When has it become bad to be a Christian?

[W00lygimp]

Seriously, and don't say its when you mix religion with politics. It's been this way for over 200 years. From the times of Jefferson, Through lincoln and up to FDR. So why are you harping on George Bush for his belief's when they were shared by some of the greatest Presidents (Take a look at Mt. Rushmore).

Well, also know just as we can't be sure 100% God exists-- You can't be 100% God doesn't exist. Thats why I don't force my belief's on others, and don't agree with other Christians who do this. I also don't agree with atheists who have to make 35 posts in a politics forum on the existance of God, I've seen threads with thousand of great replies by people of high intelligence (It was a lesson in futility). However, know that YOU are the minority... So for the next 4 years this is how the country will be run. Quit bitching.

[Victor]

I can see how abortion especially and stem cell research to a lesser extent can be considered morally reprehensible.

My main problem with Christians is the organized, deliberate discrimination of a narrow group of people. Even more sickening is their gloating after they have accomplished this by calling it a "moral decision" and claiming that country is "moving forward" with "something to build on."

[W00lygimp]

Victor, You have to understand we humans are flawed. Thats a common fact of life.

People will always discriminate on the minority, thats a fact of life-- We've been doing it for thousands of yeras.
Just like Catholics take a 2000 page book and then produce a 5000 page Catechism from it. I don't beleive everything the Catechism says such as, "Masturbation is a moral sin."

Thats their belief's, not mine. You'd be surprised how many Christians don't think homosexuals are bad people. I think they are great people with the same rights as you or I. Now the thing is, I voted for the amendment banning gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with CU's and its a whole 'nother argument altogether. Now this may look like discrimination, but a further look shows you that in fact they do have the same rights. They have the same right to get married with a person of the opposite sex, just as I have the same right to get a CU with someone on the same sex.

Also big argument against gay marriage, is we will have to allow bigots and other abominations of marriage next. Because we can't say yes to one group and no to the others, at which point are we intruding on someones rights, and not trampling our own?

[lorinda]

Thats their belief's, not mine. You'd be surprised how many Christians don't think homosexuals are bad people

How many homosexuals think Christians are bad people?

Lori

[W00lygimp]

I am not in a position to make that estimate, I don't think anyone here is. But for the sake of estimate's i will give you a number. That number is 3,284,582.

Seriously, If i was a homosexual I wouldn't care as long as I had the CU system. You really think 100% of the people who voted for it were Christian and 100% who voted against it were Atheist? Think again.

Just like a foreigner citizen doesn't have the right to become a President, are we descriminating against him? Are we discriminating against all foreign citizens? Should Arnold Schwaz (I'm not even gonna try to spell his last name) be hosting rallies claiming we are discriminating against people like him? No....
Theres a stronger case for the banning of gay marriage than there is one for it.

It's not even like i pay attention to the opinions of anyone at this board, Hell yall think drugs should be legalized. Anyone who has that opinion doesn't have the foresight to attempt to change the political future.

[TomCollins]

Jefferson wasn't a Christian.

[W00lygimp]

Sure hes not... He just said these things for no reason.

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

“It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
[Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]

-Thomas Jefferson.

[daveymck]

I dont really understand the forigner rule, I think people have said for years that he would be president at some point if not for the fact he is forign. Surley it goes against the consitution of all US citizens being equal (I dont know if its written but surely its inferred) and having the same rights surely that should equal political as well.

I mean if this had been strictly enforced how come there has never been a Red Indian President.

Surely if theyt are a good candidate, have been a proven good US citizen and have all the right credentials they should be allowed to run for president.

What are the arguments against it?

[W00lygimp]

No I was using it as example. You could say pro-gay marriage people are having their rights trampled, but you would also have to say people like foreigners and such are also having their rights trampled. Where do you draw the line?

[elwoodblues]

The Constitution requires only a "natural born" citizen. Sorry to anyone born of a c-section /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

"Know that YOU [atheists] are the minority... So for the next 4 years this is how the country will be run. Quit bitching."

I don't understand. Are you saying that for the next 4 years the United States is going to be run like a religious nation?

The atheists, if you wanna call 'em that, never had any chance or plans to become the majority in America. So, whence the danger, you paranoid Bushman?

"Just as we can't be sure 100% God exists-- You can't be 100% God doesn't exist."

I'm sorry but philosophy is not a matter of expected value. You are confusing two different disciplines here.

"That's why I don't force my beliefs on others, and don't agree with other Christians who do this."

No, that's not why!

Even is it was "100 percent certain" that God existed, you would still be wrong in trying to force me to believe!

For instance, what I do to my temple (=my body and my mind) is my own goddamned business -- and one else's! Nor yours, not God's, not anybody's. Even if you had 100% proof that God existed and actually proclaimed that my body belongs to him, you should stay the hell away from what I do to, with or at it. Ir's a little human concept, called freedom.

Yes, those damn, white-robed Greeks again...

"Take a look at Mt. Rushmore."

Why ? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Speaking of Rushmore : If it was a choice betwenn Dubya and Kerry (let's pretend) about whom to put up on Mt Rushmore, whose would be the most esthetically proper mug to put up?

I can't see Dubya's. Too bland. Kerry's is more angled, a cinch for sculpting.

[ACPlayer]

... perhaps around the time that Jesus rose from the dead.

That was possibly the start of the time when it became bad to be Christian -- to be christian you have to believe that this actually happened, right?

[texaspimp]

Is Mt. Rushmore tall enough to carve Kerry's looooooong
face???

[tolbiny]

"Also big argument against gay marriage, is we will have to allow bigots and other abominations of marriage next."

You misunderstand the real issue here. You (as in the people pusing for the definition) are defining Marrige based upon your beliefs. What if my beliefs are different? By creating an amendment to define marrige based upon your religious beliefs you are not allowing me to practice mine. And if CU's are exactly the same as a marrige why do you want an amendment? Because it seperates a gay couple from a straight couple, whith the implication that being straight and married is good, while being a gay couple is merely tolerated.

"Because we can't say yes to one group and no to the others, at which point are we intruding on someones rights, and not trampling our own?"

What right of yours is being trampled on when i get married to another man? You have the right to live your life as you please, EXCEPT you cannont force those beliefs on others, and that is precisly what an amendment does.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
No I was using it as example. You could say pro-gay marriage people are having their rights trampled, but you would also have to say people like foreigners and such are also having their rights trampled. Where do you draw the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously dude...try using your head for something besides a hat rack.

[Nate Finch]

How does two men getting married in ANY WAY harm ANYONE else? It doesn't. Laws are there to prevent harm and promote the greater good. A ban on gay marriage does neither. It merely discriminates against homosexuals.

Remember separate but equal? This is *exactly* the same damn thing. Separate is not equal. Equal is equal. The *only* reasoning that anyone can have for banning gay marriage is because they are prejudiced against homosexuals. I have yet to hear any rational reasoning.

BTW - a bigot is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." The word you were looking for is bigamy - "The criminal offense of marrying one person while still legally married to another." Freudian slip perhaps?

And btw - there's really nothing wrong with bigamy either.

-Nate

[West]

I didn't know it was bad to be a Christian. I thought it was just bad to be a collossal, hypocritical, piece of @%#$.

[vulturesrow]

Its not so much that gay marriage hurts anyone else but the damage it does to the institution of marriage. By allowing marriage to anyone, you thereby make it meaningless. As it stands, the institution of marriage is the basis for our most basic social unit, and provides (in most cases) the healthiest environment for the raising of children. Government certainly has an interest in promoting that institution as it stands. Also note that government didnt create marriage as it stands. It is has been recognized by the government as an institution that is beneficial to society and is thus rewarded and encouraged. But government has no justification in changing the basic, most accepted definition of marriage.

[arabie]

"Also big argument against gay marriage, is we will have to allow bigots and other abominations of marriage next. Because we can't say yes to one group and no to the others, at which point are we intruding on someones rights, and not trampling our own?"
So you can't say yes to one group and no to others, but you have already said yes to one group and no to all the others? Your argument seems just slightly hipicritical.

[lastchance]

This is a very semantic argument (the entire thing). Tell me, what is the institution of marriage in the US? Exactly how does marriage relate to the government?

I am much more concerned with laws about discrimination and unfair law (not letting gays adopt, etc.).

Many of us are young here. Don't be ruled by your prejudices.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see Dubya's. Too bland. Kerry's is more angled, a cinch for sculpting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry's face is already being carved onto the side of a mountain. oh wait....that's crazy horse's mare.

cheers!

[ACPlayer]

But government has no justification in changing the basic, most accepted definition of marriage

Why exactly would you say that Govt has no justification for changing something? The whole purpose of government is to define and refine public policy for society. If society demands a change (and I am not getting into whether society is demanding this change -- at least not yet) then should the government not respond?

Regarding damage to the institution of marriage -- soap operas on TV or Jerry Springer probably damage the institution a lot more than a couple of guys or gals getting hitched at city hall and then going off quietly to their homes.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't see Dubya's. Too bland. Kerry's is more angled, a cinch for sculpting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry's face is already being carved onto the side of a mountain. oh wait....that's crazy horse's mare.

cheers!

[/ QUOTE ]
They're both old and ugly.... Bush looks like a elf, and Kerry is so wrinkled...

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a very semantic argument (the entire thing). Tell me, what is the institution of marriage in the US? Exactly how does marriage relate to the government?


[/ QUOTE ]

The institution of marriage is union between a man and a woman usually created under religious auspices, as it has been for a long time. Government rewards and encourages that union because of the various social goods it provides. However government didnt create that institution. Therefore its not the government's place to redefine it.

Gays are allowed to adopt. Ever heard of Rosie O'Donnell?

[ QUOTE ]
Many of us are young here. Don't be ruled by your prejudices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Id venture to say that I am not that much older than you. Regardless, that is an irrelevant point. And so is your little barb about prejudice. I am not, and you have no way of knowing that unless you make unreasonable assumptions about me.

[daveymck]

I dont understand the ferocity of those anti gay marrige, its as if gayness is the thing thats tearing at the fabric of our society and if its allowed civilization as we know it will come to an end.

I hear the family unit view put across a lot but the sad fact is a very high percentage of marriges (I know I cant spell)end in divorce which is not very good for those children in the unit.

Marrige amonst a lot of young people (including me) has been errorded as being important, many see it as a piece of paper, I dont need an institution to rubber stamp my relationship, although our lass may think differently. Over here the tax break for married couples was removed a few years ago so finacially there is no benefit.

Gay people want legal marrige as they want acceptance and equality and the chance to show the world they are together, having said that we dont have CU's over here so not sure of the difference.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Why exactly would you say that Govt has no justification for changing something? The whole purpose of government is to define and refine public policy for society. If society demands a change (and I am not getting into whether society is demanding this change -- at least not yet) then should the government not respond?

[/ QUOTE ]

The way to do so is not to attempt to redefine it. You change it by removing the incentive/reward or create a new institution entirely, e.g., civil unions.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding damage to the institution of marriage -- soap operas on TV or Jerry Springer probably damage the institution a lot more than a couple of guys or gals getting hitched at city hall and then going off quietly to their homes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not the individual guys or gals, its the collective effect of those marriages. I agree that there are some very gross social forces that damage the institution of marriage. That isnt justification for eroding it further.

[tek]

"When has it become bad to be a Christian?"

I think it began way back when they began killing poeple for not believing in their new fake religion. I think they went over the edge when they crucified JC and blamed it on the Jews. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[texaspimp]

Fake religion????

What is real religion?

[ACPlayer]

So, if we created a parallel set of laws that gave Civil Unions all the rights and responsibilities of marriage except that ability to call it marriage -- then you are OK with this? Is this about semantics?

I did not understand the bit about rewards and incentives.

Changes in definitions are inevitable and happen in society all the time. An example is the change in the definition of a voter from being a landowner (or whatever it exactly was back in the 18th century) to whatever it is now.

[lastchance]

Two things:
Thanks for the clarification, and also I never pointed that prejudice barb (if one could call it that) at you. I was directing it toward everyone. Gotta think clearly.

As an institution, I would love to see what marriage is. I do not think that gay marriage is any threat to the institution of marriage, at least not more than the divorce rate. However, the government should not take over every little part of our lives. If marriage is a culture thing, it would suck if government tried to take that over, though the government already has it's hands tied in it.

I suppose one could rule that if the government gave the same benefits to a heterosexual couple, they must give the same benefits to a homosexual couple.

[arabie]

"Theres a stronger case for the banning of gay marriage than there is one for it."

I strongly disagree. A case can be made for both sides, however, it is my opinion that the pro-gay marriage argument outweighs that of civil unions. My point is stop stating your opinons as facts.



"It's not even like i pay attention to the opinions of anyone at this board, Hell yall think drugs should be legalized. Anyone who has that opinion doesn't have the foresight to attempt to change the political future."

Who are you, Heraclitus? Maybe you'd learn something if you listened to another person without preassuming that you're correct. Regarding your comment about drugs, they are legal, ever heard of pharma-plus? People just have differnt opinons to which drugs get sold in store fronts, which comes back to a balance of rights and responsibilties. I smoke weed every day call, the cops on me if you think i should be jail. That is exactly what i deserve, throw me in prison cell for a few years and everything will be dandy, won't it? So here's the entire plan accordinng your brilliant idea that drugs should not be legal:
Lets take the drugs, create an illegal market for the mob to take hold of and earn 100% profits taxfree. Make sure the drugs aren't inspected and are tainted with things like pcp, rat poison, windex, crack etc... Lets not have a legal age or liscensing program regarding use and allow a free market to spoil and abuse the substance as much as they desire with no controlling authority capping the amount to be sold. Lets make sure that the people who want to do small drugs will meet into the whole illegal market where they can be introduced to guns, thievery, gangs, and harder drugs. I mean we've got o secure the illegal market by allowing one sector to finance the other. Lets then make sure we throw all the people who use it in jail.

I don't know if you anything about law, but as a once philosophy of law student, i'll try educate you on a thing or two. The basic constitional principle is that you can do whatever you want, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of another individual. Did you feel that punch in the face when i lit my joint yesterday? Because im sure I was intending to hurt you? Why can an athlete of rugby, boxing or football, or for that matter any extreme sportist, waiver their life for a pleasurable hobbie? The legality of drugs i think is much more decisive then the issue of gay marriage. The case for legal drugs is considering the fact that we know a huge percent of the north american population use small time drugs. So do we give that money to the drug dealers, or to the governemtn? Do we ensure clean healthy environments for drugs to be produced? Do we neglect backround checks, liscensing, or age verification for drug use? Do we run a hipicritical society where people can be legal alcoholics, addicted smokers, addicted painkiller users, but throw the weed smokers in jail? How do you make a case for alcohols legality? Do you know that the fact that marijuana is illegal is only helping the mob finance their heroin market, their guns market etc. I think you'd have to be an idiot to neglect these importnat facts and rather take a religious moral perspective by telling everyone else how to live their lives. You take advil to heal you physical pain, I smoke to satisfy a pyschological pain. How would you like to sit in a jail cell and have your life stripped of you. Think twice buddy and get back to me.

[W00lygimp]

Man, Dan Rather needs to look at the twoplustwo boards when he tries to find his replacement.

The reason we say YES to one group is its been that way for millenia. Marriage was not founded as a state issue, it was founded as a PURELY religious issue and then got integrated into the state.

Elwood beleive what you want to, I'm not forcing you to believe what I do. The fact is this country has been run by Christians for 200 years and it wont change anytime soon, So I'm asking the people who are bitching and moaning about Bush being a fanatic to stop. Its a republic and the people have spoken.

As for Hitler being a Christian, I know someone will bring it up. He wasn't, He used religion to further his goals...

What is wrong with having a CU? Can a gay person answer this? If we allow gays to get married we must also allow bigots to get married, which we CAN NOT do.

[W00lygimp]

How about I use it as both. Efficiency = Intelligence, and by using it as both a center of learning and a hat rack im increasing my efficiency to a point of intelligence beyond yours. No I'm kidding, but don't make stupid comments like that.

[arabie]

whats the problem with only straight people entering into civil unions? lets ban their marriage rights.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
How about I use it as both.

[/ QUOTE ]

A hat rack and what?

[ QUOTE ]
Efficiency = Intelligence, and by using it as both a center of learning

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and a center of learning. Good idea. So far it's been more like a hat rack and an engine for making your lips flap.

[ QUOTE ]
No I'm kidding, but don't make stupid comments like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You could say pro-gay marriage people are having their rights trampled, but you would also have to say people like foreigners and such are also having their rights trampled. Where do you draw the line?


[/ QUOTE ]

I generally don't like to use the word stupid, but in your case, I think it's fair to make an exception. This is a stupid comment. Do you see why?

I'll let others elaborate.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Elwood beleive what you want to, I'm not forcing you to believe what I do

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? The only participation I've had in this thread was one purely sarcastic post.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if we created a parallel set of laws that gave Civil Unions all the rights and responsibilities of marriage except that ability to call it marriage -- then you are OK with this? Is this about semantics?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think the law gives you any rights or responsibilities vis a vis marriage. You receive benefits of being married because of the social good it provides. I dont think a civil union should gain all the benefits of marriage. But certainly the ones that you can obtain via legal means currently ought to be included. Hence my incentive/rewards statement.

[ QUOTE ]
Changes in definitions are inevitable and happen in society all the time. An example is the change in the definition of a voter from being a landowner (or whatever it exactly was back in the 18th century) to whatever it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government has every right to change what defines a voters since in effect they create that institution. I agree definitions change in society. That usually happens gradually over time because of the desires of said society. It doesnt usually happen because government steps into a societal institution and changes its definition.

[ACPlayer]

Government has every right to change what defines a voters since in effect they create that institution

OK, I see what you are getting at. In your view marriage is an instiution created by the church (no particular faith, just faith) and government should not be getting in the middle of what it means.

However, Govt has long been involved in marriage already in the form of civil marriages (between men and women prior to MA). These are not recognized by the church but are recognized as MARRIAGES by all other parts of the society. To now say that marriage is religious institution is bogus as you would deny all the civil marriages that title and any goodwill that flows to the title.

The denial appears to be about homosexuality and not about the sanctity of the religious institutions that created the concept.

Sorry, does not fly IMO.

But still listening.

[vulturesrow]

They are recognized as civil marriages because they still fill the societal definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman. Yes religion played a large role in that, but that definition of marriage has existed before organized religion and in fact was actually adopted by the Church. In colonial America civil marriages were written into that colony's laws that supported a non-religious interpretation of marriage.

[ QUOTE ]
But still listening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appreciated. 90 percent of the people I attempt to discuss this with scream bigot and run, figuratively speaking. Given the recent antics in this forum, its good to be able to discuss and debate, not hurl epithets.

[Nate Finch]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think the law gives you any rights or responsibilities vis a vis marriage. You receive benefits of being married because of the social good it provides. I dont think a civil union should gain all the benefits of marriage. But certainly the ones that you can obtain via legal means currently ought to be included. Hence my incentive/rewards statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, questions -

1.) What social good is generated by a marriage between a man and a woman?
2.) What social good is not generated by a marriage between members of the same sex?
3.) Why shouldn't a civil union get all the benefits of marriage?
4.) What benefits should they not receive?
5.) Why is the word marriage allowed to be used by members of all faiths, but members of different sexual orientations are not?

-Nate

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is this country has been run by Christians for 200 years and it wont change anytime soon,

[/ QUOTE ]

this country is run by the people who live in it. it just so happens that many of those people (me included) are Christians. if, in the next 100 years, there are millions of converts to Islam, our country would then be run by Muslims. same if it were Buddhism, or Satanism.

cheers!

[ACPlayer]

So, are you denying the Gay community the chance to change the law to write in something about that group. Again, we can discuss whether the law should be changed, but there is nothing to suggest that the government cannot or should not be involved in changing the law.

So, if you are in agreement that the Govt could logically be involved in changing the definition of marriage - in colonial times to include non-relisious interpretation and in 2005 to include same sex marriages we can move onto whether doing so is a good idea or not.

[Eihli]

What's wrong with bigomy, gay marriages, or any other of that type of ritual. Is it immoral? Does it go against the majorities beliefs?

Why the [censored] does the government care and feel the need to create laws for or against it? They have nothing to do with it. Their job is protection of rights, not restriction.

[ACPlayer]

Appreciated. 90 percent of the people I attempt to discuss this with scream bigot and run, figuratively speaking. Given the recent antics in this forum, its good to be able to discuss and debate, not hurl epithets.

THanks for the kind words. My posts besides being always on the right side of every issue, are always logical, non-emotional. Employing only above board debating tactics, rarely changing the subject or employing name calling. If every one was this good, there would be no board for us to read.

Now, I must say -- you are just !*#&$*#&($& wrong you (@#*$)(@#*$ numbskull!

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
How many homosexuals think Christians are bad people?

[/ QUOTE ]
We Christians have given the homosexual community a reason to hate us. Not just disagree with our lifestyle, but hate us as persons. The reverse is not true.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with bigomy, gay marriages, or any other... Is it immoral?... Why the [censored] does the government care and feel the need to create laws against it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The second question is really much more important. I don't see any reason to legislate issues of morality that don't infringe on others' rights. For example, murder and rape are illegal, not just because they are immoral, but because they infringe on others' rights. Homosexuality, infidelity, fornication, etc. - regardless of whether or not they are immoral - do not infringe on others' rights.

[vulturesrow]

No I dont agree that government could logically be involved in changing the fundamental definition of marriage. I pointed out the colonial example simply to show that the fundamental definition has existed outside any religious reasons. Marriage, whether looked at from a religious, social contract, property right, etc. perspective all included the underlying basis of it being between man and woman.

[ACPlayer]

Yeah, it has all that -- but in the past. MArraige today is a civil contract. Even the priest, I believe, says by the power vested in me bu the state of NY -- etc etc. You get the license from a govt employee,they can force you to take blood tests. Like it or not, the govt is deeply involved in the sanctity of marriage.

No reason, logically, that it cant be changed. May or may not be a good idea, but it CAN be changed. Cant it?

For example, you CAN jump off the brookly bridge but you may or may not want to.

If we can agree on the CAN we can move onto the WANT.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Even the priest, I believe, says by the power vested in me bu the state of NY -- etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every religious wedding I have ever been to, the minister says "by the power vested in me by God and the state of..."

[ACPlayer]

I had a quaker ceremony so I dont know what the priest says exactly.

He has to say the "state" part by state law. The point is the state is involved in marriage, it is a state institution and the state can change it and has been changing it for 200 years in different ways.

This particular change grates on some people. It has nothingi to do with sanctity.

[tolbiny]

Wow, there is a huge gulf between the two sides of this argument. I think my main disagreement with the Groups who want an amendment is this-
Why do you get to define marrige? Would it be right for me to define marrige for you? Obviously not, so why do you get to define it for me? Statements like this
"But government has no justification in changing the basic, most accepted definition of marriage."
This is your opinion, not fact. Polygamy is just as old as monogomy, and many cultures throughout our history have celebrated it as much as monogomy is today. However this isn't (well it shouldn't be) an argument over which is better, it is about our government's role in our lives. The government has no buisness defining such private things as marrige, however, once they do so they must do so fairly and equally (according to our constitution). Why should marrige be an exception?

[Nate Finch]

Let me just drudge this up (had to play Thursday night poker - ended up a slight winner, go me!) for one last comment.

I still have yet to see one logical explanation from the anti-gay-marriage people as to why gay marriage should be banned. "Because that's the way it's always been" is not a logical explanation. Women couldn't vote until well into the middle of the 20th century. Should we have changed that left things they way they've always been? That certainly had more of an impact that two guys you will never meet getting married in a town you will never visit.

The long and the short of it is - there's been no logical explanation given because one doesn't exist. It is simple bigotry. Here's the thing - I'm guessing that in many cases it's not even malicious. It's just weird and different, and not something most of these people have had any experience with. Not that there aren't malicious people out there, I just think (or at least hope) they're not the majority.

-Nate

[Abednego]

Ok Ok ...... gays can get married ...... as long as it is with someone of the opposite sex. And straights can have Civil Unions as long as it is with someone of the same sex. Equality ..... I believe in Equality.

[Nate Finch]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok Ok ...... gays can get married ...... as long as it is with someone of the opposite sex. And straights can have Civil Unions as long as it is with someone of the same sex. Equality ..... I believe in Equality.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this - straights can have civil unions, and gays can have marriages? That's equality, right?

-Nate

[Abednego]

No .... marriage is a church institution. Instituted by God. His first in fact. Gays are in rebellion with God .... why do they want marriage? I see no reason to sanctify same sex relationships .... I can see no good that it brings and a lot of damage it will do.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, there is a huge gulf between the two sides of this argument. I think my main disagreement with the Groups who want an amendment is this-
Why do you get to define marrige? Would it be right for me to define marrige for you? Obviously not, so why do you get to define it for me? Statements like this
"But government has no justification in changing the basic, most accepted definition of marriage."
This is your opinion, not fact. Polygamy is just as old as monogomy, and many cultures throughout our history have celebrated it as much as monogomy is today. However this isn't (well it shouldn't be) an argument over which is better, it is about our government's role in our lives. The government has no buisness defining such private things as marrige, however, once they do so they must do so fairly and equally (according to our constitution). Why should marrige be an exception?

[/ QUOTE ]

Our society considers the ideal family to consist of a father, a mother, and children. Marriage is an institution designed to promote that ideal family structure.

What is happening in America today is the Gay community is trying to use marriage to promote a family structure that the rest of society feels is less than ideal. The rest of society is essentially saying that they will tolerate a gay family structure, but they will not allow the institution of marriage to be changed to promote it.

Id like to add that I think the gay community is wrong to single out christians. Its a much larger cross section of America that is opposed to changing marriage.

Stu

[collegeplayer1]

He just pretends becasue its the fastest way to get the cattle caged up.

Very few intelligent people are willing to label themselves christian, let alone follow the dogma.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
Victor, You have to understand we humans are flawed. Thats a common fact of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bull-[censored]' [censored]. Why must I understand that? It isn't true.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think the law gives you any rights or responsibilities vis a vis marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. Think tax credits.

[jdl22]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not but wouldn't it be better for your side the government to only have "civil unions" and not grant marriage licenses?

The civil union would be given to groups of people (for most this would be groups of two) that have a relationship and wish for that to be officially recognised. They then can, if they wish, go to the religious facility of their choice to get "married." This marriage ceremony would be completely removed from the government and the government wouldn't give a damn whatsoever how it happened or whether or not it did.

The argument against gay marriage is that marriage is an institution, or traditionally man with woman, or not christian is purely a semantic one. So why don't we just eliminate the word "marriage" from any and all government involvement. Leave that to religions or other similar groups. Have the government give out X certificates where X is the word that replaces marriage but basically means the same thing in the "We're planning on being together for the rest of our lives - at least until something better comes along" sense.

Curious what the people opposed to gay marriage (Vulturesrow and others) think of this.

[A_C_Slater]

Good/Bad is a Christian concept.

These classifications didn't exist until the advent
of Christianity.

I'll be frank with you.

There is no metaphysical good and evil in the human world
anymore than there is in the animal world or the chemical
world or the physical world of gravity and mass.

If a child is a nuisance tell him so. Tell him his
behavior is annoying. But never, never, make a metaphysical
moral issue out of it. Never, Never say anything is
wrong in a cosmic sense.

Never pass on the lunacy, the Emotional Plague, that has
come down to us from ages of superstition and barbarism.

We must understand that every moral idea is strictly a
hallucination. It creates guilt which creates muscular
tension, which creates rage. That leads to furthur armoring to hold the rage in. That leads to all the psychosomatic
illnesses that orthodox medicine can't cure and to all
the social pathologies around us.

Rape. Child beating. War.

There is a natural grace and a natural way of life we have
lost. We lost it through the invention of Good and Evil.

As soon as we believed we were sinners, the Trap closed
on us. We accepted sin and punished ourselves. Or we
projected the sin outward and punished scapegoats.

Masochism or Sadism!

Those were the only choices once we believed in Good and
Evil, once we believed in Sin. We are animals.

We are no more guilty than a dog, a cat, a horse, a
chipmunk. Everybody has known it since Darwin.

But we are still in the Trap.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
Good/Bad is a Christian concept.

These classifications didn't exist until the advent
of Christianity.

I'll be frank with you.

There is no metaphysical good and evil in the human world
anymore than there is in the animal world or the chemical
world or the physical world of gravity and mass.

If a child is a nuisance tell him so. Tell him his
behavior is annoying. But never, never, make a metaphysical
moral issue out of it. Never, Never say anything is
wrong in a cosmic sense.

Never pass on the lunacy, the Emotional Plague, that has
come down to us from ages of superstition and barbarism.

We must understand that every moral idea is strictly a
hallucination. It creates guilt which creates muscular
tension, which creates rage. That leads to furthur armoring to hold the rage in. That leads to all the psychosomatic
illnesses that orthodox medicine can't cure and to all
the social pathologies around us.

Rape. Child beating. War.

There is a natural grace and a natural way of life we have
lost. We lost it through the invention of Good and Evil.

As soon as we believed we were sinners, the Trap closed
on us. We accepted sin and punished ourselves. Or we
projected the sin outward and punished scapegoats.

Masochism or Sadism!

Those were the only choices once we believed in Good and
Evil, once we believed in Sin. We are animals.

We are no more guilty than a dog, a cat, a horse, a
chipmunk. Everybody has known it since Darwin.

But we are still in the Trap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, awesome post. Reminds me of Daniel Quinn's stuff.

[craig r]

He wrote Ishmael, right?

craig

[elwoodblues]

It didn't take long for this flawed argument to show up. The same argument was made with interracial marriages (it was in fact argued before the US Supreme Court who held that it was a flawed argument.)

Blacks have the same rights as whites, to marry someone of their own race.

Absolutely flawed argument.

[Nate Finch]

[ QUOTE ]
Our society considers the ideal family to consist of a father, a mother, and children. Marriage is an institution designed to promote that ideal family structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. Our society considers the traditional family to consist of father, mother, children. Ideals are for philosophers and priests.

[ QUOTE ]
What is happening in America today is the Gay community is trying to use marriage to promote a family structure that the rest of society feels is less than ideal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullshit. If you truly believe the gay community is trying to push it's values on anyone else, you are horribly misinformed.

The gay community just wants the same rights as the straight community - to be able to marry the person they love, having all the rights and priveledges due them for such a relationship. Marry, not civil unionize.

[ QUOTE ]
the institution of marriage

[/ QUOTE ]

Marriage is not an institution. Marriage is a contract describing a government-recognized relationship. God I hate that "marriage is an institution" crap.

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of society is essentially saying that they will tolerate a gay family structure, but they will not allow the institution of marriage to be changed to promote it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the question again is - why? Because you think being gay is wrong. Do you also think we shouldn't allow muslims or jews or buddhists to marry in the united states, because their family values are different than yours? How about single parents? Divorcees? Guess what, the June Cleaver version of the American family is a dying breed.

[ QUOTE ]
Id like to add that I think the gay community is wrong to single out christians. Its a much larger cross section of America that is opposed to changing marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is only Christians who I've heard say that being gay is morally wrong and an affront to god. Maybe they're not the only ones against it, but they're for damn sure the most vocal.

Why do you think you get to say what is right and what is wrong when it harms no one?

-Nate

[Nate Finch]

[ QUOTE ]
It didn't take long for this flawed argument to show up. The same argument was made with interracial marriages (it was in fact argued before the US Supreme Court who held that it was a flawed argument.)

Blacks have the same rights as whites, to marry someone of their own race.

Absolutely flawed argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo! Absolutely a great point!

-Nate

[zephed56]

I'm no conservative, but I do think a child should have a mother and a father. Each has something different to offer to the child.

[elwoodblues]

Making divorce illegal when there are kids involved would do just as much to accomplish this goal as mandating that only opposite sex individuals can marry. While parentage and marriage are certainly related, they don't have to be. As you know, kids can be born out of wedlock, have parents who divorce, be adopted by single individuals, be adopted by gay couples, people who are otherwise incapable of having children can get married, our government allows people with children to enter the military (and, thus, remove them from their kids). We don't legislate against any of this, yet one of the main arguments against gay marriage is that children should have a mother and a father.

[tolbiny]

so what? Those are your values, and you ought not be albe to force them on someone else.

[MelchyBeau]

Here are my two cents on this argument

1. It is not the governments duty to secure the 'sanctity' of anything. The term sanctity obviously has religious implications.

2. Sometimes majority rule isn't always right. The majority of americans before the civil war thought slavery was correct.

3. There is no sanctity of marriage at this point. 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce. 1/3 of all marriages are scarred by infidelity. Also FOX runs gameshows on people wanting to get married.

4. The church has the possibility to preserve this sanctity. They can refuse to marry said couple. or pass law into thier doctrine stating that in the eyes of god they are not married.

This is a Church issue, not a states issue.

Melch

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Our society considers the traditional family to consist of father, mother, children. Ideals are for philosophers and priests.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, marriage is an institution designed to promote the traditional family.

[ QUOTE ]
Marriage is not an institution. Marriage is a contract describing a government-recognized relationship. God I hate that "marriage is an institution" crap.


[/ QUOTE ]

in·sti·tu·tion, n. A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family. dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=institution)


[ QUOTE ]
Do you also think we shouldn't allow muslims or jews or buddhists to marry in the united states, because their family values are different than yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I never said that. In our society muslim men can take only one wife at a time however.

[ QUOTE ]
How about single parents? Divorcees?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tolerated, not promoted.

Society encourages and promotes the tradition family structure. It tolerates other family structures such as gay unions, single parents, etc. Some family structures it forbids, such as polygamy and polyandry.

Stu

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
Why exactly would you say that Govt has no justification for changing something? The whole purpose of government is to define and refine public policy for society. If society demands a change (and I am not getting into whether society is demanding this change -- at least not yet) then should the government not respond?

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole purpose of government is to protect individuals rights, not to decide what is moral. If society demands change let society take care of it. It is not the place of government.

silly