When has it become bad to be a Christian?

[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