For Dar and anyone else who harbors his feelings.

[Arborealus]

You really have no clue...

Where do rights come from?

Pragmatically or philosophically?

[Adex_Xeda]

You can't force society to accept gay marriage by making a law to force it down society's throat.

Gay folks want acceptance of their choice, and they want equal protection under our laws.

I say they should get equal access to our laws. Civil unions for everyone. Out of respect for the gay folk, let's throw out the government's endorsing of heterosexual marriage.

Let the title of marriage be bestowed by private groups.
Let the legal benefits of civil unions be bestowed by the government to everyone who want it.

It's a workable compromise where both sides give up something, and gain something.

Traditional folk are just as "right" as the gay marriage proponents. Both argue from moral codes, just different moral codes. Out of respect for both moral sets, we must sacrifice from both sides.

[Arborealus]

You can't force society to accept gay marriage by making a law to force it down society's throat.

Gay folks want acceptance of their choice, and they want equal protection under our laws.

I say they should get equal access to our laws. Civil unions for everyone. Out of respect for the gay folk, let's throw out the government's endorsing of heterosexual marriage.

Let the title of marriage be bestowed by private groups.
Let the legal benefits of civil unions be accessible by all.

Christains are just as "right" as the gay marriage pushers. Both argue from moral codes, just different moral codes.

It's a workable compromise where both sides give up something, and gain something.

Hrrrrm and you can't force acceptance of the equality of blacks by law either but don't you think that was a good start?...It does remove the legal right to persecute/differentiate...So it's a good start...The rest will come gradually...

I'm not interested in this moment in acceptance (though that's the ultimate goal it cannot be forced you are correct)...My interest in this is assuring equal rights under law not equal acceptance...Removing the systemic prejudice and it's underpinnings is the first step...

[Metanis]

No one is arguing for a substantive right for gays to marry. That right does not exist for hetrosexuals either. What is being asked is a right that does have textual support in the 14th and 5th amendments of our constitution - equal protection of the laws. Want to ban gays from being married - no problem - ban breeders too. Give financial, legal and parental rights to breeders, then have to give those same rights to gays. Its really not new, nor radicial. The laws exist, but they are not being enforced.

Please feel free to advocate whatever you feel is valid and necessary. When society as a whole feels your case is justified then I'm sure these rights will be codified. I just think the debate needs to be loud and thorough.

I feel pretty strongly that homosexual marraige will eventually be protected in most of the civilized world. I also think there will be an entire flood of unintended consequences. But at my age I won't live long enough to worry about most of them.

[Aaeamdar]

When society as a whole feels your case is justified then I'm sure these rights will be codified

Ummmm, there is no point to a right of equal protection if your answer is going to be "wait until society as a whole agrees with you." In a democracy, if a majority agree with you then, you don't need rights against the government. The whole point of rights, including the right to equal protection of the laws, is to protect minorities from the tyrany of the majority.

Anyway, this thread is not about gay marriage. Its about how Christian are a bunch of hate mongering morons. Please return the thread to its proper topic. If you want to discuss gay rights, please start a new thread.

[kyoukan]

[Show me a society anywhere and any time in history that doesn't "legislate their morality".

Japan, China, Canada, ancient Greece, ancient Rome, United Kingdom, most central European nations, etc.

In fact, the only two cultures or countries I can think of that try to legislate based almost wholly on fundamentalist religious values are your christian fantasylands you keep wishing for and, oddly enough, Islamist theocracies. Hmm, food for thought. Well, you're a pretty fucking stupid moron, so thinking probably isn't your forté.

[Metanis]

[Show me a society anywhere and any time in history that doesn't "legislate their morality".

Japan, China, Canada, ancient Greece, ancient Rome, United Kingdom, most central European nations, etc.

In fact, the only two cultures or countries I can think of that try to legislate based almost wholly on fundamentalist religious values are your christian fantasylands you keep wishing for and, oddly enough, Islamist theocracies. Hmm, food for thought. Well, you're a pretty fucking stupid moron, so thinking probably isn't your forté.

You fail.

I suppose you're used to that...

[Winnow]

[Show me a society anywhere and any time in history that doesn't "legislate their morality".

Japan, China, Canada, ancient Greece, ancient Rome, United Kingdom, most central European nations, etc.

In fact, the only two cultures or countries I can think of that try to legislate based almost wholly on fundamentalist religious values are your christian fantasylands you keep wishing for and, oddly enough, Islamist theocracies. Hmm, food for thought. Well, you're a pretty fucking stupid moron, so thinking probably isn't your forté.

Hmmm, so it's ok to come up to Canada and start killing people? That wouldn't get me thrown in the slammer due to a law based on it being immoral? All laws are based on morals. Unless Canada is in anarchy I'd say you're wrong. Morals are motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. They aren't tied to religion although each religion likes to lay claim to a certain set of morals.

It never fails. Whenever some conservative takes a stand on a moral issue, some liberal somewhere will indignantly claim, “You can’t legislate morality!” How many times have you heard that worn-out phrase? Incredibly, it’s not even true.

Morality is about right and wrong, and that’s what laws put into legal form. Can you think of one law which doesn’t declare one behavior right and its opposite wrong? The truth is all laws legislate morality (even speed limits imply a moral right to life). And everyone in politics — conservatives, libertarians and liberals — is trying to legislate morality. The only question is: “Whose morality should be legislated?”

Let’s use the most divisive issue in America — abortion — to illustrate how morality is always legislated and imposed on others by both sides in the debate. It’s widely believed the “religious right” (read pro-life) are the ones who want to cram morals down the throats of everyone else, while the “pro-choice” (read pro-abortion) folks are the reasonable ones who don’t want to impose on anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, both sides in the abortion debate are actively seeking to impose moral standards on others.

Everyone realizes what pro-life people want to impose: they want to protect the baby and, thus, impose on the mother the duty to carry her baby to term. But what is so often missed in this debate is that pro-abortion activists want to impose their morals on others as well: they want to impose the morals of the mother on the baby and, in some cases, the father. When abortion is chosen, the morals imposed on the baby come in the form of a knife, vacuum, or scalding chemical. Such a “choice” also imposes on the father by depriving him of fatherhood and the right to protect his own baby.

In short, while the pro-life side wants to impose continued pregnancy on the mother, the pro-abortion side wants to impose death on the baby. That’s right — even liberals want to legislate and impose morality on others! The only question is: “Whose morality should be legislated?”

The author of that is obviously pro life but it illustrates that either way, it's a moral choice and there are laws that back it up in our respective governments although they may not be exactly the same.

I'm in full agreement that laws should not be based on religious beliefs. All that can be done in a free society is determine, by vote, what the majority of its citizens want and leave the door open for amendments. Thou shalt not kill...hmm that's one of the Ten Commandments...seems moral and religious to me...we shouldn't be legislating morality.

[kyoukan]

yes winnow because the only morality is fundamentalist christian morality.

fucking christ I think you are actually getting dumber.

[Winnow]

Nice twist cunt. I like to say random things that don't apply to the debate as well.

Post a picture. It will help.

[Brotha]

Ok well the slippery slope arguement is nonsense logically...There is absolutely 0 evidence just conjecture...

How is it nonsense? Please enlighten me. Once the definition of what marriage is is fundamentally changed, anything and everything wanting to consider itself "marriage" will be entitled to it. Do you realize that the EXACT same arguments you all are making for gay marriage can be used arguing for polygamy and polyamory? "Who are we to judge their lifestyles?" "Why shouldn't they have equal rights for their partners?"

Nevertheless...Let's (for the sake of arguement) say it does lead to recognition of polygamous relationships...what is you logical objection to them? How will this collapse the world into anarchy?

This is what shows exactly how out of touch some people arguing for gay marriage are with reality. I have absolutely no problem with same-sex relationships, group relationships, whatever, but marriage has a distinct definetion. Marriage= one man and one woman. If 5 guys and 2 girls want to get "something that we're going to call other than married" they are perfectly free to do that, but that simply would not be "marriage". You can't just go around changing centuries old institutions that have been the pillar of society to fit whatever definition you want it to.

Can my dog and I get married? Can I decide I'm in love with myself and marry myself? No, because you can't marry an animal and because in order to get married there must be two people. But if marriage has no definition, then why couldn't I? Who are you to judge?

What evidence that you have that this is the "beginning of the end" of marriage (and yes that statement is fear mongering and hyperbole by the way)?

Why don't you quote all of what I said?

beginning of the end of marriage as we know it

Meaning the end of marriage being known as a monogomous relationship between a man and a woman. Marriage would become nothing more than a contract under which people would recieve benefits. You may have no problem with this, but the majority of people in our society still believe in the sanctity of marriage and clearly see the value of stable, two parent (one father/mother) families.

[Arborealus]

Ok well the slippery slope arguement is nonsense logically...There is absolutely 0 evidence just conjecture...

How is it nonsense? Please enlighten me. Once the definition of what marriage is is fundamentally changed, anything and everything wanting to consider itself "marriage" will be entitled to it. Do you realize that the EXACT same arguments you all are making for gay marriage can be used arguing for polygamy and polyamory? "Who are we to judge their lifestyles?" "Why shouldn't they have equal rights for their partners?"

Nevertheless...Let's (for the sake of arguement) say it does lead to recognition of polygamous relationships...what is you logical objection to them? How will this collapse the world into anarchy?

This is what shows exactly how out of touch some people arguing for gay marriage are with reality. I have absolutely no problem with same-sex relationships, group relationships, whatever, but marriage has a distinct definetion. Marriage= one man and one woman. If 5 guys and 2 girls want to get "something that we're going to call other than married" they are perfectly free to do that, but that simply would not be "marriage". You can't just go around changing centuries old institutions that have been the pillar of society to fit whatever definition you want it to.

Can my dog and I get married? Can I decide I'm in love with myself and marry myself? No, because you can't marry an animal and because in order to get married there must be two people. But if marriage has no definition, then why couldn't I? Who are you to judge?

What evidence that you have that this is the "beginning of the end" of marriage (and yes that statement is fear mongering and hyperbole by the way)?

Why don't you quote all of what I said?

beginning of the end of marriage as we know it

Meaning the end of marriage being known as a monogomous relationship between a man and a woman. Marriage would become nothing more than a contract under which people would recieve benefits. You may have no problem with this, but the majority of people in our society still believe in the sanctity of marriage and clearly see the value of stable, two parent (one father/mother) families.

You just can't change it because then it would be different is the sum of your arguements...lol...you are just reasserting...this is the logical equivalent of "because I said so".......

And if you don't understand the essential difference between an agreement between consenting adults and live stock...ya know see a psychiatrist...

[Brotha]

And if you don't understand the essential difference between an agreement between consenting adults and live stock...ya know see a psychiatrist...

Who says marriage can't be between a man and a dog?

[Arborealus]

And if you don't understand the essential difference between an agreement between consenting adults and live stock...ya know see a psychiatrist...

Who says marriage can't be between a man and a dog?

I hope the two of you have a nice life together...

[Brotha]

And if you don't understand the essential difference between an agreement between consenting adults and live stock...ya know see a psychiatrist...

Who says marriage can't be between a man and a dog?

I hope the two of you have a nice life together...

Why do you scoff at that? If you say marriage can be something other than the definition that it is, then why can't I? I'm obviously not equating a relationship of a man and an animal with a same-sex relationship, I'm just pointing out that marriage IS something with a distict definition.

You just can't change it because then it would be different is the sum of your arguements...lol...you are just reasserting...this is the logical equivalent of "because I said so".......

and clearly see the value of stable, two parent (one father/mother) families.

Did you gloss over that line? Do I need to post a few things showing the value of stable families with regards to children and the negative effects the unravelling of marriage so far has had on them?

[Arborealus]

And if you don't understand the essential difference between an agreement between consenting adults and live stock...ya know see a psychiatrist...

Who says marriage can't be between a man and a dog?

I hope the two of you have a nice life together...

Why do you scoff at that? If you say marriage can be something other than the definition that it is, then why can't I? I'm obviously not equating a relationship of a man and an animal with a same-sex relationship, I'm just pointing out that marriage IS something with a distict definition.

You just can't change it because then it would be different is the sum of your arguements...lol...you are just reasserting...this is the logical equivalent of "because I said so".......

and clearly see the value of stable, two parent (one father/mother) families.

Did you gloss over that line? Do I need to post a few things showing the value of stable families with regards to children and the negative effects the unravelling of marriage so far has had on them?

Because marriage is a contract and animals can't be parties to them perhaps?....

And I ignored the stable m/f bs because unlike you i have seen hundreds of the psychological/sociological research articles extant...you are right a stable loving m/f relationship is good for a child...so is a stable single parent with equivalent resources, so I will wager are m/m f/f stable loving relationships....Stable loving relationships are great for kid period...other variables do not load significantly...

[Tyek]

I oppose gay marriage because it would be the beginning of the end of marriage as we know it- a core instituion of our society for centuries. It is not in anyway fear mongering or hyperbole for me to state that.

I think you should be more concerned that people can go to Vegas or the courthouse and get married Friday and by Monday be divorced. Ask Britney Spears.

Here is a scary thought, yes some homosexuals will cheat on their spouses or get divorced for some other reason, and marriage will survive. You see heterosexuals have been cheating on their spouses for centuries, it is an institution and somehow marriage survives.

I have been married for 10 years, the only marriage I give a crap about is mine. Who cares if 2 people who love each other get married, it is none of your business unless you are one of the 2.

I also think it is funny that you claim that marriage should stay hetero because it is a institution that has been here for a long time. I recall reading about other institutions in history books. Things like slavery. Somehow we survived the loss of that institution. Just because something was done a certain way for a long time does not make it the correct way.

[vn_Tanc]

So in summary, again - nobody who opposes gay marriage has a justifiable reason for doing so.

Just call it "civil union" and have it confer all the same rights and the argument will go away 'cos then it will appear different to those afraid for "traditional" marriage.
Either that or call gay marriages marriages and call hetero ones "superspecial marriages" or something.

News flash: maintaining a ban on gay marriage will not turn gays straight. Nor does it affect anyone's hetero marriage even slightly. Opposition to the idea stems only (from the arguments i've seen) from misplaced old-fashioned rigidity at best, and is sophistry to mask bigotry at worst.

[XunilTlatoani]

I'm a non-practicing Catholic, and whenever I see the religous right rallying to legislate every little obscure bible reference, I just turn to the 10 commandments:

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain

Don't see too many Christians rallying Congress for a law outlawing people from saying God Damnit when they drop a hammer on their foot..

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it

Where's the national law that prohibits people from working on Sunday! Is it because it's only one of two days your son/daughter can go bag groceries at the local grocery store to pay for their car insurance... Or maybe you can't live without seeing all those athletes take the field for this weekend's NFL matchup..

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee

Time to ban all nursing homes and hospices...not a very good way to honor your parents as they make their final journey to Heaven surrounded by other sick and dying people instead of their own family.

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Well, at least we have one that most Christians will at least fundamentally admit to being wrong...but I don't see much support for legislation. Hey, you only took an oath before god that you will honor your wife until death parts you both...that's not a big deal, I guess..


So why don't you hypocrites start pointing the finger at yourself before you place the blame for society's woes on a group you feel comfortably alienated from. People like you made me lose faith in my religion, but I'll never lose faith in God's love for all of us...

[Metanis]

Xunil;

Sorry, but I don't have to be perfect in order to advocate a more perfect society. Neither do you. The Lord made it very plain that we shouldn't worry about the speck in our neighbor's eye when we have a boulder in our own, but he also says plainly in many other places that we should help our brothers live a Godly life.

I would hope you would review the tenents of Christianity.

[Marbus]

Actually Xunil, until recently (say 25 years) you couldn't do many of those things.

When I was growing up you really couldn't work on Sunday. Nothing was open except for a few places to eat.

Also some states still have anti-Adultery laws on the books as well, especially in the South. And cursing in public could be considered a form of disrupting the peace as well.

The only thing not legislated, out of what you listed, was the Honor thy Father and Mother. Of course back then more people did so it wasn't a problem...

Just thoughts to think about...

Marb

[Siji]

Since there's simply too much ignorance in this thread I'm going to take the easy way out..

[you] is probably an idiot.

Thank you, carry on.

[XunilTlatoani]

You don't help our brothers live a Godly life through legislation. You have a right to preach to them and pray for them (and you should if you truly believe gay marriage is wrong), but you don't have a right to take away their right to live their life the way they want to. I have a hard time believing that God wants us to persecute others for their own beliefs.

Lifestyle choices should not be governed. That is why I believe that if someone wants to take the Lord's name in vain, work on Sunday, put their parent in a nursing home or commit adultery, then that is their right to make that decision...just as every homosexual should be able to enjoy all the same rights we do, including a lifelong union with a partner that is recognized by society.

You are not a hypocrite for preaching to others when you yourself are not perfect, but you are a hypocrite for advocating legislation for God's will only when it is convenient for you.

It will be up to God to determine if each individual's actions here on earth merit them a place in paradise for eternity.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It will be up to God to determine if each individual's actions here on earth merit them a place in paradise for eternity.

I admire and envy your belief and faith. I wish I still had it. Life was so much easier when I had faith in God.

[Atokal]

[Show me a society anywhere and any time in history that doesn't "legislate their morality".

Japan, China, Canada, ancient Greece, ancient Rome, United Kingdom, most central European nations, etc.

In fact, the only two cultures or countries I can think of that try to legislate based almost wholly on fundamentalist religious values are your christian fantasylands you keep wishing for and, oddly enough, Islamist theocracies. Hmm, food for thought. Well, you're a pretty fucking stupid moron, so thinking probably isn't your forté.

Hmmm, so it's ok to come up to Canada and start killing people? That wouldn't get me thrown in the slammer due to a law based on it being immoral? All laws are based on morals. Unless Canada is in anarchy I'd say you're wrong. Morals are motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. They aren't tied to religion although each religion likes to lay claim to a certain set of morals.

It never fails. Whenever some conservative takes a stand on a moral issue, some liberal somewhere will indignantly claim, “You can’t legislate morality!” How many times have you heard that worn-out phrase? Incredibly, it’s not even true.

Morality is about right and wrong, and that’s what laws put into legal form. Can you think of one law which doesn’t declare one behavior right and its opposite wrong? The truth is all laws legislate morality (even speed limits imply a moral right to life). And everyone in politics — conservatives, libertarians and liberals — is trying to legislate morality. The only question is: “Whose morality should be legislated?”

Let’s use the most divisive issue in America — abortion — to illustrate how morality is always legislated and imposed on others by both sides in the debate. It’s widely believed the “religious right” (read pro-life) are the ones who want to cram morals down the throats of everyone else, while the “pro-choice” (read pro-abortion) folks are the reasonable ones who don’t want to impose on anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, both sides in the abortion debate are actively seeking to impose moral standards on others.

Everyone realizes what pro-life people want to impose: they want to protect the baby and, thus, impose on the mother the duty to carry her baby to term. But what is so often missed in this debate is that pro-abortion activists want to impose their morals on others as well: they want to impose the morals of the mother on the baby and, in some cases, the father. When abortion is chosen, the morals imposed on the baby come in the form of a knife, vacuum, or scalding chemical. Such a “choice” also imposes on the father by depriving him of fatherhood and the right to protect his own baby.

In short, while the pro-life side wants to impose continued pregnancy on the mother, the pro-abortion side wants to impose death on the baby. That’s right — even liberals want to legislate and impose morality on others! The only question is: “Whose morality should be legislated?”

The author of that is obviously pro life but it illustrates that either way, it's a moral choice and there are laws that back it up in our respective governments although they may not be exactly the same.

I'm in full agreement that laws should not be based on religious beliefs. All that can be done in a free society is determine, by vote, what the majority of its citizens want and leave the door open for amendments. Thou shalt not kill...hmm that's one of the Ten Commandments...seems moral and religious to me...we shouldn't be legislating morality.

Kyou PWNED.

[Cartalas]

[Show me a society anywhere and any time in history that doesn't "legislate their morality".

Japan, China, Canada, ancient Greece, ancient Rome, United Kingdom, most central European nations, etc.

In fact, the only two cultures or countries I can think of that try to legislate based almost wholly on fundamentalist religious values are your christian fantasylands you keep wishing for and, oddly enough, Islamist theocracies. Hmm, food for thought. Well, you're a pretty fucking stupid moron, so thinking probably isn't your forté.

Hmmm, so it's ok to come up to Canada and start killing people? That wouldn't get me thrown in the slammer due to a law based on it being immoral? All laws are based on morals. Unless Canada is in anarchy I'd say you're wrong. Morals are motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. They aren't tied to religion although each religion likes to lay claim to a certain set of morals.

It never fails. Whenever some conservative takes a stand on a moral issue, some liberal somewhere will indignantly claim, “You can’t legislate morality!” How many times have you heard that worn-out phrase? Incredibly, it’s not even true.

Morality is about right and wrong, and that’s what laws put into legal form. Can you think of one law which doesn’t declare one behavior right and its opposite wrong? The truth is all laws legislate morality (even speed limits imply a moral right to life). And everyone in politics — conservatives, libertarians and liberals — is trying to legislate morality. The only question is: “Whose morality should be legislated?”

Let’s use the most divisive issue in America — abortion — to illustrate how morality is always legislated and imposed on others by both sides in the debate. It’s widely believed the “religious right” (read pro-life) are the ones who want to cram morals down the throats of everyone else, while the “pro-choice” (read pro-abortion) folks are the reasonable ones who don’t want to impose on anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, both sides in the abortion debate are actively seeking to impose moral standards on others.

Everyone realizes what pro-life people want to impose: they want to protect the baby and, thus, impose on the mother the duty to carry her baby to term. But what is so often missed in this debate is that pro-abortion activists want to impose their morals on others as well: they want to impose the morals of the mother on the baby and, in some cases, the father. When abortion is chosen, the morals imposed on the baby come in the form of a knife, vacuum, or scalding chemical. Such a “choice” also imposes on the father by depriving him of fatherhood and the right to protect his own baby.

In short, while the pro-life side wants to impose continued pregnancy on the mother, the pro-abortion side wants to impose death on the baby. That’s right — even liberals want to legislate and impose morality on others! The only question is: “Whose morality should be legislated?”

The author of that is obviously pro life but it illustrates that either way, it's a moral choice and there are laws that back it up in our respective governments although they may not be exactly the same.

I'm in full agreement that laws should not be based on religious beliefs. All that can be done in a free society is determine, by vote, what the majority of its citizens want and leave the door open for amendments. Thou shalt not kill...hmm that's one of the Ten Commandments...seems moral and religious to me...we shouldn't be legislating morality.

Kyou PWNED.

This has becomed a daily thing.

[Atokal]

But the fact remains, people you give money to are using that money for the purpse of furthering their adjenda of hate and bigotry.

They organize, they fund, they make it their business to ensure that laws are passed that force others to live by their rules. When that fails, they often resort to violence to enforce those rules themselves.

These are not isolated events, these are the everyday actions of fine upstanding Christians and their leaders. If you really want to appologize then stop supporting religion. Read your Bible. Pray to your God. But stop supporting whatever church it is you are supporting, because in doing so you are part of the very problem you claim to be sorry about.

Alternatively, you can also applogize by supporting a Christian church (if there is such a thing) that refuses to involve itself in politics and actively denounces all thsoe that do.

But the fact remains, gays and lesbians give money to organizations that exist for the purpose of furthering their agenda of hate and bigotry.

They organize, they fund, they make it their business to ensure that laws are passed that force others to live by their rules. When that fails, they often resort to litigation, violence and labeling anyone who disagrees as a bigot or filled with hatred.

These are not isolated events, these are the actions of everyday fine upstanding Gays and Lesbians and their leaders. So stop supporting any gay or lesbian organization that propogates the lifestyle, lobby’s government for change, or uses hatred and reverse bigotry to achieve their goals.

WHO the hell are you trying to kid, because you are gay it is ok to use bigoted opinion and hatred to make your point that Christians are filled with hatred and bigotry. Get off your high horse you pompous ass. I have my beliefs, and have not ever slammed someone for being gay. I do however retain the right to disagree with you. I suppose that is the problem with Christians, they disagree with your lifestyle.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Very true Cart. Problem is she is so dim witted, she doesn't even realize most of the times. Plus she has so many cronies backing her she thinks is part of some superior majority.

[noel]

Atokal:
How the fuck was she owned? Because you're far too stupid to understand the point she's making? Just shut the fuck up and go back to huffing paint or whatever it is you do...

and WHAT THE FUCK is the gay agenda of hatred and bigotry? Last I checked gays don't have an agenda of hatred and bigotry just one of acceptance and generally love. We probably should ban the NAACP as well, and we probably should have kept black people from congregating and having an agenda in the 40s and 50s. Just shut the fuck up.

To the thread:
I have been in a non-denominational Christian church where they passed around pamphlets prior to an election that told their congregation how to vote on every single issue/candidate in the election. I have ZERO tolerance for that kind of bullshit. Clearly no one is being forced to vote a certain way, but in my very strong opinion that has no place in a church I want to be a part of.

I agree with Aaemdar. The biggest problem I have with being a Christian is being so turned off by the actions of other Christians. I'd much rather read the bible at home, and turn to people I trust and know are not trying to sell me something for discussion and interpretation. The corruption of religion knows no bounds.

[Sylvus]

Atokal, do you have specific instances in mind of when homosexuals have comitted acts of violence against Christians? I am not aware of any.

I realize you're just trying to turn Aaemdar's argument against him but it really doesn't work. The Bible passages that people often quote to say that God is against homosexuality are basically Christian-endorsed bigotry. Just because you believe that your god said it doesn't change that fact.

The difference between Christians disagreeing with the "Gay lifestyle" and vice versa is that Christians have rights that gay people do not. Disagree with the lifestyle all you want, just let them have the same rights that you do.

[Sueven]

Wow. I got all excited and started typing up a rebuttal to Brotha's incorrect arguments, but then I realized that Arbor already refuted every single point he made. I'm impressed.

[Xzion]

They organize, they fund, they make it their business to ensure that laws are passed that force others to live by their rules. When that fails, they often resort to litigation, violence and labeling anyone who disagrees as a bigot or filled with hatred.
what the fuck is your problem?
Noone is forcing you to be gay, or for you to marry another man. That statement is equally as ignorant as saying "blacks are forcing us to ensure that laws are passed that force others to live by their rules. When that fails, they often resort to litigation, violence and labeling anyone who disagrees as a bigot or filled with hatred" in regards to the civil rights movement

People like you is what is wrong with my country, our society,christianity and the world

[Lynks]

I bet the people that reject gays and try to put them down in this thread probably would do the same to blacks back in the day, or even still to this day.

Why are all of you so negative, thats all I see from the majority of you right-wing folks.

[kyoukan]

all neocons have to hold onto is their hatred and intolerance. everything else is phony.

unless you are rich, the only other reason to be a neocon is so you can hate minorities and gay people and meet other people with similar interests.

[Toshira]

It will be up to God to determine if each individual's actions here on earth merit them a place in paradise for eternity.

I admire and envy your belief and faith. I wish I still had it. Life was so much easier when I had faith in God.

Yeah, it is easier when you don't have to think for yourself.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It will be up to God to determine if each individual's actions here on earth merit them a place in paradise for eternity.

I admire and envy your belief and faith. I wish I still had it. Life was so much easier when I had faith in God.

Yeah, it is easier when you don't have to think for yourself.

Aye, exactly. It's rough when you realize you are all alone. That there is no afterlife. This is it. One shot to get it right. Every choice you make, you have the people around you to answer to and not this false sense of security that God will take care of it. It's very, very difficult.

[Xzion]

It will be up to God to determine if each individual's actions here on earth merit them a place in paradise for eternity.

I admire and envy your belief and faith. I wish I still had it. Life was so much easier when I had faith in God.

Yeah, it is easier when you don't have to think for yourself.

Aye, exactly. It's rough when you realize you are all alone. That there is no afterlife. This is it. One shot to get it right. Every choice you make, you have the people around you to answer to and not this false sense of security that God will take care of it. It's very, very difficult.

i personally find someone who thinks they "know" that there is no afterlife as ignorant as one that thinks they "know" there is.
One who is true to themself will always be open minded, assuming you know "the truth" behind the meaning of life, or lack there of is flat out idiotic...imho. Ive actually converted a few athiest to agnosticism in my day!

[Winnow]

Ive actually converted a few athiest to agnosticism in my day!

You don't have a chance in "hell" of converting me. Being agnostic is just hedging your bet and being a pussy because you don't have the gumption to go all the way and be an atheist. You're still just hoping about an unknown. I have more respect for religious people than agnostics that leave the door open to a fairytale just in case it's true. As a kid, I would read a good fiction novel and thought it would be cool if it was true but I knew enough not to cling to hope that something was true after each work of fiction I read.

I was agnostic from the age of 6 until about 13 which proves that kids aren't able to fully comprehend religion at that age. I should have been an atheist even then but I left the door open because old people kept telling me about this God character and confused me with stories until logic kicked in and I took command of the decision making process for myself.

Make a choice. If you haven't thought enough about it, you're not agnostic, you're undecided.

atheists > undecided > heretics > catholics > wafflers/agnostics

[Dregor Thule]

But the fact remains, gays and lesbians give money to organizations that exist for the purpose of furthering their agenda of hate and bigotry.

They organize, they fund, they make it their business to ensure that laws are passed that force others to live by their rules. When that fails, they often resort to litigation, violence and labeling anyone who disagrees as a bigot or filled with hatred.

These are not isolated events, these are the actions of everyday fine upstanding Gays and Lesbians and their leaders. So stop supporting any gay or lesbian organization that propogates the lifestyle, lobby’s government for change, or uses hatred and reverse bigotry to achieve their goals.

WHO the hell are you trying to kid, because you are gay it is ok to use bigoted opinion and hatred to make your point that Christians are filled with hatred and bigotry. Get off your high horse you pompous ass. I have my beliefs, and have not ever slammed someone for being gay. I do however retain the right to disagree with you. I suppose that is the problem with Christians, they disagree with your lifestyle.

Don't you have an ice cream truck you're supposed to be cruising in?

[Brotha]

I've yet to see a single persuasive argument as to why the definition of marriage, something that has and always had such an intrinsic value to our society, should be changed to encompass things that are decidedly not marriage. No one is currently being denied the right to have whatever kind of relationship they want with whoever they want.

I love how you basically say "so what if marriage is changed and polygamous and polyamorous relationships are recognized as marriages?" To begin with, something like this that would fundamentally change our society should be decided by the people, not the courts. And, as I said, it's disgusting how much worse off children in broken homes are than ones in stable families. The benefits of marriage are plain to see, we can't even debate that. Marriage may not be what it once was, but it's an institution that is worthy of being protected and preserved.

[Dregor Thule]

Polygamy would involve a civil union between more than 2 parties, which is a far larger jump compared to man/woman -> man/man or woman/woman. The ramifications involved in all the fields where government and "marriage" touch would be huge.

[Markulas]

Shit, I was baptized Catholic and now I'm currently an agnostic. Does that make me a really really bad person? I still attend church from time to time and have even gone on a few mission trips(Applachian Service Project) to help out a worthy cause, but I don't appreciate most of the religious aspects of the trips. I have to say I love church's unity of the community, love and sharing and that no country could possibly ever try to ban religion effectively. Unfortunately, I cannot believe in the real foundation of the church. I first became agnostic after reviewing David Hume's view on religion. Whats really funny about being agnostic is that they believe that it's stupid to even discuss religion because you can't prove/disprove the existence of God(s).

But I think I can speak for the majority of the board when I say that something or someone created us. Whatever it is I worship it /worship.

Oh and I can also make up my mind of what morals and values I wish to follow. My god would allow gays to marry.

[Sionistic]

I dont think all agnostics think its stupid to argue religion, I think many actually do want to find truth, but cant see any proof either way.

[Markulas]

erk reminds me I should never say all to any class of individuals.

[Xzion]

I've yet to see a single persuasive argument as to why the definition of marriage, something that has and always had such an intrinsic value to our society, should be changed to encompass things that are decidedly not marriage. No one is currently being denied the right to have whatever kind of relationship they want with whoever they want.

I love how you basically say "so what if marriage is changed and polygamous and polyamorous relationships are recognized as marriages?" To begin with, something like this that would fundamentally change our society should be decided by the people, not the courts. And, as I said, it's disgusting how much worse off children in broken homes are than ones in stable families. The benefits of marriage are plain to see, we can't even debate that. Marriage may not be what it once was, but it's an institution that is worthy of being protected and preserved.

Wouldnt you say the same thing about the President?
I take it you supported Bush over Gore, as i did four years ago and yet you think it is "right" that he is in office due to the results of the 2000 election

Unless you come out and say "although i disagree with his views, Al Gore should be the president right now, because the people elected him, not the courts" Then I cant find a better example that would point out blatant hypocrisy, but then again i guess im pretty damn stupid to expect anything more out of a neocon

[Xzion]

Ive actually converted a few athiest to agnosticism in my day!

You don't have a chance in "hell" of converting me. Being agnostic is just hedging your bet and being a pussy because you don't have the gumption to go all the way and be an atheist. You're still just hoping about an unknown. I have more respect for religious people than agnostics that leave the door open to a fairytale just in case it's true. As a kid, I would read a good fiction novel and thought it would be cool if it was true but I knew enough not to cling to hope that something was true after each work of fiction I read.

I was agnostic from the age of 6 until about 13 which proves that kids aren't able to fully comprehend religion at that age. I should have been an atheist even then but I left the door open because old people kept telling me about this God character and confused me with stories until logic kicked in and I took command of the decision making process for myself.

Make a choice. If you haven't thought enough about it, you're not agnostic, you're undecided.

atheists > undecided > heretics > catholics > wafflers/agnostics

I dont change my mind from "there is a god" on monday to "there is no god on tuesday"
YEs i am undecided, and i will remain undecided until the day i die, most people call that "agnostic", unless fucking demons and angels birst out of the sky and start an all out war for the eternal souls of humankind, even then i would have some suspicion...

Quesitons such as human emotion, the beginning of time and exsistance as we know it,(somethingness couldnt have just come out of nothingness" the reason for "life"

If there is a god im pretty damn sure it isnt a white haired blue eyed single parent white man megalomaniac whos always pissed off at gay people and liberals, but something like a non phisically exsisting eternal lifeforce that connects all life in some form, and shows that just like scientific principles "life cannot be created or destroyed"
If there is no beginning, there is no end

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I dont think all agnostics think its stupid to argue religion, I think many actually do want to find truth, but cant see any proof either way.

Bingo, my friend. I wish I knew for definite either way. It's a constant struggle between thinking I know there could not possible be such a thing, and what if there is. It's fucked up.

[Lohrno]

Being agnostic is just hedging your bet and being a pussy because you don't have the gumption to go all the way and be an atheist. You're still just hoping about an unknown. I have more respect for religious people than agnostics that leave the door open to a fairytale just in case it's true. As a kid, I would read a good fiction novel and thought it would be cool if it was true but I knew enough not to cling to hope that something was true after each work of fiction I read.

I'm sorry but assuming everyone's motives for their religion is pretty dense. I'm also pretty sure that most agnostics are not playing Pascal's wager.

-=Lohrno

[Jice Virago]

I've yet to see a single persuasive argument as to why the definition of marriage, something that has and always had such an intrinsic value to our society, should be changed to encompass things that are decidedly not marriage. No one is currently being denied the right to have whatever kind of relationship they want with whoever they want.

I love how you basically say "so what if marriage is changed and polygamous and polyamorous relationships are recognized as marriages?" To begin with, something like this that would fundamentally change our society should be decided by the people, not the courts. And, as I said, it's disgusting how much worse off children in broken homes are than ones in stable families. The benefits of marriage are plain to see, we can't even debate that. Marriage may not be what it once was, but it's an institution that is worthy of being protected and preserved.

Being heterosexual in no way guarentees a stable home for a child. Also, it has been stated (with sources) many times that homosexual marriages predate Christianity by at least a millenium. Marriages exist for more than procreation, you know.

[Aaeamdar]

But I think I can speak for the majority of the board when I say that something or someone created us. Whatever it is I worship it /worship.

That was me. It turns out I am behind the times though. As the diety of a major religion, I am entitled to cash. I will be setting up a paypal system so everyone can express their devotion to me by sending my cash. Please, however, do not swamp my email box with your requests for various forms of Divine Intervention. Prayer works great for that.