Homosexual Marriage

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

You're right in that nobody has any right to stop them, but it's not an issue of rights.

Christians have personal moral obligations to try to prevent their friends from going to hell. You know how if your friend is about to walk out in front of a train you would probably pull him back, saving his life? Yeah, same principle.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

It's usually not a matter of saving people from going to hell but making their God's word law.

[devonin]

Well...their God's word is "Go out and save people from damnation" so uh...I think it's kinda both.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Lamoc

Religeon ruins peoples lives.

Tell that to the innumerable lives that religion saved. You have absolutely no justification for these inane statements you're making; you're just spewing religious bigotry in YOUR OWN THREAD that's not even about religion.

We're trying to have a rational debate here, so would you mind letting us since you clearly can't be a part of it yourself?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Reikobi]

Marriage is a formality. Surely, without extremist laws being put into effect, you can't hope to stop homosexuals from loving one another. So let them have their formalities -- and their tax benefits. The only thing holding this back is "Christian" tradition.

[Lamoc]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Tell that to the innumerable lives that religion saved. You have absolutely no justification for these inane statements you're making; you're just spewing religious bigotry in YOUR OWN THREAD that's not even about religion.

We're trying to have a rational debate here, so would you mind letting us since you clearly can't be a part of it yourself?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I told you that, it was my opinion. I don't have to justify myself in my own opinion.

Its mostly religeon stopping the U.S. from homosexual marriages. Thats why I brought it up.

[Specforces]

Originally Posted by Lamoc

I told you that, it was my opinion. I don't have to justify myself in my own opinion.

Its mostly religeon stopping the U.S. from homosexual marriages. Thats why I brought it up.

It's spelled "RELIGION" and it isn't religion that's stopping homosexual marriages in the United States, it's the WORD OF GOD, maybe you've heard of it? The B-I-B-L-E, I'll type out the following verse to you and you decide:
Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"
The KJV1611 is infalliable and the TRUE word of God, get an education and come back when you understand where OUR laws come from.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Lamoc

I told you that, it was my opinion.

Yes, a completely baseless one.

I don't have to justify myself in my own opinion.

Oh, forgive me for thinking that this was the Critical Thinking forum and that we were discussing gay marriage, not mindlessly bashing religion. Your post was completely out of place and it seems to me that you're taking every chance to get to spew word vomit all over this perfectly fine thread.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

The KJV1611 is infalliable and the TRUE word of God, get an education and come back when you understand where OUR laws come from.

Eh...prove it? I find it odd that someone would take a book written years after the events described in it, by several different people, and then translated a minimum of twice, that is in at least some cases internally contradictory and then claim that it is infallible.

Hmm...maybe I'll phrase that another way: How can a new version of a book written by fallible humans somehow -fix- inaccuracies in a previous version written by fallible humans, when your only source of knowledge of what is in the book comes from inside the book?

Edit: And further, even -if- we grant you the apparant infallability o fyour version of the bible (which I don't) what does a passage forbidding two men or two women from sleeping with each other have to do with the granting of financial and legal parity in a nation that is supposed to keep seperate church and state?

[tha Guardians]

1.) Many of you think otherwise, but homosexuality is NOT a choice. It a hormonal imbalance or a chromosone malfunction at birth. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but you can't simply decide one day, 'Oh, I think I'm gonna start liking guys now'.

2.) Gays are people, same as we. The only reason they don't have the right to marriage is that everyone gets to vote for them, and control their lives, as if a slave.

3.) Some people say "gay marriage is unconstitutional", or, "gay marriage is against the Bible". Well, gay marriage IS against the Bible, but A.) not everyone believes in the Bible, and most don't believe every single detail in it, and B.) this country was intended in the Constitution to seperate state and religion, and personally, I STRONGLY feel it is much better that way. Otherwise, there would be a great chance for a civil war, and the US dividing. Religion is the main cause of war, and in my opinion, it's just plain stupid to believe everything about a religion and base your life on it. (If I told you that God was a salamander and you believed me, and I also said that he wanted all the women to die, would you oppose women?) Gays that do believe in the Bible are in a pickle, because they can't help the way they are, and it's not something that's easily fixed if at all. I know personally someone who is ashamed of being gay, and although they can't help it, they're looked down upon, and will be ridiculed the rest of their life because of it. Often they've had thoughts of suicide, and being a God loving person, they believe they must hide the way they are, and never go for anyone, regardless of love.

4.) This is called a 'democracy', which means 'free government'. If we take away the right of marriage from gays, what's the difference from taking black peoples' rights to vote, or womens' right to learn?

5.) It's not you or your life, so get over it. You may oppose Gay marriage, but the Constitution supports it, and the Bible doesn't say anywhere that gays don't have a right to marriage. Some of you may still disagree, but my main point is that everyone should have equal rights, and if a single person doesn't have a right to marriage, then what's keeping people from sticking them on a farm and whipping them? I believe the constitution should state that whomever has an oppurtunity to pertain to the Constitution should take full advantage and have equal rights as any other citizen. Only criminals should have limited Constitutional rights.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Off topic
-------------------------------------------------------------
Religion has been around since the dawn of man. Until just over 2000 years ago, Christianity hadn't been heard of by a single person, but there was still religion much further back. Why are you a Christian? If your parents raised you as Islamic and you lived in an Islam-based society, but you had still heard of Christianity, would you still be a Christian instead?

Many people are Christian, and I don't mean to offend anyone, because they were raised to live a Christian life, and were taught to believe everything in the Bible and follow it without questions. The United States today accepts Christianity and depends on it as their main religion, but often ignores or disapproves of other religions, or non-religious groups. If it was the other way around, the percentages would change.

Another main reason people believe in religion is that it offers them hope. I'm all for religion when it doesn't affects one's judgement or ability to see things from a different perspective.
-------------------------------------------------------------


*What man in here is against two homosexual men getting married, but fully accepts two hot lesbians getting married?

I can almost bet half of the guys in here 'against homosexual marriage' are full-on hypocrites.

[devonin]

It a hormonal imbalance or a chromosone malfunction at birth.

I love how you defend homosexuality but define what it is in loaded terms with a distinct "It's bad, wrong, or otherwise a screw-up" language.

[soulofcerberus]

Let us get back to the point of this wonderful thread.

Homosexual marriage is definitely counterproductive, but so is abortion, and divorce. Just because something is counterproductive doesn't mean that it is shunned by society.

Personally I think that it's wrong. However being gay or straight doesn't matter. If you truly love somebody nothing is going to change that. And just because you love somebody doesn't give you the right to complain to everybody else and change the laws of your state. Just because your mindset doesn't agree with a law doesn't mean that it should be changed. If we changed laws based on how people felt, prostitution would be legal as well as drugs and murder and almost everything else.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by tha Guardians

1.) Many of you think otherwise, but homosexuality is NOT a choice. It a hormonal imbalance or a chromosone malfunction at birth.

Prove it. I've taken a strong "we just plain don't know" stance with the cause of homosexuality, mainly because we can't be certain at all.

B.) this country was meant to be seperate from religion.

No, not at all. This country was meant to abstain from establishment.

Religion is what causes all the wars

Wrong again.

and it's just plain stupid to believe everything about a religion and base your life on it.

Third time's a charm. Oh, wait, no. Come back when you have a reason to say that.

Gays that do believe in the Bible are in a pickle, because they can't help the way they are, and it's not something that's easily fixed if at all.

Do you know anything about Christianity? Does the Bible say "Thou can't be attracted to another dude?" NO! It says, to paraphrase, "Don't have sex with other dudes." The latter is VERY MUCH something that they can help.

5.) It's not you or your life, so get over it.

Oh, but my country's stances and policies do indeed affect me, so I have every right to take issue with it.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[soulofcerberus]

I was about to attack him myself but you beat me to it Guido. Good job though, I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Kamunt]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

First off, i use the King James version of the bible (from my experience the standard one among christians) and in my copy (and everyone i have ever used) there are footnotes at the bottom of the page that give a clearer definition of words and phrases that my be hard to understand. Usually they contain cross references of the same subject but sometimes when there is controversy over the intention of a word there is a clear definition which is at the bottom of that page.

Ah, this was not known by me. I don't know if Roman Catholics like myself use the same Bible, since the King James version is English, I'm assuming, and England is almost entirely Protestant, if I remember correctly from Modern World History?

Also, although the bible was written so long ago there have since been new books like the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants that re-emphasis doctrine for more modern time. Granted it was still back in the second great awakening but it was based on revelation that, as you suggest, relates more to modern times. Dont forget to take into account that these books were as well written from revelation from God and the Book of Mormon was translated (NOT WRITTEN, common misconception) by Joseph Smith which talks about the Nephites and other such dealings in the Americas (if im not mistaken).

Keep in mind that i quoted these versus from the bible purely because everyone in the other thread said that they did not believe in the Doctrine and Covenants as well as the Book of Mormon but instead only held what the bible said to be true (for whatever reason). So if you would like me to post some passages from these "more modern" oriented books then let me know.

If you would want to quote a few passages from these "more modern" books you speak of, then by all means go ahead. The only thing is, though, that I thought that many people don't like Mormons very much? I mean, I often hear other Protestants making fun of them a lot (though not as much as they Catholics, I don't think... ), and whatnot...but I mean, I don't really know much of anything about them, so I can't really pass judgment. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if this "Book of Mormon" is supposed to be modernized and such, then would/did/do other Christians accept is as reliable, as well? Again, I don't know, I try not to dig too deep into the politics of my religion, so to speak, lest I further my own cynicism towards my own kind any more.

Originally Posted by Reikobi

Marriage is a formality. Surely, without extremist laws being put into effect, you can't hope to stop homosexuals from loving one another. So let them have their formalities -- and their tax benefits. The only thing holding this back is "Christian" tradition.

Really, though, even if there were extremist laws, as you say, to make people loving someone the same sex and/or gender as them a punishable crime (which actually do exist in the U.S.A. in some states, though in a reduced form and applies to M/F couples as well as M/M), non-heterosexuals would still continue to love whomever they want to. Because let's face it: you can't stop love. A world without love would be a very sad world, indeed. Even love "like that". Think a Brokeback Mountain-type dealie, or even "Romeo & Juliet", where the lovers can only meet in secret. Think about how many couples of all kinds of combinations probably already exist, and not just homosexual ones: i.e. the smart, young girl dating the punk, trashy dude who goes to your local community college and still gets all Cs, Ds & Fs.

Oh, sigh...I ramble again.

Originally Posted by Specforces

It's spelled "RELIGION" and it isn't religion that's stopping homosexual marriages in the United States, it's the WORD OF GOD, maybe you've heard of it? The B-I-B-L-E, I'll type out the following verse to you and you decide:
Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination
The KJV1611 is infalliable and the TRUE word of God, get an education and come back when you understand where OUR laws come from.

...Wow, that seems slightly extreme there. Yes, Lamoc said "a few" things about religion, namely Christianity, which I'm assuming he's generally referring to, that are just downright incorrect and ludicrous, but the way you said what you did makes it seem like you're just insulting him. The "KJV1611", this is the King James Version of the Holy Bible from the Year 1611, I'm assuming? You say this version of the Bible is "infalliable", which I find ironic because it's actually spelled "infallible". That is just a ridiculous statement nonetheless, I must say. It is the "TRUE word of God", as you say...yes, that makes perfect sense, that that version of the Bible is perfect after being published over 1500 years after Jesus Christ's death AND the publication of the very first Bibles. You do realize that, up until the invention of the printing press, every Bible ever made had to be completely transcribed by hand, right? And I won't even bother getting into the whole Bible-was-not-originally-written-in-English thing, since I've already covered that.

...*rereads everything he just typed*

...Damn it, I've really gotta stop making such long posts. EDIT: Oink, looks like most of what I covered in that last paragraph has already been covered. Ah, well.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by devonin

Eh...prove it? I find it odd that someone would take a book written years after the events described in it, by several different people, and then translated a minimum of twice, that is in at least some cases internally contradictory and then claim that it is infallible.

Hmm...maybe I'll phrase that another way: How can a new version of a book written by fallible humans somehow -fix- inaccuracies in a previous version written by fallible humans, when your only source of knowledge of what is in the book comes from inside the book?

Edit: And further, even -if- we grant you the apparant infallability o fyour version of the bible (which I don't) what does a passage forbidding two men or two women from sleeping with each other have to do with the granting of financial and legal parity in a nation that is supposed to keep seperate church and state?

Wikipedia:
The King James or Authorized Version of the Bible is an English translation of the Christian Bible first published in 1611. The New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) edition of the Greek texts, so called because most extant texts of the time were in agreement with it.

Even so, there's a matter of the general message of each passage being there. You can translate the Bible a thousand times and the only thing that'll change will be the way things are phrased. The New Testament, for example, didn't go from being about the teachings of Jesus to the adventures of a caped leprechaun who killed Middle Eastern women.

[Silvuh]

Originally Posted by tha Guardians

B.) this country was meant to be separate from religion.

That's why Christianity is not the official religion of the USA. Some people base their views on their religious beliefs. Say a Christian majority voted for a proposition to not recognize any kind of homosexual marriage or civil union... That doesn't mean the church isn't separate from the state; it means that the majority vote counted.

Originally Posted by soulofcerberus

Just because something is counterproductive doesn't mean that it is shunned by society.

Society includes people who are Pro-Life, so not all of society...

If we changed laws based on how people felt, prostitution would be legal as well as drugs and murder and almost everything else.

What kind of a president would not veto a law legalizing murder? If someone feels one way, there will always be someone else to oppose, right?

Just sayin' some of what's on my mind... I could have responded to more, but I didn't feel like being that much of a prick, haha...

[Specforces]

I'm so glad people took me seriously. I'm a godless heathen...

IT WAS A CAREFULLY CRAFTED JOKE.

At least Guido got it. =/

[rockerforlife1]

i love homo sexuals...

[soulofcerberus]

Originally Posted by Silvuh

Society includes people who are Pro-Life, so not all of society...

Good point. Then again there are a lot of things that are counterproductive, like, for example, FFR.

What kind of a president would not veto a law legalizing murder? If someone feels one way, there will always be someone else to oppose, right?

True. There is always opposition. And it's that opposition that keeps things in check. I believe that in a democracy, when the majority decides that it is fine, that is when you have the right to change the law.

Just sayin' some of what's on my mind... I could have responded to more, but I didn't feel like being that much of a prick, haha...

Not a prick, just full of opinions, which is almost never bad.

[devonin]

IT WAS A CAREFULLY CRAFTED JOKE.

Well, thanks for taking Critical Thinking so seriously, it's much appreciated.