Old 9th April 2004, 09:39   #201
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Well, I suppose you could make growing it illegal, but it would be very, very easy to conceal.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2004, 09:57   #202
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
No easier than it is now, and if they keep an eye on hydropinics and keep the usual crap they're doing to stop people growing it, then they wouldn't. If it's cheap, and easily accessible, people wouldn't grow it as a 'cash crop', and might just grow it for personal use, if that. I mean, if it's $10 for a J at the shop down the road, who's gonna bother growing it themselves?


But yeah, to get back on topic, Brittney's a whore and evil, and her music sucks.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2004, 16:05   #203
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
i'm gonna start growing tomatoes or something similar hydroponically - do you think they'll try and kill me?

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2004, 16:27   #204
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
GqSkrub:

First you said that it is nearly impossible to say that one person's morals are better than another person's and stuff like that....I agree with you there.

And then you say that gay marriage is immoral?

Does anybody other than me see the contradiction in those statements?

I don't. becuase right before i say gay marriage is immoral i say that it's moral. both in teh same sentance. Contradiction in the sentance yes, but that was teh point of the sentance. I also say that it's not possible to call your belief SUPERIOR to mine, i don't say it's wrong to hold any belief. Please re-read my post.


I also should clarify my statement on Rape and Drugs. I say drugs don't hurt anyone, should they therefore be legal? My comment on Rape was that it is difficult to catch people, so should we give up on it? the parallel there is that a good marriage is hard to spot (many divorces) so should we give up on the concept? Perhaps that will clear things up.


As long as you hurt no one everything should be moral? Well then what about things that can potentially hurt others? like speeding, drugs, owning guns.... are things like that immoral? In these cases it can be argued that gay marriages increase sex and therefore increase the number of vectors of stds. We reach a gray area of morality. Thoughts?

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2004, 17:39   #205
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
but gay marriage would decrease stds, because after you are married, you only have sex with one person (i know that people can have affairs.. but you get what i mean)

and the best arguments against gay marriage i have seen is that gay people are selfish for wanting to dedicate their entire life to one person, and that marriage hasnt ever changed, which is why people cant end their marriage, nor can they get married to people of a different race or religion...

Quote:
I don't. becuase right before i say gay marriage is immoral i say that it's moral. both in teh same sentance. Contradiction in the sentance yes, but that was teh point of the sentance.
thats one of the dumbest things i have ever heard in my entire life

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2004, 19:04   #206
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Speeding is illegal, and should remain that way. Drugs are illegal, and SHOULDN'T remain that way, since you only hurt yourself, so long as it's in moderation. Like alcohol. It's legal, but in excess is very damaging to both yourself, and those around you. Guns, IMHO, should be illegal, unless there's a damn good reason you need one. 'Family protection' doesn't count - if nobody owned them, there'd be no real need for them.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2004, 20:10   #207
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Speeding should be illegal, though where the speed limits should be set is a good question.

Drugs shouldn't be illegal, for reasons stated earlier.

Guns shouldn't be illegal, because they in and of themselves do not cause harm. Someone comes into your house with an old-style sword - you think you could defend yourself without a gun? There is at least one example of a country which a very large part of the population has powerful guns, but the gun murder rate there is quite low.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2004, 22:53   #208
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
@ GqSkrub: Oh. Oops. lol i misread your post. my bad.

Quote:
In these cases it can be argued that gay marriages increase sex and therefore increase the number of vectors of stds. We reach a gray area of morality. Thoughts?
This argument, or similar ones, have been posted and refuted here before, but put simply, it really doesn't matter, because people gay, straight or otherwise-will have sex regardless of being married. In fact, one can argue that gay marriage will cut down on STDs because if you are married then you are (most likely) having sex with less people.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 03:31   #209
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
So there's no reason so far to NOT allow gay marriage. There's even been a number of reasons why it should be allowed. But Britney's still evil. :P
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 06:16   #210
EternalSSaturn
Senior Member
 
EternalSSaturn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Buda, TX, USA
Posts: 156
Send a message via AIM to EternalSSaturn Send a message via Yahoo to EternalSSaturn
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
A whim? A rule of marriage that has been accepted by practically every society and practiacally every religion on the planet since the institution of marriage (excepting the past 50 years), is a whim??? Normally, you'd think a whim wouldn't last quite that long.



Way to be patronizing!
First, you missed my point. Something unnatural should not be banned if it's not unhealthy. The unnaturality of something just adds to the fact that it is unhealthy.

Anyway, for all of those examples (except for smoking and drinking, which I do think should be banned or at least restricted further), that harm is: negligable (cell phones, hayfever, computers), very rare (ownership of cars, crossing the road), or indirect (elevators, cars not giving exercise: it is the person who decides not to exercise, not the car).

With anal sex (which I do, in fact, think should be banned for heterosexuals as well), the harm is intrinsic to the act, common, and deadly.

Sure anal sex can be done with a condom, but people don't (no chance of kids, so many feel they shouldn't bother), and that's a major problem.

And unnaturality IS a problem... You know the human body is not designed for taking falls off of cliffs, so you don't jump off cliffs unless you're suicidal. You know the human body, from my "irrelevant medical facts," is not designed to accomadate anal sex, so why would you do it?
I read your arguements, and your reasoning is flawed. Heres another few facts:

radiation increases risk of cancer

sex of any kind(including heterosexual) can spread infectious disease

some of these infectious diseases are atal

genetic factor must be taken into consideration when dealing with cancer risks

gay guys do use condoms (somehow it heps for,er, "lubricants", so I have heard),and you woudn't know otherwise because, as you have admited, you are a homophobe, and your prejudices are tending to cloud this debate with facts that seem relevant, but really are as relevant as CDs and lightbulbs are to a lawn mower

everything causes cancer, and if you can name me one thing that doesn't I will slap you b/c you are wrong

anal sex is already legal in the US, so it really doesn't matter anyways
EternalSSaturn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 06:17   #211
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
Marijuana is a gateway drug. People who do harder drugs more often start out experimenting with marijuana.

Yeah Gay marriages should be legal!

Of course drugs support terrorism.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 06:21   #212
EternalSSaturn
Senior Member
 
EternalSSaturn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Buda, TX, USA
Posts: 156
Send a message via AIM to EternalSSaturn Send a message via Yahoo to EternalSSaturn
I keep on missing the good arguments!
EternalSSaturn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 07:08   #213
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally posted by whiteflip
Marijuana is a gateway drug. People who do harder drugs more often start out experimenting with marijuana.

Yeah Gay marriages should be legal!

Of course drugs support terrorism.
drugs wouldnt support terrorism if they were legal, because you would be able to grow/buy it legally, and actually.. since it would be taxable, it would be supporting the government (unless you consider the government a terroist group.. which some do)

and why are we discussing drugs in a gay marriage thread?

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 07:25   #214
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Let me be straight forward with you: (NOT A PUN)
1. I'm am an evangelical Christian
2. I am attending a Christian college to earn a degree in international mission work, to go to other countries and teach people the Good News of Jesus's sacrifice
3. I'm much better at spelling C syntax than English

Quote:
I don't think there will ever be a definate answer to the origins of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a perversion of an affection God gave mankind for persons of the opposite sex. The pychological make up of a man and woman are interwoven so that through marriage they can grow closer to their Creator. they learn more about Him through experiancing each other, because male love and then female love are on opposite ends of the spectrum of what is God. A homosexual couple cannot come to this realization because they are the same, and most married heterosexual don't, because they remove God from the picture.

Quote:
If you're straight, then likely, from the time you were extremely young you can remember looking at the opposite sex and feeling an attraction there. Doesn't that tell you something? Do you think gay people choose to be gay?
You cannot take this decision away from someone. If it is natural for someone to be homosexual, then why is it not natural for someone to commit rape? It is a very similar situation. An overwelming evil circumstance (molestation ect. is common in both rapists and gays to have such an experiance) creates a point where person then chooses how they will deal with the situation.
Is the situation unfair? Yes
Isn't it easier for a rapist or a homosexual to give into there perverted sexuality? yes.
But the fact is there is a choice. Fair or Not. I know many people who struggle with homosexuality, but continue to choose heterosexuality.

Quote:
It also bothers me when people claim that homosexuality is a choice. However, I don't see why anybody would "choose" to have a lifestyle that is hated by so many people and results in so many hate crimes.
This bandwagon arguement means nothing. And is an obvious logical falacy.
Many early Christians choose to be martyred for Christianity's sake in the First Century and were hated by the Romans.
Many blacks choose to be hated for sitting in diners in the South that were white only.
(disscusion welcomed)


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 08:02   #215
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
Quote:
Homosexuality is a perversion of an affection God gave mankind for persons of the opposite sex. The pychological make up of a man and woman are interwoven so that through marriage they can grow closer to their Creator. they learn more about Him through experiancing each other, because male love and then female love are on opposite ends of the spectrum of what is God. A homosexual couple cannot come to this realization because they are the same, and most married heterosexual don't, because they remove God from the picture.
i believe they said 'definite'. there is no proof behind that theory, and therefore, it can never be definite

Quote:
You cannot take this decision away from someone. If it is natural for someone to be homosexual, then why is it not natural for someone to commit rape? It is a very similar situation. An overwelming evil circumstance (molestation ect. is common in both rapists and gays to have such an experiance) creates a point where person then chooses how they will deal with the situation.
the difference between rape and homosexuality is that rape is not consensual.. you cannot compare the two, because they are two totally different things...

i dont care if being gay is a choice or not, i see no reason why 'its a choice' is relevant in any argument for or against homosexuality, and even then, the argument is should gays be allowed to get married (or at least should gay marriage be recognized by the government) and calling homosexuality perverted, is not realling giving anything to either side of the argument

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 09:49   #216
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by electricmime
i believe they said 'definite'. there is no proof behind that theory, and therefore, it can never be definite
That was not a theory, it was a conclusion.
My conclusion was based on this reasoning:
1)Men and women are fundementally psychologically different.

2)Men and women depend on each other's psychology to balance each other. Without this balance, a relationship is doomed to fail.

3)Gay couples cannot achieve this balance because the 2 partners are fundamentally the same and are such doomed to fail, or not reach their potential.

4)Because a marriage is supposed to be a lasting thing, and the greatest of Loves, SSM should not be leagalized.

5)Children should never be brought into such a turbulent relationship. A child needs a mother and a father.

6)Because marriage were bennifets are created by the government to deal with child-rearing, homosexual couples should not be allowed even such legal unions. (side note: things like hospital visitation are up to the individual hospital institutions. I've always thought hospitals are kinda anal retentive)

Quote:
i dont care if being gay is a choice or not, i see no reason why 'its a choice' is relevant in any argument for or against homosexuality, and even then, the argument is should gays be allowed to get married
7)When a homosexual makes the choice to be so, they are knowingly forfeiting thier right to marry. (another homosexual, that is)

[edit]
Quote:
the difference between rape and homosexuality is that rape is not consensual.. you cannot compare the two, because they are two totally different things...
[edit]
They are both perversions of a pleasure God gave man and woman. They are very similar.
The idea that something is ok if it doesn't hurt someone is flawed. All sins hurt God, because we chose loving ourselves over loving Him.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 14:16   #217
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
1)Men and women are fundementally psychologically different.
conceded. although i believe that psychologists generally concede that gay people are fundamentally psychologically different to straight ones. has god given any explanation as to why he so kindly gave certain people this perversion?

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
2)Men and women depend on each other's psychology to balance each other. Without this balance, a relationship is doomed to fail.
ouch. but by the same measure, don't gay couples bounce off of one another to the same effect? i think that any statistics on relationship success rates between gay as opposed to straight couple would put paid to that argument, in any case.

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
3)Gay couples cannot achieve this balance because the 2 partners are fundamentally the same and are such doomed to fail, or not reach their potential.
this sounds like flawed reasoning, but since your previous evidence isn't directly linked in any way to it, i'll have trouble actively disproving it. (it's like trying to disprove the argument that birds fly in the air because it's blue).

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
4)Because a marriage is supposed to be a lasting thing, and the greatest of Loves, SSM should not be leagalized.
you have not said that love cannot exist between two people of the same sex. in fact, since you concede that it is a "perversion", this would mean that for people who get into such relationships, it is the greatest of loves for them. unless, of course, you're citing a religious argument - in which case your point proves nothing, as religion should have nothing to do with the law.

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
5)Children should never be brought into such a turbulent relationship. A child needs a mother and a father.
my father left when i was very young. how's that different? i like to think i turned out just fine.

in fact, the same psychology you cite previously proves that this is actively not the case.

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
6)Because marriage were bennifets are created by the government to deal with child-rearing, homosexual couples should not be allowed even such legal unions. (side note: things like hospital visitation are up to the individual hospital institutions. I've always thought hospitals are kinda anal retentive)
eek, an almost valid argument - i don't believe that gay couples should be banned from adopting though, so it doesn't really hold water in my viewpoint. but yes, this partly follows from conceding point 5 (which i didn't).

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 17:52   #218
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
conceded. although i believe that psychologists generally concede that gay people are fundamentally psychologically different to straight ones. has god given any explanation as to why he so kindly gave certain people this perversion?
If you would please read my above post you would see my arguement on why homosexuality is a choice.

I hate argueing the same point repeatedly because you are too lazy to read the entire thread. Such a show of laziness is indicitive of the soundness of your arguements. You have annilated any kind of ethos at all
Because they chose this path they are psychologically different, but this is where my pt 7 comes in.

Quote:
but by the same measure, don't gay couples bounce off of one another to the same effect?
In some ways yes, anyone can fell a brotherly admoration for someone, or even a hot lust, but pure love is a different story. This love a man feels for a woman and vice versa cannot be replicated by a gay couple because they are either both male or female, they are not learning anything about their Creator through each other.

Quote:
this sounds like flawed reasoning, but since your previous evidence isn't directly linked in any way to it, i'll have trouble actively disproving it
You can't just say something sounds flawed and just ignore it. Prove it. How do the two not relate?

Quote:
unless, of course, you're citing a religious argument - in which case your point proves nothing, as religion should have nothing to do with the law.
my source on this is striaght out of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity I wish I had my text with me to directly quote it.

The government is founded on morals, it exists to protect our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"(a Jeffersonian interpretation of Lockean Principles) Why are were garrenteed these rights(morals)? Because of the ethics (a set of morals) our founding fathers.

And the ethics of anyones founding fathers was based on religion.
thus, religion has everything to do with government it is the root of government.

Now, mind you, the french revloution tried to found itself without religious ethics and failed miserably. It led to an athuoritarian rule, because it tried to do more than is possible, more than Mr. Locke said was the purpose of government.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 18:48   #219
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Wow, I leave for a day and see what happens...

@Shakey Snake:
Point #1. If you take any arguments stemming from religion or from God out of the picture, how much of it would be left?

Point #2. I honestly don't see exactly where you say that homosexuality is a choice. Not that it matters. I'm probably a bad reader or something but tht is besides the point.

Ok, time for a long discussion....

Quote:
because they remove God from the picture.
See point #1. Has it ever occurred to you that somepeople don't believe in God? please see one of those God- or Religion- threads....

Maybe removing God from the picture would be a good thing, has that ver occurred to anyone? Then, we wouldn't have all these wars over religion and these Islamic extremists etc etc etc....

The really funny thing is, when did God ever tell you that He didn't like homosexuality? You really have no clue what side you are on because God has never told Man what side he is on. However, Jesus tells us to love each other and I believe there are accounts of homosexuality in the Bible. In addition, most of the gay raping/molesting you are bitching about is done by priests on little kids, so your argument seems to be losing water there.

Quote:
This love a man feels for a woman and vice versa cannot be replicated by a gay couple because they are either both male or female, they are not learning anything about their Creator through each other.
See point #1. In addition, how would you know? You assume too much.

Quote:
Because they chose this path they are psychologically different
Even though it isn't a choice, let's say it is. How would a Choice change your psychology?

Quote:
And the ethics of anyones founding fathers was based on religion.
thus, religion has everything to do with government it is the root of government.
I find it insulting that you believe that if it weren't for God, we would have no morals.

Quote:
2)Men and women depend on each other's psychology to balance each other. Without this balance, a relationship is doomed to fail.
I bet that they could have longer, better relationships than straight couples, given the divorce rate nowadays. This as already been said before in this thread a thousand times though. Now who isn't reading?

Quote:
3)Gay couples cannot achieve this balance because the 2 partners are fundamentally the same and are such doomed to fail, or not reach their potential.
See above comment on "how would you know?" Besides, this stems from the idea that because it is a perversion of God etc it won't work and once again see point #1.

Quote:
4)Because a marriage is supposed to be a lasting thing, and the greatest of Loves, SSM should not be leagalized.
I've already said this, but they can probably have better, longer relationships than straight people. If you are really concerned about marriage lasting longer, you would have to abolish straight marriage do to the high divorce rate.

Quote:
5)Children should never be brought into such a turbulent relationship. A child needs a mother and a father.
Who said the relationship was turbulent? There won't be any wife beating. Also see zootm's point.

Quote:
6)Because marriage were bennifets are created by the government to deal with child-rearing, homosexual couples should not be allowed even such legal unions. (side note: things like hospital visitation are up to the individual hospital institutions. I've always thought hospitals are kinda anal retentive)
In that case, we are discussing the benefits, not the marriage or civil union itself. For this argument to hold true, it makes the most sense to give benefits to neither gay or straight couples until they have a kid or adopt one.
As for hospitals, well, if SSM are made legal they should allow visitation, but if not, then yeah, I'd guess its up to them. They can sometimes be anal retentive, but I think health insurance is much worse.....

Quote:
7)When a homosexual makes the choice to be so, they are knowingly forfeiting thier right to marry. (another homosexual, that is)
It's NOT A CHOICE. get over it. Do you choose to get horny when you see someone you really like who you think looks beautiful takes of her clothes in front of you? is that a "choice"? No. In the same way, being gay is, I'm sure the same, its just the way it is.

Quote:
They are both perversions of a pleasure God gave man and woman. They are very similar.
Stop the perversion of God stuff. And they aren't similar at all, as it isn't a pleasure for one of the involved parties.

Quote:
All sins hurt God, because we chose loving ourselves over loving Him.
See point #1.

Quote:
they learn more about Him through experiancing each other, because male love and then female love are on opposite ends of the spectrum of what is God.
You have no idea who, what, when were, why, and how God is. So why do you try to argue on "His side", so to speak? Or try to compare marriage to Him? In fact according to your argument, We should all be bisexual because that is the middle of the said spectrum and that is where/what God is.

Quote:
You cannot take this decision away from someone. If it is natural for someone to be homosexual, then why is it not natural for someone to commit rape?
Has it ever occured to you that it might not be a choice yet it might not be a "perversion of affection God gave us"? Maybe they just ARE that way? hmm?

Quote:
Isn't it easier for a rapist or a homosexual to give into there perverted sexuality?
You just admitted it-they cannot help their sexuality. therefore it is not a choice.

But to repeat myself yet again, I think it is relevant to your argument--you know NOTHING about what God thinks about homosexuality. NOTHING. So seriously, you should stop trying to be the Devil's advocate working for God.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 19:26   #220
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
If you would please read my above post you would see my arguement on why homosexuality is a choice.

I hate argueing the same point repeatedly because you are too lazy to read the entire thread. Such a show of laziness is indicitive of the soundness of your arguements. You have annilated any kind of ethos at all
i read it. in depth. it doesn't seem to counter anything i've said, as far as i can tell. if you can explain how i've misunderstood you here (since i know i read your post, a misunderstanding seems to be the only logical reason for this).

and i'd appreciate if you could counter any of my arguments. that would rock. rather than just saying they're unsound.

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
[You can't just say something sounds flawed and just ignore it. Prove it. How do the two not relate?
they don't relate because of the reason i gave directly above it (who's ignoring posts now?). and i can't disprove something unless you provide me with some kind of logical reasons to disprove.

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
In some ways yes, anyone can fell a brotherly admoration for someone, or even a hot lust, but pure love is a different story. This love a man feels for a woman and vice versa cannot be replicated by a gay couple because they are either both male or female, they are not learning anything about their Creator through each other.
that's a religious belief, not a fact. let's be careful about where we're stating things here. i know that all things are beliefs to a greater or lesser degree, but in the context of legalisation of gay marriage, religious arguments should be allowed to hold no water.

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
And the ethics of anyones founding fathers was based on religion.
thus, religion has everything to do with government it is the root of government.
a belief. and not one of mine.

i believe that people can be moral without having religion force it upon them. this seems to me to be why all religions (many of which are mutually exclusive) share roughly the same basic morals.

the founding fathers of my country believed in brutal killing, fickle wars and a system whereby anyone who disobeyed with the ruling class would be put down. is that right?

the "founding fathers" argument seems to be one based exclusively on the US. and look what i found:
Quote:
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.
source

freedom of religion includes the ability to be free of religion entirely, surely?

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 19:45   #221
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
zootm, I am honestly beginning to doubt that arguing with these anti-SSM people will have any effect on their thoughts and clearly pointless ideas......... especially when every argument is centered around "I don't understand God but will try to stand up for Him" stuff.....

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 19:51   #222
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
mikeflca: i didn't ever think that it would, any more than they will be able to convince us. i do like to hear both sides of any argument now, and i now understand the reasoning behind opposing legalisation of gay marriages a lot more than i did before.

that doesn't mean i find it any more reasonable. just that i know their actual arguments now.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 19:54   #223
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
everytime i view this thread there are 20 new very long posts and it pisses me off cuz im lazy.

homosexuality is shared amongst many mammals. if two people choose to homosexualize eachother what is it to you? do you have a right to change them? do you have a right to punish them? leave judgement to god and stick with pursasion. keep religon and politics seperate and let there be civil unions for all. marriage is a religious ceremony/institution that is to be done by a church.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 20:19   #224
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Since a lot of the Anti-SSM stuff comes from a religious standppint, its time to fight fire with fire. And pull out Nimelennar's fact machine.

Fact: Quite a few gay/lesbian couples got married in San Francisco.

Fact: A lot of anti-SSM stuff comes from a religios standpoint (christianity really).

Fact: This is more or less based around God.

Therefore, it must be assumed that God does not like homosexualty and the resulting marriages.

Therefore, God would want to keep gay people from getting married.

Therefore, he would somehow signal that it is bad or strike a gay couple with lightning or do something.

Fact: God IS NOT doing anything about gay/lesbian couples getting married. I haven't seen any get struck by lightning.

Therefore, This anti-SSM religious argument is flawed.

Therefore, the only way God can fit into this argument, hate SSM, and still exist, is if he is a wimp and is too scared and lazy to do something about SSM.

Religious fact (if there is such a thing) : The chances are that God is not a wimp.

Therefore, there are 2 possibilities pertaining to God and SSM:

1.Either God does not exist, an idea that the religious anti-SSM people will not accept, or:

2. God does not mind, or even likes, SSM. Since religious people won't accept the first possibility, this one must, in their view be correct.

Nothing is as fun as fighting fire with fire....

And by the way, I have a feeling that there is gonna be some possible flaming at me or someone saying "thats rediculous, what flawed logic." My answer: stop telling me MY logic is flawed when you are still preaching about God's hate of SSM.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 20:20   #225
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by whiteflip
marriage is a religious ceremony/institution that is to be done by a church.
this is primarily where the problem lies. not everyone believes that - i know i certainly don't. civil unions for all and a legal loss of the term "marriage" would suit me, but i seriously doubt you'd ever manage to pass it through any sort of policy-making system.

Quote:
Originally posted by shaky_something (sorry, i'm doing this in an edit so i don't have the thread history)
But to repeat myself yet again, I think it is relevant to your argument--you know NOTHING about what God thinks about homosexuality. NOTHING. So seriously, you should stop trying to be the Devil's advocate working for God.
ironic?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Therefore, it must be assumed that God does not like homosexualty and the resulting marriages.

Therefore, God would want to keep gay people from getting married.

Therefore, he would somehow signal that it is bad or strike a gay couple with lightning or do something.

Fact: God IS NOT doing anything about gay/lesbian couples getting married. I haven't seen any get struck by lightning.
that's flawed reasoning, i'm afraid. bear in mind that most modern christianity hinges on the philosophy that god does not interfere with the world like that.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 20:37   #226
dlichterman
Forum King
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Where Hell Froze Over
Posts: 2,466
Did I ever say it had to make sense?

Religion can always be twisted to support one side or the other. that's the point. And even if it doesn't make sense, I can just say it does because God is there, etc etc. And, you know what's even better if you are some kind of religious extremist? I can just insist that as a matter of fact, I AM right when I say that God would do so. I never have to actually think about it, instead I can just act like an asshole and justify it with the wird God.

So, sure my logic is wrong, as is my reasoning. But the point is, that's why we shouldn't be taking anything from religion......my logic is just as good as the next religious dude's. in a way.

Ah shit i replied as dlichterman. well i am mikeflca if you didn't know that already.

Software is like sex: It's better when it's free.-*-If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0-*-Guess the band from pics game
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 21:13   #227
hgnis
Hobbit Humper
Forum King
 
hgnis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: banned camp
Posts: 4,121
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Fact: A lot of anti-SSM stuff comes from a religios standpoint (christianity really).
Just a quick note here mike, christianity is not the only religion that has anti gay sentiments. Ask any openly gay man in the middle east missing a schlong.

My view is that marriage is a religious thing with nothing really to do with the state other than a tax break, extension of assets and collateral here or there.
If someone wanted to get married for this then I would say that that person should not get married in the first place.
Why a person needs a permit to get married is beyond me.

I am so important I feel the need to let it be known like a liberal discovering the internets for the first time. Uh hur hur hur. I also wash myself with a rag on a stick.
Realitybites
<3
hgnis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 23:30   #228
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
shakey_snake: Many of the people on these forums are not christians, and many of us are agnostic or atheist.

Considering that, we should not be allowed to be married any more than any gay, by your logic, and nor should any non-christian. Isn't that right?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2004, 23:53   #229
EternalSSaturn
Senior Member
 
EternalSSaturn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Buda, TX, USA
Posts: 156
Send a message via AIM to EternalSSaturn Send a message via Yahoo to EternalSSaturn
stop using the religious doctrine against same sex marriage, else you would be making marriage out to be something that is union of church and state, and that violates laws, or at least laws where I live. And might I remind that gay marriage rates in the Netherlands have decreased and divorce cases are starting to be filed, just like the hetero marriages. So really, by making it legal, less people will want it, or at least they will know that they can delay it for a while.
EternalSSaturn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 00:02   #230
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
I really can't argue with 10 posts at a time, and it is very frustrating, to deal with opponents who are not open to my most fundamental idea that there is (or for the sake of minding a common ground in this arguement: might be) a higher Being who created us and will judge us after our deaths.
All I am asking is that you guys understand that built upon the fact(Idea) that God exists, and the that the Christian Bible is a series of text enspired by this Creator, there is a perfectly rational arguement against homosexual marragies. Im not asking you to believe the Bible is true just asking you to understand my view point.

Here is the backbone of my arguement (and I really do hate to proof-text the Bible like this):
"For this reason* a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" - Gen 2:24
* Because God created Eve *COUGH*not Steve*COUGH* from Adam's Rib.

and Leviticus 18:22
"the LORD said to Moses:`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable`"

Now I don't see at the begining of this thread any reason to exclude a religious viewpoint. I never twisted that verse. We're not passing a law here on these forums.

These are my rebuttals to some common argements for homosexual marriage.
- ssm will not solve the orphan problem in the world.
- ssm marriges are not going to last longer than straight marrages
- humankind is more inteligent than animals, why should we do it just because animals do? that is a non sequitur logical fallacy.

xzxzzx: any marriage not centered around God is a perversion of the institution.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme

Last edited by shakey_snake; 11th April 2004 at 00:32.
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 01:08   #231
EternalSSaturn
Senior Member
 
EternalSSaturn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Buda, TX, USA
Posts: 156
Send a message via AIM to EternalSSaturn Send a message via Yahoo to EternalSSaturn
How the hell can you say that they won't longer than regular
marriages? If a SSM can last more than Britney Spears's did, then your rebuttal falls

And frankly, you aren't bringing any evidence up from the new testament. If you cannot find anymore about it in the New Testament, then just give up your arguement because I can overturn a new testament arguement as well.

yes, but the issue in itself is a question of legality. I have read the bible, and it denounces "homosexuality", but only because there was a lost term in translation. The original term was "male prostitution".

The orhan problem might not be totally solved by SSM, but it will provide more people who are devoted to the family, which are the requirements, accoring to Pope John Paul II, for a healthy family. So that rebutal is kick in its.

Also, God created two people. A man and a woman. Of course there would be reference to that against SSM. But what about Zeus and Ganymede? Hmm? did you ever consider those two? The main basis for homosexuality in Greek Mythology. There is another reference for religious. What if someone believes that? What makes you think that God hasn't changed his mind on homosexuality? The lord works in mysteriuos ways.

Humans are animals. The reference to that is that we knew not right from wrong in the beginning. So we are only animals who know what is right and what is wrong.

If you wanna go, lets go. I can debate this issue, in any forum and I know in my heart that I am right, and that the lord wouldn't possibly forbid me from this. This is a truth i hold onto in my heart, and you can send any scripture verse, but it doesn't matter, because I know that I am right.
EternalSSaturn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 02:14   #232
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
My views on keeping a gay person from marrying due to religion is already stated. I acknowedge your views on religion, but do not think it is just for you to stop someone from being happy simply because of what you believe.

Besides, if you are so......disturbed by it, then you should just ignore this whole issue and let God decide when we all die. There, that should solve the whole debate about SSM from the religious standpoint.

as for your rebuttals:

Quote:
- ssm will not solve the orphan problem in the world.
I doubt that anything will solve the orphan problem in the world other than "Divine Intervention." However, SSM would undoubtably help to solve this problem.

Quote:
- ssm marriges are not going to last longer than straight marrages
It is quite possible that they will.

Quote:
- humankind is more intelligent than animals, why should we do it just because animals do? that is a non sequitur logical fallacy.
gays aren't getting married "just because animals do". That is one of the most rediculous things I've yet heard in this thread, coming in after the anal sex argument...They are getting (or trying to get) married because they love each other. You need to be more open to the most fundamental belief that gays can love each other.

Quote:
any marriage not centered around God is a perversion of the institution.
Then how was it that back in ancient Greece, when people believed in MANY GODS (that is, before your ideas about God came to exist), people were already getting married, and having loving relationships?

In general, I think it is laughable when someone cites the bible as a pretext for what would basically be a constitutional amendment that would prevent people from persuing happiness.


As I have said (or maybe implied) before, I find the whole idea of banning SSM due to religious ideas as not only pointless but useless.....and thoughtless.....

Quote:
I really can't argue with 10 posts at a time,
If you had solid facts to back up your ideas, you could.....I believe Nimelennar said almost exactly the same thing a while back, Lol....

Quote:
and it is very frustrating, to deal with opponents who are not open to my most fundamental idea that there is (or for the sake of minding a common ground in this arguement: might be) a higher Being who created us and will judge us after our deaths.
True, it is hard to argue with someone who will not even acknowedge your side. I AM open to the idea of there being a higher power. However, I cannot see that justifying the banning of SSM. And hey, guess what? I have a higher power, too, and He says that gay marriage is cool. Isn't that ironic? That's the problem with religion, it can always be twisted to suit a side of a discussion......

You do not seem to be very open to my most fundamental ideas (of) 1)That gay/lesbians CAN in fact love each other very much, 2) That homosexuality is NOT a choice, 3)seperation of church and state, and 4)not oppressing people because of religious beliefs. (yeah those last 2 are basically the same, but when it comes to SSM it seems I need to seperate the two for some reason, maybe to make religious anti-SSM people realize what they are trying to do.)

And besides, like I said before, if He's gonna judge us after death, then what happens to gay/lesbians ISN'T YOUR CONCERN.

Quote:
All I am asking is that you guys understand that built upon the fact(Idea) that God exists, and the (you must have forgot the word "fact" here) that the Christian Bible is a series of text enspired by this Creator, there is a perfectly rational arguement against homosexual marragies.
ROFL. never try to include an argument against SSM, God, and justify it with rationality. And as everyone pretty much decided in one of those "does god exist" threads, nobody can give real proof of God's existence or non-existence until death.

@hgnis: true, but here in the U.S. it is really the Christian faith that voices most of the opposition to SSM. more or less the Evangelical Christians, and their cronies(George W. Bush for example.). In fact I remember reading an article in a magazine (Time magazine maybe?) about Bush and his ties to Evangelical groups.

and, @zootm's post a while back: I always go into an argument hoping that maybe I can make the other side/person realize my point of view because I am right. But I stay open to the idea that maybe, just maybe, the other side or person is right. In this argument however, I know I am right regardless of how many times someone quotes the Bible.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 06:38   #233
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
I really feel that there is more than one camp who disagrees with me at this point (but all agree on ssm) and that when I try to argue with one camp, another camp takes a statement out of context because it is not ment for them. So I'll try to divide my arguments, and if you have a rebuttal please identify your camp(I probably wont respond if you don't. It honestly all sounds like post-modern adaptation of modernist BS to me).

All Camps:
Me saying homosexual marriges won't last as long is just as speculative as you saying they will last longer.It really is, neither of us have any proof. I just want you to see that this is a flawed arguement that you continue to bring up over and over.

Also, just because I think homosexual marriage is wrong, doesnt mean I automatically think it will not be passed into law in the US. I do think it will take an admendment for such legislation to pass court appeal (or should in our gov't, but probably won't because the court system is so liberal) just like the Civil Rights movement and Women's sufferage.
My oppinion is it shouldn't be passed however. Because of my morals based in Christianity, I find it appaling to legaly desactify the Divinity of marriage in yet another way.(Miss Spears for example was anotherway, and to answer the very first post I'm here it is an outrage )


agnostics and atheists:
please read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis if you have time,or at least the first 2 books, because it is where I'm getting most of my arguments, and it is very hard to summerize something as complex as basic, mere Christian theology. Especally in the time I a lot daily for this Board.


Those who believe in a non christian religion:
please read the second section of Mere Christianity in the above link.


Those who want to argue that The Bible says nothing agaisnt homosexuality:
The above scriptures pretty much cover it.
If you want a NT referance consult the letter in Acts 15.
Because the authors of this letter were Jewish-Christians the best interpretation of "sexual imorality*" is a Jewish one. And the Jewish perpective on "S.I." is defined by Leviticus 18.

*(says my NIV, which I concede is a some what terrible translation when looking at the original Greek texts, but is all I have handy with me at the moment, Im home on easter break. The NIV however does not distort this letter badly)

@mikeflca: what is ROFL?
[edit] still @mikeflca
Your greek arguement is terrible. To the Ancient Greeks, their mythology was nothing more than soap operas and storytelling are to us. Greek religion was based on orgies and experianceing the gods. It had no morality. If greeks wanted a moral code they followed one of the many philosophers, or schools of philosophies.
This is, however interesting you bring it up, one of the cementing and individual qualities of true Christianity, it is the only religion to put stock in both experiancing God and following a moral code in a balanced fashion.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 07:05   #234
EternalSSaturn
Senior Member
 
EternalSSaturn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Buda, TX, USA
Posts: 156
Send a message via AIM to EternalSSaturn Send a message via Yahoo to EternalSSaturn
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
I really feel that there is more than one camp who disagrees with me at this point (but all agree on ssm) and that when I try to argue with one camp, another camp takes a statement out of context because it is not ment for them. So I'll try to divide my arguments, and if you have a rebuttal please identify your camp(I probably wont respond if you don't. It honestly all sounds like post-modern adaptation of modernist BS to me).

All Camps:
Me saying homosexual marriges won't last as long is just as speculative as you saying they will last longer.It really is, neither of us have any proof. I just want you to see that this is a flawed arguement that you continue to bring up over and over.

Also, just because I think homosexual marriage is wrong, doesnt mean I automatically think it will not be passed into law in the US. I do think it will take an admendment for such legislation to pass court appeal (or should in our gov't, but probably won't because the court system is so liberal) just like the Civil Rights movement and Women's sufferage.
My oppinion is it shouldn't be passed however. Because of my morals based in Christianity, I find it appaling to legaly desactify the Divinity of marriage in yet another way.(Miss Spears for example was anotherway, and to answer the very first post I'm here it is an outrage )


agnostics and atheists:
please read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis if you have time,or at least the first 2 books, because it is where I'm getting most of my arguments, and it is very hard to summerize something as complex as basic, mere Christian theology. Especally in the time I a lot daily for this Board.


Those who believe in a non christian religion:
please read the second section of Mere Christianity in the above link.


Those who want to argue that The Bible says nothing agaisnt homosexuality:
The above scriptures pretty much cover it.
If you want a NT referance consult the letter in Acts 15.
Because the authors of this letter were Jewish-Christians the best interpretation of "sexual imorality*" is a Jewish one. And the Jewish perpective on "S.I." is defined by Leviticus 18.

*(says my NIV, which I concede is a some what terrible translation when looking at the original Greek texts, but is all I have handy with me at the moment, Im home on easter break. The NIV however does not distort this letter badly)

@mikeflca: what is ROFL?
[edit] still @mikeflca
Your greek arguement is terrible. To the Ancient Greeks, their mythology was nothing more than soap operas and storytelling are to us. Greek religion was based on orgies and experianceing the gods. It had no morality. If greeks wanted a moral code they followed one of the many philosophers, or schools of philosophies.
This is, however interesting you bring it up, one of the cementing and individual qualities of true Christianity, it is the only religion to put stock in both experiancing God and following a moral code in a balanced fashion.
Well, la de da. aren't you special. But my greek arguement still can fly, because even philosophers accepted this, so don't go bashing me for using the greek mythology if you are allowed to use the bible.

You have had enough rebuttals. I am growing weary of your quoting bible and saying christianity is that way. Well I am a christian and I don't agree with that so what now? What Happens when those "moral" codes no longer are pleasing to God.

If God's will changes, as it can, what will happen to your arguement? Your arguement has no basis when applying to a matter of law.
EternalSSaturn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 07:26   #235
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by EternalSSaturn
If God's will changes, as it can, what will happen to your arguement? Your arguement has no basis when applying to a matter of law.
God's will never has changed. All he has ever wanted mankind to do is love Him whole-heartedly and keep his commandments.

Also, I am sticking to Mere Christianity, the concept of the great similarities between all true Christians. I fully question the basis in which you are calling yourself a Christian. I've never met someone who believes in the Resurrected Christ (if this is your basis) without accepting His teachings and those of his early apostles. Usually it is vice versa.

So what if my arguements has nothing to do with law. This web board isn't Congess. Our discussion is weather or not its ethical for gays to marry. Please stop trolling me, because your stance is weak.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 08:10   #236
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
you are wrong, the whole point of our discussin is should it be legal for gays and lesbians to get married (and recognized by the government)..

and even if it was about if its ethical.. you havent given one reason why its not ethical.. except that god says so. and btw, god can change his will.. what about noah? why would he decide later that it wasnt right to kill all the living creatures on earth?

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 08:22   #237
EternalSSaturn
Senior Member
 
EternalSSaturn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Buda, TX, USA
Posts: 156
Send a message via AIM to EternalSSaturn Send a message via Yahoo to EternalSSaturn
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
God's will never has changed. All he has ever wanted mankind to do is love Him whole-heartedly and keep his commandments.

Also, I am sticking to Mere Christianity, the concept of the great similarities between all true Christians. I fully question the basis in which you are calling yourself a Christian. I've never met someone who believes in the Resurrected Christ (if this is your basis) without accepting His teachings and those of his early apostles. Usually it is vice versa.

So what if my arguements has nothing to do with law. This web board isn't Congess. Our discussion is weather or not its ethical for gays to marry. Please stop trolling me, because your stance is weak.
I do keep His commandmants. And how do you know that His will won't change? are you Him? I never said it has, only that it CAN. God has free will too, you know. He gets to decide what is right around here, not you, not me, not anyone on earth.

I am greatly insulted and wish that you apolgize for quetioning my calling my self a Christian. How dare you. You have crossed boundaries that shouldn't ever be crossed.
If you want to know what I belive, read the Nicene Creed. I am a Christian, and may God have mercy on your soul if you ever, ever question that. Got it, bub?

Second of all, isn't there ethics involved in law too? Or is that something that you didn't get taught? I'm only in 9th grade , and I can easily tackle your case, so you should watch whose arguements you call weak.
EternalSSaturn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 09:31   #238
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
From what you can consider the Agnostic Camp
I'm going to read several books describing a religion in order to follow your argument? Fine. I'll read the first two.

*reads*

(Almost exactly two hours later...)

----OFF TOPIC----
Quote:
Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have.
While I'm at it, I feel I just have to point this out:

Christianity is the perfect religion in a medieval world (as far as a ruling class would be concerned). First, it molds the believers into believing whatever you want them to believe. Secondly, the doctrines of the religion are very useful for a ruling class.

Christianity is exactly what I would come up with if I were making a fake religion as a king; this seems to me as obvious as the sky being blue is obvious, and even if I were a Christian I would admit this.

Of course, neither my argument nor the author's is a condemnation or "proof", but I wanted to say this, and I didn't want to create another thread about it. So there you have it.
----END OF OFF TOPICNESS----

Alright, I have read the first two books. They seem to support my argument much more than they support yours. If there is a "metaphysical good" (as one could term it, and as a large portion of the 21661 words of the two books tries to establish), then one does not need a Bible to argue for this "good", it should be quite possible to argue that same-sex marriage is either good or bad, which is basically the point of everyone saying that the Christian religion should be left out of this argument (besides the fact that the kind of "marriage" that gays are asking for is not really religious - what about a "civil union, if the concept of a same-sex marriage is so abhorrent?)

Since Atheists and Agnostics (or those of other faiths than Christianity) can marry, shouldn't you be fighting as vehemently against that as same-sex marriage? Indeed, as there are many more Atheists and Agnostics than gays, wouldn't that be more important?

Also, speaking of the Bible, isn't there something in there regarding that it is not man's place to judge?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 13:07   #239
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
I really can't argue with 10 posts at a time, and it is very frustrating, to deal with opponents who are not open to my most fundamental idea that there is (or for the sake of minding a common ground in this arguement: might be) a higher Being who created us and will judge us after our deaths.
i've already quoted why i believe that religion can have no bias upon policy-setting.

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
and Leviticus 18:22
"the LORD said to Moses:`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable`"
actually, reading this one as anti-gay can be easily seen as a misinterpretation caused by poor translation. certainly a conclusion as valid as the one you take . i used to have a source on that, but i've lost it. i can look it up if you like.*

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
xzxzzx: any marriage not centered around God is a perversion of the institution.
except for one centred around allah

[edit]
*found an ok explanation on google
[/edit]

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 16:42   #240
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
you don't know what rofl means? ROFL!! surely you can google it......?

shakey_snake, I concede that there is no 100% definitive proof that gay couples can last longer. However, given that they are clearly working a lot harder in order to get married, it makes logical sense that they will stick together longer. That is a much more cohesive argument than a bunch of flawed logic statements helped by quotes from the Bible.

And @ everyone: As I have said before, we don't know what God (or god) wants, so stop trying to know what He(he) acts like, etc.......

Shakey_snake, my Greek argument was not about how much they worshiped the Gods, it was about the fact that they did not marry because of an idea given to them by your God. They got married with a different system so to speak. In fact, your rebuttal seems to support my argument more than yours.

For all practical intents and purposes, this argument or thread has gone from being about gay marriage to being about Christian imperialism and Christians trying to impose their will on others (Nazism but with a God?) and trying to justify it by pointing to the sky and then the Bible.

And shakey_snake, as for your post towards EternalSSaturn, I find it funny that you describe his stance as "weak" when you have no actualy proof to back up your claims. but hey, that's just me.....

I might respond in detail latrer i g2g
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump