[quote]ZEB wrote:
Isn’t it immoral to kill, steal, rape, lie etc.?
[/quote]
Those all have victims.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Isn’t it immoral to kill, steal, rape, lie etc.?
[/quote]
yes, but that is not why they are forbidden.
Killing, stealing and murdering are also not moral absolutes, they are redefined by every society to fit its needs. Or, to be more precise, to help those in power stay there.
And prostitution should be so legal. Female, male, transexual…
…and gambling… and weed… and all kinds of weird drugs, and steroids and polygamy, and hell,even guns if it is absolutely necessary…
But no assault rifles, anyone that wants to kill someone should learn how to shoot first. To protect the children!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
First, we are a Judeo/Christian society. I know the Godless wonders would have you believe that this is not the case, but they are quite wrong! About 90% of the population believes in God. You would think it’s about 50/50 if you read some of the threads on this forum, but that’s not the case. Hence, the Bible does matter!
In a previous post you stated: “Whatever happened to separation of church and state.” Do you know why there is a “separation of church and state?” The founding fathers wanted to make certain that the government did not establish one religion for all. It was to protect people from having the government establish one religion.
[/quote]
Dude, fair enough, but still if you’re allowing your particular religion to dominate this view and impose restrictions on people who may not share your particular faith, isn’t that the same as denying them their freedom to practice whatever religion they want? The constitution is no longer a static entity and the dynamic interpretation of it matters in order to keep it relevant to contemporary times.
Does this mean we should still stone people as per tradition? Am I being lumped in as an athiest?
My side? I’m not out there fighting for it as I wouldn’t really benefit from such a measure, but if it comes down to the vote, I’ll vote for it. People have already made the point that “civilized” societies have allowed gay marriage.
I’m pretty sure the South would’ve voted down the measure to abolish slavery, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been abolished. Also interesting would’ve been the vote to desegregate schools if it had come down to it.
Because it is fair and right to allow people the freedoms others enjoy.
Oky dokey, when did it become okay to exclude a portion of the population from freedoms that the rest enjoy because of bias? I will grant you that our laws and society tend to be based on Christian ideals. However, I believe your argument that because your religion says it shouldn’t happen that it shouldn’t. That is pretty similar to saying that freedom of religion doesn’t matter. Also, on all the justifications of banning gay marriage based on the Bible, there were plenty of people who justified slavery using Bible passages to rationalize their position back in the day. Times change, you should not be striving to see your ideals forced on others.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You don’t like laws that legislate morality?
How do you feel about all of the other “moral laws” that are on the books? Things like prostitution, child porn, etc. In fact, at their heart are not all laws moral laws?
Isn’t it immoral to kill, steal, rape, lie etc.?[/quote]
You make an intersting point. Perhaps my choice of words was poor. I’m a horrible debater. I was equating morality with religion and I did a poor job of it.
The whole “moral laws” thing opens up a whole can of worms, doesn’t it? Whose morals dictated the laws? Can morals exist without religion. Ugh.
I’ll say it this way then: I don’t like it when the government gets all religious on me. Separation of church state was put in the consitution for a reason, and it needs to stay that way.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
Times change, you should not be striving to see your ideals forced on others.
[/quote]
How about striving to resist others who force ideals on me? Especially ideals that are based in false analogy and optimistic assumption, or even better, apathy.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
Oky dokey, when did it become okay to exclude a portion of the population from freedoms that the rest enjoy because of bias? [/quote]
Again, they have exactly the same rights I do. They can marry any willing member of the opposite sex, just as I can. I cannot marry a member of the same sex (or more precisely, if I do, that marraige wouldn’t be recognized)just as they cannot. How are their rights being violated?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Oky dokey, when did it become okay to exclude a portion of the population from freedoms that the rest enjoy because of bias?
Again, they have exactly the same rights I do. They can marry any willing member of the opposite sex, just as I can. I cannot marry a member of the same sex (or more precisely, if I do, that marraige wouldn’t be recognized)just as they cannot. How are their rights being violated?[/quote]
They can’t marry the adult person who is willing to marry them, but we can.
And we can do it after meeting the person for only an hour. There doesn’t have to be any meaning behind it.
I know plenty of “couples” who got married while at a training camp in the Navy just to get the extra housing allowance (which was a pretty significant amount of money compared to our pay at the E-2, E-3 level).
It was all legal, they just lived together like roomates and dated whoever they wanted.
But two gay people who are in love with eachother can’t marry???
[quote]ZEB wrote:
JoeTime wrote:
Why do some religious people spend their lives judging others? If only they would invest their energy in becoming more positive themselves.
That being said, there is always more important work to be done closer to home. Maybe after you focus on improving yourself for a while you will see what a fool you have been, trying to fix everyone else.
In my case Im not “judging” anyone. The Bible speaks about loving the sinner, not judging them. However, we are to hate the “sin.”
You also left out the part where it says that “we are our brothers keeper.” We are to take part in the process and try to do what’s best.
With your logic then it is perfectly alright for everything and anything to be legalized. Why not legalize NAMBLA’s agenda? Legalize heroin use, etc. The attitude of “it does not effect me directly” is one that will only harm our society. Get involved! Even if it only means voting and debating the issues. Otherwise you will wake up one day to a country that you might not like!
[/quote]
You are too defensive to really hear what I said. Your fear of people with beliefs and lifestyles different than your own will preserve your ignorance. Keep your mind closed and hug your bible tight.
[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
And in the end it came down to a simple matter of equity…what you offer one citizen you must offer another. If YOU get to marry who you want, then I get to marry who I want. And such basic rights aren’t a matter of majority opinion (As you know, the crafters of our Constitution were careful to avoid any “tyranny of the majority.”).
[/quote]
You can’t offer on citizen something when it denigrates or hurts someone else?s religious institution. What you are asking is that the religious institution of marriage be extended to all people, even those who act contrary to that institution’s requirements. It’s not about equity. It’s about denigrating religious beliefs.
The biblical foundation of marriage is between a man and woman. That, is marriage. Yet, you want us to change that definition and now include same sex. That is contrary to what constitutes a marriage.
So what I’m saying is that we can let them have the same legal rights that States impute with a legal marriage, just not call it marriage, because that is religious in nature whether or not you agree. The bible is where our modern society got marriage and those are the parameters that must be applied for it to be “marriage”.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
Dude, fair enough, but still if you’re allowing your particular religion to dominate this view and impose restrictions on people who may not share your particular faith,
to desegregate schools if it had come down to it.
[/quote]
The Christian religion is not dominating anything. It is only trying to maintain the dignity of the institution it created. How can we be forcing Christianity on someone who wants to participate in a Christian institution? Marriage stared as a Jewish/Christian institution and it remains that today.
If you want to have some other form of union designed for non-Christians, go right ahead and do that. Just don’t call it marriage as that name is already taken!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Boscobarbell wrote:
And in the end it came down to a simple matter of equity…what you offer one citizen you must offer another. If YOU get to marry who you want, then I get to marry who I want. And such basic rights aren’t a matter of majority opinion (As you know, the crafters of our Constitution were careful to avoid any “tyranny of the majority.”).
[/quote]
You can’t offer one citizen something when it denigrates or hurts someone else’s religious institution. What you are asking is that the religious institution of marriage be extended to all people, even those who act contrary to that institution’s requirements. It’s not about equity. It’s about denigrating religious beliefs.
The biblical foundation of marriage is between a man and woman. That, is marriage. Yet, you want us to change that definition and now include same sex. That is contrary to what constitutes a marriage.
So what I’m saying is that we can let them have the same legal rights that States impute with a legal marriage, just not call it marriage, because that is religious in nature whether or not you agree. The bible is where our modern society got marriage and those are the parameters that must be applied for it to be “marriage”.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
The constitution is no longer a static entity and the dynamic interpretation of it matters in order to keep it relevant to contemporary times.[/quote]
LOL…you need to read a bit about the founding fathers and their take on the issue. You would find that they had a very different opinion than you and other liberals.
[quote]To hear the Atheists talk you would think that it was so that no religion should be respected in any part of our society. This is utter nonsense. People in this country want religion and to believe in God. Therefore, “a few lines in the Bible” and a 5000 year old tradition mean far more to most than they apparently do to some who enjoy bashing God and making fun of all who believe in such a higher power.
Does this mean we should still stone people as per tradition? Am I being lumped in as an athiest?[/quote]
Christ was against such things. Read the New Testament it’s very interesting. I have no idea what your religious beliefs are, other than I know you have not read the New Testament (or you read it and forgot what you read).
No actually that’s not the case. Do some research and point out one great (obviously civilized) society that had gay marriage.
[quote]Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all voted down gay marriage by very wide margins. In fact, the measure approved in Oklahoma went one step further by making it a misdemeanor crime to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple!
I’m pretty sure the South would’ve voted down the measure to abolish slavery, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been abolished. Also interesting would’ve been the vote to desegregate schools if it had come down to it.[/quote]
No sorry the whole black thing does not carry over to homosexuality. One is still a choice even if you are “born that way.” And there is no proof that you in fact born that way. A race cannot be compared to a sexual choice or action.
I like that “It’s fair and right.” yea…okay… 
They do have the same freedom. As I have posted: A homosexual man may marry any woman who says yes! What they want is to change what is already established. I want reasons why. You and the others give me no reasons just emotion…
LOL…the rest of us can marry someone of the same sex but homosexuals cannot? Think about what you are saying! Don’t swallow the liberal line of bull.
(Sheesh) I gave a myriad of reasons why it should not be allowed, not that I or anyone else has to. Now will you please give me one good reason why it should be allowed? You have done nothing to promote gay marriage on this post. You are only saying “seems fair to me.” That argument is sort of a joke…
Hey, you know what seems fair to me? I think that every minority group regardless of desire should change societal traditions to suit their needs. Now I will let you imagine exactly what that would entail. Can you come up with any, or do you want me to spoon feed you some?
Yes I understand. Therefore, everything in the Bible is wrong and we should indeed see how many things that we can do that would be against the Bible. (eye roll). What sort of logic is that?
There are many reasons to deny gay marriage. The Bible is only one and not even the strongest one if you are not Christian. As I have stated there are many reasons. Go back over some of my posts I’m not repeating them again. However, you and your cohorts have not come up with one good reason to change that 5000 year old institution for a tiny fraction of the population. Now get busy and give those who vote in large numbers against such a change some serious reasons to allow gay marriage. Otherwise, I don’t see it happening.
We make changes in society to better that society, not to pander to a tiny fraction of people. Where does that end?
[quote]Times change, you should not be striving to see your ideals forced on others.
[/quote]
You are a funny guy. Who is trying to force their ideals? Hmm, I am happy to leave things the way they are. Is that forcing anything?
Think my man!
[quote]JoeTime wrote:
You are too defensive to really hear what I said. Your fear of people with beliefs and lifestyles different than your own will preserve your ignorance. Keep your mind closed and hug your bible tight. [/quote]
And from those comments am I to assume that you are open minded?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The Christian religion is not dominating anything. It is only trying to maintain the dignity of the institution it created.
[/quote]
There was no such thing as marriage before Christianity?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The Christian religion is not dominating anything. It is only trying to maintain the dignity of the institution it created.
There was no such thing as marriage before Christianity?[/quote]
Ooo, sorry wrong answer!
Genesis was written long before the new testament and long before there were any Christians.
Genesis 2:23-25 (New International Version)
“23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Ooo, sorry wrong answer!
Genesis was written long before the new testament and long before there were any Christians.
Genesis 2:23-25 (New International Version)
“23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”
[/quote]
But when was the word “wife” translated from what ever original language it was written in, and did it always mean the same thing, even in the other language?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Even if he did make it up, wouldn’t allowing them to get “bonded” help contain the first two items on the list?
Prof., correct me if I’m wrong, but homosexuals ARE allowed to be “bonded”. Bonding may or may not help those items, we’d have to test it to find out. The question really is: “Should the entire nation be forced to accept/take part in it?”
Maybe the Prof was referring to BONDAGE.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The Christian religion is not dominating anything. It is only trying to maintain the dignity of the institution it created.
There was no such thing as marriage before Christianity?
Ooo, sorry wrong answer!
Genesis was written long before the new testament and long before there were any Christians.
Genesis 2:23-25 (New International Version)
“23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”
[/quote]
Aaaaaaaaaaand here’s the fairly obvious follow-up: there ws no marriage before the old testament?
[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Ooo, sorry wrong answer!
Genesis was written long before the new testament and long before there were any Christians.
Genesis 2:23-25 (New International Version)
“23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”
But when was the word “wife” translated from what ever original language it was written in, and did it always mean the same thing, even in the other language?[/quote]
The translation date is irrelevant as the orignal meaning is the same.
The original language was Hebrew and the word used was “ishshah”, translated as “wife (woman married to a man)” used 425 times in the OT. (Strongs Hebrew Lexicon)
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The Christian religion is not dominating anything. It is only trying to maintain the dignity of the institution it created.
There was no such thing as marriage before Christianity?
Ooo, sorry wrong answer!
Genesis was written long before the new testament and long before there were any Christians.
Genesis 2:23-25 (New International Version)
“23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”
Aaaaaaaaaaand here’s the fairly obvious follow-up: there ws no marriage before the old testament?
[/quote]
That is not known as there are no records to indicate either way. But this does show that alteast for the last 8-10,000 years (again no documentation of how long) marriage was in place and between a man and woman only.