When has it become bad to be a Christian?

[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 ? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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.