Same-sex marriage???

[Seigdespair]

Really I don't care I mean it doesnt interfere with my life if someone gay gets married and although it goes against my religon it still doesn;t affect me in anyway so why should I be against it?

[SoulBerry]

um.. what you probably mean is that "straight" people shouldn't interfere with gay peoples' livestyles. There's war and famine and genocide going on in some countries right now. Sure, it doesn't affect me, but I still hope that would stop and people can live happily.

In my opinion, homosexual people are biological differences. I know that sounds bad, but it doesn't carry discriminatory meanings. People born with handicaps are biological defects too, for example. I perfer to accept homosexuality as a natural deviance to nature, rather than an established culture.

[kokoninja]

Oh man, forgive me if I go on, but I feel VERY strongly on this matter. XD

My opinion is this: cultural, biological, personal, WHATEVER the reason, who the hell cares?

To think homosexuals don't have a right to get married (in the civil sense) is like saying I can't get married because I'm hispanic, or someone can't get married because they were born with six fingers, or that someone else can't get married to someone of a different race because that is what they choose.
Who the hell are we to say anything? It's not our choice.

To say homosexuality is a biological "defect" is a little harsh. Difference is a better term, I think.
Because 100 years ago, being black was a "defect". And today saying something like that wouldn't go well.

I believe homosexuals are born as such, but I don't see that as a mutation or anything like that. That's just what's in their being.

Like, I'm attracted to guys with light eyes. I was born that way. That's not to say that I"m defected, right? Just the way I am. Same thing with homosexuals.

Seigdespair, I think it's quite mature on your part to make your own choice in that matter. It's confusing, yes, because relegion these days seems to try and control their people, abusing the faith they have.
I mean, how many people know St. Sebastian was gay?? Not many, but it's a fact, and he is a Saint now.
No where in the bible does it say homosexuality is wrong.

My rant on marriage is a bit shorter: up until maybe 200 years ago, Marriage had nothing to do love. NOTHING. It was a politcal union between two people for reasons to join power and such.

So all this "protect the sanctity of marriage" is a bunch of BS.
They should've said that 2000 years ago when 13 year old girls were married off to 40 year old men so that they can bear their children and bring a nice dowry with them.

That is all. XD

[Seigdespair]

Oh man, forgive me if I go on, but I feel VERY strongly on this matter. XD

My opinion is this: cultural, biological, personal, WHATEVER the reason, who the hell cares?

To think homosexuals don't have a right to get married (in the civil sense) is like saying I can't get married because I'm hispanic, or someone can't get married because they were born with six fingers, or that someone else can't get married to someone of a different race because that is what they choose.
Who the hell are we to say anything? It's not our choice.

To say homosexuality is a biological "defect" is a little harsh. Difference is a better term, I think.
Because 100 years ago, being black was a "defect". And today saying something like that wouldn't go well.

I believe homosexuals are born as such, but I don't see that as a mutation or anything like that. That's just what's in their being.

Like, I'm attracted to guys with light eyes. I was born that way. That's not to say that I"m defected, right? Just the way I am. Same thing with homosexuals.

Seigdespair, I think it's quite mature on your part to make your own choice in that matter. It's confusing, yes, because relegion these days seems to try and control their people, abusing the faith they have.
I mean, how many people know St. Sebastian was gay?? Not many, but it's a fact, and he is a Saint now.
No where in the bible does it say homosexuality is wrong.

My rant on marriage is a bit shorter: up until maybe 200 years ago, Marriage had nothing to do love. NOTHING. It was a politcal union between two people for reasons to join power and such.

So all this "protect the sanctity of marriage" is a bunch of BS.
They should've said that 2000 years ago when 13 year old girls were married off to 40 year old men so that they can bear their children and bring a nice dowry with them.

That is all. XD

lol thank u for the positive comment.

[IchigoNoGo]

All i know is that i support gays and them marrying each other. Did i also mention i read Yaoi and shounen ai. So cuuuuutttteeee.

[Divine Truth]

1. I do not support gay marriage.
2. I don't believe homosexuality is a biological "defect" because it is a lifestyle choice.
3. I don't think that keeping homosexual from marrying is the same keeping people of a certain race from marrying. My reasoning for this goes back to my second opinoin. It's not the same because i believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. On the other hand I, for example, had no choice in being black (I wouldn't change that if I could). That might not make sence to some, but then again it's just my opinion.

[SoulBerry]

whoever said "defect"? *whistles*

[kokoninja]

SoulBerry: XD lol. not sure?? I must've been dreamin'. *e-hug*
Dipset: You're right in saying it's not the same as race, but that's only for those who truly believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, which I do not. In that case, i can be compared. Though you have a valid point, I may have been a big extreme in that statement. My apologies.
However, I don't think it's fair to keep going "it IS this" because nobody can know for sure, y'know? We all believe different things, it's yet to be proven either way (same with religion, nobody really knows who's right or wrong). My feeling is simply that whichever way it gets proven, whether I am right or wrong, I don't think it should matter. If people love each other they have the right to get the legal benefits just like everybody else who loves each other.
The marriage I am strictly pertaining is civil marriage endorced by the state/captian of a ship, etc. The religious aspect is a choice by the pair after they get the legal stuff done, and whether or not homosexual marriage should be allowed by church is still up in the air for me.
IchigoNoGo: ahh, shounen ai. XD <3
Seigdespair: hey now, no thanks needed. It's the truth, it's hard to come by people who are willing to make choices for themselves, sometimes. It's refreshing.

[Seigdespair]

uhhh kokoninja what are u talking about bro? lol i dont kno wat exactly u mean lol.

[bleached]

Hey, if they want to get married, it's their decision. It's not my place to say what they can and can't do.

[Kulong]

yea its not ur place to say so, but bush wants it out plus most of the southern state alrdy ban same sex marriage, pretty sad ain't it

[Seigdespair]

yea well of course the southern states would do something like that. I've heard some pretty stupid stuff from the dudes in congress in the south. I don't remember who said this but I know one of the congressman was like :"It does not matter whether they are love with a turtle, gay marriage is something that affects americans lives" -something like that I dont remember exactly. Anyways yea...

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

I totally agree with Dipset Anthem if you people believe in God think of it this way "God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."

[Nami]

hahah that's hilairious Adam and Steve...but yea its true. Same sex marriage should be prohibited. God destroyed a whole town just because of that. That is if any of you know the story of Lot I think it is. Anyways Im wholly against it so hate me for it if you want to but it wont change my views.

[Divine Truth]

hahah that's hilairious Adam and Steve...but yea its true. Same sex marriage should be prohibited. God destroyed a whole town just because of that. That is if any of you know the story of Lot I think it is. Anyways Im wholly against it so hate me for it if you want to but it wont change my views.
Yeah, the story of the two cites Sodom (that's where ther term sodomy came form) and Gomorrah was pretty serious.

[Seigdespair]

^ ah well I'm not christian so stuff like this doesnt matter to me. Not there is anythign wrong with christian religon religon, to each his own after all...

[Nami]

What are you seig? Im muslim. ^.^

[Seigdespair]

Nami u serious ure muslim dude?!!!! Hey wassup I'm muslim too! PM Where your from and stuffs ^_^

[Nami]

Oh man, forgive me if I go on, but I feel VERY strongly on this matter. XD

My opinion is this: cultural, biological, personal, WHATEVER the reason, who the hell cares?

To think homosexuals don't have a right to get married (in the civil sense) is like saying I can't get married because I'm hispanic, or someone can't get married because they were born with six fingers, or that someone else can't get married to someone of a different race because that is what they choose.
Who the hell are we to say anything? It's not our choice.

To say homosexuality is a biological "defect" is a little harsh. Difference is a better term, I think.
Because 100 years ago, being black was a "defect". And today saying something like that wouldn't go well.

I believe homosexuals are born as such, but I don't see that as a mutation or anything like that. That's just what's in their being.

Like, I'm attracted to guys with light eyes. I was born that way. That's not to say that I"m defected, right? Just the way I am. Same thing with homosexuals.

Seigdespair, I think it's quite mature on your part to make your own choice in that matter. It's confusing, yes, because relegion these days seems to try and control their people, abusing the faith they have.
I mean, how many people know St. Sebastian was gay?? Not many, but it's a fact, and he is a Saint now.
No where in the bible does it say homosexuality is wrong.

My rant on marriage is a bit shorter: up until maybe 200 years ago, Marriage had nothing to do love. NOTHING. It was a politcal union between two people for reasons to join power and such.

So all this "protect the sanctity of marriage" is a bunch of BS.
They should've said that 2000 years ago when 13 year old girls were married off to 40 year old men so that they can bear their children and bring a nice dowry with them.

That is all. XD
I've happily decided to give you various places in the Qu'ran where it says its prohibited.

7:80-1 "And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk."

26:165-6 "What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, And leave the wives your Lord created for you ? Nay, but ye are froward folk."

27:54-55 "And Lot! when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination knowingly? Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly."

29:28-29 "And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you. For come ye not in unto males

[Seigdespair]

ergh Nami has got me by a tight hold since she brought up the Qu'ran *whimpers at the Qu'ran's power and Nami's use of it*

[Nami]

hahah I used the internet >.> I was too lazy too transfer it by typing. But look up those same ayahs you'll find it the same.

[Rashinban]

Religion in this case should not come into play. My problem with the prohibition of same-sex marriage is that it denies them the legal benifits of marriage, which is what the intention of granting homosexuals the ability to marry is all about. Religion has nothing to do with the reason behind allowing homosexuals to marry, nor do I believe that religion should specifically have anything to do with marriage in general (if two Christians want to get married before God, that is them and them alone). Two athiests can get married in this country, but for some reason not two homosexuals? I don't see where religion should come into play, here.

Marriage is not the same thing as a civil union, which so far is the best they have (outside of several states which do legally bind two homosexuals together in marriage). Because two homosexuals cannot get married, they cannot claim their partner on their insurance as a liabiliy. They could not claim an adopted child, either, and thus suffer financially. Other instances apply as well.

Also, Sodom and Gomorrah is likely one of the most poorly translated and misinterpreted scriptures. The problem lies in the translation of the crowd (which doesn't suggest that they were all men) of Sodom wanting "to know" the two angels who were residing with Lot. They were suspicious and angered at them. Two men intruded the house to demand Lot explain, and they were punished by the angels for it. The connotation for them wanting to have sexual relations with the angels is just a connotation, meaning that it isn't necessarily what the original text meant. They were killed and the cities destroyed for being wrathful at the angels, not for wanting to lust with them, most likely.

[Divine Truth]

No where in the bible does it say homosexuality is wrong.

If a response to this is a little late, forgive me...Wow, are you kidding me?

Leviticus 18:22 - Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - Do you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom od God?...Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor prostitues nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God.

There are more examples, but i'm too lazy to find them all.

I know some people say that "that stuff was written 2,000 years ago. Times have changed." Yes, time has passed but nothing has changed. Or to be cliched, "Nothing is new under the sun." To Christians (I don't know what the case may be for Muslims) God's word (i.e. The Bible) is everlasting and unchanging. What was said then remains true for the present.

To Rashinban, you may be atheist or just not a very religious person. So religion might not play a role for you. But to those who are religious it plays a major role. A person's religion often governs many aspects of their decison making and obiviously their opinions.

[Rashinban]

Yes, I am aware that religion typically governs the decisions and opinions of those who follow, which is why I personally don't hold too tightly on Christianity, and act on my own opinions which are not established by the religion I follow. I have religion for purposes of faith, not as a way to govern my actions or opinions. I consider myself Christian, yet one of laxed religious fervency.

However, I tried to make a point that religion has little to do with the reason behind same-sex marriage. Like I said, religion does not come into the mix, for it is for legal reasons that homosexuals wish to be allowed to marry. Marriage carries a binding legal contract which grants them very many rights as a couple, such as the ones I previously stated. Athiests can get married, so where does religion come into the picture there? I submit that homosexuals should be allowed to marry for this purpose, at least in the legal sense. It is up to the church to perform or not to perform these ceremonies, and they have their own right to marry whomever they wish, but in the legal sense, homosexuals should have the right to marry.

[Seigdespair]

I'll have to agree with Rashinban. (hey man arent you in narutomania as well?) Gay marriage is a matter which should be determined by a legal sense not by religon. There are many aspects of the American society which is considered immoral and against the Christian religon and people don't seem to argue much about that. Although I am Muslim no one determines who I should marry despite recent ethnic tensions with Muslim society. In the end even if people consider gay marriage immoral and wrong (as they did to interacial marriage back in the day) they cannot deny their rights as United States citizens. Now I'm not taking sides here (cause that would be too dangerous lol) but I think that it would be better to rely on the legal aspects of society to determine desicions rather than the Bible (after all Dipset this is a country designed to accept ALL relgions and people not just you and your Christian society, I hope no offense is taken) if it wasn't I wouldn't be in this country because everything would be run on Christian groups (the same people who think Spongebob is gay).

[Nami]

Religion in this case should not come into play. My problem with the prohibition of same-sex marriage is that it denies them the legal benifits of marriage, which is what the intention of granting homosexuals the ability to marry is all about. Religion has nothing to do with the reason behind allowing homosexuals to marry, nor do I believe that religion should specifically have anything to do with marriage in general (if two Christians want to get married before God, that is them and them alone). Two athiests can get married in this country, but for some reason not two homosexuals? I don't see where religion should come into play, here.

Marriage is not the same thing as a civil union, which so far is the best they have (outside of several states which do legally bind two homosexuals together in marriage). Because two homosexuals cannot get married, they cannot claim their partner on their insurance as a liabiliy. They could not claim an adopted child, either, and thus suffer financially. Other instances apply as well.

Also, Sodom and Gomorrah is likely one of the most poorly translated and misinterpreted scriptures. The problem lies in the translation of the crowd (which doesn't suggest that they were all men) of Sodom wanting "to know" the two angels who were residing with Lot. They were suspicious and angered at them. Two men intruded the house to demand Lot explain, and they were punished by the angels for it. The connotation for them wanting to have sexual relations with the angels is just a connotation, meaning that it isn't necessarily what the original text meant. They were killed and the cities destroyed for being wrathful at the angels, not for wanting to lust with them, most likely.
Well I guess in the legal sense of the U.S. as far as marriage goes and equality there may not be a problem. Religion however and God can play a major role in the way that they practice their lusts. For muslims, its prohibited to have illegal sexual intercourse unless your married and its made halal. But to practice your lusts on those of your own sex? That's wrong in my opinion. Those who do things like this will burn in hell and their sins are taken into account by the angel on their left shoulder. Im fully aware when I'm saying they'll burn in hell because if I said it when I don't know for sure, I'd go to hell myself.

Only God knows...I know what he wishes for me to know.
Only God knows...I know what he wishes for me to know.
Only God knows...I know what he wishes for me to know.

Last time I'm posting on this matter. I won't force anyone into Islam. That's haram in our religion. Islam. Is. Perfect. I only wish...or my greatest wish..would be for people to not commit wrongful acts. It sort of sad..when you know what would happen to them at the end of time and they abide in their ignorance forever until their dying day when they ask for repentance but will get none because its too late. Here's another interesting fact that I find rather interesting. Jesus is going to come at the end of time and his hair will look wet but it wont actually be wet. He going to break the cross, kill the pig and christians will convert to Islam because that is all their religion stands for. There will be a time of peace when the mahdi comes for 7 years and foxes will play with sheep and the peel of the pommegranate will be shelter for ten men. Jesus will then kill the fake messiah. At the end of time the only safe place to go is to Mecca or Medina. If I were to live till then, I'd go there crawling across snow. Sorry bout the long post guys. Im posting whatever pops into my head. I didnt even know I knew this much. Knowledge is a blessing. If anyone has questions PM me because like I said last time I'm posting in this thread.

[Dante]

Really I don't care I mean it doesnt interfere with my life if someone gay gets married and although it goes against my religon it still doesn;t affect me in anyway so why should I be against it?

this post pretty much sums up my belief on gay marriage. doesn't hurt me, i shouldn't hurt them.

[IchigoNoGo]

I'm a democrat and I absolutely support gay marraige!!!!!!.....I hate religion.....i think its the root of all problems....i think people who oppose homosexualty are scared of having people of the same sex get on to them........dont mind my reasoning, i am only 16.

[gogo]

it seems like this thread was hot when it happened but no one wants to talk about it anymore BUT
along the lines of what seigdespair and rashinban wrote - i think the debate of same sex marriage has everything to do with religion
people are opposed to it b/c of their religious ideals or b/c it's different and disgusting to them. lawmakers usually listen to to their constituents and the loudest lobbying parties who tell their legislators that they don't want gay marriage. almost all of the lawmakers themselves are christians also that believe homosexuality is a sin
and thus all these state bans on gay marriages
i don't understand how you can separate people's beliefs from lawmaking - you can't pass laws unless it follows people's beliefs (or based on the COnstitution, also made up of people's belief's) - i think it's shown here in other people's posts - they are christian/muslim and they believe homosexuality is a sin and that's why they don't think there should be gay marriages (or gay people for that matter)
i'm all for gay marriages - anyone should have the privilege of being married regardless of sexual preference. i don't think it's a lifestyle - i think it's a mix of genetics and environment. people are opposed b/c their religion tells them it's wrong or b/c they're scared of something different they don't understand
the problem is that marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege that the government can legally deny (at this point). hopefully, with more lawsuits the case law will evolve and eventually the Supreme Court will hear it. and hopefully, if ginsburg lasts a few more years (doubt it) and a couple others and bush doesn't get the chance to appoint people he wants (though that may not make a difference, knock on wood) that if the issue of gay marriage comes before the Sp Ct, there will be a favorable decision

i know this was long and boring but i just read this thread and i feel strongly about this like kokoninja does

[Babbo]

Religion in this case should not come into play. My problem with the prohibition of same-sex marriage is that it denies them the legal benifits of marriage, which is what the intention of granting homosexuals the ability to marry is all about. Religion has nothing to do with the reason behind allowing homosexuals to marry, nor do I believe that religion should specifically have anything to do with marriage in general (if two Christians want to get married before God, that is them and them alone). Two athiests can get married in this country, but for some reason not two homosexuals? I don't see where religion should come into play, here.

Marriage is not the same thing as a civil union, which so far is the best they have (outside of several states which do legally bind two homosexuals together in marriage). Because two homosexuals cannot get married, they cannot claim their partner on their insurance as a liabiliy. They could not claim an adopted child, either, and thus suffer financially. Other instances apply as well.

Also, Sodom and Gomorrah is likely one of the most poorly translated and misinterpreted scriptures. The problem lies in the translation of the crowd (which doesn't suggest that they were all men) of Sodom wanting "to know" the two angels who were residing with Lot. They were suspicious and angered at them. Two men intruded the house to demand Lot explain, and they were punished by the angels for it. The connotation for them wanting to have sexual relations with the angels is just a connotation, meaning that it isn't necessarily what the original text meant. They were killed and the cities destroyed for being wrathful at the angels, not for wanting to lust with them, most likely.

well religion is the source of the idea of marriage, only recent importance of the union in secular society has caused the interpretation that religion might have nothing to do with marriage.

and yeah as dipset said, leviticus does say that it is an abomination for a man to sleep with another man....and I doubt there was much of a problem traslating it.....

anyways I think they can have the all the legal benefits they want, just don't mess around with marriage itself, it's an insult to christians, who make up around a third of the world population.....

[Divine Truth]

it seems like this thread was hot when it happened but no one wants to talk about it anymore BUT...
I don't know about anybody else but for me it had nothing to do with the timing. I'm not a big fan of debating, to me it's only glorified arguing/squabbling. I said my piece and gave support for my views, so beyond that I have nothing more to say (similar to Nami). But if there's something totally outrageous that I feel compelled to speak on, I'll chime in.

I don't know why, but I am compelled to say that I respect everyone's opinions (as do I hope everyone else does). I might not agree with them, but I respect them all the same. *steps off soapbox* :D

[gogo]

anyways I think they can have the all the legal benefits they want, just don't mess around with marriage itself, it's an insult to christians, who make up around a third of the world population.....

i just hope that there won't be any bans on gay marriages some time in the near future.
i know people have used this to argue before but it's true - i'm sure men found, b/f 1920 (i think that's the date), the idea of women voting insulting and obviously most white people loved the idea of segregation b/f the 60's
maybe these weren't in the bible, but closely held beliefs are closely held beliefs
and those two involve constitutional rights but courts can interpret the most liberal views into any constitutional right and i hope they eventually will read marriage as one

and debating is sometimes pointless b/c both sides are stubborn but this thread read more like people just stating their opinions so i'm just stating mine

again

[Manjisan]

nice one, but fanatical devotion to religion isn't an old idea to the world and is unlikely to ever change. I guess its human nature to dislike what is differnet than them, especially when it involves something that their beloved values shun. It would be truly satisfying to see religion be done away with so there could be some peace and tolerance in this world.

[Divine Truth]

nice one, but fanatical devotion to religion isn't an old idea to the world and is unlikely to ever change. I guess its human nature to dislike what is differnet than them, especially when it involves something that their beloved values shun. It would be truly satisfying to see religion be done away with so there could be some peace and tolerance in this world.
So am I to understand that religion is the root of all unrest and intolerence? Sure. As long as there are human beings living on this Earth there will be conflict. Removing one set of people/belief system cannot change human nature. Besides I'm sure that there are plenty atheists who are against homosexuality, so it's not just a religion thing.

[Babbo]

i just hope that there won't be any bans on gay marriages some time in the near future.
i know people have used this to argue before but it's true - i'm sure men found, b/f 1920 (i think that's the date), the idea of women voting insulting and obviously most white people loved the idea of segregation b/f the 60's
maybe these weren't in the bible, but closely held beliefs are closely held beliefs
and those two involve constitutional rights but courts can interpret the most liberal views into any constitutional right and i hope they eventually will read marriage as one

and debating is sometimes pointless b/c both sides are stubborn but this thread read more like people just stating their opinions so i'm just stating mine

again

well you can think that but I think you're taking religion way to lightly, it isn't simply a set of beliefs, it's a way of life...

[gogo]

well you can think that but I think you're taking religion way to lightly, it isn't simply a set of beliefs, it's a way of life...

but aren't beliefs the root of anyone's way of life? so when it comes down to it, that's why you choose to live your life a certain way - b/c you believe in it

i'm not sure if i understand why you think i take it lightly from what i said.
in this discussion i take other people's religious (or non-religious) beliefs very seriously b/c that's what's at the heart of this argument (as really almost everything else is)
sometimes i do take it too lightly (i try not to, to be respectful) but people always bring it back to religion so it can never be ignored

[Babbo]

yes, but think about it, if it's your life, the way you believe you MUST live your life or you're going to hell, that God asks us to live this way, would you take the chance of changing it???

[k_angel_iii]

Really I don't care I mean it doesnt interfere with my life if someone gay gets married and although it goes against my religon it still doesn;t affect me in anyway so why should I be against it?
Well said. I also have my personal beliefs and there are tons of things people are doing that go against my beliefs. Whatever people do it's their own business so long as they aren't doing something that affects me.

[D34th Ch1x0r]

Generally, I don't mind gays or lesbians so long as they don't affect me. And while it does go against many people's beliefs-I believe it's their decision in the first place and I don't really have the right to step in and say stuff like, "that's against my beliefs, don't do it." I have a few friends who are bi and so long as the same sex doesn't...well...approach me in that manner I'm fine, lol. :p

[Kikintae]

I support gay marriages.

I absolutely detest the banning of gay marriages. I just don't think that the government should use religion to prohibit someone's preferences. Especially using the bible as a source since it was written by people back then to their advantages. It is in no way "the truth".

[mikaeel]

I'm a Muslim and I do believe in god and religion though I'm a hopeless and bad Muslim who may go to hell (my friends probably going to kill me for that).

I believe in same sex marriages as long as it doesn't affect me in cost I don't care, anyway I don't think it does. They should have a right, I mean look at how black people were treated in America years back, I mean I studied it in history but my god it was terrible. I live in the UK so I don't know how Amarica is on the subject. Homosexuals get killed in Iran if they get found out, a man was banned from the capital of the UAE because he was gay. All this for something they cannot help or at least thats how I see it. Why should you control love for god, he gave you free will why not use it, but if you cannot get married then it is against religion, that saddens me.

Anyway its only againt religion because homosexuals can't reproduce, think about it, it does make sense. My ****** said that and I get it, she is against homosexuality but she will not hate a person for it.

Its late, sorry ^^;

[♠ Saint ♠]

Wow, I was kinda waiting for this topic to come up. I once spoke with a hardshell Baptist lady who is my ******'s best friend and we were discussing same-sex marriage. Mind you, I have the tendency to be detect bull**** and tune out whatever comes after it so I don't remember much of the convo but what I do remember is that she believes Bush to be a good Christian and that same-sex marriage will be the downfall of society. Something about government benefits for married couples and such.

Anyhow, too many people automatically think Christian when they think marriage but Christianity has no claim to the practice of marriage. Hell, the faith is only 2,000 or so years old and marriage has been around for at least 3 times as long as that. Point in fact, no faith really has dibs on marriage so I say let gay and lesbian couples marry. What's the harm?

[P4lladiumShifted]

I don't believe homosexuality is a biological "defect" because it is a lifestyle choice. A choice? Okay, if it's a choice, how about a little experiment? For five minutes, you choose to be attracted to the same sex. Let's see what happens...
********
Anyway, in response to the topic specifically...

Most of the arguments against gay marriage are either based on religion (which also tells us that we can sell our daughters into slavery and stone people who wear clothing made of two different materials) or on tradition.

The religious arguement is null and void because we have the Freedom of Religion which (according to Thomas Jefferson's phrase "separation of church and state") means freedom from religion. You have the right to practice your religion and follow its teachings as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others, just like every other freedom in the constitution.

The tradition arguement is "Well it's never been allowed before, so why do it now?" Following that line of thought why aren't we still using candles instead of electricity, riding horses rather than driving cars, living in caves instead of houses, and dying of exposure rather than wearing sunblock? Just because it has never been done before doesn't make it wrong.


In summary, just because a bunch of idiots agree on something, doesn't make them right. It just makes them idiots.

[Yakamashi]

it is a sexual preference. hell i dont care if they get married or not. in fact 3 houses down from me is a lesbian couple. theres a term we kids still use " its none of your business" why the hell shud the government care? they can do watever they want. ... but i actually do find it a little weird. ::sigh:: im still an immature freshie ^^;;

[P4lladiumShifted]

Sure it's a preference, but it's not a ****ed choice.

I didn't choose to find both studly guys and hot babes attractive, but here I am.

And I agree with you, it isn't any of the government's (or Church's for that matter) business who marries who. *hugs Yakamashi*

[PINOY]

As I say in other deabates it's all a matter of public opinion and the media presenting this to us...the audience. Same sex marrage has been a long time controversy since people started marrying and actually knew what it all stood for. My opinion is that if you want to do it, more power to you. I don't care as long as it doesn't interfere with me. Unless 2 hot chicks go at it hahaha but I'm a guy I can't help thinking those thoughts like all other guys (straight). Anyway I'll shut up now since I hate reading loooooooong posts and suppose you all do too so I leave the rest to your imagination.

[BlueKeitaro]

I dont think there is anything wrong with it. People should have a right to marry who they want and it won't really collide with religon.

[Babbo]

Babbo thinks you people are getting way from the topic at hand in most instances, this has nothing to do with your ideas about gays and lesbians, it's about the idea of the ban on gay marriage and whheter or not gays should be allowed to.....


not the church's choice to control who it marries???? Religion is the source of Marriage...why would it join two people in a union it does not condone:confused:

what Gay people are fighting for now are the rights associated with marriage (for the most pasrt) and they're perfectly welcome to them in my opinion, but they don't have any right to mess around with a ceremony that many people take very seriously as a part of their life....

[PINOY]

The problem is that some people just don't give a **** about other people's feelings towards situations. I respect peoples feelings good or bad unless it absolutly makes no sense to me or is way out of my juristiction of opinion.

[TheRisingSun]

what Gay people are fighting for now are the rights associated with marriage (for the most pasrt) and they're perfectly welcome to them in my opinion, but they don't have any right to mess around with a ceremony that many people take very seriously as a part of their life....


Now i couldent have put it better myself... I do think they should have the rights... but please dont mess with the ceremonies.

[Ouchy]

Wow, I was kinda waiting for this topic to come up. I once spoke with a hardshell Baptist lady who is my ******'s best friend and we were discussing same-sex marriage. Mind you, I have the tendency to be detect bull**** and tune out whatever comes after it so I don't remember much of the convo but what I do remember is that she believes Bush to be a good Christian and that same-sex marriage will be the downfall of society. Something about government benefits for married couples and such.

Anyhow, too many people automatically think Christian when they think marriage but Christianity has no claim to the practice of marriage. Hell, the faith is only 2,000 or so years old and marriage has been around for at least 3 times as long as that. Point in fact, no faith really has dibs on marriage so I say let gay and lesbian couples marry. What's the harm?

Try reading this essay (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html) please. It's a long one but very captivating and it'll give a whole new perspective on the "what's the harm" angle that many people like to play.

I'd just like my own thoughts if you don't mind. To me, this isn't a case of gay rights as it is of special privelages and basic human rights. All over the United States a dozen states have already voted to not allow gay marriages, including California, Massachusetts, and oh, Kansas. The people, the actual people, have voted in sometimes overwhelming numbers to not allow gay marriages. Why is it that everyone seems to overlook this? That is how a democracy works! Even blacks had to wait for their civil rights amendment to be voted in with the approval of the majority of the people! I swear, with all these gay parades and willfull disobedience and in the case of san fransisco mayor, outright defiance, it's no wonder they didn't get their way. Maybe if they stopped shoving it in peoples faces, they'd get their say. How about it? Let's eat some hay! Okay. I'll go away...

And if you want to talk about wills and hospital visitation rights or next of kin issues, any half decent lawyer could easily fix it. It's sheer ignorance or downright stupidity to suggest otherwise.

EDIT: Sorry I have another edit.
The religious arguement is null and void because we have the Freedom of Religion which (according to Thomas Jefferson's phrase "separation of church and state") means freedom from religion.
WHAT?!? Why you little...

Hmm, my anger and beligerence aside, could you tell me where in the declaration of independence or the constitution (you know, the supreme law of the land) that phrase 'separation of church and state' arises? Go on look. And unless you have some special 3-D glasses, magic eye powers, or the unreleased directors cut, you aren't going to find squat. For your sake, I'll tell you where the phrase pops in.

It is in an obscure letter to a Baptist minister somewhere in the Union (fuzzy details) in which the great Thomas Jefferson reassures the said minister that the state will not interfere with the church, nor create a government sactioned religion or favorite denomination, as was the case in England, which incidently was a big reason why the colonies became so populated in the first place!

'Freedom from religion?' Pfff!

EDIT #2:

And if you even think of citing the first amendment on me, be forewarned, I bite hard. Unless you want to group free-speech and freedom of the press along with religion which is really just free-expression, you really better not cite the first.

[Truefriend]

Sorry, but the website is too general. Pick an issue and let's argue it one at a time. You wouldn't like if I threw a couple websites concerning christian apologetics and expect you to have all the answers.

Oh no, you got my purpose for the website all wrong. I posted the website there so that people can see the agruements the side defending gay marriages has, not for the purpose of finding flaws in those agruement and making counterarguements. The website is there so that people can learn about some informination on why gay marriages can be legal and see the arguements of the side defending gay marriages. In my opinion, the website sums up the agruements for gay marriages are short, sweet, to the point, and logical. I hope this explanation clears it up Ouchy =).

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm <--- Website again if people were not able to see it

[Babbo]

Wow, I was kinda waiting for this topic to come up. I once spoke with a hardshell Baptist lady who is my ******'s best friend and we were discussing same-sex marriage. Mind you, I have the tendency to be detect bull**** and tune out whatever comes after it so I don't remember much of the convo but what I do remember is that she believes Bush to be a good Christian and that same-sex marriage will be the downfall of society. Something about government benefits for married couples and such.

Anyhow, too many people automatically think Christian when they think marriage but Christianity has no claim to the practice of marriage. Hell, the faith is only 2,000 or so years old and marriage has been around for at least 3 times as long as that. Point in fact, no faith really has dibs on marriage so I say let gay and lesbian couples marry. What's the harm?
I don't know...seeing as all the christian denominations throughout the world make up over 1/3 of the world population I'd say they have a pretty good claim to marriage, and if I'm not mistaken the next relgion that comes to mind, Islam has a pretty good claim to it too....

and if you go the road of only the "US counts for this situation" you're even worse off cause the US is predominantly christian....

[PINOY]

I don't know...seeing as all the christian denominations throughout the world make up over 1/3 of the world population I'd say they have a pretty good claim to marriage, and if I'm not mistaken the next relgion that comes to mind, Islam has a pretty good claim to it too....

and if you go the road of only the "US counts for this situation" you're even worse off cause the US is predominantly christian....

True, but as in all countries there will always be a few who "wander from the herd" as I would say.

[Babbo]

True, but as in all countries there will always be a few who "wander from the herd" as I would say. babbo was talking about how saint claimed that christianity didn't have much of a claim to marriage....cuase that's not really all that true....and saying no religion has claim to marriage even farther off the mark cause religion is the source of marriage as a ceremony

[PINOY]

Ahh, I thought you where talking of something else. My mistake. But you have to admit the quote sounds pretty cool, huh?

[k_angel_iii]

On religion being the source of marraige, I don't think so. I think religion and marraige could have developed seperately, but both seem to serve the purpose of maintaining order in the community.

Religion provided a means for people to create a system of rules, laws, and beliefs... and it also provided an anchor for people (Anchor is a strong belief that keeps people going, and trying to do the best etc).

Marraige on the other hand serves to breed higher quality individuals, keep the population vibrant, and in particular the "marraige" thing probably developed as a way to ensure security for both a person, their children, and for continuity of their genome. This brings to mind arranged marraiges (which were so common), and the talk of "duty/priviledge" that was associated with it.

[P4lladiumShifted]

WHAT?!? Why you little...

Hmm, my anger and beligerence aside, could you tell me where in the declaration of independence or the constitution (you know, the supreme law of the land) that phrase 'separation of church and state' arises? Go on look. And unless you have some special 3-D glasses, magic eye powers, or the unreleased directors cut, you aren't going to find squat. For your sake, I'll tell you where the phrase pops in.

It is in an obscure letter to a Baptist minister somewhere in the Union (fuzzy details) in which the great Thomas Jefferson reassures the said minister that the state will not interfere with the church, nor create a government sactioned religion or favorite denomination, as was the case in England, which incidently was a big reason why the colonies became so populated in the first place!

'Freedom from religion?' Pfff! First off, don't you pull the old "colonists came for religious freedom" angle on me. They came to practice their religion so that their religion would be the only one. Puritans hate other religious views so much that they kicked out a few of their more moderate members (who subsequently went on to found the colony of Rhode Island).

Anyway, before i go off on a tangent:

Just because the majority of Americans are some form of Christian doesn't make our nation Christian. A religious argument against gay marriage has no place in a legal setting because religion has no place in our laws. If the law against same-sex marriage is made because "Homosexuality is a sin" and for no other reason, then it truly is invalid because sin isn't a legal standard for outlawing something. Just because you don't like the idea of two guys (or two girls) that want the same rights as anyone else doesn't mean that you can pass a law against it.

Just because you can't stand to think of a loving, deep relationship between two people just because they happen to both be the same sex doesn't make it wrong. If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry the same sex. But please keep your morals and religious arguments out of the legislature and out of our lawbooks. Religion is a private matter, and evangelists have no right saying who I can(not) marry.

EDIT: If marriage was a religious institution alone, judges wouldn't be able to perform marriages, only priests (or equivalent religious figures) would.

[Babbo]

First off, don't you pull the old "colonists came for religious freedom" angle on me. They came to practice their religion so that their religion would be the only one. Puritans hate other religious views so much that they kicked out a few of their more moderate members (who subsequently went on to found the colony of Rhode Island).

Anyway, before i go off on a tangent:

Just because the majority of Americans are some form of Christian doesn't make our nation Christian. A religious argument against gay marriage has no place in a legal setting because religion has no place in our laws. If the law against same-sex marriage is made because "Homosexuality is a sin" and for no other reason, then it truly is invalid because sin isn't a legal standard for outlawing something. Just because you don't like the idea of two guys (or two girls) that want the same rights as anyone else doesn't mean that you can pass a law against it.

Just because you can't stand to think of a loving, deep relationship between two people just because they happen to both be the same sex doesn't make it wrong. If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry the same sex. But please keep your morals and religious arguments out of the legislature and out of our lawbooks. Religion is a private matter, and evangelists have no right saying who I can(not) marry.

EDIT: If marriage was a religious institution alone, judges wouldn't be able to perform marriages, only priests (or equivalent religious figures) would.
and um...no they didn't come just so their religion could be the only one, firs off the puritans were persecuted under william and mary, and after the reinstatement of a kin after cromwell and the puritan revolution lost power, the Anglican church did gains quite a bit of influenc, they really did leave to be able to practice your religion (and this is babbo talking as a history major, cause babbo's catholic and could really care less why they came here) and as for rhode Island, those were liberal members, the real conservatives were the messed up people who founded Connecticut, they thought that the massachussetts bay colony was too liberal:D

while on one hand religion does have no place in law (babbo can agree on that) the opinon of the people does, and if the overwhelming majority of the people does not support something ( as shown by the multitude of gay marriage bans across the nation) then there's not much a point in stopping it, especially since marriage and family institutions are the juristiction of state legislature and not federal...and sorry, but our nation is overwhelmingly christian d00d, it's hard to not find the influence of it on our society, there's no denying that there is a huge christian nation in America, whereas the gay nation is pretty small...also Christians aren't the only religion that find homsexuality to be wrong, there's plenty of other religions that find it wrong too...

of course not but that's not a real marriage ceremony, that's just the state making sure that when people marry that the union is known by the state because of the legal implications of marriage...

and I'm telling you dood, we have nothing against gays themselves, but your lifestyle goes against alt of the standards of our own, and trying to bring an influence to a institution that is heavily associated and a part of our lives is somehing most people of religion will find hurtful...

[UberTranslator89]

and I'm telling you dood, we have nothing against gays themselves, but your lifestyle goes against alt of the standards of our own, and trying to bring an influence to a institution that is heavily associated and a part of our lives is somehing most people of religion will find hurtful...

......excellent Babbo, couldn't have said it better myself.

[P4lladiumShifted]

of course not but that's not a real marriage ceremony, that's just the state making sure that when people marry that the union is known by the state because of the legal implications of marriage...

and I'm telling you dood, we have nothing against gays themselves, but your lifestyle goes against alt of the standards of our own, and trying to bring an influence to a institution that is heavily associated and a part of our lives is somehing most people of religion will find hurtful... Ok, then we agree (partially). People who wish to marry their partners don't necessarily want the religious aspect, but they want the same legal guarantees that go along with it. They want the tax credit, and the power of attorney, and the other benefits that married couples have. It's the argument that I have against marriage (that it's simply a contract between two people) that is the case for same-sex marriage. And no, we aren't going to call it something else. There's no point in saying 'digging implement' when we want a ****ed shovel.

Oh, there's a good analogy. The marriage rights that same-sex couples want is like a trowel. It digs, and it makes holes in the ground, but it isn't as cumbersome or large as a standard shovel. The shovel is the full-on marriages that heterosexual couples get, with the church wedding and the cake and the organ playing and such. All we need is a trowel, we can get our own **** cake.

*****

So my lifestyle goes against the standards of your own. Well, honestly, that isn't any of our business. We (and I can say we because I am bisexual) have no right to say that your lifestyle is wrong. All we want acknowledged is that you don't have that right either. There's a terrific bumper sticker that sums it up perfectly, "I don't mind straight people, as long as they act gay in public." (a parody in the quote made by some heterosexual people that i've met "I don't mind gay people, so long as they act straight in public")

If we have no place intruding upon your lifestyle (which we don't) then you don't have a place intruding upon ours. Let's just agree to live and let live and we'll be fine.

Screw civil unions, we want the ability to call them marriages!

EDIT: I just found something that i'd like to throw into the discussion.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html), of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So, that means that I have rights that aren't mentioned in the Constitution which means that I have the right to Privacy. Now, as a private citizen, I can privately enjoy whatever loving relationships come my way. Now, that also means that I can have a private ceremony and a private marriage that is free from the intrusion of others. It's the same argument that I hear from the Pro-choice side of the abortion debate, only slightly tweaked, "It's my life, and my decision. Keep your laws off my love."

All or none. You can't pick and choose in a free society.

[Babbo]

that's what babbo's been saying, babbo thinks they are certainly entitled to rights married couples have, but if they really want them, then they shouldn't be trying to call it marriage, cause like me, alot of people find it offensive that gays are trying to chane something so important as marriage. They'd have those rights by now if they hadn't gone all gung-ho screaming for marriage, they could have simply asked for more rights for civil unions...cause no matter how unimportant you may think it is overall what you call it, more (and I really mean it) more people than the entire gay-lesbia-bi community, think it's very important and strongly believe that it should not be changed in any way...

[P4lladiumShifted]

that's what babbo's been saying, babbo thinks they are certainly entitled to rights married couples have, but if they really want them, then they shouldn't be trying to call it marriage, cause like me, alot of people find it offensive that gays are trying to chane something so important as marriage. They'd have those rights by now if they hadn't gone all gung-ho screaming for marriage, they could have simply asked for more rights for civil unions...cause no matter how unimportant you may think it is overall what you call it, more (and I really mean it) more people than the entire gay-lesbia-bi community, think it's very important and strongly believe that it should not be changed in any way... So it's the name that bothers you? Again, i stand by the crowd that says "let's call a spade a spade."

mar·riage (mhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifj)
n.



The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
Need I continue? I mean, if the dictionary places both hetero- and homosexual marriages with the same word, that must mean that they're synonymous with each other.

Let's just skip the petty quibbling over the name and face the facts:

Just becase Dave marries Bob doesn't make Jill's marriage to John any less special. If anything it makes it more cherishable to know that we are "loving thy neighbor as thyself." It just so happens that the neighbor happens to subscribe to the same magazines as Jill.

EDIT: If this whole divisive, stupid debate is over something as stupid as semantics, then I have a whole host of people to hit with shovels.

PANG!

[Babbo]

So it's the name that bothers you? Again, i stand by the crowd that says "let's call a spade a spade."


[/list]Need I continue? I mean, if the dictionary places both hetero- and homosexual marriages with the same word, that must mean that they're synonymous with each other.

Let's just skip the petty quibbling over the name and face the facts:

Just becase Dave marries Bob doesn't make Jill's marriage to John any less special. If anything it makes it more cherishable to know that we are "loving thy neighbor as thyself." It just so happens that the neighbor happens to subscribe to the same magazines as Jill.

EDIT: If this whole divisive, stupid debate is over something as stupid as semantics, then I have a whole host of people to hit with shovels.

PANG! but it's not, to people of religion it's much more, catholics believe that when a man and a women are married that God joins them in a way that no man is capable of...calling a union between two people, a union that we bleive God would not condone, the same thing is not right at any level...

as for the dictionary, do you seriously think people would take the word of the dictinoary over the word of their god?

don't use the bible to defend being gay, please...you're taking it out of context, especailly since there is plenty with the bible and erlgious doctrine that would never defend it....you don't seriously think that we don't condone homosexuality for no reason do you?

[P4lladiumShifted]

but it's not, to people of religion it's much more, catholics believe that when a man and a women are married that God joins them in a way that no man is capable of...calling a union between two people, a union that we bleive God would not condone, the same thing is not right at any level...

as for the dictionary, do you seriously think people would take the word of the dictinoary over the word of their god?

don't use the bible to defend being gay, please...you're taking it out of context, especailly since there is plenty with the bible and erlgious doctrine that would never defend it.... NO, i'm gonna use the Bible. Out of context you say? Don't ministers take a portion of the Bible and then expand upon it with sermons?

All i'm doing is quoting it. Alright, you want context?

Exodus 35:2 says that people who work on the Sabbath (Sunday for some, saturday for others) should be put to death. Do you want to join me in murdering every Blockbuster Video employee?

Wasn't the Bible (among other things) the basis for Copernicus' execution when he said that the Earth revolved around the sun? Doesn't the Bible say that we can sell our daughters into slavery?

Don't talk to me about "out of context." You can't interpret some parts of a book as literal and others as parable. You can't pick and choose what God meant. He said that "he who lieth with man as he would with woman is an Abomination" right? Leviticus 18:22? Are my tenses right?

Listen buddy, allow me to bring up the concept of shelf life to you. I think that it's time you look at that book and read it like your 10th grade English teacher would have: critically.

I've read that book, cover-to-cover. As a religious text, it's dangerous. If it's looked upon as pure fiction (which I personally don't) it's horrible. The characters are one-dimensional, there's no subtext, and the plot flip flops horrifically.

The only decent fellow in there was Jesus. He was a fantastic guy, with His bronze skin and hair like sheep's wool. If Jesus came back today, i'd shake His hand and take Him to dinner. I love Jesus, and He loves me (or so i'm told). I stand for personal freedoms, just like he did. He never threw rocks at anyone. Hell, isn't he the guy who said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" which prompted everyone to drop their rocks and collectively say 'Man, that's deep?'

Get off the high horse and come hang out with me. You'd love me (platonically). I'm friendly, i smile a lot, i'm welcoming to both friend and foe. I'm open to new ideas, and i accept other people for who they are, just like He did.

Who's the real Christian here? The guy assaulting people for who they are, or the guy with open arms offering to get coffee and doughnuts?

I try to live my life as Jesus did, dispensing bits of wisdom here and there, letting people's faith cure them, and being an all-around fantastic guy.

You don't see me in line holding up a sign that says "AIDS kills Fags dead" or "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

How's this for a mind twister, Adam was created first. Was that because God wanted another guy to hang with, or for another reason?

That's funny, and God thinks so too, because since He is all knowing he was laughing at that comment before I even knew I was going to say it.

Elvis didn't do no drugs!

[Babbo]

NO, i'm gonna use the Bible. Out of context you say? Don't ministers take a portion of the Bible and then expand upon it with sermons?

All i'm doing is quoting it. Alright, you want context?

Exodus 35:2 says that people who work on the Sabbath (Sunday for some, saturday for others) should be put to death. Do you want to join me in murdering every Blockbuster Video employee?

Wasn't the Bible (among other things) the basis for Copernicus' execution when he said that the Earth revolved around the sun? Doesn't the Bible say that we can sell our daughters into slavery?

Don't talk to me about "out of context." You can't interpret some parts of a book as literal and others as parable. You can't pick and choose what God meant. He said that "he who lieth with man as he would with woman is an Abomination" right? Leviticus 18:22? Are my tenses right?

Listen buddy, allow me to bring up the concept of shelf life to you. I think that it's time you look at that book and read it like your 10th grade English teacher would have: critically.

I've read that book, cover-to-cover. As a religious text, it's dangerous. If it's looked upon as pure fiction (which I personally don't) it's horrible. The characters are one-dimensional, there's no subtext, and the plot flip flops horrifically.

The only decent fellow in there was Jesus. He was a fantastic guy, with His bronze skin and hair like sheep's wool. If Jesus came back today, i'd shake His hand and take Him to dinner. I love Jesus, and He loves me (or so i'm told). I stand for personal freedoms, just like he did. He never threw rocks at anyone. Hell, isn't he the guy who said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" which prompted everyone to drop their rocks and collectively say 'Man, that's deep?'

Get off the high horse and come hang out with me. You'd love me (platonically). I'm friendly, i smile a lot, i'm welcoming to both friend and foe. I'm open to new ideas, and i accept other people for who they are, just like He did.

Who's the real Christian here? The guy assaulting people for who they are, or the guy with open arms offering to get coffee and doughnuts?

I try to live my life as Jesus did, dispensing bits of wisdom here and there, letting people's faith cure them, and being an all-around fantastic guy.

You don't see me in line holding up a sign that says "AIDS kills Fags dead" or "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

How's this for a mind twister, Adam was created first. Was that because God wanted another guy to hang with, or for another reason?

That's funny, and God thinks so too, because since He is all knowing he was laughing at that comment before I even knew I was going to say it.

-VT Out.

this is another problem I find when talking to gay people, they are overly defensive, I did not say one thing against you or for you, yet you decided to blow up on me...babbo's not on a high horse trust...babbo just holds to his beliefs...babbo seriously doesn't have anything agsint gay people...

copernicus wasn't executed, and his book was published posthumously, so I don't know what you're trying to get at...not sure wher you got the selling daughter into slavery (course babbo doesn't have a perfect memory)..

as for the story in the bible...life's not the best story ever:D
Even as a Catholic I had a hard time geting through some of the parts of the bible, some of them seriously aren't the most intersting stuff on earth...leviticus was actual law at the time it was written,it's pretty literal, seeing as nothing has been actually tunred around in the new testament it's pretty safe to assume that the overall there is no support for homsexuality...of course we won't kill you for it now...

actually most of the practices in the old testament were overturned by the new testament, for example, jews in the old testment had to make a multitude of different sacrifieces for different infractions, but because of Jesus's sacrifice, we do not have to do that any more, as for the sabath, while it is a serious sin and not to be taken lightly, there is such a thing as forgivness, we believe in a forgiving God, the one Jesus taught us about. We believe God forgives your sins, you only need to repent and ask for that forgiveness...

as for the whole "he whocast the first stone thing" it's a poor interpretation to use it as justification for sinning itself, he's saying there's no reason to hate/ attack sinners because we are sinners ourselves, but that doesn't make sinning right...

well according to the bible God made us in his own image...but then again in counter to your argument, why didn't he make steve? JK:D just ignore that....

[P4lladiumShifted]

[quote=Babbo]Of course, we won't kill you for it now.[/color]

If there wasn't a law against murder, Jerry Fallwell would have a suit made from the skin of homosexuals.

"Let he without sin" etc. is a sentence about how you should bash someone for sinning when you yourself are a sinner.

The sentence means, "since you are a piece of crap, you can't punish someone for being a piece of crap too"

The passage about the daughters and the slavery? Exodus 21:7

"And if a man sell his daughter (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic492.htm) to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

In other words, if I sell my daughter to be someone's domestic,she can't do her work the way male domestics would.

I've asked for forgiveness for a few things (and recieved it), but i'm not going to ask to be forgiven for the way I was born! I demand an apology for that! just kidding of course, i mean... why cut your playing field in half? ;)

So if Babbo doesn't have anything against Gay people why does he quote a book that does? Why doesn't Babbo think outside of the box and realize that we love our boyfriends/girlfriends (depending on your ox) just as much as Babbo loves his current/future Significant Other?

You can still be a good Christian and be accepting of homosexuality. It's called being a progressive. The more progressives there are, the happier this world will be.

If we sit here and natter on about how Gays can't get married, nothing'll get done. Let's just agree to disagree and let people marry the people they love?

EDIT: I apologize for the bolded text. One copy/paste and POOF, all kerflumped.

[Babbo]

[quote=Babbo]Of course, we won't kill you for it now.[/color]

If there wasn't a law against murder, Jerry Fallwell would have a suit made from the skin of homosexuals.

"Let he without sin" etc. is a sentence about how you should bash someone for sinning when you yourself are a sinner.

The sentence means, "since you are a piece of crap, you can't punish someone for being a piece of crap too"

The passage about the daughters and the slavery? Exodus 21:7

"And if a man sell his daughter (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic492.htm) to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

In other words, if I sell my daughter to be someone's domestic,she can't do her work the way male domestics would.

I've asked for forgiveness for a few things (and recieved it), but i'm not going to ask to be forgiven for the way I was born! I demand an apology for that! just kidding of course, i mean... why cut your playing field in half? ;)

So if Babbo doesn't have anything against Gay people why does he quote a book that does? Why doesn't Babbo think outside of the box and realize that we love our boyfriends/girlfriends (depending on your ox) just as much as Babbo loves his current/future Significant Other?

You can still be a good Christian and be accepting of homosexuality. It's called being a progressive. The more progressives there are, the happier this world will be.

If we sit here and natter on about how Gays can't get married, nothing'll get done. Let's just agree to disagree and let people marry the people they love?
well it was a different society back then, centuries before any country had stopped slavery, you have to take in account some hisorical differences...

I quote that book because it is the basis of my faith, and according to my faith, the work of men divinely inspired by God to take down the word of God and his son...

and again, I do not have anything against gay people, just their practices...I will not once ask you to change your ways (just as I would hope you would not ask me) but I will hope that you can even if there is quite literally no chance of it...

and jerry fallwell is an extreme case...he does not represent Christians (or even conservatives) as a whole...

[P4lladiumShifted]

well it was a different society back then, centuries before any country had stopped slavery, you have to take in account some hisorical differences...

I quote that book because it is the basis of my faith, and according to my faith, the work of men divinely inspired by God to take down the word of God and his son...

and again, I do not have anything against gay people, just their practices...I will not once ask you to change your ways (just as I would hope you would not ask me) but I will hope that you can even if there is quite literally no chance of it...

and jerry fallwell is an extreme case...he does not represent Christians (or even conservatives) as a whole...
Yeah, i know. Fallwell's a whacko, but unfortunately the whackos are the loudest and skilled at grabbing attention.

And, i don't want to. Right now I have a terrific girlfriend (me being a guy) and that's hopefully not going to change. All i'm saying man is that we don't want to change the spirit, the institution, or the wonderful item that marriage is. All we want is to be let into the "Just Married" club. All we want is the key to the clubhouse. You guys can have the VIP room, we just want to get past the bouncers.

We don't want to change marriage, we just want to be included. In kindergarten, we're taught to share and include everyone. Let's share.

Please?

Secondly, come on down to FL Babbo. I'll buy you coffee (tea, milk, whatever) and we can talk about the nature of God like two Jesus-loving individuals. He's your savior, and he's my mentor. Not different in all honesty. I'm not Christian, but I like Jesus' message. I don't like the way it's being spun (and I'm sure that he isn't down with it either) though. I'm against the Church-with-a-capital-C, not against the little individual buildings that people go to so they can talk with God.

Homosexuals are too proud to simply ask nicely for equal time with the marriage idea. But i'm not.

Please can we get married? I promise (after the whooping and cheering) that we'll all be much happier.