just when i think bush can't possibly get anymore retarded..

Brittney · Post by **Brittney** » February 7, 2004, 7:44 pm

OH NOZ! Teh gay manz is comingz to rape our womenz and takez our homez. Must Stop them before it be too late! Oh noz! Jeebuz told me it iz bad for menz to love menz and womenz to love teh womenz. All our moralz would be gone and childrenz would be sex0rd in the streets if we lets ass buggery run rampent!

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 7, 2004, 7:48 pm

yes but not greatly different were all similar but different

Lisandre · Post by **Lisandre** » February 7, 2004, 7:50 pm

The history of interracial marriage has some interesting parallels to this.

A brief history of interracial marriage

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 7, 2004, 8:11 pm

But they are discernably different how can that be legal!!!...

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 7, 2004, 8:16 pm

Being gay is NOT a behavior, it is a way of being. It's like being left handed or right handed, or being white or black (or anything else).

I know that this is a disputable point, but I think the courts back me when they list "sexual orientation" as a protected status by hate crime legislation, workers rights, and so forth. If a employer wants to discriminate against a behavior- say drug use, or the employee running around tackling other employees- they could. However, they are specifically barred from disallowing employees on the basis of homosexuality.

CalandraWindrose · Post by **CalandraWindrose** » February 7, 2004, 8:33 pm

There seems to be some lack of focusing on the point - the point is not two gay guys insisting the Pope recognize they are "married."

"Marriage" versus "civil union" etc is really all semantics. A couple married in a church somewhere versus a couple married in the courthouse - it really doesn't matter

the OUTCOME is what matters - being married brings with it certain legal protections regarding taxes, divisions of property, inheritance, children and all sorts of things that NOT being married doesn't

how would you like to be someone's partner 20 years and then be told you can't visit them in the hospital as you aren't a relative? or that you have no say in their medical treatment? or no standing to claim property you accumulated together etc? I've seen it happen and it's not pretty - yes there are some legal things you can do in advance to try to plan for these eventualities - but marriage confers with it a lot of legal benefits and protections without having to go through a lot of other shit

people need to deal with the fact that some people are gay - not only are they gay they live together, have children and do all the same sorts of things as everyone else -

I still insist that this issue is a flag waving distraction to take attention away from the HUGE deficit and other unbelievably assinine things Bush Jr. has done with his time in office.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 9:02 pm

Sueven wrote:Being gay is NOT a behavior, it is a way of being. It's like being left handed or right handed, or being white or black (or anything else).

I know that this is a disputable point, but I think the courts back me when they list "sexual orientation" as a protected status by hate crime legislation, workers rights, and so forth. If a employer wants to discriminate against a behavior- say drug use, or the employee running around tackling other employees- they could. However, they are specifically barred from disallowing employees on the basis of homosexuality.

It's not like being white or black. The theory that some kind of gene makes people gay was disproved, although there is still much more research to be done. I'll admit I haven't been keeping up on this subject, so if I'm completely wrong go ahead and post the info.

I don't see how the fact that there're hate crime laws protecting sexual orientation proves anything. If EQ addicts started getting beat up all the time because they were EQ addicts there would eventually be a hate crime law protecting EQ addicts.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and there's no reason to change that now. If people that don't fit that definition want to do something besides marriage, and have the same benefits under the law as married couples, more power to them, but don't ask people to change a tradition that has been a pillar of our society for centuries just so you'll feel "normal" doing something that is decidedly not "normal."

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 7, 2004, 9:07 pm

yea and blacks were slaves forever ... but we changed that? so you think that since they were slaves forever they should stay slaves forever? and yes it is like being black or white ... being gay is just like being a christian, a jew, a white, a hispanic, a black, a whatever ... its a type of people they have their own culture just like all of the other catagory's of people ... if you want to generalize everything then we shouldn't even call people black or white because they are all human

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 7, 2004, 9:09 pm

Brotha wrote:
It's not like being white or black. The theory that some kind of gene makes people gay was disproved, although there is still much more research to be done. I'll admit I haven't been keeping up on this subject, so if I'm completely wrong go ahead and post the info.

Abuse of Science 15 min in the time out box...science cannot disprove a theory...one experiment failing to support data does not equal negation of the more general theory...

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 9:10 pm

Drasta answer me this: As a gay man, if you could be in a civil union and have the same exact same benefits and rights (hypothetically speaking) as a married couple, why would that not be acceptable to you?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 7, 2004, 9:14 pm

And a preponderance of pure correlative data suggest that homosexuality is with significant probability related to a genetic component...which is why they are bothering to look for the genetic component(s)...Scientists only do experiments of that expense when there is a huge probability they will be verifying the correlative data...+ results = continued grant money...

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 7, 2004, 9:18 pm

brotha ... i would be cool with that, but the religious nuts would be like omfg your infringing onto our marriage !!! and throw red flags and shit they wouldn't be happy i don't care what you call it ... paint it blue green orange purple black .. it comes down to being the same thing .. a name is only a name it doesn't change what it is

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 9:22 pm

Just read this:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 043&EDATE=

Meanwhile, following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling last week that its landmark decision in support of gay marriage meant full marriage rights and not civil unions, almost half (45%) of Americans say efforts to protect the rights of gays and lesbians have gone too far; 25 percent say more effort is needed, 22 percent say the right amount of effort has been made. Fifty-eight percent of Americans says there should not be legally-sanctioned gay marriages (33% disagree), while 51 percent say there should not be legally-sanctioned gay and lesbian unions or partnerships(40% disagree).

Americans, however, are more deeply and more evenly divided on whether they support an amendment to the Constitution. Forty-seven percent say they would favor a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in all states, with 45 percent opposing it. (Of those numbers 43% would strongly favor it, while 35% would strongly oppose it).

Despite their views on gay marriage, Americans are almost evenly split on whether gays and lesbians should have the right to legally adopt children; 47 percent say they should not, while 45 percent disagree. When it comes to economic issues, a large majority (60%) says gay spouses should have health insurance and other employee benefits (33% disagree). Sixty percent also say gay spouses should have inheritance rights (30% disagree) and 55 percent say they should have social security benefits (36% disagree). An overwhelming majority of Americans (87%) says that there should be equal rights for gays and lesbians in terms of job opportunities (10% disagree) and 60 percent say gays and lesbians should be able to openly serve in the military (29% disagree).

Fifty-four percent of registered voters say the issue of gay marriage will
be either very important (22%) or somewhat important (32%) in determining their vote for president this year. Twenty percent say it won't be too important and 21 percent say it's not at all important. Thirty-eight percent say Bush comes closer to reflecting their own views on gay marriage, while 29 percent say Kerry does.

Asked about Bush and Kerry's stance on gay marriage, a majority (54%) of registered voters respond "don't know" when asked Kerry's views, compared with 29 percent who say the same of Bush. Forty-nine percent say, based on what they've seen in the news, Bush would support a Constitutional amendment, if necessary, to ban gay marriage in all states (7% say Kerry would do the same). Twelve percent say Bush believes the issue should be left up to individual states (14% say this of Kerry); nine percent say Bush supports gay civil unions but not gay marriage (17% say this of Kerry); and one percent says Bush favors full marriage rights for gays and lesbians (8% say this of Kerry).

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 7, 2004, 9:28 pm

i don't think gays should be in the military ... its my trump card i can pull out incase they start the draft so i can get outta it =-P lol

Galdraith EQ · Post by **Galdraith EQ** » February 7, 2004, 9:30 pm

I'm not in any way religious but Marriage is an institution of the Church, defined as a union between a man and a woman. I think the Church should be left to define what is or is not Marriage.

Actually, marriage isn't an institution of the Church. That could have been true in the past and in exclusively Christian societies, but it's been a while since that was the case. I didn't get married by the Church, but I consider myself just as married as my brother or my parents who did.

Marriage is an institution of most human societies, some people decide to involve their particular religion in it (a Christian Church in some cases, or Islam, Judaism, etc.), and some don't. Marriage is defined in modern societies as a binding commitment before anyone that cares to observe, between two persons, to spend the rest of their lives together. Whether someone is gay, black, buddhist, or handicapped shouldn't matter.

And in fifty years (or maybe less!) it won't

Galdraith EQ · Post by **Galdraith EQ** » February 7, 2004, 9:31 pm

Oh, and Brotha, no offense, but what the majority of Americans thinks about a specific issue doesn't necessarily make it right. In fact, in many cases it is quite the opposite...

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 7, 2004, 9:38 pm

Drasta wrote:i don't think gays should be in the military ... its my trump card i can pull out incase they start the draft so i can get outta it =-P lol

Yeah before I was sworn in I had to read like 2-3 pages of stuff detailing the don't ask, don't tell policy and about how if I ever touched another guy in a sexual way (then it defined what sexually touching someone is) I could get discharged. It was kind of funny at one point it said if you ever try to marry someone who was "biologically" born a man you could be discharged. I have a feeling "biologically" was put in there after some kind of incident

.

You were always a good friend, you know I have nothing against you bro =).

Galdraith EQ wrote:Oh, and Brotha, no offense, but what the majority of Americans thinks about a specific issue doesn't necessarily make it right. In fact, in many cases it is quite the opposite...

I agree 100 percent.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 7, 2004, 9:52 pm

Obviosly everyone is worked over this because....

A) They are afraid they cannot marry there gay lover.

2) You all presently do not have access to the only thing that matters.

Shut up and play the GAME!!!11!1oneoneexclamation1!

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 7, 2004, 10:38 pm

Brittney wrote:OH NOZ! Teh gay manz is comingz to rape our womenz and takez our homez. Must Stop them before it be too late! Oh noz! Jeebuz told me it iz bad for menz to love menz and womenz to love teh womenz. All our moralz would be gone and childrenz would be sex0rd in the streets if we lets ass buggery run rampent!

Brittney

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 7, 2004, 10:46 pm

Galdraith EQ wrote:
I'm not in any way religious but Marriage is an institution of the Church, defined as a union between a man and a woman. I think the Church should be left to define what is or is not Marriage.
Actually, marriage isn't an institution of the Church. That could have been true in the past and in exclusively Christian societies, but it's been a while since that was the case. I didn't get married by the Church, but I consider myself just as married as my brother or my parents who did.

Marriage is an institution of most human societies, some people decide to involve their particular religion in it (a Christian Church in some cases, or Islam, Judaism, etc.), and some don't. Marriage is defined in modern societies as a binding commitment before anyone that cares to observe, between two persons, to spend the rest of their lives together. Whether someone is gay, black, buddhist, or handicapped shouldn't matter.

And in fifty years (or maybe less!) it won't

http://kecirohomeschool.com/whatiscreat ... lution.htm

In particular:

Origin of Marriage: Ordained by God. Genesis 2: 23-24

Origin of Marriage: Man decides what’s right and wrong – homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery…

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » February 7, 2004, 10:50 pm

99% of Americans don't want to pay taxes either, so does that mean we don't have too anymore?

If you go back over the course of 2,000 years of recorded history, the Catholic church has a pretty attrocious record on human rights. They don't have to like the fact that gay people want to get married, they don't have to marry them, they don't have to offer them services but they should read the part of the bible that says some bullshit about respecting your fellow man.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » February 8, 2004, 12:08 am

http://sundial.csun.edu/sun/96s/071196op2.htm

Short article that I most closely identify with of the ones I've read on the subject.

It's not about political beliefs or partisanship. It's about defining that core of any society - the family. Gay marriage is an inevitability though. It's an uncomfortable concept because it further detracts from the crumbling insititution of the family in America today. I don't think it's fair to pin those problems on gay people though.

For those that claim religion "should have no place in our government," keep in mind that this country and it's values as expressed in the Constitution and related documents were not just thought up out the blue by some smart white guys. Every one of the precepts and guidelines they developed our charter from come directly from the Bible. There has been no new information on how to be a "good person" since it was written. The only errors lie in the interpretation.

Religion absolutely belongs in the government, without it there is no handbook to go by and we are left to our own selfish whims and popular opinion. The majority is almost never right.

For those tht like to quote things without having read them, like the many many religion bashers around this board, realize that you make fun of people who do that in other topics ;p Taking something out of context is a sure-fire way to not be taken seriously. Basically if you've never read the Bible don't try and tell us what it says~

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » February 8, 2004, 12:14 am

Krurk wrote:99% of Americans don't want to pay taxes either, so does that mean we don't have too anymore?

If you go back over the course of 2,000 years of recorded history, the Catholic church has a pretty attrocious record on human rights. They don't have to like the fact that gay people want to get married, they don't have to marry them, they don't have to offer them services but they should read the part of the bible that says some bullshit about respecting your fellow man.

Name another human institution that has lasted that long without having made similar mistakes. Churches are inhabited by people, not immortal omniscient things that can do no wrong. The same is true of everything in this world that is made and overseen by us. There are plenty of Atheists out there that have done shameful things. Take the blinders off on that topic please.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 8, 2004, 12:15 am

Rekaar. wrote: For those that claim religion "should have no place in our government," keep in mind that this country and it's values as expressed in the Constitution and related documents were not just thought up out the blue by some smart white guys. Every one of the precepts and guidelines they developed our charter from come directly from the Bible. There has been no new information on how to be a "good person" since it was written. The only errors lie in the interpretation.

Ermmm wrong...most of it was based on contemporary french philosophy...

Rekaar. wrote: Religion absolutely belongs in the government, without it there is no handbook to go by and we are left to our own selfish whims and popular opinion

And wrong...Which is why it was explicitly excluded from the government...And there are ethics entirely independent of religious doctrine

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 8, 2004, 12:20 am

I am so stunned that anyone can think Jefferson was a moralist...lol...read a freakin biography people jesus...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 8, 2004, 12:24 am

how does Bruce and Steve being married effect my wife and my marriage?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » February 8, 2004, 12:32 am

Arborealus wrote:
Rekaar. wrote: For those that claim religion "should have no place in our government," keep in mind that this country and it's values as expressed in the Constitution and related documents were not just thought up out the blue by some smart white guys. Every one of the precepts and guidelines they developed our charter from come directly from the Bible. There has been no new information on how to be a "good person" since it was written. The only errors lie in the interpretation.
Ermmm wrong...most of it was based on contemporary french philosophy...

That and the Iroquois Nations

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » February 8, 2004, 12:35 am

Rekaar. wrote:http://sundial.csun.edu/sun/96s/071196op2.htm

Short article that I most closely identify with of the ones I've read on the subject.

It's not about political beliefs or partisanship. It's about defining that core of any society - the family. Gay marriage is an inevitability though. It's an uncomfortable concept because it further detracts from the crumbling insititution of the family in America today. I don't think it's fair to pin those problems on gay people though.

For those that claim religion "should have no place in our government," keep in mind that this country and it's values as expressed in the Constitution and related documents were not just thought up out the blue by some smart white guys. Every one of the precepts and guidelines they developed our charter from come directly from the Bible. There has been no new information on how to be a "good person" since it was written. The only errors lie in the interpretation.

Religion absolutely belongs in the government, without it there is no handbook to go by and we are left to our own selfish whims and popular opinion. The majority is almost never right.

For those tht like to quote things without having read them, like the many many religion bashers around this board, realize that you make fun of people who do that in other topics ;p Taking something out of context is a sure-fire way to not be taken seriously. Basically if you've never read the Bible don't try and tell us what it says~

That is quite possible the dumbest thing anyone has ever said here on these boards....I mean, are you really that fucking stupid? You want religion involved and predominantly controlling your country and government? Then go move to the vatican and take the rest of your mindless, zombie mass of complete incompitents with you, idiot

Aruman - I respect you and think you're a really good guy, however...our book was written by guess who? Another man! Not by god, not by Jesus or some holyier than thou spirit - by another human being. Catholics are too quick to forget that the new testament was compiled by a bunch of councils of men in the beginning of the church and was composed of gospels that were written down by OMG GET THIS - OTHER MEN! Take your bible and your beliefs and shove them if you even pretend to think that YOUR religion or anyone else's will tell me who I can and cannot stick my dick up....and marriage has been around for centuries if not millenia for all we know - so if you claim that marriage is something you can defined based on Catholicism, sorry chief but no you can't because Catholicism came way after..

PS: Have a nice day

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 8, 2004, 12:40 am

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:Take your bible and your beliefs and shove them up your ass if you even pretend to think that YOUR religion or anyone else's will tell me who I can and cannot stick my dick up....

Well in all honestly...they are free to tell you...you just have the liberty to laugh about it...

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 8, 2004, 12:51 am

Brotha wrote:
Lalanae wrote:The problem with "separate but equal" is not that one is shitty and one is much better. It's the ideology of separatism that is unjust.
I guess we just disagree in principle on this. You can't compare the "seperate but equal" regarding segregation with what civil unions would be. Seperate but equal forced blacks to drink from different water fountains, to sit at the back of buses, to basically be second class citizens. Are you saying that if gays weren't allowed to call themselves "married," that they, while having all of the same rights under the law as a heterosexual couple, would be relegated to second class citizens as well? Marriage is a sacred institution, it's not a water fountain.

If two heterosexual people are married via civil union and you asked them how they are related, they say they are married, you don't have to be religious to use the term or to get married

you can choose how you get married, be it civil union, or the church of your choice, none is better than the other, and you have no right to judge another couple's union as a lesser, different or separate type of union than anyone elses

frankly, you don't own the word married neither does any faith denomination person or government, everyone has equal right to use it no matter what you feel about that couple

in some states you don't even have to get a civil union to become married, you just have to live with the person for 5 years and you are considered married

your personal beliefs aside, bush, or anyone else no matter how hard they try will not get this accomplished, nor will gay marriages be any different than hetero marriages, the government can't force the churches to marry the gay couples, but the government must provide a means to allow it to happen, ie civil union

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 8, 2004, 12:54 am

Lalanae wrote:...religion has no place in our government...

I wish this were completely true jen, however, it is not

there is still "in god we trust" on our money
and during each opening session of congress they pray
when one congressman tried to challenge that practice the supreme court overruled him saying that it was tradition and thereby not in violation of separation of church and state or some bs like that

both of these really irk me

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 8, 2004, 12:58 am

Aruman wrote:People get too wrapped up in being PC. I have seen some seriously ridiculous arguments over terminology. I have seen people almost come to blows arguing over the words/terms Black and African-American.

I'm not in any way religious but Marriage is an institution of the Church, defined as a union between a man and a woman. I think the Church should be left to define what is or is not Marriage.

A Civil Union or whatever politically correct terminology people choose can apply to everything outside of the Church's definition.

Being a hetero(or what some people will call being biased) I do have reservations about certain aspects/rights of such unions though. People will most certainly bash me for this, but I don't believe people in such a union should be entitled to adopt children. But that is an entirely different discussion so I will leave it at that.

have you ever seen birdcage with robin williams?
his son did not turn out gay
not allowing them to adopt is the same as lalanae was saying, you can't separate them from the rest of the populus, if single people, couples that never marry, married people etc can adopt saying gay people can't adopt is separatism and in violation of the constitution

this has all been gone over in the courts 50 years ago or whenever human rights stuff was going on

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 8, 2004, 1:01 am

Winnow wrote:There should be NO legal marriage and only civil unions. If you religious types want to get married, do it in your god damned churches AND THEN if you are worried about legal issues like child support, welfare, taxes, etc, get a legally binding civil union from the government.

I don't like to bash religion but this is so fucking ridiculous that I can't avoid it. Keep your fucking marriage separate from the state. If you want special considerations for children, then make it separate from marriage as well. It doesn't need to have anything to do with marriage. What you should have is a contract to procreate. If a couple wants to produce a child then they should fill out the paperwork and be given whatever blue light special the government is offering for children at the moment.

Civil unions are contracts that help determine who gets what after you screw up your union or someone dies etc...Marriage is 100 percent religious and should be totally separate from civil unions of which ANY two people should be able to enter and be legally registered with the government.

i agree, they do this in part by getting a marriage liscence i believe

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 8, 2004, 1:02 am

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Marriage is a concept and there is a definition of it which includes it being between a man and woman.
Would it make you happy if the official definition was updated to include same sex marriage? Of course not. What if the official definition was changed to purely same sex marriage? Would that somehow invalidate every man + woman marriage in the United Sates? Of course not.

Short answer = your reasoning has no legs to stand on. You are pussy footing around the word discrimination, when that's all this is about. Seeing as how you're all about definitions, look up "descrimination" if you don't believe me.

ohhh man hahaha..

we havn't even gotten into transexual and hermaphrodites yet

where do they fall in?

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 8, 2004, 1:07 am

Drasta wrote:brotha is too mentally conditioned to be able to hear the voice of reason its like talking to a wall ... it doesn't understand what the hell your saying so its kinda pointless trying to get him to understand that he's discriminating because he thinks what he's doing is ok

READ

this guy talks about what its like to have grown up being gay
i think he is right, i don't think its soley personal preference i think people truely can be born that way

he says that its not like he wants to be different, he would have loved to have been straight but he just felt nothing for women[/url]

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 8, 2004, 1:14 am

rekaar wrote:Religion absolutely belongs in the government, without it there is no handbook to go by and we are left to our own selfish whims and popular opinion. The majority is almost never right.

This is completely not true. Many religious people believe that their morality is provided by their religion, and that is fine. But morality can and does exists independently of religion. Human morality guides us, and it is not always contained in religion.

brotha wrote:Yes, obviously it's discriminating, ie marriage has a distinct meaning in which not everything applies.

At least you have the wherewithal to admit that it is discrimination. It is this very simple concept that makes this argument so dramatic. Why discriminate against a segment of the population for any reason? maybe you are right, maybe discriminating against gays is a completely different thing than discriminating against blacks, but it is still discrimination nonetheless.

Drasta answer me this: As a gay man, if you could be in a civil union and have the same exact same benefits and rights (hypothetically speaking) as a married couple, why would that not be acceptable to you?

Because I want the ability and the right to choose who I marry. When you call what I have a civil union and call what you have marriage you are implying that they are different, and should be treated differently. The question I have for you is if it has all the attributes of marriage then why not just call it marriage?

aruman wrote:In particular:

Origin of Marriage: Ordained by God. Genesis 2: 23-24

Origin of Marriage: Man decides what’s right and wrong – homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery…

10,000 years before jesus christ was born people were getting married to each other. Marriage is not an institution of the church, they can and do exist independently of each other. Not all who get married believe in god. You are naive to think that without religion, marriage would not exist.

Brotha is correct in assuming that we are redefining marriage, and obviously he doesn't think we should. But do you have a valid reason why we should not redefine it? Haven't we already redefined the word "family"? Why is it so bad to change and progress our way of thinking? If the old way of thinking worked flawlessly, there would be no need to have this discussion in the first place.

In the end it comes down to this: This country was founded on one core principle, namely freedom. To deny another of the very freedom you enjoy is not only amplified hypocracy, it goes against the very principles this country was founded upon.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » February 8, 2004, 1:15 am

Arborealus wrote:Ermmm wrong...most of it was based on contemporary french philosophy...

Are you saying this "contemporary" philosophy predates the Bible? Or are you implying they just came up with all that stuff by themselves, without having read the Bible ever =p

Xyun wrote:This is completely not true. Many religious people believe that their morality is provided by their religion, and that is fine. But morality can and does exists independently of religion. Human morality guides us, and it is not always contained in religion.

Religion exists to guide that morality that obviously exists independently. I'm not sure what your point is!

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 8, 2004, 1:20 am

sorry lol.. was at work.. had to comment and catch up

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 8, 2004, 1:36 am

Rekaar. wrote:
Arborealus wrote:Ermmm wrong...most of it was based on contemporary french philosophy...
Are you saying this "contemporary" philosophy predates the Bible? Or are you implying they just came up with all that stuff by themselves, without having read the Bible ever =p

Heh I so thought about totally insulting you here...but you have done that sufficiently...

Original thoughts...look into them...

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 8, 2004, 2:20 am

I agree with Winnow.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 8, 2004, 2:24 am

our country wasn't founded on religion thats where soooooo many people are wrong because your conditioned to think that ... the founding fathers wern't even main stream christians ... they were like some weird sect of them if memory serves me

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 8, 2004, 2:40 am

Drasta wrote:our country wasn't founded on religion thats where soooooo many people are wrong because your conditioned to think that ... the founding fathers wern't even main stream christians ... they were like some weird sect of them if memory serves me

Deist...the essential idea of deism is the God wound the clock up and left...

This is a religious philosophy not so much a sect...

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 8, 2004, 3:00 am

eh i was in the general ball park area ... maybe a little into the parking lot but i was close

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 8, 2004, 3:26 am

Xyun wrote:
aruman wrote:In particular:

Origin of Marriage: Ordained by God. Genesis 2: 23-24

Origin of Marriage: Man decides what’s right and wrong – homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery…
10,000 years before jesus christ was born people were getting married to each other. Marriage is not an institution of the church, they can and do exist independently of each other. Not all who get married believe in god. You are naive to think that without religion, marriage would not exist.

Marriage in the context of this thread is in fact an institution of the Church.

If this topic were being discussed 10,000 years before Jesus was born then your point would be valid.

Me, I am indifferent to religion, it isn't something I concern myself with. I do however respect their concept of Marriage. I won't place myself on a pedestal above God, and have the audacity to tell anyone that God's description of marriage is wrong.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 8, 2004, 3:58 am

Aruman wrote:Marriage in the context of this thread is in fact an institution of the Church.

Within the context of this thread, marriage is both a legal and a religious (although not exlcusively Christian, aka "The Church") institution, and only one of those has any relevance at all to a proposed constitutional amendment.

I can't say for certain, but I suspect that the vast majority of homosexuals could give less than 2 shits if the Catholic / Methodist / Baptist / whatever churches recognize their marriage so long as the government does. The issue has so little to with faith that it's not even worth talking about. It is, however, about a couple's ability to enjoy the same legal benefits and protections to which any other married couple are entitled. Such things as taxes, insurance coverage, inheritance, care for an incapacitated partner, visitation rights, etc. are all things that have absolutely nothing to do with one's faith, and are granted exclusively by mandate of the government. It is those things that people care about, and to which they should be entitled.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » February 8, 2004, 4:22 am

Arborealus wrote:Heh I so thought about totally insulting you here...but you have done that sufficiently...

Original thoughts...look into them...

Just how many truly original thoughts do you think people actually have? Naive and arrogant to think we're all so special to have events and experiences that no one else in the history of mankind have had...and written about.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 8, 2004, 4:57 am

Rekaar. wrote:
Arborealus wrote:Heh I so thought about totally insulting you here...but you have done that sufficiently...

Original thoughts...look into them...
Just how many truly original thoughts do you think people actually have? Naive and arrogant to think we're all so special to have events and experiences that no one else in the history of mankind have had...and written about.

Incredibly ingnorant to think we don't...

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » February 8, 2004, 5:02 am

Just how many truly original thoughts do you think people actually have? Naive and arrogant to think we're all so special to have events and experiences that no one else in the history of mankind have had...and written about.

i mean, right on!
since weve obviously been living the same 100 years over and over, since there have been no new thoughts, expeirences, or ideas

the last 100 years have probably had more significant changes in thought/life than several thousand before, creating positions for original thoughts left and right

your incorrect in your assumption that morality and religion are products of each other
they exsist independantly of each other, and in some cases can line up
ive a pretty ethical guy, but i dont believe in god, and i have serious beef with the bible

and justifying the churches inhumanities by saying that other groups have done similar atrocities is um......classy?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 8, 2004, 5:04 am

I just find it beautifully ironic that Bush wants to amend the Constitution with an amendment that is, unconstitutional!

That's all.

noel · Post by **noel** » February 8, 2004, 5:14 am

Aruman wrote:Marriage in the context of this thread is in fact an institution of the Church.

If this topic were being discussed 10,000 years before Jesus was born then your point would be valid.

Me, I am indifferent to religion, it isn't something I concern myself with. I do however respect their concept of Marriage. I won't place myself on a pedestal above God, and have the audacity to tell anyone that God's description of marriage is wrong.

Which God? The Christian God? The Greek Gods? Allah? Gaea?

One of the beauties of our country is that there is separation between church and state. This allows for a myriad of cultures and religions to coexist without one religion making life unbearable for others. Different people have different beliefs that have nothing to do with the Christian God.

As far as I'm concerned, God is only involved in marriage if the couple getting married want him to be.

George W. Bush is showing a great deal of arrogance pushing this type of legislation this close to an election year. He also just lost my vote. Whoever the democratic candidate is is now the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for someone who is motivated by the deep pockets of the religiously prejudiced. Fucking politicians.