was being sarcastic here. But still, pulling out biblical references won't really help you here. Homosexual activity has been going in human culture for a very long time, and since then the Greeks, Chinese, Romans, Native Americans, and any other culture where such activity existed were not destroyed by fire from heaven. In fact the United States hasn't either. So obviously somethings up. Or rather, not raining down.

Afraid of change? I for one am all for thinking outside the box, but just because an idea is new, or is not in practice, does not nessisarily mean it is a good idea.Of course every new idea isn't a good one. But it seems to me and others that you and many people in this country our utterly freaked out by a very old idea. Just let the people have their rights and their freedom. Don't let citizens be banned from taking their cases to federal courts (which was something that has alreay passed in the House and was one of the main topics of the thread).

Sometimes, yes, change is good, but when you start to pick at laws and rules that have stood for centuries, just to meet your own personnal conveinences, that just opens the flood gates for all kinds of wrong.Should I even comment on how many times ideas like this idea has been proved wrong? Again as I said, fear of change.

Can you explain exactly what "wrong" will come from this? Will the world simply explode? Will all children be born with defects? Will everyone become a homosexual? The answers to all of these questions is no. Just because you let someone have a right that they deserve doesn't mean our nation will "fall apart". Get over it man.

If people want to screw people of their same gender, fine. If they also want to have tax breaks and crap like that, fine. If they also want to raise children, fine. Don't however, call it "marriage". Marriage is something God created for a man, and a woman. Not two of the same sex. Look it up, Gia pointed that out as well. Not only would people get offended very easily (myself included), it is just like saying you can marry without God. Marriage is something God created, we just thought that like every other rule we made, that this day in age, we can change it just because we want to, and that's not right. I mean think about it, if you created something, and then someone else took the idea, then turned it all around to the way that they wanted it, completely butchering it, it is no longer the same, why should it still be called the same thing if it is clearly different? Getting married in ways that God clearly says that he does'nt like, is like lying and saying "it's god approved!" All I'm saying is, you want to have sweet little sex and have tax breaks and raise kids, fine, but don't say your "married" when you are clearly not. Ironically, then the name marriage shouldn't be applied to what most heterosexuals get as well. So simply allow these people to have this right and get over it, again, what will go so horribly wrong? So far in Belgium and Holland nothing has. So what is there to fear? Other than fear of change?

He was replying to someone else's thought, not yours. Get over it.So then why don't you worry about it at all. In fact I'm thankful that he came to my personal defence as well as basically said all the things I would. But now because you said this, I just had to come in and repeat him.

I don't beleive he was saying you HAD to beleive in the bible, but the fact that god exists whether you beleive in him or not. He was merely explaining for those who were'nt in constant denial, about his points.He was pointing out how he basically dodged the main question of my post and also, although I'm beating a dead horse, religious texts don't prove a deity's existence.

Yeah, I guess your right, a compilation of actual documentation and arctifacts depicting historic events are all made of cheap plastic in china. Now, 500 years from now, people can go ahead and deny your existance, becuase markers of the past are clearly no way of determining things that actually happened, they were just made up by some crack pot. Please forgive my extreme sarcasm."Pass the good crack you must be smoking Gia, because I'd like to have a hit of that too!"

So far no one's found Sondom and Gamorra and also your statement was highly ironic. Sure the follower's of a religion existed. But that doesn't mean the religion's deity does. I guess you could say the same for evolution right? I guess I must stop pusingn extreme sarcasm as well. I mean the evidence is there and new theories have come up since Darwin's origional. But everyone seems to get so excited when the origional theories are "disproved" or slightly "proven wrong". But that's a different topic for another day.

And just why should the church have no invovlment in the state? Oh yeah, because the government is so afraid to stand up for the Christian principles on which this country was founded upon, and thereby lets anyone railroad their ways of life whenever they want.For a nation founded by Deists, Atheists, and Christians based, on ancient pagan Anglo-Saxon traditions and rules which evolved in Christian English legislation. Might I add that the Articles of the Confederation and the later Constitution were also based upon the Native American Iroquois Confederation? One of the most power Indian nations (uniting 6 Indian Tribes) in the Northeastern Continental US during that period.

Your argument? In case you did'nt notice, he was talking to CYGNUS. Not you. Please read more carefully before you get so gung-ho on trying to prove someone wrong you overlook countless facts and points you really should pay attention to.Just because he answered things addressed to me does not mean it's taboo to reply about it. In turn you've violated your own thinking to replying something adressed to Seraph_Knight. And watch who you're saying is overlooking facts and being so gung-ho, when you can just look over as many facts and points as well.

Jeez so many people replying too. Thanks riBid, EdvardMunch, and Brian for posting while I overlooked this thread.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[GiaDragoness]

Just shut up knight. You know nothing of how those people lead their lives. Who are you to say how someone attracted to their own sex lives and thinks?! I don't know about people the same sex being joined and having it called, marriage, but I think it's people like you who take it all out of proportion like it is some type of evil that needs to be cleansed.

What is it that people that are crusading are afriad of? I'll only give you one guess about it. People can be just plain prejudice, as it has been seen too much already. They don't like the idea of people the same gender being attracted to each other, much less in love, and the thought of marriage of such is an insult to their own ideas. Since they don't want ot just sit down and talk about it politly, they would rather just barge in with a broad sword, and kill it where it stands. They don't want to give it a chance because they are afraid, and they hate it. Everyone has their own idea of a perfect world, and in the eyes of the straight people, they think that the same sex marriage is evil and will bring down sin En masse into the country of which they are so willing to fight for their own personnall beleifs. I think that's why they are so afraid to let it go, because they are perfectly comfortable in their own little world.

edit, fair point edvard, good to see people who use their brains.

:smash: Smashy smashy:smash:

[riBd]

edit, fair point edvard, good to see people who use their brains.

:smash: Smashy smashy:smash:
As opposed to?

[Grom_Icecream]

Wow, this is a pretty hot debate, oh and riBd i think hes referring to people who don't use their brains....(j/k)

I only have a few points to add as I am not American and haven't really heard much concerning this "crusade". Referring to the sanctity of marrige, i think this is pretty much shot thesedays. In Australia a new law came through called the "Baby Bonus", in which couples having children get a $3000 reward. Of course they don't call it a reward but thats basically it. Now days you have people having children for financial gain. I think its safe to say having a child is more sacred than marrige, indicating the sanctity of marrige is pretty much gone.

Also remember that many couples only marry for financial reasons. Is it fair to discriminate against gay couples financially, because this is happening.

[Schwitzer]

Oookey...

It seems to whole argument of, "God says no" keeps coming up, which is just plain annoying. Before you can actually use an argument like this you have to prove the existance of God (beyond "I believe and hence he is" type of fuzzy logic), and then you have to proceed to prove that this is in fact his current stance on the issue. I've heard enough religous debate to know that they're best avoided as much as possible.

The other argument was the whole traditionalist point of view. I don't feel I need to say any more to that because this argument has already been torn to shreds.

So, aside from some ancient little book written and rewritten since years passed, why do some of you oppose gay marriage? Do you actually have any valid reasons, or are you just plain prejudice homophobes? Do you perhaps enjoy supporting discriminating stances such as this? Explain it to me.

[Protosschick99]

I know He exists :D http://www.warboards.org/showthread.php?t=3962

Well, I'm sure ya'llz know my stand point--I'm against gay union. And like i've said before--I have no problem with gay ppl. I don't think that they are possessed by demons or anything, I don't think that they are evil and from the pits of hell--No. Ppl who think like that haven't gotten in the word of God enough to realize that God hates the sin, but not the sinner.

It says in the Bible to love one another with the love of Christ. Which is what I intend to do. I'm not gonna get all crazy and say, "TURN OR BURN SINNER!!" "YOU'RE GOIN' TO HELL!!!"

NO!! That is now what God has called us to do. He doesn't tell us Christians to go around saying that ppl are gonna burn in hell and all that ghettoness--You think that makes us approachable--No. I think not.

It is not our place to judge or condemn, we are not Jesus, lolz.

It buggs me soo much when I see other Christians on here, who don't hear from God, who have no concept of the Bible whatsoever, who live all up in the world during the week and act all holy at church (Ya'llz know who you are--Dun even trip.), or act one way on the forums, but another way in front of other Christians here--And then they tell others that they are gonna burn in hell??

What the heck is that?? That's hypocrisy right there! Ya'llz are tripp'n! Get right with God first and then maybe you can help others and minister but not tell ppl they are going to hell!! You think God smiles down on us when we say, "You're gonna burn!" "You suck! You're going to hell!!"

NO!!! Get it right ya'llz--Live your life for God 24/7/365! I do and I love it! :D I have no regrets. If you feel that it's hard, ask God to help you in certain places in your life where you struggle and watch at how fast and supernaturally you will overcome!

Do you need prayer? Then hit me up and I'll hook it up with scripture and the Word of God! I'll bust out scriptures for you and do my God thing! In fact, there are others here who are awesome in their walks with God--Try Traken, henrywonderchimp, ShadowGonissa, Yahhred, Geno--And a few others. They know who they are in Christ and will not hesitate to minister.

Anywayz, about this gay marriage thing again, lolz--I am against it because it says in the Bible that it is a sin. And the Bible is what I base my life on. And I strongly believe that this should have no place in our country. No, I do not hate gays, in fact, I've got gay homies, but I help them whenever I can. If they ask me I'm there, if there is an opportunity to minister--I do. But I don't judge them, nor do I bring up the fact that they are gay. I just tell them about the love of Christ and what he has done for me in my life.

They get all quiet and don't know what to say, why? Because what I say is the truth and it is from God and they know that there is something different about me than the other ppl that they hang out with.

It's all Jesus ya'llz--He makes me feel wonderful :D lolz

But yeah--I'm against it al the way. No doubt about it. This country was founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it should stay this way. :)

[Grom_Icecream]

But yeah--I'm against it al the way. No doubt about it. This country was founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it should stay this way. :)
Hate to say this but... ask the native american indians and they will tell you your country was founded on bloodshed and mass genocide. Basing a country on christianity is a good thing, but things change. Gay couples are becoming much more common, and more accepted. This is a fact in an ever changing society, and should be catered for by current laws.

Basically, the restriction on gay marriage is discrimination against a minority group. The only real reasons being the so called religious and biblical reasons, and traditionalist groups. Can you say that either religion or tradition is reason enough for discrimination.

I don't think it is.

[GiaDragoness]

Some say why, when others say "why not?". While many people think it may be morally wrong, something that has become clear is that people will still push for it to pass no matter how morally wrong some people think it is. People who are for it are saying it should be allowed, because it is ther opinion. People who are against it are saying that because it is there opinion. It basicly comes down to the wire of opinion versus opinion. Though the bible can be quoted that God is'nt too fond of gay marriages, it also says the God gave us free will to do whatever the hell we want. It may be fair to get married to that of your own sex, it may be wrong, but if we try to repeal and ban gay marriages on the count of "it's against God's will", than we will have to start taking away other things like the right to dress in ragged shirts with skulls on them, wearing your pants halfway off your ass, mohawks, banning of all other non-christian religions, and anything else God does'nt like. Although i would feel absolutly no pain to see a lot of these things go bye bye, we have to remeber that the ticket christ gives us is optional. That's the problem with freedom. It allows you to do whatever you want, even if that includes the wrong choices.

I say the whole idea of gay marriage is far from the right path in my belief/opinion/experience/whatever you want to call it, but something that would be much worse, is to try and take away the options for free will of other people. It's something everyone must choose.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Protosschick99]

Some say why, when others say "why not?". While many people think it may be morally wrong, something that has become clear is that people will still push for it to pass no matter how morally wrong some people think it is. People who are for it are saying it should be allowed, because it is ther opinion. People who are against it are saying that because it is there opinion. It basicly comes down to the wire of opinion versus opinion. Though the bible can be quoted that God is'nt too fond of gay marriages, it also says the God gave us free will to do whatever the hell we want. It may be fair to get married to that of your own sex, it may be wrong, but if we try to repeal and ban gay marriages on the count of "it's against God's will", than we will have to start taking away other things like the right to dress in ragged shirts with skulls on them, wearing your pants halfway off your ass, mohawks, banning of all other non-christian religions, and anything else God does'nt like. Although i would feel absolutly no pain to see a lot of these things go bye bye, we have to remeber that the ticket christ gives us is optional. That's the problem with freedom. It allows you to do whatever you want, even if that includes the wrong choices.

I say the whole idea of gay marriage is far from the right path in my belief/opinion/experience/whatever you want to call it, but something that would be much worse, is to try and take away the options for free will of other people. It's something everyone must choose.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:
Awesome words girly. And yes, God did give us free will. We have the free will to live our lives for God or not. God is a gentleman, He would never force Himself on us.

Btw, where does it say that God doesn't like mohawks? :p lolz

[GiaDragoness]

Awesome words girly. And yes, God did give us free will. We have the free will to live our lives for God or not. God is a gentleman, He would never force Himself on us.

Btw, where does it say that God doesn't like mohawks? :p lolz

Uhm, I was just using it as an expressive example.

"Pass the good crack you must be smoking Gia, because I'd like to have a hit of that too!"
I dont do crack. The conductors for my trains of thought do, I oughtta fire the bastards. Sometimes I swear they derail on purpose. lol. Seriously though, by the looks of your last post of "if god created jesus, what created god?" thread, you already did. lol


:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash: