So, have you always counted on Spain to do the wrong thing too? Just curious…
Spain makes gay marriages legal
MADRID, Spain (AP) – Parliament legalized gay marriage Thursday, defying conservatives and clergy who opposed making traditionally Roman Catholic Spain the third country in the world to officially recognize same-sex unions. Gay rights activists cheered lawmakers and blew them kisses.
The measure passed the 350-seat Congress of Deputies by a vote of 187-147 with four abstentions. The bill, part of the ruling Socialists’ aggressive agenda for social reform, also lets gay couples adopt children and inherit each others’ property.
The bill is now law. The Senate, where conservatives hold the largest number of seats, rejected the bill last week, but the Senate is an advisory body and final say on legislation rested with the Congress of Deputies.
Gay couples will be allowed to marry as soon as the law is published in the official government registry, the Boletin Oficial del Estado. This could come as early as Friday or within two weeks at the latest, the parliament’s press office said.
After the final tally was announced, activists watching from the spectator section of the ornate chamber cried, cheered, hugged, waved to lawmakers and blew them kisses.
Several members of the conservative opposition Popular Party, which vehemently opposed the bill, shouted: “This is a disgrace.” Those in favor stood and clapped.
The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two countries that recognize gay marriage nationwide. Canada’s House of Commons passed legislation Tuesday that would legalize gay marriage by the end of July as long as the Senate also passes the bill, which it is expected to do.
“We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality,” Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told the chamber before the vote.
Zapatero said the reform of Spain’s legal code simply adds one dry paragraph of legalese – but means much, much more.
He called it “a small change in wording that means an immense change in the lives of thousands of citizens. We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives.”
Zapatero lacks a majority in the chamber but got help from small regional-based parties that tend to be his allies.
Popular Party leader Mariano Rajoy said after the vote that Zapatero has deeply divided Spain and should have sought a consensus in parliament that recognized same-sex unions but didn’t call them marriages. Rajoy said that if the vast majority of countries in the world don’t accept gay marriage, including some run by Socialists, there must be a reason.
“I think the prime minister has committed a grave act of irresponsibility,” Rajoy told reporters.
The gay marriage bill was the boldest and most divisive initiative of the liberal social agenda Zapatero has embarked on since taking office in April 2004.
Parliament overhauled Spain’s 25-year-old divorce law on Wednesday, also irking Spain’s Roman Catholic Church, by letting couples end their marriage without a mandatory separation or having to state a reason for the split-up as required under the old law.
He has also pushed through legislation allowing stem-cell research and wants to loosen Spain’s restrictive abortion law.
The Roman Catholic Church, which held much sway over the government just a generation ago when Gen. Francisco Franco was in power, had adamantly opposed gay marriage. In its first display of anti-government activism in 20 years, it endorsed a June 18 rally in which hundreds of thousands marched through Madrid in opposition to the bill. Some 20 bishops took part in the June 18 rally.
On Wednesday, a Catholic lay group called the Spanish Family Forum presented lawmakers with a petition bearing 600,000 signatures as a last-minute protest.
Late last year, a spokesman for the Spanish Bishops Conference, Antonio Martinez Camino, said that allowing gay marriage was like “imposing a virus on society – something false that will have negative consequences for social life.”
However, polls suggest Spaniards supported gay marriage. A survey released in May by pollster Instituto Opina said 62 percent of Spaniards support the government’s action on gay marriage, and 30 percent oppose it. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
But surveys show Spaniards about evenly split over whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
As I stated at the outset of this post: There is a very big difference between the Bible having a mistake and the Bible containing something that we don’t understand!
So what’s your line on witchcraft? I sure don’t understand that one.
What exactly don’t you understand? I would love to help you if I am able.
[/quote]
Does the Bible say that there are witches? It seems to say that there are and we should kill them when we find them. How does this mesh with loving the sinner and turning the other cheek? It seems so self contradictory. Burning is traditional, I gather. I know a couple of folks who are into Wicca. Should I start stockpiling faggots for a little surprise party? What’s your opinion on spreading a little paraffin or beeswax on the witch first? Was this point incorrectly staged in “The Name of the Rose?”
And speaking of cooking advice, I’m still truly not clear on whether to serve Hassenpfeffer to my guests this evening. Is the Bible actually against eating rabbits, or was it really against eating things that chew their cud and don’t have hooves, and somebody made a slight error regarding what it is that rabbits chew?
Was all that dietary stuff in the old testament essentially a description of the Jewish custom of keeping kosher? Why don’t Christians keep kosher anymore, not even fundamentalists? How did we get out from under that one?
The Christ himself seems never to have mentioned homos, witches, or keeping kosher. Seems like a lot of stuff to leave out of the Son of God’s gospel. Or perhaps God never really cared about any of these things?
I guess the great thing about holy books is that they keep holy men employed explaining to the rest of us who don’t do Hebrew or Greek how the English doesn’t really mean what it says.
Right now I’m a terrible mess from two hours of practice at clinch and sparring Vale Tudo. But I have to get cleaned up and go to the market soon to get the stuff for dinner. I’m glad rising hope has come back on shift. Thanks both for helping out.
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
Wait… Stop… Forget Canada, Spain is the 3rd nation to grant same sex marriage.
[/quote]
Wow, Spain too. And to think that Spain was once among the most observant of Christian nations. I wonder how the Bible reads in Spanish? Their version must be really different from ours.
Keep this in mind: There is a very big difference between the Bible having a mistake and the Bible containing something that we don’t understand.
I’m sure that you have read a passage in a text book that you did not understand (I think we all have at one point in our academic careers). Because you did not understand it does not mean that the author was mistaken. It simply means that you didn’t understand it.
With that said, I continue to make my claim that the Bible does not contain any factual errors and has been accused of such by atheists for many years unjustly.
[/quote]
I was fascinated to find this, courtesy of tuffloud, over on the C&E thread:
Were they all divinely inspired, and the translators too, is this what you mean to say?
Or is this the time to pull out one of those wack-o probability arguments that always gets used against gradual development of DNA from simpler organic chemicals?
Unfortunately it seems we’re not quite sure how many people were involved. It would seem obvious this thing did not get the vetting your average school textbook gets. Maybe there are more than the usual reasons not to understand it in places.
Hebrew for sure had a word for “filth”. And if those guys had known what those rabbits were chewing down in their holes at night, that is surely the word they would have used, even if they were clear they didn’t want to use the word for “turds”.
I’m sure God knows what rabbits chew in their holes at night. It seems to me there must have been a breakdown in the divine inspiration process here.
Presumably the butcher is using ones that have been properly cleaned and dressed! They actually make the Hassenpfeffer including the sauce and partially cook the rabbit. That lets me concentrate my attention on the side dishes.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Hebrew for sure had a word for “filth”. And if those guys had known what those rabbits were chewing down in their holes at night, that is surely the word they would have used, even if they were clear they didn’t want to use the word for “turds”.
I’m sure God knows what rabbits chew in their holes at night. It seems to me there must have been a breakdown in the divine inspiration process here.
Presumably the butcher is using ones that have been properly cleaned and dressed! They actually make the Hassenpfeffer including the sauce and partially cook the rabbit. That lets me concentrate my attention on the side dishes.[/quote]
I really don’t want this to be a situation where we simply begin trading insults. You have been inviting this sort of behavior on this thread at least. I’m a little surprised by this, but you do have a great deal of hate in your heart for those whom you disagree with, at least on this topic.
You just seem to get more and more bitter and sarcastic with every post don’t you? This helps who? Do you feel better after you post? I have sincerely attempted to answer your question. You don’t like the answer…sorry, but it’s the truth.
As I explained at great length, basically because the definition of “cud” changes you call an “error.” That is not the case. What a rabbit chewed was called a “Cud” then. What part of that is difficult to understand? You want there to be an error, so for you no answer will ever suffice. What ever answer that I supply you are simply going to claim it wrong, we are not serving a good purpose with our time. You don’t want to learn and you certainly don’t want to teach. It’s easy to sit there and be negative, but what is your answer? Why are you here? What purpose do you serve on earth? These questions would be much better for you to discuss than to simply sit there throwing rotten tomatos.
You don’t seem to be able to share any information without the insults and put downs. You only want to attack and my faith cannot be shaken, at least not by a faceless Internet Atheist.
If you learned nothing else from my debate with 100meters I would have hoped that you learned that people can be on opposite sides of the fence regarding this issue and still conduct a civil debate.
You need to take a deep breath and relax. I understand you are not a Christian, but you will have to understand that I am! Fair enough?
Regarding your “Witch” question, if you would like to supply me with the scripture that claims we need to kill all Witches I would be glad to respond (not that you will accept any of the truth if it doesn’t fit your little anti-Christian modle).
Otherwise, I think we are nearing the end of any useful debate. You seem very bitter and somehow closed minded when it comes to discussion of the Bible, sorry if you had a bad experience in your life, mine have been very positive. If I am simply irratating you, I would rather we not post back and forth. If you want to be sarcastic there are plenty of political discussions going on simply join them, why torture yourself by talking to me? I really have no desire to bother you and if I have I do apologize.
I think you will find that that hate you carry for Christians does more harm to you than to them.
Finally, to this date I have yet to see an error in the Bible! Because you will not accept (or understand) the truth does not mean that the Bible is in error, it means that endgamer is in error!
quote]rising_hope wrote:
Can you even read? Hetero’s, bisexuals get the same right. That’s not special… That’s equal rights. WTF are you talking about?.[/quote]
Have you been taking lessons from endgamer regarding Internet etiquette?
Pay attention: There would be no such law on the books if it were not for homosexuals! There is no need to protect the rights of heterosexuals. Do you think that a man would get fired because he is married to a woman? Please give this some thought.
There are nasty people on both sides of this issue. There is no conspiaracy however the media is no friend to conservatives.
[quote]I am with you on this. The basis for hiring and firing should be solely upon the basis of job qualifications and performance! Anything else is an infringement into the persons personal life and has nothing to do with the job!
However, I am not for “special rights” for any class of people.
I agree - however, laws prevent against discrimination, they do not offer special rights. Remember that descrimination goes both ways… The law makes it so that you’re legitimacy in firing or not hiring a person can’t be “because he was black (or white, or gay, or a woman, or a man, or whatever…)” They make it so you have to say “I fired him because he was constantly late, and couldn’t get his job done.” Fear of these laws, and fear of firing someone because they could potentially sue is completely unfounded. If you get the proper evidence in place beforehand, there’s absolutely no reason that you can’t fire someone for poor performance…[/quote]
As an employer I have no desire to walk down a road which will give any single male or female a free shot at me (regardless of how well I document)if they are fired! Do you realize how easy it would be to claim that you are gay? Do you know how hard it would be to provew otherwise? Do you have any idea the costs involved to the business?
That is a whacky idea!
[quote]Are you not allowed to join local clubs and organizations?
Depends on the organization. But, sure you are. But, the you’re confusing the point in all this. So long as there’s an aspect of yourself that you don’t feel fully comfortable sharing, because on some basic level you feel rejection, it becomes clear that you can’t really share any intimate connection with anyone.[/quote]
Yes, I do understand this and I am sure that it must be difficult. However there is no amount of legislation which will stop others from looking at homosexuals as being different. They are different!
[quote]Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not against Gay marriage because I think it will lead to other sorts of odd combinations. I am against gay marriage on it’s face. However, to think that the bounds of marriage will stop with gays being allowed to say thier vows is not only short sighted, but foohardy. I suspect you realize this, but would rather not discuss it.
The only other possibility I could really see as being a fundamental change to marriage is polygamic marriage. (Marriage between more than one person.) I say this because Mormons, pre-18XX something (conveniantly just before UT was allowed to be admitted into the Union) allowed polygamic marriage. But, I do not believe polygamic marriage could ever happen in a legal sense because it would be next to impossible to determine division of assets, etc, etc, should one person die, or disolution of the contract occur. Again, none of this fear of marriage changing would even be necessary if we just got rid of marriage as a civil institution and work on something else that worked for everyone. And, I’m okay with discussing it. I just think you’re being unrealistic to assume it amounts to anything more than what we are talking about.
If the boundaries of marriage are widened to include gays there is literally no end to the strange combinations (a literal freak show) which we will be presented with! A man marrying his sister will, I’m sure, be one of the more tame match ups…[/quote]
Sure there will be plenty of combinations. Polygamy is just one. How about brother sister? Who are you to deny these two the happiness which they so richly deserve? Are you going to discriminate against them? How about adult child relationships? There is a group waiting in the wings called NAMBLA. They endorse adult child sex. Go to their web site. If I’m not mistaken they are an offshoot of a Boston Gay organization.
That is not to say that Gays in general want to have sex with children.
I have stats if you want to see them.
Good song-A Rick James oldie but goodie
Don’t be disgusted. I know that Gays were persecuted. However, don’t try to compare this to the Jewish holocost. The magnatude pales in comparison and you come off looking like a nutty zealot. Something that I am sure you are not!
Discrimination is not a bad thing. It’s what you are discriminating against which can be bad. Think about it.
[quote]Let me now quote the Spanish prime minister from yesterday regarding the passage of same sex marriage in Spain (beating Canada to the punch as the 3rd nation to legalize same-sex marriage.)
“We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality,” Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told the chamber before the vote…[/quote]
There are three countries which have legalized gay unions. How many countries are there in the world? Yes, I suppose it’s a start. Do you think any of the gays who live in the US would consider moving to… KIDDING…
Well then please tell me how I, or anyone can pick out a gay man in a group with nine other heterosexual men? You can’t! The only way you know that someone is gay is by their actions!
By the way that action is only done (at least so far) in private. See the point?
Blacks, Native Americans, Women can’t hide their gender or race.
[quote]Here is another area where we may never agree. I am not for any sort of law that would give two gay men (women) the right to form a “civil union.” Those rights should be left to one man and one woman.
Gay people can already cohabitate all they want, and they do!
Then you are for legal discrimination, which has been pretty clear from the state. I think that’s bigotry, sorry to say…[/quote]
As I stated above, discrimination is not bad depending. I am for discriminating against plenty of things. Adults having sex with children, incest, Polygamy and Gay marriage.
And you want to make it more litigious with yet more special rights. And get this, you want to do it for a group of people that cannot even me spotted as being gay. Unlike the plight of someone protected for gender or racial reasons.
The abuse from single men and women who are not gay would be enormous!
NUTTY!
[quote]Regardless of how you look at it, I was correct: morality is, and has always been, a matter of perspective.
You are wrong in that assumption! Morality used to be based upon the Bible. People used to be ashamed if they were having an affair with a married woman, not just because there was a law against it (how silly a law based upon adultery. Isn’t that quaint? Oh…that’s right there was less divorce then) But because it was also breaking the word of God.
How arrogant! You realize that Christians only amount for 33% of all religious people on the planet, right?.[/quote]
And you realize that I am talking about America. A country which was founded on Judeo Christian ethics.
[quote] I think 2/3rds the world’s populace (as well as 25% of this nation, who are not Christian) would be pretty upset by assuming that the bible is the ultimate moral authority…
The seperation of church and state precedent has been in place well over 100 years (though I don’t know the exact date, I know it was in the 1800s.) It was an intelligent decision. If you want to put people on the moral track, perhaps you’d better start by trying to get more people to convert to Christianity, rather than determining that Bible law be the law of the land. We are not a theocracy. If you want to live in a theocratic state, there are plenty of them out there. Perhaps you should join one of them.[/quote]
I do agree with separation of church and state. However, that is there to protect the people from the government forming nation wide religion. Not from people to worshipping freely in their own way.
I wonder how we made all of the great gains that we did between Washington and Eisenhower with that nasty old Bible in the way? I wonder how we could turn out the single best school system in the world prior to 1962 when prayer was taken out of school?
How did we ever function with the ten commandments in county courthouses across the nation?
Man we must have just been lucky. LOL
Have you not noticed that this entire anti-Christian movement has only sprung up over the past 45 years? Okay you have not been around that long, but are you not a student of history?
You are quite wrong! In fact, out of all of the thousands of words that you have typed those are the least accurate!
How are parents supposed to teach their children right from wrong? You state that it is all “relative.” “It’s a matter of perspective.” If that’s the case anything goes right? There is no right or wrong. Hence what are parents to do? How does a civilization function with such lack of a moral rules?
You are quite wrong!
If we remove the Bible tell me what takes it’s place, the law? Tell me now why is that not working? Tell me why violence against women has actually increased (not just rape). Tell me why there are more teen pregnancies, abortions and single mothers? Tell me why there are more organized gangs? Tell me why there is simply more hate in the world?
When you remove something that stood for so many years and replace it with um…nothing you have a void my friend! That void is being filled alright, but not with anything that might be considered as “moral.” MTV and Hollywood are poor replacements.
If you are going to remove the Bible from every one of it’s former homes: School, Court house, Government buildings etc. At least replace it with something that serves the same end relative to a moral compass.
I am clearly someone who badly wants there to be some rules based upon something more than the whim of the current majority! I will take God over any politician anytime! You however seem to want laws over morality.
[quote]I’ve never heard mothers crying out that they want to be legally allowed to kill their child at birth.
[/quote]
Perhaps there are many things which you have not heard of YET:
I think that the mothers in question could make a great case: “Why are you trying to discriminat against me? This is my child, I cannot afford it. It would cause me great mental hardship to try to support it.”
Not to big of a stretch from the abortion argument…things always lead to other things. Nothing exists in a vacuum!
[quote] If you’re speaking about partial-birth abortions, that was clearly outlawed in a bi-partisan vote.
[/quote]
Not so fast, Bill Clinton was for it! A President Hillary Clinton (PUKE) would surely be for it.
[quote] I think Judges should be elected and answer directly to the people. Those who say that this would “politicize” the courts are right, but who cares? At least they will be answerable to someone!
I think they should run every 6 or 7 years and if most people in the country agree with you then let there be all sorts of gay rights laws passed. If they agree with me then there will be no gay marriage or civil unions of any type.
Again, you’re assuming that people will do the research. A judge is not allowed to state their personal beliefs, either. It’s illegal. All we can do is base our decisions upon prior judgements. I do agree with you on term limits. I don’t think there should be such a thing as “life time appointments” for any position. I suspect that such a decision was put in place to begin with to try and keep the courts more conservative. (It has… 7 of 9 Supreme Court justices are conservative.) But, I also think it gives judges way too much power without being accountable to the people they are suppose to serve.
Since they are basically legislating from the bench anyway let them be answerable to the people!
[/quote]
More republican terms thrown around… You’re making yourself far too obvious here.[/quote]
You think? I’m not here playing a game. I enjoy the debate. (I enjoy any debate where name calling is left out and constant blatant sarcasm is missing-I thank you for that) However, I’m proud of what I am: A middle aged man who values God, family and country!
The last time I checked these things were still good. 90% of the country believes in God! Almost 70% of the country is against homosexual marriage! Over 50% of the population voted for George W. Bush!
Yea…It’s still my country. The moral relativists have not won yet, and they might not.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I wonder how we made all of the great gains that we did between Washington and Eisenhower with that nasty old Bible in the way? I wonder how we could turn out the single best school system in the world prior to 1962 when prayer was taken out of school?
[/quote]
So it was the school prayer being taken out of schools that caused our drop from the top? Please take a look at the rankings below. Are the school systems at the top of the list there because they have school prayer?
GENERAL MATH
.
Nation Average score
Netherlands 560
Sweden 552
Denmark 547
Switzerland 540
Iceland 534
Norway 528
France 523
New Zealand 522
Australia 522
Canada 519
Austria 518
Slovenia 512
INTERNATIONAL AVERAGE 500
Germany 495
Hungary 483
Italy 476
Russian Federation 471
Lithuania 469
Czech Republic 466
United States 461
Cyprus 446
South Africa 356
.
GENERAL SCIENCE
Nation Average score
Sweden 559
Netherlands 558
Iceland 549
Norway 544
Canada 532
New Zealand 529
Australia 527
Switzerland 523
Austria 520
Slovenia 517
Denmark 509
INTERNATIONAL AVERAGE 500
Germany 497
France 487
Czech Republic 487
Russian Federation 481
United States 480
Italy 475
Hungary 471
Lithuania 461
Cyprus 448
South Africa 349
.
Source: Third International Mathematics and Science Study
[quote]dcb wrote:
So it was the school prayer being taken out of schools that caused our drop from the top? Please take a look at the rankings below. Are the school systems at the top of the list there because they have school prayer?[/quote]
That was not my point!
My question was twofold:
I wonder how we made all of the great gains that we did between Washington and Eisenhower with that nasty old Bible in the way?
(Point being it (the Bible) did not seem to hamper our success)
I wonder how we could turn out the single best school system in the world prior to 1962 when prayer was taken out of school?
Number two simply points out that we succeeded with the Bible in school. Point being, how could we have had success prior to the Bible being taken out of school if the Bible was a negative influence which impeded our educational system.
Perhaps I was not very clear with my original post, sorry about that.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m a little surprised by this, but you do have a great deal of hate in your heart for those whom you disagree with, at least on this topic.
[/quote]
Why Zeb, I’m surprised at your surprise.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hate the sin and love the sinner
[/quote]
It’s not you I hate Zeb, just your hipocrisy.
BTW you should have stated your tenet of faith. I even invited you to. I mean: I gather it’s your faith the Bible has no errors in it.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That’s called keeping an open mind! That is somthing I think that you should do as well.
Yes, Zeb, you’re full of prescriptions for others.[/quote]
My only “prescription” relative to spiritual matters is of course Christianity and the Bible. I know you don’t like that and I’m not saying it to anger you, it’s simply the truth. That in no way makes me a hypocrit.
You have asked me many questions and made some severe accusations. With your permission I would like to ask you a few questions, as I am curious about your beliefs and want to understand where you are coming from:
I would like to know what your answer is for mankind? Do you have a specific religion or belief system which you follow?
You made mention in a flattering way to Jesus Christ. I would like to know who you think he is?
Do you abide by the ten commandments only, or not at all?
Here’s the deal: It shouldn’t matter that two men or women want to marry each other and be happy. It’s a matter of basic human rights. Yes, gay men can marry women if they want, but that would be decietful and illogical. Why should gays have to settle for second class citizenship?
I have noticed that in the US there is a large amount of legislation to deny gays their basic rights from getting housing, employment and other benefits most stright people take for granted. As a matter of fact, some goverment officials want legislation to “tag” gays so the rest of the population can know who we are. Does this sound familiar?
I LOVE this country, but it angers me that people want to get in my way of achieving happiness just because who I am. I was always told if I worked hard enough and was a decent person that I would achieve anything I desired.
I still believe that. But it is no one’s business who I decide to sleep with. Am I asking for ‘special rights’ or ‘special treatment’? No. What I am asking for is that I am afforded the same rights as my straight counterparts. Again, this is a matter of human equality-- it’s that simple.
As for the nature vs. nuture thing: Most of my gay friends came from two family households and their fathers are just normal guys (these guys were in the army, accountants, janitors, engineers, etc.) and their sons are gay. This is a genetic thing.
If I were to choose being gay, I wouldn’t because of all the crap that is being bandied around in our society. However, since I am gay, I have to play the cards that life has dealt me and hope one day that being gay isn’t considered a sin or a disease. Until then, I will work hard and try my best to achieve what it called the AMERICAN DREAM. I mean, isn’t that what everyone wants?
[quote]Bishop40 wrote:
Zeb–
Here’s the deal: It shouldn’t matter that two men or women want to marry each other and be happy. It’s a matter of basic human rights. Yes, gay men can marry women if they want, but that would be decietful and illogical. Why should gays have to settle for second class citizenship?[/quote]
So then anyone can marry anyone? Can a brother marry his sister? Can a group of people marry? is it just the “rights” of homosexuals that you care about? What about the rights of all those other people who consider themselves “different” but want “equality?”
If you have ever read anything that I have written during this debate you know that I am for equal rights for all people! Treating homosexuals in a cruel fashion is not right and I do not support that!
[quote]I LOVE this country, but it angers me that people want to get in my way of achieving happiness just because who I am. I was always told if I worked hard enough and was a decent person that I would achieve anything I desired.
I still believe that. But it is no one’s business who I decide to sleep with.[/quote]
I totally agree with you! You can achieve anything that you want that America has to offer. Currently you can “sleep with” anyone you want. Most Americans (according to the latest poll) think that homosexuals have every right to sleep with whomever they desire.
Yes! You are asking that a 5000 year old institution be changed to accommodate your lifestyle. How would you feel if there were a 5000 year old homosexual institution and heterosexuals insisted that it be changed? I bet there would be an outcry from most homosexuals. That’s one reason that almost 70% of American adults are against Gay marriage.
Why then should we not give Polygamists the same rights? What about incestuous relationships? Are they not people too who deserve equality and human compassion? Don’t you think those people deserve “human equality? (as you put it)” Would you discriminate against these groups? Is discrimination alright as long as it’s not you?
“Two family households?”
I don’t think that you can judge whether it is nature or nurture from such a small sampling. There are very bright people working on this issue currently. Are you aware that they are stating that they have no idea how one becomes Gay? The only people who claiming they have the answer is the powerful Gay lobby groups. They are doing that for political reasons, not because they have any science behind their claims. It’s pure propaganda!
These people (while I do not endorse any theory as yet) disagree with you:
And I wonder if it were “genetic” then why do some homosexuals get therapy and leave that lifestyle behind. I know some would say they never really change. However, who are you (or I) to dispute their claim?
[quote]If I were to choose being gay, I wouldn’t use of all the crap that is being bandied around in our society. However, since I am gay, I have to play the cards that life has dealt me and hope one day that being gay isn’t considered a sin or a disease. Until then, I will work hard and try my best to achieve what it called the AMERICAN DREAM. I mean, isn’t that what everyone wants?
Bishop40[/quote]
I don’t think that you have consciously “chose” to be Gay, the same way someone choooses to go here or there. However, it could be something that happened in your childhood. A twist on a relationship with a parent, another more personal experience etc. It could also be partly or entirely genetic! I’m not positive until I have all the facts. The point is that no one can be sure of how one “becomes Gay” until all the facts are in.
If it’s any consolation to you there are a large group of people out there who are not “against” anyone who is Gay. We are simply “for” not changing the institution of marriage.
I’m sure you have been through some very difficult times. If you want to PM me I would be more than happy to talk about this with you.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Gee, Zeb, I told you I don’t want to argue as to matters of faith. Which the literal truth of the Bible apparently is to you.[/quote]
Yes, you have stated that. However, you (and I) continue the dialouge regarding the matter. See your final paragraph.
[quote]So to coyly say only instead that you have never noticed any errors in the Bible is more being covert, not open-minded.
For on a matter of faith, there is no possible open-mindedness. So the suggestion that others should be so in the matter is after all hypocritical.[/quote]
Let me define “hyocritical” so that we are both talking about the same thing:
Hypocrite: “A feigning to be what one is not.”
I am a Christian! I am not pretending to be anything else and never have. As to the Bible it is an honest comment to claim that “I have never seen any errors in the Bible.” However, like all humans I can make mistakes. It is an honest statement when I claim that I have not seen any errors. There is nothing hypocritical about that statement, or any others that I have made.
Furthermore, asking you to be “open minded” regarding spiritual matters is not hypocritical. I think at some point you have established in your own thought process that all Christians are hypocrites. This is just as much a personal sterotype (of yours) as someone else claiming that all homosexuals are weak, thin and like Broadway plays. How foolish those statements are! However, no more foolish than your preconceived idea about Christians!
Again, (since you mentioned him) who is Jesus Christ to you?
Let me define “hyocritical” so that we are both talking about the same thing:
Hypocrite: “A feigning to be what one is not.”
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
e.g. your “open-mindedness”[/quote]
You assume this “falseness” because you stereotype Christians!
If you can point out an error in the Bible that would not change my faith. Perhaps this is why you imply the “hypocritical” tag. You assume that I am implying that I would then change my faith based upon an error and you don’t believe that I would.
I am asking for you to point out an error because I would be fascinated to see it, if it does exist.
