[jaiqua]

What I want to know is, who is defining normal here? The ancient Greeks seemed to think it was normal to have sexual relationships with people of the same sex. Hell, they even sent their wives away so they could indulge in days of mas homosexual orgies. So it seems it's been happening for centuries, and the argument that society is becoming degraded is a bit moot.

[John C. Smith]

Originally posted by jaiqua:
the argument that society is becoming degraded is a bit moot.

for god's sake I hate how everyone misuses this word!

[Monique]

Of course no one can choose to be gay it is like choosing to be heterosexual.

And marriage brings stability and that what we need in our society.

Also, those non-stop quotes from the Bible, actually God is not against gay people just Paul and if my memory is correct Paul is not Christ and he is not God just the first priest.

Of course, so what there would be gay people who would marry and become parents this does not affect the rest of the heterosexual people who are having children.

Anyway there are enough children in the world as it is.

[Wiskedjak]

Isn't the Christian God neither male nor female, or both?

[jaiqua]

Originally posted by John C. Smith:
for god's sake I hate how everyone misuses this word!

For Jeebus' sake, I hate how people don't use CAPITAL letters in their proper places, and forget where top put the comma.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by jaiqua:
What I want to know is, who is defining normal here? The ancient Greeks seemed to think it was normal to have sexual relationships with people of the same sex. Hell, they even sent their wives away so they could indulge in days of mas homosexual orgies. So it seems it's been happening for centuries, and the argument that society is becoming degraded is a bit moot.

The Ancient Greeks however, still regarded marriage as something between a MAN and WOMAN.

BTW, it is quite interesting how the lack of morality in Roman and Greek actually led to the destruction of it. I can't remember who said this, but it was a Roman writer, maybe Virgil:

"We know what the disease is, but not one is prepared to cure it", referring to the lack of sexual morality in Roman and Greek society.

There are quite a few books written on the effects on women and to children of the sexual exploitation of them.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
Its wrong when you are simply restating something is says in some book written thousands of years ago without thinking outside that box. All the other evidence is barely evidence. You have to look at the laws and cases and then come back with some evidence that supports the idea of not allowing gays to marry. if you want to argue acting on homosexuality is wrong, go to another thread because my thread was about them marrying. THe non-religious evidence that has been presented falls under the logical fallacies area assuming just because one thing has happened that ll these other bad things are going to happen yet no one has presented why those thing would happen with evidence with the law. Saying that a ruling like this would allow 10 year old girls to legally consent is highly suspect and on shaky ground.

Please stop using logical fallacies unless you can prove your evidence does not fall in that category. Read up on Bentham and the original position and maybe your views will change.

Why not look at societies which did not have a similar idea on sexual morality as Christians? If you looked outside the box a little, you will see, as history has shown, freedom of any type of sex, anytime, anywhere, is not a good thing.

[jaiqua]

Originally posted by undotwa:
The Ancient Greeks however, still regarded marriage as something between a MAN and WOMAN.

BTW, it is quite interesting how the lack of morality in Roman and Greek actually led to the destruction of it. I can't remember who said this, but it was a Roman writer, maybe Virgil:

"We know what the disease is, but not one is prepared to cure it", referring to the lack of sexual morality in Roman and Greek society.

There are quite a few books written on the effects on women and to children of the sexual exploitation of them.

The lack of morality in Ancient Greece as the root cause if its downfall is not to be taken too literally. The thing is, marriage can be an ever-changing act, it s meaning varies from people to people, so I don;'t see why it can't be addapted to change for those who wish to apply it to homosexual unions.

[jaiqua]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Why not look at societies which did not have a similar idea on sexual morality as Christians? If you looked outside the box a little, you will see, as history has shown, freedom of any type of sex, anytime, anywhere, is not a good thing.

Yes it is, Muslims can indulge in Masturbation, and other sexual practises, even though it is not encouraged, and they had an empire greater than any Christian one, and lasted far longer, they seem to have a society that is a bit more cohesive than most others.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Isn't the Christian God neither male nor female, or both?

God is neither male nor female, but is referred to as He because in English and most other languages He can be neuter-personal (as opposed to it, which only refers to objects, not people). For example:

The driver honked his horn.

'His' is not gender specific.

Same applies to 'mankind', 'businessman', 'policeman'. A few people, mainly feminists are now trying to change this age-old language tradition by plural 'his' and 'he' to 'their' and 'they', and gender 'neutral' terms 'humankind', 'business executive', 'police officer'.

Most people still use the masculine form.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by jaiqua:
Yes it is, Muslims can indulge in Masturbation, and other sexual practises, even though it is not encouraged, and they had an empire greater than any Christian one, and lasted far longer, they seem to have a society that is a bit more cohesive than most others.

As far as I know, the British Empire was the greatest empire ever, it covered 1/4 of the globe, and was Christian (the Empire was tied to the Church of England).

Moslem teaching on sexuality is quite similar to Christian teachings.

[jaiqua]

Originally posted by undotwa:
As far as I know, the British Empire was the greatest empire ever, it covered 1/4 of the globe, and was Christian (the Empire was tied to the Church of England).

Not at the same time, as territories were conquered, others were let go. One of the biggest misconceptions was that it was faith based, or Christian, it wasn't. One example is the VBritish India tea company which was established to invade India. Purely commerce based invasion, unlike the faith based invasions of Islam, and early Christianity (Byzantium, Crusades, etc).

Point being, a non-Christian faith which does differ from Christianity in terms of sexual habits, seemed to survive and is still strong. Which takes away from what you said about non-Christian morality, and sexual practises outside of Christianity.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by simonjames:
So, undotwa, if its not a personal question, do you masterbate?

The reason I ask is if the penis and it's workings were "made" for heterosexual procreation do you believe that masterbation is as nasty as gay sex?

Yes I have masturbated, yet I still believe it is wrong. No one is perfect.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by undotwa:

Moslem teaching on sexuality is quite similar to Christian teachings.

And they even practice polygamy! (gasp)

[John C. Smith]

Originally posted by undotwa:
As far as I know, the British Empire was the greatest empire ever, it covered 1/4 of the globe, and was Christian (the Empire was tied to the Church of England).

Moslem teaching on sexuality is quite similar to Christian teachings.

nb- none of this has anything to do with gay marriage.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Yea, I think that was first stated at post 100.

Though I think Xeo brings up another interesting question.


I'll answer for Xeo:

I'd vote against banning.

I don't gain any 'rights', as I wouldn't marry another man. But I would be encouraging the constitutions protection for all citizens.

To be perfectly clear, I'd do the same for any group in the situation. If it's discrimination based on race, sex, religion, age, or operating system of choice.... and so on.

I'm a firm believer that all people deserve without question to have every right and opportunity as any other person. To just remove a right, is clearly unconstitutional, and in reality, unethical.

On a more moral point of view, the primary teaching of Jesus was to love thy neighbor. Even moments before his death, he forgave convicts.

WWJD? Well, in Biblical context he wouldn't be gay. But according to Biblical context, he would never infringe on the rights and well being of a sinner or non-believer.

So from a Christian point of view, it would be extremely hypocritical to vote for the ban, as it goes against the chief teachings of morality in the faith.

To abstain would be more moral. Or to vote for equal rights, yet not endorse or enguage in the behavior would be the most appropriate (from a Christian point of view).

If I don't believe in the absolute core teachings. Why would I believe the trivial stuff?


That is why, the religious argument is rather hypocritical, and really more hatred masked in religion.

I said it earlier. Religion doesn't preach hatred. Read up on all the faiths. They don't. They advocate love, peace, and cooperation. Yet it's the complete opposite most get out of it.


I'm a firm believer in the core values. Going to Church every Sunday doesn't make you a good person, despite what most Christians say. Nor does most of the other vain silly things people are such sticklers on.

But when you get down to the absolute core teachings... that's where they all run away.

Jesus never preached "go to church on sunday and sit in the first 5 rows". that's not the definition of "honor the sabath". A man who goes to a soup kitchen and volunteers every sunday doing Gods work and helping the less fortunate is living a life much closer to Jesus's teachings.

Just shows how most of these neo-christians are just vain. It's not true christianity. It's just a show to look good.

"It's disrespectful to not dress up for church"... yea, I remember seeing that in the Bible. Jesus was barefoot and wore a bedsheet. I think he'll be fine if I'm just wearing a shirt and pair of Jeans.

This is what way to many focus on. It's stupidity like this, that eventually gets blown out of proportion.

Get enough of these fools in a society that believes them, and you get a religous state like Iran. Remember the Muslim faith says nothing about a woman covering their entire face. In fact, many more modern muslim countries like Jordan have women that dress just like a more conservative Christan woman would here in the US (no mini-skirt for example's sake). But some fool felt like putting that in, and convinced everyone that's the way to go.


I digress... but I think the point of this thread's been proven.

You are missing the whole point.

Christians advocate creating 'heaven on earth', by preaching. Christians honestly believe gay marriage damages the institution of marriage thus society as a whole. Thus it should be outlawed. Just like murder.

[John C. Smith]

Originally posted by jaiqua:
Not at the same time, as territories were conquered, others were let go. One of the biggest misconceptions was that it was faith based, or Christian, it wasn't. One example is the VBritish India tea company which was established to invade India. Purely commerce based invasion, unlike the faith based invasions of Islam, and early Christianity (Byzantium, Crusades, etc).

no, at its height the british empire spanned 1/4 of the world. and yes, the british were protestant christians. you have no idea what you're talking about.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by jaiqua:
Not at the same time, as territories were conquered, others were let go. One of the biggest misconceptions was that it was faith based, or Christian, it wasn't. One example is the VBritish India tea company which was established to invade India. Purely commerce based invasion, unlike the faith based invasions of Islam, and early Christianity (Byzantium, Crusades, etc).

Point being, a non-Christian faith which does differ from Christianity in terms of sexual habits, seemed to survive and is still strong. Which takes away from what you said about non-Christian morality, and sexual practises outside of Christianity.

I'm not stupid.

The point is, at one point or another, the British Empire covered 1/4 of the Earth under the Crown. The Sovereign is also the head of the English Church, thus the state is tied to the Church of Religion. If the state is Christian, so is the Empire.

OK?

Moslem, yes, is a non-Christian faith, but if you research the actual teaching of Moslem sexuality, you will see that they are quite similar (a few differences, mainly polygamy).

[Nicko]

Originally posted by undotwa:
You are missing the whole point.

Christians advocate creating 'heaven on earth', by preaching. Christians honestly believe gay marriage damages the institution of marriage thus society as a whole. Thus it should be outlawed. Just like murder.

Perhaps you should rephrase and say your particular 'sect' of christianity beleives that, not the whole religion.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by John C. Smith:
nb- none of this has anything to do with gay marriage.

Nota Bene: Yes it does.

I am trying to prove (not well admittedly), that gay marriage, in fact the whole shabam is damaging to society: divorce, heck even abortion fits under this catagory, as the entire mentality is linked: I have the right to indulge in whatever pleasure I want, when I want. Every action a person does should be for the good of his community. Pleasure is part of that, because an unhappy person is not for the good of his community, but that does not mean one should always try to get the most pleasure out of the situation as possible, avoid suffering, and submit to urges of the body. Character is in the end, what makes happiness, and abstinence builds character.

These institutions were created for stabalizing society, not for indulging pleasures. If society becomes too liberalised, chaos arises. South America is a good example of this. Many South American republics were founded upon libertarian ideals. As a result, widespread poverty and corruption on a continent which should be prosperous (extremely rich in resources). I am simplifying so greatly here: the issue is just so great to fit in one paragraph.

There is nothing wrong allowing gays to marry per se, it's just that one has to ask himself: where is this going to take society.

One thing leads to another.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Perhaps you should rephrase and say your particular 'sect' of christianity beleives that, not the whole religion.

'heaven on earth' is a saying. It means the want to make society better, not simply leave it as it is.

Oh and you could hardly call the Roman Catholic Church a sect.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Xeo:
While homosexual sex isn't for procreation, it can easily fulfill the second part with a simple word change.

Therefore, while I would grant that sex was "obviously made for procreation," I will not grant that it was "obviously an expression of love between a man and a woman." There is no way to argue that it is OBVIOUS for it to be between a man and a woman. An expression of love, as you word it, can be had between any number of any gender people.

And, in our society, procreation is hardly the number one reason for sex. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to turn on the TV and watch for 5 minutes, assuming you aren't attached to the WB. Sex is 'cause people want it. Plain and simple. Unplanned pregnancies are everywhere. Hell, love doesn't even have anything to do with most sex. People get drunk, hook up, and f**k. Yes, you can see this as immoral, but most people don't in our society. And therefore you deviate from the norm if you don't believe it.

Sex, being designed for procreation obvious needed to make a mean for the two opposite sexes to be attracted to one another so they will make love. Hormones come into place now.

When the hormones make the person attracted to another person of the same sex, it is a deviation from the norm. Because the hormones were designed to attract the couple to procreate, not to simply have sex.

The deviation could be as a result of genetics, how the child developed, etc.

[John C. Smith]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
Does anyone actually have a good argument against it besides what is says in the Bible?

no, apparently not

[jaiqua]

Originally posted by John C. Smith:
no, at its height the british empire spanned 1/4 of the world. and yes, the british were protestant christians. you have no idea what you're talking about.

Lol, I think I do know what I am talknig about. You seem a little ignorant of the Islamic Empire, which it too covered 1/4 of the world, in fact, it governered over more people.

You show your ignorance here, the British mpire was setup via trade routes intitally, then the comquests happened to secure those resources. It had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, or Christianity, just cause the invaders were mostky Christians doesn not make it a Christian Empire.

[John C. Smith]

Originally posted by jaiqua:
Lol, I think I do know what I am talknig about. You seem a little ignorant of the Islamic Empire, which it too covered 1/4 of the world, in fact, it governered over more people.

You show your ignorance here, the British mpire was setup via trade routes intitally, then the comquests happened to secure those resources. It had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, or Christianity, just cause the invaders were mostky Christians doesn not make it a Christian Empire.

no ****, sherlock! tell us something we don't know. WTF are you going on about? this has nothing to do with gay marriage. please, let us get back to the original topic, not this idiotic argument about muslims versus britain.

[jaiqua]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I'm not stupid.

The point is, at one point or another, the British Empire covered 1/4 of the Earth under the Crown. The Sovereign is also the head of the English Church, thus the state is tied to the Church of Religion. If the state is Christian, so is the Empire.

OK?

Moslem, yes, is a non-Christian faith, but if you research the actual teaching of Moslem sexuality, you will see that they are quite similar (a few differences, mainly polygamy).

No it's not the same. Muslims can indulge in many sexual practises that Christyians can't.

Also, get your facts right, the British Empire was not a religious undertaking, it was purely commerce. By your reckoning then, the current situation in Iraq is also a Christian invasion, since the British are there too.

One more point. Go read your histopry books on the Islamic Empire, I think you'll be surprised. The differemce still stands, that was a faith based Empire, the British one was only commerce, ande to say differntly is to make you look a little ignorant.

[jaiqua]

Originally posted by John C. Smith:
no ****, sherlock! tell us something we don't know. WTF are you going on about? this has nothing to do with gay marriage. please, let us get back to the original topic, not this idiotic argument about muslims versus britain.

Shut the hell up. I was replyng to undotwa's post about morality outside Christianity. I know it has nothing to do with the topic, but I;'m not goimng to listen to incorrect rants.

****.

[John C. Smith]

Originally posted by jaiqua:
Shut the hell up. I was replyng to undotwa's post about morality outside Christianity. I know it has nothing to do with the topic, but I;'m not goimng to listen to incorrect rants.

you're just imbittered because the persian empire collapsed long ago and now the whole region is incredibly poor. please let us get back to the original topic.

[jaiqua]

Originally posted by John C. Smith:
you're just imbittered because the persian empire collapsed long ago and now the whole region is incredibly poor. please let us get back to the original topic.

huh? Now look who is off-topic. I'm pointing out a basic error in undotwa'ds theory on morality and Christianity, so don't even begin to think you know wghat I am bitter about.

Oh, and before you start telling people to get on topic, let's see you actually post something that isn't devoid of content.

So stop acting like the forum police and ket's see you come down on those that postex Biblical crap.

Get it yet?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Every action a person does should be for the good of his community.

Since when?

[John C. Smith]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Since when?

Ever since people in Australia started speaking Latin, QED

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by John C. Smith:
you're just imbittered because the persian empire collapsed long ago and now the whole region is incredibly poor. please let us get back to the original topic.

The whole region? WTF?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by undotwa:
You are missing the whole point.

Christians advocate creating 'heaven on earth', by preaching. Christians honestly believe gay marriage damages the institution of marriage thus society as a whole. Thus it should be outlawed. Just like murder.

You should replace the word "Christians" with "I".

The core Christian teaching is to emulate Jesus Christ[ian].

At no point in the Bible does Jesus do any to ostracize any group of people. Remember it was Jesus who actually REVERSED the idea by going up to criminals, and up to Lepards (also considered sinners if you take the bible word for word).

A true Christian puts the idea of living in the footprints of Christ as the #1 priority.

The proposed laws directly contradict the teachings of Christ.

Hence they aren't Christian teachings... they are YOUR bitter hatred/resentments towards other groups.


Zimphire's answer of just not voting is much more Christian. That is much more like what the Bible encourages one to do. I must give credit where it is due.


The Bible clearly states (several hundred times in various ways):
let he that is without sin cast the first stone.
... is the most popular version.

As a core teaching of Christianity, your statement is in direct violation.


Very few Christians go 100% on this. Perhaps the most recent to actually do so is the Pope. Who actually forgave his attempted assassin. Christian beliefs are that unless without sin (the pope isn't without sin), we should not cast the first stone.

It's up to God on judgement day to make the final decision.

As a Christian, living in the footsteps of Jesus, the most Christian thing to do would be forgive, and remember that we are all sinners living in the footsteps of Jesus hoping to be more like him.


As you yourself said

Yes I have masturbated, yet I still believe it is wrong. No one is perfect.

A CHRISTIAN believes that nobody is without sin (except Jesus, God, and the Virgin Mary... of course differentiating a bit depending on your sect of christianity).... but a CHRISTIAN does not cast the first stone.

Therefore, you are not speaking as a Christian, but as a falable human being.


I'll say it again, please do not speak on behalf of religion, when your speaking on your own behalf. It's rather offensive to stereotype an entire faith with your own personal hatred.

It's not acceptable from any faith. None of them teach/advocate/encourage such behavior.


It's crud like this that causes entire religions to be branded. When in fact, the basis is completely unfounded, and contradicts the very core of the faith.

[cpt kangarooski]

Remember it was Jesus who actually REVERSED the idea by going up to criminals, and up to Lepards (also considered sinners if you take the bible word for word).

Honestly, although I don't think Leopards are sinners, I still don't think it's a good idea to go up to them. They're liable to think people are a tasty meat snack.

[Xeo]

Rome's falling had nothing to do with sex. America won't fall if gays are allowed to marry.

[OldManMac]

One thing I'm amazed at is that so many fear the collapse of American society because of the beliefs of so few. If one takes a high estimate of 10% of the population being gay, then 90% of the population is going to be swayed by them? There are some really insecure people here.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Christians honestly believe gay marriage damages the institution of marriage thus society as a whole. Thus it should be outlawed. Just like murder.

I just got a chance to catch up on this thread, and I think this is the argument that comes closest to what the original poster wanted. Even though it is brought up in a religious context, the idea is secular: that the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman is fundamental to our society, because procreation is fundamental to the advancement of society. After all, the potential of a society can be seen to be proportional to its population, and gay couples can never add to the population.

Now I happen to think that this is a flawed argument. Mostly because the institution of marriage should be separable from the legal benefits. I'm for giving gay couples the legal benefit of marriage, but I'm also in favor of religious institutions deciding that they won;t honor those marriages. That's placing the institution above the legal definition, where it should be. I consider consentual pre-marital sex to be a similar issue. Certain religions do not condone it, but legally, people in this country have the freedom to engage in it without fear of earthly punishment. People who follow those religious traditions are following a standard that is greater than the legal definition.

No one else's rights are infringed by letting gay people marry, while someone's rights are definitely infringed in a murder case. Furthermore, gay people who live together probably won't be having children of their own anyway, so letting them marry would not affect other couples who are able to have children, and won't really have much of an effect on society at all. We have much bigger problems.

I'd like to hear more points of view along these lines, which are more relevant than the where-do-you-put-your-body-parts discussion that this thread had deteriorated into.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by undotwa:
God is neither male nor female, but is referred to as He because in English and most other languages He can be neuter-personal (as opposed to it, which only refers to objects, not people). For example:

The driver honked his horn.

'His' is not gender specific.

Same applies to 'mankind', 'businessman', 'policeman'. A few people, mainly feminists are now trying to change this age-old language tradition by plural 'his' and 'he' to 'their' and 'they', and gender 'neutral' terms 'humankind', 'business executive', 'police officer'.

Most people still use the masculine form.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think the Christian God's gender neutrality might have some impact on the debate of the naturality of homosexuality ...

[simonjames]

so you're happy to intervene when a religion wants to stone a woman for having sex out of marriage and in the same breath you are happy to allow religions to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. On the first subject you say they are wrong and you take away their freedom and on the second you approve of what they are doing and by so doing damning a social minority. Good one.

You must be a christian as you have a great 'selective touch' as to what you believe in.

[OldManMac]

The problem that too many have here is that they can't (which really means they don't want to) separate the secular from the religious aspects of this issue. Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, but too many forget that not everyone shares those beliefs, and that is a sticking point which many won't concede. This in turn leads to the specious "end of the world" blather being tossed in here as valid arguments, which of course they aren't. As I've pointed out before, allowing a very small percentage of the population to marry is going to have absolutely no effect on the morals of the rest of the society, unless that society is very insecure about its position to begin with. Based on a lot of the responses here, that seems to be the case.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by undotwa:
When the hormones make the person attracted to another person of the same sex, it is a deviation from the norm ... the deviation could be as a result of genetics

Almost sounds like evolution

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by simonjames:
so you're happy to intervene when a religion wants to stone a woman for having sex out of marriage and in the same breath you are happy to allow religions to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. On the first subject you say they are wrong and you take away their freedom and on the second you approve of what they are doing and by so doing damning a social minority. Good one.

You must be a christian as you have a great 'selective touch' as to what you believe in.

I hope that's not me you're talking to, because I said nothing of the sort. In particular, I said that here in the U.S., it is perfectly legal to have sex outside of marriage. Whether or not it is moral is a matter for each person to decide, not the government. And people who decide it is not moral and do not engage in it are giving up something they are legally entitled to do, but they refrain for religious reasons. I don't know where the stoning bit comes in. And last I checked, stoning anyone for any reason was illegal in the U.S..

Which is why I am for gay marriages in the legal sense, but I think that each particular religious community should be able to choose whether to make that a part of their tradition. If the community (or authorities in that community) decide it is a bad idea, then the people affected will need to choose between what they want and what their religion tells them they should do. And if their religious beliefs win out, then they will be giving up something they are legally entitled to do, for religious reasons. But if they decide that what they are doing is right and the religion is wrong, they're free to leave it.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by simonjames:
so you're happy to intervene when a religion wants to stone a woman for having sex out of marriage and in the same breath you are happy to allow religions to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. On the first subject you say they are wrong and you take away their freedom and on the second you approve of what they are doing and by so doing damning a social minority.

Yes, except that allowing churches to refuse to marry gay couples doesn't damn a social minority at all.

I'd interfere with a religion trying to stone a woman because being stoned, particularly being stoned to death, is a violation of that woman's rights (I'm talking form a legal standpoint here). I wouldn't force a church to recognize gay marriage, because no couple, gay or straight, has the right to have their marriage recognized by any church (in the US) and so there is no violation of rights going on here.

You're making a very basic mistake here. Namely, you're assuming that whether churches do or do not marry people is equivalent to whether the government does or does not marry people. There is a very big difference there. No one is trying to force Christian churches to recognize gay marriages (although some do already), we're trying to prove gay couples with the same legal rights as straight couples.

[benb]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Perhaps it's just me, but I think the Christian God's gender neutrality might have some impact on the debate of the naturality of homosexuality ...

In what way? I fail to see it.

[forkies]

this thread desperately needs to be locked

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by forkies:
this thread desperately needs to be locked

Why? This is the most civil discussion I've seen on this topic on these forums in a very long time. If you don't want to read it, don't, but I see no reason that it should be locked just because people disagree with each other.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by benb:
In what way? I fail to see it.

If the Christian God is asexual and created us in it's image ...

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by undotwa:
'heaven on earth' is a saying. It means the want to make society better, not simply leave it as it is.

Oh and you could hardly call the Roman Catholic Church a sect.

The Roman Catholic Church is a sect of christianity. No question about it.

Originally posted by KarlG:
One thing I'm amazed at is that so many fear the collapse of American society because of the beliefs of so few. If one takes a high estimate of 10% of the population being gay, then 90% of the population is going to be swayed by them? There are some really insecure people here.

That's been the underlying point of this entire thread from post #1.

Originally posted by undotwa:
... Christians honestly believe gay marriage damages the institution of marriage thus society as a whole. Thus it should be outlawed. Just like murder.

This is a direct violation of the "Separation of Church and Sate".

A policy that has been upheld by the courts for 200+ years now.

Hindu's believe it's wrong to eat any cow product. Should this be outlawed? Unlike homosexuality (marriage doesn't even equal sex btw, it's just legal rights) there is medical proof, as there are diseases proven scientifically (Mad cow, ecoli).

So can we legally outlaw any cow products on religious grounds?

[John C. Smith]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

This is a direct violation of the "Separation of Church and Sate".

A policy that has been upheld by the courts for 200+ years now.

Hindu's believe it's wrong to eat any cow product. Should this be outlawed? Unlike homosexuality (marriage doesn't even equal sex btw, it's just legal rights) there is medical proof, as there are diseases proven scientifically (Mad cow, ecoli).

So can we legally outlaw any cow products on religious grounds?

I would hesitate to underestimate the significance of Christianity in our society. The constitution is based on laws and values which were handed down from the theocracies that preceded us. The United States, and much of the West, is governed by laws that are derived from religious states and in turn the Bible itself. I'm not defending archaic laws that work against minorities, but I'm trying to illustrate that you cannot completely separate the law from the church.

In regards to separation of church and state, keep in mind that this part of the constitution was devised only to ensure that there is no established state church, like the Church of England. Government can still constitutionally be involved in matters of religion. So, even if marriage is based on a religious institution, it can still be sanctioned by the government without violating the church and state clause.

Having said that, I think fears that gay marriage will undermine society are irrational. If Britney Spears can get married in Las Vegas for a few hours while she's completely drunk, then two gay men in love should be allowed to marry. Gay people are one of the most stigmatised subcultures in the world, and this is inexcusable. Gays will not kill the institution of marriage-- the integrity of marriage has been rapidly declining for the last 40 years, and this is because of divorce between straight couples. Divorce is the problem, not gays.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by John C. Smith:
I would hesitate to underestimate the significance of Christianity in our society. The constitution is based on laws and values which were handed down from the theocracies that preceded us. The United States, and much of the West, is governed by laws that are derived from religious states and in turn the Bible itself. I'm not defending archaic laws that work against minorities, but I'm trying to illustrate that you cannot completely separate the law from the church.

In regards to separation of church and state, keep in mind that this part of the constitution was devised only to ensure that there is no established state church, like the Church of England. Government can still constitutionally be involved in matters of religion. So, even if marriage is based on a religious institution, it can still be sanctioned by the government without violating the church and state clause.

Having said that, I think fears that gay marriage will undermine society are irrational. If Britney Spears can get married in Las Vegas for a few hours while she's completely drunk, then two gay men in love should be allowed to marry. Gay people are one of the most stigmatised subcultures in the world, and this is inexcusable. Gays will not kill the institution of marriage-- the integrity of marriage has been rapidly declining for the last 40 years, and this is because of divorce between straight couples. Divorce is the problem, not gays.

You must also remember that those same laws go way back before Christianity. Just because Christianity takes credit for them, doesn't mean they invented them.

Civilizations that never even heard of monotheistic theology had laws very similar to ours.

The laws clearly state that we will not base laws purely on religion.

A christian can suggest a law. A christian can pass a law. So can a Jew, Muslim, Buddist, whatever.


But to base a law, purely on a religious belief is a completely different issue.

Again, law for going to church on Sunday? It was suggested way back in the earlier days of our nations history. How about meat free friday's during lent? Can our government enforce these beliefs?

According to our laws so far... no. Those are religious laws.