Gay marriage

[MJDuncan1982]

I don't think we should get off on a tangent about religion here but I would like to point out that if the Founders had wanted the Bible to be a source of our legal system, they would have said so in the Constitution. I challenge anyone to please cite from the Bible things such as the separartion of powers, right against self-incrimination, etc. We are supposed to be thankful we are a country not ruled by our religious leaders. Look what it does to other countries around the world. And Christianity is not immune - let us not forget the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Bonnie]

I don't think we should get off on a tangent about religion here but I would like to point out that if the Founders had wanted the Bible to be a source of our legal system, they would have said so in the Constitution. I challenge anyone to please cite from the Bible things such as the separartion of powers, right against self-incrimination, etc. We are supposed to be thankful we are a country not ruled by our religious leaders. Look what it does to other countries around the world. And Christianity is not immune - let us not forget the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition" Python :

 

[DKSuddeth]

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition" Python :

I'm guessing that they didn't expect it back then either. my opinion anyways.

 

[Bonnie]

I'm guessing that they didn't expect it back then either. my opinion anyways.

Of course they didn't, and all throughout time there has been sin and genocide in the name of religion because there will always be some that want power, and are not religious like they proclaim to be, but rather use the umbrella of their self proclaimed faith to further that agenda. But one thing does remain constant at least in my mind and the minds of many is the Bible, and what it contains. Without getting too heavy...........sweetness and light

 

[NewGuy]

this nation was not founded as the land of god nor was the bible a directive or guidebook for creating the united states. In many threads in the past this has been vociferously argued and debated to death.

Exactly.

The thing that always gets me is that I am always misunderstood with my perspective on what I am trying to say.

I never said that America is a nation where the Bible dictates policy.

MY view which is explained in other threads is that the Bible was the blueprint for establishment of government and law in the beginning and that the SPIRIT of such was intended to be used to direct all future law.

What happens outside of that is the literal wording of the Constitution clearly dictating Congress cannot rule either way on any religious issue in any capacity.

All of this would be adressed in the other section on religion.

Any reference to all of this by me is to illustrate a point in discussion of gay marriage where someone else justifies it by comparing to other circumstances in American history.

To refute the other person's view, one must first go BACK to history. -Which is why all of this came up in the first place.

Again, the section covering religion is where people seem to prefer the discussions involving the Bible, so that is where you will find the topic adressed in numerous threads both past and present.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I agree with NewGuy, we need to stay on subject. Religion will come into this argument however when people use it as an argument against gay marriage. It will have to be talked about as much as is necessary.

 

[musicman]

I'm all for keeping religious discussion in the Religion/Ethics section. However, if religion manages to find it's way into some other topic, let's not tiptoe around it, like the elephant sitting in the living room that nobody wants to talk about. That's just silly and counterproductive. Moreover, it's bloody unfair. Religion is the means through which we understand that which is transcendant - the eternal, spiritual realm. Secular humanists, having subtracted a Supreme Being and objective morality from that equation, find transcendance in a specific political and social agenda - what Hillary Clinton calls "The politics of Meaning". They've got a pretty damned convenient setup, too. When they say, "No religion in the public sector", what they really mean is, no religion but THEIRS. And, when you hear things like "I should be free to do as I please, as long as I'm not harming anyone", or, "My morality is rooted in REAL consequences......Here - Now", or, my personal favorite, "Preventing gays from getting married is NOT MORAL" (that's a real knee-slapper), that's the sound of secular humanists preaching THEIR religion. Give them enough power, and you'll find out just how truly intolerant a religion can be.

 

[NewGuy]

I'm all for keeping religious discussion in the Religion/Ethics section. However, if religion manages to find it's way into some other topic, let's not tiptoe around it, like the elephant sitting in the living room that nobody wants to talk about. That's just silly and counterproductive. Moreover, it's bloody unfair. Religion is the means through which we understand that which is transcendant - the eternal, spiritual realm.

I agree -especially when it is an obvious part of our heritage that is as intertwined with our past as the occupations of the founders themselves. It gives perspective to history. When history is mentioned as reasoning to prove a point, thie religious aspect IS relevant.

If they were muslim, would we move or shut down the thread as well?

 

[mattskramer]

So......which is it? Do I need to carefully read your post, or am I right?

You are correct to a degree and incorrect to a degree. I said that "Years from now, people will think back and consider how foolish and repressive [we] were to have not allowed gay marriage." The notion of not allowing gay marriage is, by definition and at least to a small degree, foolish and oppressive. The is not to say that America, as a whole, is completely foolish and oppressive. Foolishness and oppressiveness it relative. It would be like saying that an elephant is big. Yes, An elephant is big when it is compared to a mouse but it is not as big as a sperm whale.

If it were a book, you would be correct. Instead, it isn't. It is the unerrant word of God. IF you would care to have that proven, we could take this to another thread.

You are correct in saying that it is not a book. It is a popular collection of books and letters. You can no more prove that it is the unlearnt word of God than I can prove that it is not. The point is that you believe that it is the word of God. Others think that it is not the word of God.

As the logic dictates there must be an objective moral standard, as DICTATED by Biblical standard, I have given irrefutable LOGIC why moral relativism has failed and if you want to use Biblical irrefutable logic, totally satanic in origin.

Nope. The moral standard need not be dictated by Biblical standard. Moral relativism has not failed. People have failed. Christians have failed. Non-Christians have failed.

Women should not be allowed to vote.

Wow!!! Okay. We agree to disagree. Should women remain married to abusive husbands. The Bible often says that men and women should remain married. It gives few, if any, reasons for divorce. I don't think that I have read where the Bible allows for divorce due to violence.

 

[NewGuy]

If it were a book, you would be correct. Instead, it isn't. It is the unerrant word of God. IF you would care to have that proven, we could take this to another thread.

You are correct in saying that it is not a book. It is a popular collection of books and letters. You can no more prove that it is the unlearnt word of God than I can prove that it is not. The point is that you believe that it is the word of God. Others think that it is not the word of God.

I can't huh?
Can you prove it ISN'T?

Apparently that is the root of the issue here. If you decide to specifically reject it because it ISN'T the unerrant word of God, and I CHOOSE to, that makes it the core of the difference.

If you think it ISN'T I would love to see you prove it in the RELIGION section.

Are you up to it?

As the logic dictates there must be an objective moral standard, as DICTATED by Biblical standard, I have given irrefutable LOGIC why moral relativism has failed and if you want to use Biblical irrefutable logic, totally satanic in origin.

Nope. The moral standard need not be dictated by Biblical standard. Moral relativism has not failed. People have failed. Christians have failed. Non-Christians have failed.

If you are so sure, you ought to be able to prove it. I want to see you attempt to prove the Bible NOT the moral standard. In order to do that, you have to disprove its claims. As it claims to be devine, in order to say it CAN'T be the standard, which it claims it is to be, and which many other sincluding our founders BELIEVE(D) it to be, you have to disprove Biblical divinity.

Come on, mat. I challenge you.

They are your points. Lets see you bring evidence to disprove the Bible and prove your point. Since others hate to see Bible topics discussed here, it MUST go to the other section.

 

[sitarro]

If one looks at the human body from a pure mechanical design perspective , we would all have to agree that the azzhole was designed to hold stuff in place . The design only allows so much abuse before it breaks down , this might explain the popularity of adult diapers with the relatively few gays that live beyond 50 years old . The "lifestyle" is extremely dangerous , not as bad as living in Africa today , but approaching it . AIDs has been spread by the rediculous behavior of gay men primarily(I had a friend who told me about his weekends spent in a bathhouse where he had 20 partners, he is not alive anymore to talk about it). Now we are being told that they want us to believe that the promiscuous behavior is over and that they want to walk down the aisle and commit themselves to one forever . . . sure , and John Kerry would make a great President also .

 

[mattskramer]

I can't huh? Can you prove it ISN'T?

You can't prove that the Bible is the word of God nor prove that God exists. As I said before I can't prove that the Bible is not the word of God. I can't prove that God does not exist. You believe it. I do not.

Apparently that is the root of the issue here. If you decide to specifically reject it because it ISN'T the unerrant word of God, and I CHOOSE to, that makes it the core of the difference. If you think it ISN'T I would love to see you prove it in the RELIGION section. Are you up to it?

It is not that I am not up to it. It is that by logic, one can't prove a "negative". I can no more prove that God does not exist than I can prove that WMD do not exist. I cannot prove that purple and pink plaid elephants having 2 trunks and 3 legs swim in the Arctic. It is the responsibility of those that make a claim that something exists to prove that the something exists. Nice try.

I want to see you attempt to prove the Bible NOT the moral standard. In order to do that, you have to disprove its claims. As it claims to be devine, in order to say it CAN'T be the standard, which it claims it is to be, and which many other sincluding our founders BELIEVE(D) it to be, you have to disprove Biblical divinity.

Saying that something is a moral standard is not the same thing as saying that something is not the word of God. I never said that the Bible is not a moral standard. On the contrary, it is one of many books that profess a moral standard. There are books that profess a moral code that do not claim to be the word of God or that God even exists. Again - Nice try.

They are your points. Lets see you bring evidence to disprove the Bible and prove your point. Since others hate to see Bible topics discussed here, it MUST go to the other section.

No. They are not my points. By faulty logic and erroneous implication you, quite cleverly and subtly, attempted to put words into my mouth. You claimed or implied that I said things (that I made points) that I did not make. To summarize: I can't prove that God does not exist or that the Bible is the word of God. The one making the claim that something exists has the responsibility to prove that something exists. Something need not be the word of God to be a moral standard.

 

[mattskramer]

If one looks at the human body from a pure mechanical design perspective , we would all have to agree that the azzhole was designed to hold stuff in place . The design only allows so much abuse before it breaks down...

I already demonstrated why purpose is an irrelevant argument against homosexual marriage. The bridge of one's nose was not designed for the purpose of holding eye glasses. Large dictionaries were not designed to be used as booster chairs. Lips were not designed to hold unhealthy tubes of burning leaves (cigarettes).

This might explain the popularity of adult diapers with the relatively few gays that live beyond 50 years old.

Do you have any specific statistics on this? This is the first time I have read of adult diapers being popular with older gay people (though I have read about the relative popularity of oxygen tanks for elderly smokers).

The "lifestyle" is extremely dangerous , not as bad as living in Africa today , but approaching it. AIDs has been spread by the rediculous behavior of gay men primarily (I had a friend who told me about his weekends spent in a bathhouse where he had 20 partners, he is not alive anymore to talk about it).

Homosexual behavior, in and of itself, is no more dangerous than heterosexual behavior (By the way: some heterosexuals practice anal sex too). What makes it dangerous is promiscuity. Many activities are dangerous. Many lifestyles are dangerous. One should be free to decide for himself and live (or die) up to the consequences.

Now we are being told that they want us to believe that the promiscuous behavior is over and that they want to walk down the aisle and commit themselves to one forever.

I would like to see a study concerning the affect marriage has on promiscuity. Is a heterosexually married heterosexual less promiscuous than is an unmarried heterosexual? If so, can it be reasoned that a homosexually married homosexual would be less promiscuous than would be an unmarried homosexual?

 

[DKSuddeth]

If one looks at the human body from a pure mechanical design perspective , we would all have to agree that the azzhole was designed to hold stuff in place . The design only allows so much abuse before it breaks down , this might explain the popularity of adult diapers with the relatively few gays that live beyond 50 years old . The "lifestyle" is extremely dangerous , not as bad as living in Africa today , but approaching it . AIDs has been spread by the rediculous behavior of gay men primarily(I had a friend who told me about his weekends spent in a bathhouse where he had 20 partners, he is not alive anymore to talk about it). Now we are being told that they want us to believe that the promiscuous behavior is over and that they want to walk down the aisle and commit themselves to one forever . . . sure , and John Kerry would make a great President also .

AIDS by sexual transmission was only part of the factor for the spread. At least half, if not more, was the direct result of shared IV needles used in drug abuse.

 

[musicman]

If two San Fran Sissy- sco boys are in bed screwing when the earthquake hits, and the roof caves in on them, which one goes to hell first?

The one on the bottom. His shit's already packed.

 

[sitarro]

Matt ,
The earth is round and inhabited by a wide assortment of humans , plant life and animals that depend on instincts to survive .
There is really no point to this statement except to see what kind of bullshit argument you'll come up with to be on the other side of it .

 

[nycflasher]

If one looks at the human body from a pure mechanical design perspective , we would all have to agree that the azzhole was designed to hold stuff in place . The design only allows so much abuse before it breaks down , this might explain the popularity of adult diapers with the relatively few gays that live beyond 50 years old . The "lifestyle" is extremely dangerous , not as bad as living in Africa today , but approaching it . AIDs has been spread by the rediculous behavior of gay men primarily(I had a friend who told me about his weekends spent in a bathhouse where he had 20 partners, he is not alive anymore to talk about it). Now we are being told that they want us to believe that the promiscuous behavior is over and that they want to walk down the aisle and commit themselves to one forever . . . sure , and John Kerry would make a great President also .

 

[mattskramer]

The earth is round and inhabited by a wide assortment of humans , plant life and animals that depend on instincts to survive .

Really? Not long ago, people thought that the world was flat. Instincts do not always help animals survive. Horses will instinctively run into a burning barn.

There is really no point to this statement except to see what kind of bullshit argument you'll come up with to be on the other side of it .

My arguments are not bullshit. Simply put, you don't like them because you can't logically refute them.

 

[sitarro]

Thanks flasher ,
Coming from a dildo that would not only vote for a hack like Kerry but would also be proud enough to advertise it , I have to take that as a compliment .

 

[nycflasher]

If one looks at the human body from a pure mechanical design perspective , we would all have to agree that the azzhole was designed to hold stuff in place . The design only allows so much abuse before it breaks down , this might explain the popularity of adult diapers with the relatively few gays that live beyond 50 years old . The "lifestyle" is extremely dangerous , not as bad as living in Africa today , but approaching it . AIDs has been spread by the rediculous behavior of gay men primarily(I had a friend who told me about his weekends spent in a bathhouse where he had 20 partners, he is not alive anymore to talk about it). Now we are being told that they want us to believe that the promiscuous behavior is over and that they want to walk down the aisle and commit themselves to one forever . . . sure , and John Kerry would make a great President also .

Coming from a doctor, assuming you are one based on your superior knowledge of the human body--

If one looks at the human body from a pure mechanical design perspective , we would all have to agree that the azzhole was designed to hold stuff in place...

-- I should take you seriously.

I think that a gay marriage has about as much a chance of succeeding as the 1 in 2 heterosexual marriages that survive the test of time.

Are you another one of the valiant warriors defending the sanctity of marriage?