Gay Rights

[ScareCrow]

New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled that homosexuals have the same marital rights as heterosexuals. Now to see what the NJ Legislature has to say about that. I hope the legislature follows the Court's rulings and make the right decision.

By the way, I wanted to discuss this subject while we were on the subject. What does everyone think about this?

Me?

I think that no matter what your sexual preference is, you should have the same rights as heterosexuals. I believe that since homosexuality is not a choice, but something someone IS, you cannot change it-same as gender and color.

Some people say that it's against religion to allow it. First of all, there is a separation of Church and State, so there is no grounding. Religion is no excuse to disallow gay rights. However, if a gay couple wants to marry into a certain church and the church refuses, the church has the right to do so. (even though I do not think it is fair.)

Some people say that if a gay couple was to adopt a child, it would be traumatizing for the child. If there was a parent conference, and the child's teacher was homophobic, then the child would be treated differently. Also children are known to be nasty to each other. At a young age, children might make fun of them because of it. Also, other childrens' parents might tell their children how "bad" it is and not allow their children to play with the gay couple's child. I believe that the more children that gay couples have, the more used to the children will be. And hopefully, as children grow older, they will mature and get used to it. Even now, children will make fun of kids because they are "nerdy" or "weird", it's the same thing. It was the same when before the Civil Rights movement, white children were told to not play with black children. Children will hopefully get over it. Also, I guess it depends on the area. If the couple lives in a predominately liberal area, they will usually have no problem, but if they live in an overtly conservative area, they might have some problems.

Another argument is reproduction. Critics argue that if homosexuality becomes widely accepted, the human population will supposedly die out. First of all, there are over six billion humans and we don't have enough room for more. Second, now, there are ways of conception without sex. Third, many people have way more children then they should. There are thousands and thousands of children for adoption every year. As Russel Peters once said, "We could use some [gays] over there. There's a population crisis" (Laugh out loud. Peters is a Canadian Comic of Indian decent. CHeck out his stuff.), when refering to India. (I know bad quote but whatever.)

Then there's discrimination. People do not hire homosexuals (if they know) because they say that they're afraid of being hit on, or disturbing the atmosphere. First of all, don't flatter yourself (laugh out loud). If you are attractive or if they are attracted to you and they flirt with you, then give them signs that you're not interested or just say it bluntly, just like you would do to someone of the opposite sex if you were being hit on by someone who you were not attracted to. They will get the point. Second, don't flatter yourself. HAHA just kidding. Second, if they do disrupt other people(which is highly unlikely because gays are professional too), then tell them professionally. If other people don't like it, well, tell them to stop being selfish.

That's all I can think of now. Discuss, my fellow people.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

I think there was already a long thread about gay marriage which covered this, but I'm going to bring up an interesting gay rights issue happening at my college. Also, I agree with all you've said and I said a lot of the same in that thread.
The student union has banned blood drives from college owned land because they ruled it was discriminatory to homosexual men. The student union's issue is that Hema-Quebec, the blood control agency in Quebec, will not allow someone who has had sex, protected or otherwise, with a man since 1985 to give blood, however a heterosexual man who has had unprotected sex with a woman whose sexual background they are unaware of are not permitted to give blood for 6 months. Is this a clear case of discrimination against homosexuals or is Hema-Quebec legitimately being cautious because of the higher rate of HIV in the homosexual community?
I think it is a matter of resisting change because at one point HIV was almost exclusively present in the homosexual community, however that has changed and I think that the law has to be changed to exclude heterosexuals who have unprotected sex and to allow homosexuals who have safe sex to give blood.

[NMK]

And the gay people can get married there too, where's the world heading to?

Yes you're right I don't like gay MALES, I'm fine with lesbians. And no not because of lesbian porn or whatever you think.

[Solace]

just wait until Yuber gets in here lol

[NMK]

He's just gay in the Spam Zone, mostly

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

And the gay people can get married there too, where's the world heading to?

Yes you're right I don't like gay MALES, I'm fine with lesbians. And no not because of lesbian porn or whatever you think.

No reason? Just because you don't like them you want to limit their right to a civil partnership to improve their economic standing and to make a statement about their love for a chosen life partner?

[ScareCrow]

Let me ask you something. What is marriage? Truly? Isn't it a union between two people who love each other? What's there to hate?

[Raki]

nothing much , but when there's arguments and personalities begin to change then theres conflicts

[Flyin]

Marrige, in every culture, was historically a religious thing. No religions, again speaking in historical veiws, accept homosexuality. Therefore, I don't believe gay's have a right to be married in this sense. However, because of the involvement between western religion and our gov't, we see clear lines defined in our society of a heterosexual marrige being normal and right. With more involvment nowadays with marrige being specifically a legal issue, I feel it has no connection with the religious aspect, therefore, ipso facto, hence, all citizens have equal rights, that includes the legal promotions that go along with marrige.

[Chidongan]

gay people should have rights. wait no! gay people WILL have rights. i dont care what anybody else says becuase it's not something you control. >.>

if you study the brain you will learn that there are different types of brains. Gender and the Brain. Some brains are Female while others are Male. Men can have female brains. and Women can have Male brains.

Some people -cant- control what their sexual preferance will be. if they force themselves to like someone of a sex they do not want to get involved with just to please society it will truly be a sad day for mankind. how can you say that men or women cant live together, share moments together, or cant get married? it's their life.

some people here will agree with me on this: you cant control who you fall in love with. and if and when you do fall in love with a person of the same sex why should society keep you from your happiness? at the end of the day will society be the one comforting you through the tough times, will they be the ones who will be there for you through the good times and bad? no. society is just some stupid rule the 'normal' people made up so everyone can follow their standards of living. the person you love, wether they be partners of the opposite or same sex, will always be there for you.

now that was just discussing love. but if gay people want relationships just based around lust, they should be able to have that too.

i also hope that you guys notice that most of the people opposing gay rights are religious people, or homophobes. if a religion teaches you not to accept a certain group of people, then in my book that religion is wrong. and mankind has always been known to fear what they do not understand. hence the homophobes.

maybe if they get to understand that these 'gays' are not just a bunch of 'weirdo freaks' they will learn to accept them.

[Flyin]

I know and respect queers as much as any other individual. But seriously, in grade 5, when you got called "fag" it was insulting. The whole premise around it is that it's wrong in society, and if you go on CNN right now, you'll see the list of states that are opposing the gay marrige. Funny stuff! Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota....seems like the redneck inbred 'Klanners' are sticking it out!

[Nova]

.....ugh....in the religious term of marriage, no, because simply it has always been shunned and the gov't can't stop that. In the legal sense, yes, the gov't has the right to give people any right they want, that won't hurt the country, so why the hell not?

[kjrav]

The goverment dosen't have the right to give rights in my opinion.Rights a borne to a person not given, and if the Goverment can't except this then the basis for our whole goverment is crap.

[Flyin]

Then should I have the right to murder whoever I want? Hyperbole, I know, but it works well as an example. The rights we have that are given by Gov't are conditionally given, on the basis that our rights and freedoms, do not interfere with others rights and freedoms.
Being born into a society with certain rights is also dependant. In USA you have the 'Right to bare arms' but for instance, in Canada, you have the right to carry an exposed and registered weapon, as long as you don't use it in any way to evoke inhumane efforts onto another person. So the rights we have, and are born with, are just what the Gov't grants us. Sorry, it's all a Gov't conspiracy to keep us down!

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

The government doesn't decide what someone's right is they just decide what they want to enforce, rights predate government and have nothing to do with the views of people, they are inherent. People argue over what these inherent rights are and that is why governments have to set fixed principles to base rights on so that we can function as a society, but the government isn't what makes it a right. For example, if you live in dictatorship land you still have a right to free speech even though the government there would never allow it.
Its sad that we barely have gay marriage in Canada since the vote was tied in parliament, it was a tie vote in parliament and the speaker broke the vote by voting with the PM by convention, it would be better if the vote had been stronger to stop conservatives from bringing the issue up again. Although, poles show that 60% of Canadians support gay marriage even though the honorable members of parliament don't represent that.

[Flyin]

You're talking about different rights. The born rights of every person born are one thing. But the marrige issue is legal/civil, therefore, legislative concern, not a born right. You have the right to love, not to marry. That is the issue that we face in this.

[Named]

No religion owns rights to the tradition of marriage. It outlives them all.

[Devil~]

Im okay with gay people, As long as you know not to touch me or what not, were okay. Touch me and die, Lesbo's on the other hand, I dont care for, cause their not my sexuality anyway. Do what you do, Just dont bring me into it. Plus a few gay ppl are okay anyway =)

[uchiha_melody]

No reason? Just because you don't like them you want to limit their right to a civil partnership to improve their economic standing and to make a statement about their love for a chosen life partner?

HUZZAUH!!!...bam!! *nods in agreement*

damn your sooo right ...i agree T__T
I completely support the rights of all GLBT people Its time to stop the hypocrisy and get on with the democracy besides Why should someone be discriminated against for their sexuality? A person should have all the rights anyone else would be given regardless of their sexuality, than again tis my opinion aye ...*knows she will be bashed*

XD

[Named]

Not really. Most people here are Democratic ie 'rational' and would undoubtedly agree with you, Melody.

Kudos for the rhyme =)

[Flyin]

Yes, but some people, like me, just feel like being asses. You're comment about marrige being aged past all religion, I question this statement. I'm gonna' look it up right now, but if you can, could you tell me where you got this info from Named?

[steve]

this is a huge debate topic so im not going to put everything ive got out there yet, but let me just start with some small points:, oh and first, Im talking about liberal democracies, "egalitarian states", assuming that everyone has equal opportunity at birth(which is something that modern demo states do)

Equality: There is no grounds to discriminate against a group of people. Not providing the same societal privileges is inequality.

Gay Marriage as a Crime: According to Mill's harm theory, an action that does not harm society is not a crime. Gay marriage does not physically harm society. In order to argue that gay marriage DOES harm society you need to draw from the lack of reproductive potential a gay couple has. However, that is also to say that being gay is illegal, and that is an infringement on rights and goes back to the equality statement. Therefore, in accordance with the harm principle, gay marriage cannot be illegal.
Devlin's indignation, disgust, intolerance theory states that if society as a consensus feels, indignation, disgust, intolerance when confronted with an action, the action must be illegal. Although there is some legitimacy in making irrational-emotional based decisions, you cannot truly justify this. To give full legislative powers to the feelings of people, you create a tyranny of the majority and policies produced are not reviewed or thought out. Its the equivalent of killing jewish people in nazi germany based on feelings of hate. This is bad. Furthermore, minority groups suffer, creating inequality(back to first point). Also, There is not an overwhelming consensus in society against gay marriage, in fact, society is nearly split on the issue. Therefore, even if you follow devlins philosophy(which is bad policy making btw and should never happen, completely irrational), you cannot justify in modern times outlawing gay marriage.

edit: man i know i said this would be short but i just want to add something else: Anyone in here that tries to argue against gay marriage on religious values: you live in a secular(church and state are seperate) society(assuming you live in a lib democracy). Therefore, you cannot justify anything under religious values, unless you wanna move to Iran.
For people using a tradition argument: If society couldnt change with changing societal values, imagine where we would currently be. We would still have black slaves, women wouldnt be able to vote, and you'd drive a horse carriage. What Im saying is, change is part of society and to try to restrict societal changes on the basis of tradition only harms society and creates large cleavages in the population.

*Polisci'd*

[Flyin]

Well, the women not being able to vote thing....they belong in the kitchen, what the hell are they doing in voting booths? Kidding......;)

I feel South Park came up with a brilliant idea, the real problem with both sides of the arguement face opposite sides of the coin. The religious want marrige to be traditional, because marrige was set up originally as a religious doctrine. The gay rights want the legal discrimination to end, providing them with the same legal rights as partners of oposite sex. The solution....
Butt-Buddies

[Nova]

I saw that episode! It was a masterpeice!

Back on topic. I agree with Steve that we live in a secular society and as such shouldn't discriminate against them. I think that marriage would put somewhat an end to the constant accusation of promiscuous sex, because they would then have a reason to stay with one partner. I think alot of gay people need have just that right to "marry" or whatever they wish to call it. I think gay's deserve to marry. I don't think society is ready for that. I think that it will cause a backlash which will increase hate crimes, discrimination, and killings of gays, which is not good. But I believe when society is ready the right choice will be made, be it for or against the issue. Maybe we can all come to a compromise to make all groups happy by then.....Who knows?

[Named]

Because, Flyin', many of the European pagan beliefs, particularly those practiced by the Celtics, had their own tradition of marriage. They used to wed in the forrest, the trees bearing witness to the union. It wasn't until the Roman Occupation when the filthy Catholics abolished their practices and forced them to marry in Churches.

The Christians don't own marriage. For them to enforce THEIR beliefs onto the practice of marriage is disgusting. But we're all used to Christians being disgusting, aren't we?

[uchiha_melody]

hmmm well If 2 people want to have the rights and obligations of a married couple why would anyone care The only reason I can see is that there are people who are afraid of anything different than themselves

[Named]

It is because they are conditioned to believe homosexuals are sinners. So sayeth their proud and ignorant God.

[steve]

named... by chance do you goto SFU, and you are in all of my lectures and tutorials? fucking deja vu....

The problem with the transitional difficulties argument is simple: whenever you have a large scale evolution of a certain aspect of society, ie. homosexual marriage, black equality, so on so forth, you always, ALWAYS have traditionalists that will oppose the change and create "the sorrows" but the thing is, the group in question often is willing to accept and deal with these cleavages for the sake of accomplishing their goal, in this case, gay marriage.
But, if you dont handle the changing situation right away and start legislating in accordance with a combination of constitutional rights and public opinions, the traditionalists aren't going to change(because they arent being made to) and then they breed more traditionalists, and the "too much hassle for everyone" argument never dies.
Racism still exists lots of places in the United States, but it is substantially decreased now and school children are educated to treat each other equally regardless of color. If the social movement had never taken place, and those discomforts been weathered, would it ever have changed?

Half the battle is winning the argument, the other half is taking action... and I would argue that the second half is far more important.

EDIT: sometimes I wish we had more right-rednecks in this forum... these debates can get a little one sided here.

[Named]

Every time you see a rainbow, God is having gay sex.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vQvKpj5ThQ

Theres a funny sketch from a Canadian TV show back when gay marriage was a big issue and the Conservative party was running adds against it. It illustrates the hypocrasy of arguing rights based on tradition quite well.

To Flyin who said I was confusing civil rights with born rights, I wasn't because if some groups have a civil right to marriage then since every person has the inherent right to be treated equally under the law, then all groups must have a civil right to marriage.

I often hear the argument that western legal systems are based on Christianity, but if we followed Christianity in law freedom of worship would still be illegal along with homosexuality in general.

[Nova]

Because, Flyin', many of the European pagan beliefs, particularly those practiced by the Celtics, had their own tradition of marriage. They used to wed in the forrest, the trees bearing witness to the union. It wasn't until the Roman Occupation when the filthy Catholics abolished their practices and forced them to marry in Churches.

The Christians don't own marriage. For them to enforce THEIR beliefs onto the practice of marriage is disgusting. But we're all used to Christians being disgusting, aren't we?

Celtic marriages were still based on religion, I don't think anyone said it was just Christianity. The Celtics were druids, they still believed in gods and marriage was still a holy thing. I think what the main point is, is that legally it's alright, but no church should have to allow gays to marry under their law. If we can give gays the right to marry, don't churches have the right to refuse to recognize it under God?

[Named]

Celtic marriages were still based on religion, I don't think anyone said it was just Christianity. The Celtics were druids, they still believed in gods and marriage was still a holy thing. I think what the main point is, is that legally it's alright, but no church should have to allow gays to marry under their law. If we can give gays the right to marry, don't churches have the right to refuse to recognize it under God?

They can do whatever they damn well please. That is the difference between marriage and a wedding.

[Flyin]

It's like I said before, the solution is Butt Buddies

They deserve the same legal rights, but not the religious side. Nobody was ever fighting against their legal rights, just the traditional form of marrige. Here, they were thinking of making it illegal to deny performing gay marriges. I think theres a difference between equality and whiney bastards, and both sides went over the line here in Canada.

*EDIT*

Woah, you want a redneck? I've been holding so much anal traditionalism back here, ohh it's on!!!

Queers have the same civil rights as anyone else, however they are, at the point of gay marrige, blemishing a sacred RELIGIOUS bond. Marrige has always been a religious matter, which is why you didn't see anyone divorcing until King Henry V (I think) got the idea for the new, church of England, to allow him to divorce. This alone was a travesty of religion, but was allowed due to the 'Scared King', who was put in place by God. Now, there's a group of activists, demanding that they have the right to besmearch the cloth, by wanting endorsement to perform their acts of unholyness. They can leave their inheritance to their 'life mate' and have their benifits transferred over by means of 'Acting Gaurdian and Caretaker laws'. They deserve nothing for thier ignorance towards religious traditions.

[Named]

You mean the judeochristian religion. Again, there were practices of marriage before they adopted it. Many of these practices by people who don't literally qualify as being of a religion, which was my point in saying it outlived religion.

I don't believe the main body of the movement ever insisted gay people should be allowed to marry in churches. They want the legal side of it, in nations supposedly being for equality of their people. If they want to wed by some religious tradition, they can do that, too. So long as it's ok by the creed ;)

[Flyin]

That was the big problem here, they, the fags, wanted to make it illegal to REFUSE to marry them, wether or not it was religious, cause it's discrimination to have and enforce religious beliefs. Crazy liberal hippy queers!

[Techno Dude]

heh, let the gays do it, and lesbians
i like lesbians

[ScareCrow]

You using your derogatory words just proves how closed mind and ignorant you are...you're just destroying your argument. But good luck have fun. I wuv you!!!

[Solace]

i personally think theyre making fools of themselves. But whatever, why stop them from if theyre fools.

Im only against the fact that the government and those gay asses always have to make a scene. I dont want to waste time watching gay civil rights movements and riots on tv or in any other media.. and for the government.. who cant suck up and just let them be, had to make it a priority. jeez!!!!

[Named]

Uh, you could always change the channel on your TV or put the newspaper down. If your only objection is that you don't want to hear the complaints... Ouch, what if you were protesting a civil liberty denied to you? I'm sure there would be groups of people who really didn't want to hear your whinging. You'd probably think quite lowly of them.

[Nova]

I hate when people get flustered over derogatory terms.....it's words, you aren't gay Crow, and plus it's utterly hilarious. Here to make sure every gay here is offended: FAG, QUEER, HOMO, GAYWAD, FUDGE-PACKER, BUTT PIRATE, etc. See it's nothing but words.

Here's my non-religious anti-gay marriage arguement, don't flame, I'm just saying something that seems logical.

All people want "equal rights", correct? Well what if those people aren't "equal"? People try to hide this, but face it, many human beings are not capable of living under or traditional laws and freedoms. Such as the mentally ill, metally retarded, and other's of the kind. Can those people be held accountable for crimes they did not committ intentionally? Well let's think of a Man and Woman in a relationship as 1 person, ok? Let's think of what their main purpose is be bonded like that: To make children in a loving relationship. Now let's think of 2 Men as 1 person, clear on this yet? As an entity, a married couple is responsible for the reproduction of our species. Can 2 gay men do this? No they cannot. So as being not "equal" to the Man/Woman entity, they should not fall under the same laws and/or freedoms as that "person".

This may be hard for some people to accept, but you know that those words have some truth to them. And I bet you're asking, what about the steril men who can't have children? Or the women with problematic uteruses? Many people still have children in these situations and still advance our society, because we are now advanced enough that at least one of them can make their child. Gays cannot advace our society, the women can go to a clinic where they can be artificially inseminated, but would it be the same? Would that child grow up in an "equal" household? I understand that gay's are just as capable of loving a child as any other person, but will that child have the benefit of a mom and dad?

My little thesis brings up many questions which I will LEAVE unanswered and you can think for yourself. Again, I ask for no flaming. Just your thoughts, do those words hold some truth? They can't be totally false can they? Just think about it. Don't let your closed mind close off anything that doesn't hold some truth to it.

[Named]

I agree to the name-calling thing. I call groups of people what I like. It's the attitude that can be hateful; words are just words. I usually make it clear where I stand, despite my use of what is otherwise considered 'derogatory'.

Your argument about the purpose of a relationship I do disagree with, though. Unless there is an legislated incentive or law demanding married couples reproduce, it just doesn't stand against homosexuals. People marry not to reproduce, they marry because they love each other. This argument is only valid if the heterosexual person espousing it is fine with thinking of all people in such a primtive sense; that they only marry to perpetuate their species. This strips people of the humanity they so love. "We're important, hooray!"
What's funny is that I do often hear this argument, from Christians. Gays can't reproduce, therefore they are inferior couples. So can we conclude, then, that the only reason they value their relationships is not for anything silly like sophisticated emotions... They value them because they should have sex and populate whatever space they reside in? It's a contradictory attitude.

There's one group of people you missed out, T Nova. The many thousands of heterosexual couples who just don't fucking want children. Not exactly a rare case, either. People don't pair off to MATE, they pair off for the same reasons gay people do. All those la-dee-da feelings.

[Nova]

Eh......well people are stubborn aren't they....Why don't we just give gays the fucking right.....Got dammit, it's only a signed piece of paper, who cares. Religions can choose to see it as null and void, and secular people can view it as marriage. Who cares anymore, honestly? ITS A FUCKING PIECE OF PAPER! Give them the paper and the ring and leave it at that!

EDIT:

I hate arguing about stupid issues that should just be approved and pushed aside......target important issues. Why must people always get stuck on small irrelevant things? If they stop bitchin' won't most people be happy?

[Flyin]

Threre's a song written a while back with exactly your point of veiw.

Get Over It - Eagles

'All your bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit, GET OVER IT!'

Good song, they should just play this on loudspeakers for protest groups.

[Solace]

Uh, you could always change the channel on your TV or put the newspaper down. If your only objection is that you don't want to hear the complaints... Ouch, what if you were protesting a civil liberty denied to you? I'm sure there would be groups of people who really didn't want to hear your whinging. You'd probably think quite lowly of them.

yeah ur right. surprisingly, it showed almost on every news channel one time and newspaper :o. And if i were to complain about a civil liberty, it'd have to be important, not for something like gay rights.

[Named]

uhm, Gay rights are important to people who are denied the same treatment as their peers. These people are capable of focusing attention to more than just this issue. I'm sure they care about other things too and actively fight with the same fervor.

If you don't like what's on TV, fucking turn it off and get your fat arse some exercise. ;) "I'm trapped! The same thing on every channel!"
Oh, that's right, televisions have an off button. ;)

[Solace]

uhm, Gay rights are important to people who are denied the same treatment as their peers. These people are capable of focusing attention to more than just this issue. I'm sure they care about other things too and actively fight with the same fervor.

If you don't like what's on TV, fucking turn it off and get your fat arse some exercise. ;) "I'm trapped! The same thing on every channel!"
Oh, that's right, televisions have an off button. ;)

im just saying, more "important news please! tell me something i dont know already!"


Hahahahhaah. good one. ok i give up named.

Truce.. *Throws the white flag*

p.s. - i do get exercise :D

[Named]

lol I figured, i'm just bustin' chops.

There isn't really anything that's not worth attention. Consider the relativity of all things. You say, "More important issues should be discussed!" But how are these issues more important? Their priority is valued in comparison to the 'lesser' issues.
You can't have one without the other. If we did as you wish and dispensed with all the frivolous matters, the ones which used to be important would be the new frivolous matters, by relativity. Then you'd have to complain that they don't deserve attention, either.

Everything matters. I wouldn't say they are in every instance equally important, but they all deserve their time in the minds of the public.

[Flyin]

Like womens sports, nobody really cares (Unless its volleyball) but they still deserve a spot in the sports section. Gay rights are the same, and although they become listless and dull in your mind, they are something that many hold dear to their hearts. Their gay, manloving homosexual hearts......

[Yuber]

I'll make this post quick. I think gays that want to be together should have the same benefits as a married couple. Any other way would just be discrimination.

I'm of the belief that gays are born gay, straight people are born straight, and there are obviously a lot of gray areas as well when it comes to sexuality. People should be allowed to spend their lives with whoever they want to, and limiting certain peoples' rights is just ignorant.

[steve]

I cant really say anything more then what i already said earlier except that in countries were "equality" is guaranteed for all, to not give equality is complete trash// especially when you arent giving rights based on how someone chooses to expend their hormones. I mean, we limit the rights of murderers and make them unequal, but we do that to protect society. Same for other convicted criminals... its to prevent a harm,

being homosexual does not harm society, contrary to popular belief. Apart from making some people feel uncomfortable, there is no negative impacts. And realistically, people didnt feel comfortable when black people were given rights... but as a society, we are getting used to it

nothing makes me angrier then people who make stands on issues that either have no idea or try to use religion as an argument. fuck

EDIT: profanity filter not yet working apparently.. hah devious...

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Not only do they not harm society, they improve it. Married couples have increased spending power, and more spending is good for everyone. Moreover, there are tons of orphans in desperate need of parents, and thus would benefit from gay marriage.

[steve]

yo, do you goto school in mtrl? sorry, spammy sidepost

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Ya I go to McGill.

Um something about gay rights....

Well I guess I can just repeat that there are no decent conceivable reasons to deny homosexuals equal rights in any free society.

[Flyin]

Because, people with mental disabilities shouldn't be allowed the full capacity of other people within a society. Tests have proven that homosexuals brain acts differently than a normal persons. Therefore, they have a mental instability, so we shouldn't allow them the same responsibilities and rights in society.

[Yuber]

One could also argue that accepting gays in to society instead of forcing them to stay in the closet(not legally forcing them, but many people still HATE gays so they have to hide their sexual preferences) would be an overall benefit to the world, because many gays get married and have children to hide the fact that they are homosexual. The world is already overpopulated enough, so accepting gays as equals is not only necessary for human rights reasons, but it might also very slightly reduce the population!

I'm stoned as shit and I went on a huge tangent!

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Because, people with mental disabilities shouldn't be allowed the full capacity of other people within a society. Tests have proven that homosexuals brain acts differently than a normal persons. Therefore, they have a mental instability, so we shouldn't allow them the same responsibilities and rights in society.

Wow that sure is something...

Brains that function differently aren't disabled, the brains of dyslexics function differently, but they are allowed all the same rights as other human beings, moreover mentally disabled people, atleast in Canada, are allowed to get married and have kids.

[Yuber]

Because, people with mental disabilities shouldn't be allowed the full capacity of other people within a society. Tests have proven that homosexuals brain acts differently than a normal persons. Therefore, they have a mental instability, so we shouldn't allow them the same responsibilities and rights in society.

I really hope that this post is 100% pure sarcasm.

[Flyin]

But should they be? I don't think so, it just procreates a society of the inferior. I'm not a 'kill all the pussys that get in my way' kind of guy, but they aren't helping in society where theres a declining population, even with immigration, and causing social disruption because they can't say, "This is my hubby" They need to stop whining that they aren't treated equally, because they couldn't get married. The legal issues were solved long before the huge civil liberties case, they just wanted the term marriage.
Gay's in society won't be treated equally until there's been at least a generations time, without any negligent teaching of equality. Maybe in 20 or 30 yrs there won't be people saying, "Faggot, queer, homo, fudgepacker, etc." but that takes time. You can't force people to accept others, just put up with them. I believe this was mentioned in a south park episode, can't remember which.

*EDIT*
It wasn't actually. I heard it in the news, but never really looked into it. I don't know if it's true or not, but I'll use it to argue!

[Yuber]

You can't force people to accept others, just put up with them. I believe this was mentioned in a south park episode, can't remember which.

*EDIT*
It wasn't actually. I heard it in the news, but never really looked into it. I don't know if it's true or not, but I'll use it to argue!

It's funny that you mentioned that particular South Park episode while arguing against gay rights. Mr. Slave is introduced as Mr. Garrison's boyfriend, and Mr. Garrison shoves the great gerbil Lemmiwinks up Mr. Slave's ass.

It's quite obvious that you can't force everyone to tolerate each other, but gays aren't inferior in any way. The only difference between a gay person and a straight person is that one likes the same sex and the other one likes the opposite sex. It's not like gays are mentally retarded.

[Flyin]

But they're GAY!!! That's worse. LOL
Ohh right right, good ep. I liked the tunnel of tollerance, or w/e it was. I agree with cartman, lets do it again! That was GREAT!

[Yuber]

Yeah, that's probably my favorite episode of SP.

Also, it's obvious that you're just trolling this thread, so stop.

[steve]

Man, the argument that because their brains function differently then "normal" people, and therefore shouldnt be given the same rights, is absolutely ridiculous. In fact... it reminds me of the same arguments that some other cultures have used to justify killing thousands of people.. ie... 3rd reich.

First of all, who defines normal? is normal what the majority of society is? If so, then white people are normal, and black, hispanic and indian people are all abnormal, right? Therefore, going by your model of normal people being entitled to rights while abnormal people arent... black people should still be slavin right? The thing that makes our modern societies so great is our diversity, and equality to EVERYONE is entrenched constitutionally. If you are going to use terms like "normal" you need to seriously define that term to me...

And, their brains working differently: YES their brains do work differently then mine and yours... do you know why? Its because they are homosexual. Thats not an abnormality, there havent been any studied to show that being homosexual fucks with your motor controls, ability to reason, think, behave function. The only thing that is different is who they are attracted to, its not an abnormality. Just like how I like punk music while my roommate likes rap... differences occur, thats part of being a human.

In terms of procreating a society of the inferior... dude, seriously, you sound like a nazi. Im not saying that in an insulting way or anything, but you actually do, man rethink where youre going with this...

A society of the inferior, what is the inferior? What should we do with the inferior? Our constitution, I see your canadian so I can relate closer with you in terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, entrenches EQUALITY for everyone regardless of circumstances. (S.15(1)) The only time inequality is justified is under (S.15(2)) in which we produce inequality to promote equality. Thats like... programs for mentally handicapped people so they dont live their life alone.

So essentially... saying that gay people arent NORMAL is bullshit, the only circumstances in which people can be persecuted because of abnormality are ones in which they are harming society by stealing, killing, etc etc.
Saying that homosexuals have a mental instability is the worst bullshit. One of my friends is gay ... and he goes to university... and hes in poli sci with me... and he does better then I do... and hes probably going to become a highly paid lawyer. Last time I checked, people who are mentally disabled normally follow a different path.

The "too much hassle to change right now" argument is just a lame laziness excuse. Nothing ever changes if no one tries to change it. The gay movement in Canada has produced MUCH higher public acceptance and education on the topic of homosexuals. If homosexuals had never started this movement... they would still be seen society-wide as inferior. Taking action is the only way to change things... sure sometimes it takes a generation or two to fully change everyones outlook, but you need to start somewhere, saying that its too much of a hassle to change is trash, nothing will get done.

now, in terms of the "they should stop whining" argument...

imagine you are growing up, and you start to notice that you are a little different then most of your friends. While your friends are getting girlfriends, you just arent that interested. maybe you date someone just to fit in but youre never comfortable with it. Constant turmoil inside. You spend your life like this because you know that society doesnt accept you and you never find true happiness.
or
growing up, realize youre different. Realize you are into same gender. You come out of the closet only to lose ALL of your friends and to be shunned by everyone around you. You are only being who you are, something sesame street told you was a good thing. Who you are makes you hated and feared. You are able to find people that accept you, and you find a partner, but, society still says you cant be married. You cant enjoy any of the legal benefits that it entails and you will always be institutionally discriminated against in the fact you arent allowed to be "married", despite what your societal constitution says.

Man, telling people who live a life of harassment to stop whining is trash.

do you think people choose a life of discrimination, fear, and hate? Thats what being gay was and still is like. As an egalitarian society, this is a bullshit condition, and these bullshit conditions have lead to statements like your own and THATS why things like gay marriage NEED to exist to fulfill our societies' mission statement.

ps. ive gt alot of friends at mcgill... you know kailyn zuker, matt goodchild, graham smith, bethan williams? theyre all 2nd year students,

[V.VELDANEN]

Well put steve.

And anti-homosexuals sure do enjoy using the 'population growth' argument eh? Last I look, the human population has been multiplying like rats since the 17th century. Starting from 10,000 BC to 1 AD, the human population increased from 5 million to 250 million. Thats 245 million in 10 milleniums.

Fastfoward 1900 years later, the human pop. growed from a mere 250 million to an unbelieavable number of 1.6 billion! Thats 1.35 billion people in just 1900 years!

1950 - the population doubled to 2.5 billion.

2000 - again, the population swelled to 6.2 billion...

Projected growth in 2050 - 12 billion...

If anything, we need population control more than ever.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Yes we all know last time eugenics was used to justify government policy everything turned out just great.
Although to steve, I don't think it has goten better for homosexuals just because of the legalization of gay marriage, after all the minority government currently in power still believes it should have more votes on the subject, and the liberals are too much of a bunch of idiots to not have a free vote and vote as a party. I swear I'll go insane if the conservatives ban gay marriage after having already ruined the environmental policy, raised taxes for the poor while lowering sales tax thus benefiting the rich and sucking up to the middle class, buying votes with their bs 100 dollars for middle class people who don't need to send their children to daycare while eliminating the liberal's tax credit for poor people with children (so poor people with kids are actually getting less money), being completely distant and removed from the media (trying to run the country like Americans), giving in on soft-wood lumber, violating our historically neutral stance in the Mid-East, and cutting funding to non-profit organisations (despite our billions of dollars in surplus)

P.S. no I don't know them especially if they are art students I only know one person in the faculty of art lol.

P.P.S. I hate the conservatives so god damn much. VOTE NDP or atleast vote green, hell I'll settle for marxist-leninist.

[steve]

haha wow you know your current events eh? Well, at least we lucked out and the cons are just a minority gov't. I figure liberals will be back in power next election and can hopefully swing us back to the left a bit. The way it seems, the conservatives get elected when the liberals mess up... its more like a punishment.

I think it has gotten better simply as a matter of principle. Its legalization of equality. Transitions are hard but big public statements like legalization of marriage do alot to speed the process.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Thats why Paul Martin was great (I live in his riding and have met him a couple of times) he knew that even though as a Catholic he should oppose gay marriage he had a legal obligation to push the gay marriage legislation in parliament, and fucking Canada votes him out on the basis of a couple million dollars Chretien gave to some friends in Quebec. I just wish people would vote atleast once on the policies of the parties instead of the most recent scandal (the conservatives did the exact same thing in the 80s and they lost even more money). I thought I knew my province since the conservatives had been shut out ever since Mulroney was pm, somehow those idiots from Alberta managed to get the French vote. I still can't believe it.

[Flyin]

Well, I'm tired of arguing this, and can't really win this. But I did just hit home with a girl that works at the chinese resteraunt, so I'm happy. Isn't that what this issue is about anyways? Makin' it with chix, or in this case guys. Share the love people!

[steve]

Its absolute trash, I agree. I hate the fact that its a popularity contest and not so much based around policies.. i mean, politics should be about citizens electing who represents their interests... not who they like more.

But then again, at least we live in a free democracy where people are free to vote however they please and we have viable alternatives, ie. NDP as opposed to being a two party system.

haha asian girls are the best arent they?

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Its so sad that 5% of Canadians vote for the Green party and they don't have a single seat in parliament, although I would never vote green since their economic policies are a little unrealistic. I know who would want to vote for a party like the NDP that supports things like :
Jack Layton and the NDP promote effective strategies to make life more secure for working families.

Affordable education & training — Bring down the exorbitant cost of college and university education so young people and their families can afford to invest in their own futures.
Early learning & child care — Create a national system of affordable, high-quality, learning-oriented child care that offers kids a head start in life and opens doors for parents who work or study. [more]
Better public health care — People want quality, reliable health care for everyone, not just those who can afford to buy it. The NDP created public medicare in this country, and we have innovative ideas to secure its future while improving patient care. [more]
Trade & industry: workers first — Implement a fair trade policy that makes workers and the environment a priority, and develop job-supporting sector strategies for industries from auto to aerospace to agriculture.
Adequate Employment Insurance — Overhaul the EI system which, after 13 years of Liberal government, denies two-thirds of workers any benefits if they lose their jobs.
Secure pensions — Move workers’ pensions to the front of the line when employers go bankrupt, and conduct the first full review of seniors’ income needs since the NDP introduced public pensions.
Workers rights protected — Protect collective bargaining rights with progressive measures like outlawing replacement workers that prolong labour disputes.
A reliable safety net — Reform the social assistance programs that have become an ineffective, unaccountable patchwork since last decade’s Liberals abolished the Canada Assistance Plan.

I'de really love to see more than 29 out of 306 seats be NDP and maybe one day if I dare to dream an NDP senator.

My ideal parliament is a Liberal majority with a strong NDP opposition and as few of those nationalist bloc idiots and outdated Conservatives as possible.

Down with the Tories!!!

[Bap]

But should they be? I don't think so, it just procreates a society of the inferior. I'm not a 'kill all the pussys that get in my way' kind of guy, but they aren't helping in society where theres a declining population, even with immigration, and causing social disruption because they can't say, "This is my hubby" They need to stop whining that they aren't treated equally, because they couldn't get married. The legal issues were solved long before the huge civil liberties case, they just wanted the term marriage.
Gay's in society won't be treated equally until there's been at least a generations time, without any negligent teaching of equality. Maybe in 20 or 30 yrs there won't be people saying, "Faggot, queer, homo, fudgepacker, etc." but that takes time. You can't force people to accept others, just put up with them. I believe this was mentioned in a south park episode, can't remember which.

*EDIT*
It wasn't actually. I heard it in the news, but never really looked into it. I don't know if it's true or not, but I'll use it to argue!

Flyin, you are a turd.

Also, Homosexuals cannot procreate...yet.

And of course it will take time, just like the Black civil rights movement. Pretty much everyone agrees now that the Blacks deserve equal rights. But then you'll always have those ignorant douches who think they're better than everyone.

[Yuber]

Flyin, you are a turd.

Also, Homosexuals cannot procreate...yet.

And of course it will take time, just like the Black civil rights movement. Pretty much everyone agrees now that the Blacks deserve equal rights. But then you'll always have those ignorant douches who think they're better than everyone.

He's just trolling this thread and generally fagging it up, Bap.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Well its possible that too women could one day artificially fuse their eggs it is highly unlikely that too sperm could ever support the formation of an embryo and then where would the embryo be brought to term? Its irrelevant anyway ebcause there are plenty of orphans in need of loving parents to take care of them.

[Named]

Because, people with mental disabilities shouldn't be allowed the full capacity of other people within a society. Tests have proven that homosexuals brain acts differently than a normal persons. Therefore, they have a mental instability, so we shouldn't allow them the same responsibilities and rights in society.

The structure of a woman's brain and functionality of it is vastly more different compared to a heterosexual male's. There are more synapses communicating between each half of a female's brain. The result is the inability to separate logic from emotion, particularly under duress. Males can, for the most part, decide when to react emotionally and when to react logically. Females generally lack this control.
Like I said, the difference in brain function makes the neurology of a homosexual look fine and dandy ;)

Your argument condemns equality for women more than homosexuals. Though I'm not sure if you really care about that.
So much for a woman ever holding political office. Can't expect these crazy bitches to make decisions!
Or perhaps we should let people do whatever they individually qualify for. Let's spare the discrimination for people with actual disorders.

[Flyin]

No, women should stay in the kitchen, where they belong. I was just arguing this because it was so one sided. If you read one of my earlier posts, you'll see I have no ill will towards the gay community. I fully support gay marrige to gain legal rights, but not what they were doing by trying to ensure nobody could say no to marrying them. They deserve the same rights, as do women, children, handicaped, immigrants...etc, everyone. Except prisoners, they deserve next to no rights at all.

[Octo]

No, women should stay in the kitchen, where they belong. I was just arguing this because it was so one sided. If you read one of my earlier posts, you'll see I have no ill will towards the gay community. I fully support gay marrige to gain legal rights, but not what they were doing by trying to ensure nobody could say no to marrying them. They deserve the same rights, as do women, children, handicaped, immigrants...etc, everyone. Except prisoners, they deserve next to no rights at all.

well no one turns down men and women, so isn't that different rights?

[ScareCrow]

I hate when people get flustered over derogatory terms.....it's words, you aren't gay Crow, and plus it's utterly hilarious. Here to make sure every gay here is offended: FAG, QUEER, HOMO, GAYWAD, FUDGE-PACKER, BUTT PIRATE, etc. See it's nothing but words.

Here's my non-religious anti-gay marriage arguement, don't flame, I'm just saying something that seems logical.

All people want "equal rights", correct? Well what if those people aren't "equal"? People try to hide this, but face it, many human beings are not capable of living under or traditional laws and freedoms. Such as the mentally ill, metally retarded, and other's of the kind. Can those people be held accountable for crimes they did not committ intentionally? Well let's think of a Man and Woman in a relationship as 1 person, ok? Let's think of what their main purpose is be bonded like that: To make children in a loving relationship. Now let's think of 2 Men as 1 person, clear on this yet? As an entity, a married couple is responsible for the reproduction of our species. Can 2 gay men do this? No they cannot. So as being not "equal" to the Man/Woman entity, they should not fall under the same laws and/or freedoms as that "person".

This may be hard for some people to accept, but you know that those words have some truth to them. And I bet you're asking, what about the steril men who can't have children? Or the women with problematic uteruses? Many people still have children in these situations and still advance our society, because we are now advanced enough that at least one of them can make their child. Gays cannot advace our society, the women can go to a clinic where they can be artificially inseminated, but would it be the same? Would that child grow up in an "equal" household? I understand that gay's are just as capable of loving a child as any other person, but will that child have the benefit of a mom and dad?

My little thesis brings up many questions which I will LEAVE unanswered and you can think for yourself. Again, I ask for no flaming. Just your thoughts, do those words hold some truth? They can't be totally false can they? Just think about it. Don't let your closed mind close off anything that doesn't hold some truth to it.

First of all, emotional abuse, such as calling names, is just as harmful, if not more harmful than physical abuse. Physical pain is temporary but emotional pain can go on for years.

Second of all, there are plenty of straight couples who can't have children. Does that make their love any less than a straight couple who can have children? Gay couples can "advance", as you say, our society by adopting children as well. We have enough parentless children as is.

Third, you say that people with problematic uteruses and sterile men can have children..yes but not in the "traditional" way you speak of. Are they "weird" as well? Should they not have rights?

Last, you ask for no flaming...why?

yeah ur right. surprisingly, it showed almost on every news channel one time and newspaper :o. And if i were to complain about a civil liberty, it'd have to be important, not for something like gay rights.

If you were gay, it would be important.
Also, if you don't want to watch it, go watch SP or something. That'll make you feel better. And if you're one of those people who has to watch his daily dose of news, then look for a conservative newspaper. They usually don't have much on gay rights. If they do, it'll be on page 52 with the hunting licenses.

But should they be? I don't think so, it just procreates a society of the inferior. I'm not a 'kill all the pussys that get in my way' kind of guy, but they aren't helping in society

Neither are you by sitting in front of your comp and TV all day doing nothing.

[isaiahLIII]

Whats up with all this gay stuff. it seems ppl r always talkn bout rights for this group or that one.All the gay ppl i know have the same rights as i do. this thread should have been titled special rights. O yea they cant get married so what , I cant join an all girls vollyball team why? im not a girl. after all isnt marriage like a religious thing u know kinda started with Adam and Eve way back when. Why do u need ppl to approve of u anyway ? oh this person doesnt like me boohoo grow up life goes on even if u dont want it to.Yea i know my grammer sux . .................................................. .........:rolleyes:

[ScareCrow]

Okay. First of all, hypothetically, if Adam and Eve were the first humans, there was no priest to hypothetically wed them, so they basically had kids without marrying...

and Flyin

that women in the kitchen thing? That is sooooo not cool...Women have worked hard for rights that should've been theirs a long time ago without all their suffering.....so stop being a douche. By the way, I'm gonna laugh when you marry... and you lose your job and your wife has to work to be the primary breadwinner. I'm going laugh long and hard.

[Hiyo]

Homosexual couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples. If they want to be married they should be entitled to the same tax breaks,etc that other couples get. The "they can't procreate" excuse is pointless. If they want to get married chances are they are going to want to have children together to, they are going to want to buy a house together, raise a family together.

The ONLY case where homosexuals having equal rights would be bad is if they married just to get tax breaks.... which is retarded... and heterosexual couples could do the same thing.

They rights they are looking for are the same rights heterosexual people and couples have under the law. And for most of them it's more because they want to be married like everyone else. Why should we make up a new term because two people are homosexual and want to be married? It's marriage.

oh and ps: the bible is fake. How the Bible interprets marriage is irrelevant and should have nothing to do with law making.

[superkhanh0]

Whats up with all this gay stuff. it seems ppl r always talkn bout rights for this group or that one.All the gay ppl i know have the same rights as i do. this thread should have been titled special rights. O yea they cant get married so what , I cant join an all girls vollyball team why? im not a girl. after all isnt marriage like a religious thing u know kinda started with Adam and Eve way back when. Why do u need ppl to approve of u anyway ? oh this person doesnt like me boohoo grow up life goes on even if u dont want it to.Yea i know my grammer sux . .................................................. .........:rolleyes:

they want to b able to get married b/c of all the rights benificial to it like pay lower tax, insurance is cheaper all that stuff, not just the tittle they wnted, but it was the ultimate thingy tho
for me i think gay/lesbian are people too , they dont choose to b gay, or choose to b straight its like a different genetic equation that make u this way.
anywayz i resspect them :D props

[isaiahLIII]

Hiyo, u said "the Bibles fake" i went and got mine a lil dusty tho it may, i assure u its very real. I felt w/ my very hands hehe.
Scarecrow, when i got it i openend it. U said " thrs no priest to wed them"
GOD was thr and he presented Eve to Adam anyways.I really dont know much about all the tax stuff ur talkn bout.If you could provide some links for me to look over i'll b sure ta thank ye.Im gonna do some studing on some of the other points some have made my ADDHD's kickn in so untill then lata allagata.........

[Octo]

The bible however is quite fake when considering material. You're either young, or english isn't your first language.

The bible not only has many scientific errors but contradicts itself several times.


I still say, Gay Marriage should be allowed, all priests should have to agree to wed them.

[Flyin]

I have to agree, most of the books I have are completely real, including the Bible. The 'Adam and Eve' marrige was one, written entirely of Jewish tradition. Since it was their understanding of marrige that led them to the conclusion that Adam and Eve had to be married. In that tradition, 'That is why a man must leave his parents, and take unto his own his wife, and they must become one flesh....etc', since they didn't have parents, the man, Adam, had nobody to leave, and Eve was given in marrige because that's just how it happens, but nowadays we trade them for goats. And God, played the role of the overseer, priest, rabbi whatever you want to call it that wed them.
Steve - Yes Asian chix are the bomb
All the guy's taking me seriously - I just say things 'cause they're funny, at least to me.
Scarecrow - I work 60-70hrs a week regularly, and schoolwork on top of that. I figure that makes me a pillar in society, rather than a waste.
Octo - Yes, but can you actually find these, 'irregularities' anywhere? Many talk of them, but they're hard to find. Ohh, and there are no contradictions. That's a load from people disclaiming the Bible.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Firstly, I'll start by saying that priest do not have to marry gay couples, because religions aren't bound by discrimination laws, thus how segregation in mosque is legal. However, ministers (and there are several who will) should be allowed to marry homosexuals if they want, and judges should be bound to marry whoever wants to be married.

The Bible, whether it is true or not, is irrelevant because religion does not control marriage or laws. If we start saying homosexuals can't get married because of religious reasons, the state would have to decide on a national religion to base all decisions on, and things like freedom of worship would have to be extinguished, most people tend to see these as bad things because of the large differences in religious belief many people have and want to be allowed to have. Marriage existed before Christianity and in many cultures that had never heard of Christianity, so you can hardly say Christians control the right to official recognition of love, no matter how stupid a concept that is. All Christians who are opposed to gay marriage on religious basis are hypocrites if they aren't out in the street protesting hindus, sikhs, and etc. for having different beliefs, because the bible states "thou shalt worship no other god but I".

[Octo]

Octo - Yes, but can you actually find these, 'irregularities' anywhere? Many talk of them, but they're hard to find. Ohh, and there are no contradictions. That's a load from people disclaiming the Bible.

BULL BULL BULL BULL BULL.


Irregularities? The bible states hares chew cud. Scientific error, only cows do.


Contradictions are FAKE?!?!! hahaha. Let's see, 2 off the top of my head. Their are 2 creation stories in the bible, contradiction much? which is true?


also if you read up on a guy...hmm I think his name was something like Sarusa, or Samuela, some odd S name. In one part of the bible he gets killed, in another part, he kills himself.

But obviously these are all a load coming from someone acing religion and even had taught the class on 3 occasions.

[Octo]

Excuse the double post, but to the guy above my other post.


"The Bible, whether it is true or not, is irrelevant because religion does not control marriage or laws."

I agree here, but sadly christianity dominates our laws and marriage. In societys perspective, marriage is a christian thing.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

That is because democracies are run by the majority, and the great fault of that is that the majority is very often wrong.
Although, the world seems to be going in the right direction; the number of countries that allow gay marriage is up to 4: Canada, Holland, Spain, and Belgium, also the US state of Massachusetts. However, the number of countries where it has been made illegal is much much larger so maybe we aren't that much improved.

[006]

The bible not only has many scientific errors but contradicts itself several times.

If that were so many people would make a point to go around to prove it, and there would be no christianity. I have failed to see this happen glad to say.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Christians love to talk about the Bible, but very few love to read it. And, people do go around trying to say that and Christians just talk about faith and believing in the magic man in the sky so there is no destroying belief in nonsense.

[Octo]

If that were so many people would make a point to go around to prove it, and there would be no christianity. I have failed to see this happen glad to say.

I could insult your favourite book to no end, prove it's falsity even. It would still be your favourite book. Same as religion, they have faith. Some even accept the falsities I speak of (my school priest being one of them) I happened to learn these from her in the first place.

[Flyin]

Ok, what are the two creation accounts? I've read one. And where does it say 'hare chews cud'?

Ifeeltiredsleepy - You are absolutely right. In fact, many religions teach you not to read the Bible, because it's beyond normal peoples comprehension. I however do, and have multiple times.

Our laws, as you know, are almost entirely based on Christian beliefs. Whether or not it is right is another issue, but the laws passed onto us by the British statutes are based on the Roman Constantinain Empire, almost wholly controlled by the Christian autocracy.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Yes our laws have essential basis in Christian thought, but its more like basic moral principles which are upheld by the law also happen to be promoted by Christianity. The law is secular in most western societies, and is now based usually on legal documents created by politicians, for example Canadian law ultimately has to coincide with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and before that was written law makers made reference to the British North America Act, and the Quebec Act before that. Its been a long time since law was argued based on religious principles in Canada atleast.

[Flyin]

Of course, and I don't know if you've ever taken Law, but when I did, I was taught that most legal systems are stemmed off of the....Hanaburai's law code, which was pretty much based entirely off of the Mosaic law. Here we do have problems with the gov't trying to force people to marry, even beyond their personal religious beliefs. I don't mind the legal rights, but forcing religious constitutions to marry them is just wrong.

[isaiahLIII]

Octo, thr are thousands upon thousands of sites out thr that can give ppl like u some ammo so u dont have to look so, well.......
u know i mean hare chewing cud come on get wit it. The CUD that u spoke of is in Leviticus 11:6, scientific error hehehehehehehehehe I guess you never watched Bugs bunny.The cud the bible speaks of is vegetation, a plant eater. Only cows eat plants? dahoit. Oh Octo my previous post was a lil silly sarcasm not mean sarcasm.
If I stay interested in this thread long enough you may see both.Anywayz you know i was thinking bout th whole tax thing what is or isnt fair. why should only married ppl get these breaks dont u thinnk that discriminates against single ppl same w/ th insurance.
Hey, did c Heroes it was so coo
oh yea one thing more ummmmm what was it ?????????? o yh the BIBLE also teaches against drunkeness,lying and disobeying ur parents as if homos r mental or scared becuz some CHRISTIANS tell them thr sining.
Besides if they dont believe the WORD OF GOD why would it even bother them??? OH NO oh no what if just what if it is true GULP..... glad I believe !!! "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of GOD is eternal life through JESUS Christ our LORD".Romans 6:23 Peace out

[Flyin]

He's definetly religious!

Yes the Bible condems many things, that are accepted in society. Personally, I don't feel the legal constituancies or the religious autocracies should have the power to decide, because neither is completely objective, or takes full consideration of the national opinion. Nothing anyone will do will be wholly right, but the matter is whether or not it is the best option available. They should have the legal rights to eachothers properties and legal rights to their partners lives, just like married people do. But as for the ceramonial constitution of marrige, I believe that has entirely religious beginnings, and should be left to their discern.

[Techno Dude]

lol, gay people should never have marriage

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Cud does not refer to eating vegetation, cud is regurgetated plants that are re-eaten and re-digested, something that animals like cows and camels can do. Hares do not have the ability to regurgetate, infact hares are biologically incapable of vomiting and hair balls are quite serious for them because they block their digestive tract. So ya Hares do not chew cud. Also, the homosexuals are not upset about Christians thinking they are "sinners" they are more upset about governments limiting their rights because of something a bunch of people believe with no proof.
Flyin, its already too late to argue about marriage being a religious thing, because civil weddings have been going on in the western world for ages now. Thus if some heterosexual couples can get married without any religious significance, than homosexuals should have the right too. Anyway, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that clerics are not required to marry homosexuals if they don't want to, and in Alberta they passed a legislation saying that judges don't have to marry homosexuals if they don't want to either, but I think the latter is bs.
Oh ya and nice argument Techno maybe next time you would like to give reasons.

[Octo]

"Ok, what are the two creation accounts? I've read one. And where does it say 'hare chews cud'?"

Ok hold on, the hare's chewing cud was brought up. However to the moron who told me I can find this on any anti-christian site. Had you listened to my post, I LEARNED IT ALL FROM A CATHOLIC SCHOOL.

The two creation accounts, one is Adam and Eve, and the garden.

The other is 7 days, first day = light. etc.

difference is one day, god creates humans, the other one focuses on adam and eve as the only two people.

Ignorance is overloading here.

[Octo]

lol, gay people should never have marriage

lol, people like you should never have internet.

[006]

I could insult your favourite book to no end, prove it's falsity even. It would still be your favourite book. Same as religion, they have faith. Some even accept the falsities I speak of (my school priest being one of them) I happened to learn these from her in the first place.

Yes, it is my favorite book. But go ahead and prove its falsit, im curious
Oh, and if you speak of the catholic versions or others that change the words to make it almost look like a joke. Thats not what im talking about and I agree you can disprove it, try the un-edited. Look around a babtist church and you should be able to get your hands on one if you dont.
---- Im babtist

[Hiyo]

OOps loookie what i started. this is a gay rights thread. should move the bible chat to a religion thread. i'm sure there is one.

here: http://forum.narutochaos.com/showthread.php?t=8311

[Josephus]

Well Heres my opinion on Gay marriage.

Whats wrong with it? I mean I'm not gay and I know this for a fact, but whats wrong with someone else being gay? As long as there not trying to force me into something I dont want to do, then I'm fine with it. And even if I wasnt fine with it WHAT THE HELL GIVES ME THE POWER TO SAY YOU CAN OR CANNOT DO IT?

No matter what love is love and people just can't stop it, whether it be gay or straight its still love.

[Flyin]

Dude, dude....Octo.
Those are both the same account. 1st day light, 2nd day earth, 3rd day blah blah blah. 6th day created man in his image, 7th day rest. Later, when God saw that Adam was lonely without a mate, he created Eve. That is how it goes, there's no second account, they're both the same.
The cud, refers to the greenery they chewed. Yes the term cud here is different completely, but in the original Hebrew language, there was no translation to the word. We find this in many different applications, like love. There's 4 different types in the Bible, but it's only 'Love' in our language.
Sorry wrong section!

Gay rights - Our civil laws are based off of moral laws from the Bible, which yes, discriminates Homos. In this day, I know there shouldn't be discrimination of any sort, so we shouldn't have prisons, or correctional officers, or anything like that, because we all deserve what everyone else does. Well, no. Marrige, before the 20th century, in every civilization, marrige was religious, and homos weren't accepted. It's only because of the disfunctional marrige problems we have in society that laws had to be changed to make room for the legal applications to financial matters. Without the problems we see from the weakening of relationships, there still would not be the legal seperation, as it would still be a religious matter. That is why I feel, marrige is still a religious institution.

[kjrav]

Actually thee are two accounts of the creation story in the Bible.

[Flyin]

Where's the second?

[kjrav]

The Second chapter of Genesis.

[Flyin]

Umm, Chapter 2 verse 2: And on the seventh day. Chapter one got to the sixth day, chapter two CONTINUED with the 7th day. And if you mean that it recounts the creation, yes it does do that. It's not an entirely different account, it's the SAME account, said once more. They do this many times in the Bible, many things were recounted at a later date. And the many times when happenings occured, they retold the happenings. When events did take place, they quoted once more, telling of the events, yet again. Ang whence something did occur, it did'th occur again, with the vengeance of a recurrance.

[kjrav]

No they are two seperate acounts telling the same story.

1)the title says "ANOTHER Account of the Creation"(I'm looking at it right now).
2)I just studied this 2 months ago in religion class, I know what I'm talking about.It is a seperate account by another author.Many creation stories were made only 2 were admitted into the bible's final version.

[Flyin]

That second account though, is that not the exact same as the first?I read it, it says, plants were there, let forth water, created man...looks like the exact same story. And wasn't the book of Genises written by Moses, not a group of writers?
Yes, there were many things not brought into the Bible, it was deemed not part of the 'Bible Cannon'. There's one book not included that talks about Michael the Archangle fighting with a Dragon. This wasn't included because it has almost nothing to do with the 'Bible Cannon'. Much like Fanfics aren't part of the manga, they may be absolutely correct, and may even talk about events from the original manga, but still aren't included for obvious reasons.

[kjrav]

No you should know Genises was not written by Moses if you really know your bible facts and whille what is created is the same in the account the method is different.In the first account He "Calls" things into existence, while in the second account he directly creates suggesting god has a tangible form.My point in bringing up the fact that there are books un represented in the bible was to show that there is far more than 1 even 2 creation stories.

[Flyin]

Yes, there are many writings about God creating the earth (Christianity version), and untold numbers of writings. However, this does not mean, every single one was of a different account. They're retelling the same event with different words.
Example:
1. Jesus layed his hands on him and cured him
2. And upon touching him, Jesus cast out the sickness
3. With that, Jesus rid the man of his disease
All of these are about the same blind man being cured. What I'm saying is that all of the times it talks about the creation in the Bible, over 12 I believe, it was talking about the EXACT same event. Not 12 different creations, or veiws of it, they just used different words. Since the original Writers spoke a number of 5-8 different languages, the translation will be different, even if they all saw the EXACT same thing, at the EXACT same time.

[Octo]

Yes, there are many writings about God creating the earth (Christianity version), and untold numbers of writings. However, this does not mean, every single one was of a different account. They're retelling the same event with different words.
Example:
1. Jesus layed his hands on him and cured him
2. And upon touching him, Jesus cast out the sickness
3. With that, Jesus rid the man of his disease
All of these are about the same blind man being cured. What I'm saying is that all of the times it talks about the creation in the Bible, over 12 I believe, it was talking about the EXACT same event. Not 12 different creations, or veiws of it, they just used different words. Since the original Writers spoke a number of 5-8 different languages, the translation will be different, even if they all saw the EXACT same thing, at the EXACT same time.

No, some of them are VERY different. If I hadn't cut open my bible to hide shit, I'd give exact proof. hmmm I may borrow one from the library. I really wanna find the quote about the man who kills himself, and then is killed by a man in a later verse...hmm lemme try.

And the main difference in the creation stories is the order. Everyday the order is different. That's not translation, that's a different story.

Also here's some contradictions for you =]

There is / is no unpardonable sin.
Mark 3:29 / Acts 13:39

Joseph's father was Jacob / Heli.
Mt 1:16 / Luke 3:23

Marriage approved / disapproved.
Gen 2:18; Gen 1:28; Mt 19:5; Heb 13:4 / 1 Cor 7:1, 1 Cor 7:7,8

[DonEmu]

U should know the entire bible does not have one author, and there are bound to be literal differences in the story telling, take it as hearsay( Most events were not witnessed by the men who wrote them but were given/recited/told to them as the word of god) and therefore there would be differences in interpretation and story telling.

I wonder how a discussion on Gay Rights moved to religious theology?

[kjrav]

Who knows but it is fun.

[Octo]

Also I do agree, the bible shouldn't be taken at face value, it's ment for interpretation.

[DonEmu]

I am inspired to read my bible, something i havent trully done in years.

[Flyin]

Well, that's good.

There is / is no unpardonable sin.
Mark 3:29 / Acts 13:39
-Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable/Those with faith declared blameless.
The first is talking about those who have come to know God, and have disowned him, the second of those who were sinners, by the morals of the faith, but have come to know God and repented. Everything is forgivable, Mark 3:28, because God wishes all be saved, but it's not as simple as saying 'I believe', that's pretty much what it's saying.

Joseph's father was Jacob / Heli.
Mt 1:16 / Luke 3:23
Jacob was Josephs Father/ Son of Joseph, Son of Heli
-The first is talking about the Davidic line which made Jesus have the right to the Jewish throne, while the second, his literal paternal geaneology
Marriage approved / disapproved.
Gen 2:18; Gen 1:28; Mt 19:5; Heb 13:4 / 1 Cor 7:1, 1 Cor 7:7,8
Gave woman to marry, woman made for man, leave parents stick to wife, marrige by God/Man not to touch a woman, Stay single as I am.
-Marrige, as stated earlier, has it's first verses in the garden of Eden, where God married Adam and Eve. Further it says that it is better for a man to leave his parents, and go on seeking a wife. The opposition, is what Paul said to the Corinthians. Now I know you didn't read these, because if you did, 1 Cor 7:2 - Because of prevelance of FORNICATION (Cheating on spouse) let each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband. He wasn't saying marrige was bad, but CHEATING was bad. The second says to stay single like him, this is one of the 4 mentionings of 'The gift of singleness', but this doesn't pertain to being single because marrige is wrong, but refers rather to the lack of family responsibilities allows you to further your devotion and time spent focusing on spiritual matters, and like Paul did, travel accross the foriegn lands spreading the good news of the kingdom.

It is meant to be understood, but not to be interpreted hundreds of different ways, or 'everyone has their own version of faith' kind of stuff. It's all written there for our benifit and understanding, as it says. Eph 4:5 - There is one lord, one faith. Matt 7:13,14 - Not everyone saying 'Lord lord' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my father who is in the heavens will.

WOW! I agree with Kjrav, this is fun!

[isaiahLIII]

Also here's some contradictions for you =]

Sorry bubba, no contradictions!


There is / is no unpardonable sin.
Mark 3:29 / Acts 13:39

First off, the phrase unpardonable sin is not in the Bible. However, I know what you're trying to say.
Mark 3:29- Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is a heart-attitude of unbelief and unrepentance; it is the ongoing rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit because it is rejecting God himself. In this verse, Jesus is speaking to unbelievers. ("He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18)
In the verse in Acts (13:39) it says, "And by Him all that believe are justified from all things..."



Joseph's father was Jacob / Heli.
Mt 1:16 / Luke 3:23

Heli was Mary's father, Joseph's father-in-law.
In Matthew, where unquestionably we have the geneology of Joseph, we are told that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In what sense then could he be called in Luke "son of Heli"? He could not be by natural generation the son of both Jacob and Heli. But in Luke, it is not said that Heli begat Joseph, so that the natural explantion is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself a descendant of David. That he should in that case be called "son of Heli" would be in accord with Jewish usage (1 Samuel 24:16). The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary's geneology; and Joseph was "son of Heli" because he was espoused to Heli's daughter. The geneology in Luke is Mary's, whose father, Heli, was descended from David.


Marriage approved / disapproved.
Gen 2:18; Gen 1:28; Mt 19:5; Heb 13:4 / 1 Cor 7:1, 1 Cor 7:7,8

If you would simply read these verses you would see that God is not disapproving of marriage! He says,"I speak this of permission and not of commandment" in verse 6 of this chapter. Paul is simply saying that if a man is not married he has more time and is able to have more focus on the Lord and serving Him. 1 Corinthians 7:32-33 clears this up even more as to why he makes these suggestions.

Now back on topic! Gay Rights.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington

[KageNaruto]

george washington inst as smart as i thought, lol.

by the way, not only did different people write the bible making it contradict itself, the bible can be interprited by readers in millions of different ways, making there be no "true interpritation".

by the way, someone whos religious, answer this please(seriously ive been wondering), if god is all powerful, and god loves everyone, why does he send people to hell. he can easily send em to heaven if hes all powerful, and if he loves them he should be doing that, not giving them eternal damnation, some love that is

[Bap]

Because people have a choice. They can A)Choose to accept Jesus as their saviour or B) Don't and go to hell

If God just sent everyone to heaven, then there would be no free will. We would be slaves unto him. God is loving enough to allow people to choose for themselves how they live and where they go when they die.

I'm not religious, but I think i answered as a christian would.

[Flyin]

Sorry BAP. But you did answer like a preist would.

WOW! I love you!!

Your question. The terms in the Bible you're alluding to are; Ghehenna, Sheol, the grave and Hades. All of these are pertained to by the Christian agenda to mean HELL, a firey place of torment, where you are eternally punished for your graven sins. Lets go back to the meanings of these words...
Gehenna - A trash mount outside the Jewish city of Jerusalem. When convicted criminals were deemed 'unworthy' of being burried or given a funeral, their corpses were tossed into Gehenna, a burning trash pile, where they burnt in a massive hump of gunk.
Sheol - The place the dead reside, a shallow pit, grave.
The Grave - self explanitory
Hades - The greek term rendered for people to understand the Jewish expression, since they didn't speak Jewish, this was the closest translation. It still didn't mean a place where your soul went, where you payed the way over the river styx. It meant your grave.
There is one, ONE, UNO, SINGLE, scripture in the Bible where it mentions torment of ones soul in a burning fashion. This is talking, however, about being worthless, so when you die, your soul (Meaning body, not a spirit creature in you) burns in Gehenna.
Many religions teach otherwise, and have taught this unscriptual threat for YEARS! The threat of burning torment was recorded as going as far back as the 2nd Century. This wasn't a teaching from the Bible, but was taken from different religions, and made to fit in by raping the Bibles meaning. They do this a lot.
The Bible teaches, just what you said, God is a loving, all powerful, all wise being, so why would he be so unkind as to burn his creations as punishment? Think of it like this, you have a kid that breaks the window. So you turn the stove on, and hold his hand on it for a few minuites as punishment. Doesn't make much sense, does it? The Bible, unlike so many religious teachers will tell you, teaches that when you die, you are unconcious, not wary of anything at all.
Eccl 9:5 - For the living are concious that they will die, but the dead are concious of nothing at all. Neither do they anymore pay taxes, because the wage sin pays is death. This means when you die, you don't float off, or get tormented by demons, but are DEAD. No more functioning. You, gone, nothing, nadda, zip, zilch. As for the 'Taxes', the Bible teaches that we die because of sin. So our wage is death, for sinning. The taxes we pay, aren't a toll for the river styx, but what we owe God for sinning against him, hence death. So: Us+Sin=Death->God=Taxes.
Ps 146:4 His spirit goes out, he goes back into his ground. In that day his thoughts do perish. His spirit, or life force leaves him, so he dies. Again, this is not a mystic thing inside us, that floats up to the clouds. In that day his thoughts perish, so since he's DEAD, he can't be tormented. Although I'm not suggesting this, the dead do NOT get mad when you kick them. Their family does however.

This is what is really taught in the Bible, Hell, and all those other fun things religious leaders made up, are not taught in the Bible, which is why many made sure it stayed written ONLY in latin, so that common people couldn't read it and say, 'Hey, you're lying to us to make us pay you money so we don't go to hell.' Well, that's the truth about the matter, God isn't made out to be cruel or inhumane in any way, but the 'scribes and pharises' are. (If you read the Greek Scriptures, you'll understand that.)

-----------------------

Hope that answers your question in full! If you have any more, just ask, I live for bashing the religious leaders, and their doctrines!

[Bap]

That is what the Jews believe, no? All you say pertains to the Old Testament, the Judaic part of the bible.

But after Jesus came along, "Satan" was introduced, and a conscientious eternity burning was introduced, right? And Christianity was born.

The snake in Genesis, according to the Jews, is merely the embodiment of temptation of sin, an adversary, not Satan himself as the Christians believe.

[Flyin]

Well, once again. NO! Doctrines, are WORSE in the Jewish faith. It's been less and less a religion since thousands of years ago. It's more tradition than religion now.
The snake, was SATAN. And Satan was introduced, by various names and titles in the Hebrew scriptures. For instance, Job was tested, not by God, but by, SATAN!
And the state of the dead is not falsified in the christain greek scriptures, Jesus in John 11:11-14 - Lazuras has gone to sleep, and I am going to raise him. He, once again, didn't have his spirit float off to heaven, but was dormant, DEAD. Also, when they (Apostles) tell Jesus Lazuras is dead, they say he is in, HADES, meaning once again, hell, or in a grave.
Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that when you die you go to a place of torment, nowhere! I don't care what they teach in religious classes. They are teaching from a text-book, and you'll note that no Biblical refrences are listed, because IT'S NOT TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE!!

[Bap]

If there is no eternal damnation, what part does Satan play in it all?

[Flyin]

He was a rebellious angel, who felt that because he was higher than man, deserved some praise and devotion, just like God had. Since God didn't allow this, he was cast out of his position as an angel, and with his angellic powers, yes he still retained them, decided that he COULD get praise and devotion, by getting it away from God. So he traversed the garden, and insisted that Eve do what was wrong, because then she would be great like God. Anyways, there is a scripture, thinking about it, that talks of damnation. Satan and his demons (the rest of the angels that followed Satan) were cast down into an abyss, or a bottemless, nothing filled pit. This however was just a discriptive term used to explain that he wouldn't be killed at that time, only concealed by God, for a time, much like prison.

[Octo]

He was a rebellious angel, who felt that because he was higher than man, deserved some praise and devotion, just like God had. Since God didn't allow this, he was cast out of his position as an angel, and with his angellic powers, yes he still retained them, decided that he COULD get praise and devotion, by getting it away from God. So he traversed the garden, and insisted that Eve do what was wrong, because then she would be great like God. Anyways, there is a scripture, thinking about it, that talks of damnation. Satan and his demons (the rest of the angels that followed Satan) were cast down into an abyss, or a bottemless, nothing filled pit. This however was just a discriptive term used to explain that he wouldn't be killed at that time, only concealed by God, for a time, much like prison.

You seem to be using every myth I've ever heard, this is the lucifer story all over again except he left himself, none of this "casting down" crap.

To be quite honest anyone who relies on a book from many centuries ago to make their decisions in today's society deserves a time check. I'm sorry want a book to relate your life on? Read the Satanic Bible, it's about suriviving in today's society. (19th century version, not the old as hell written by teenagers one)

And merely shooting down what Bap says? Who's to say you're right? Me and 2 other classmates beside me have spent our entire educational lives in Catholic Schooling and we've learned that the old Testament is Judaism since day one, so please don't state NO! and merely assume you're right whereas the non christians are wrong.

Holy bible talking down to people = the fucking loony on the corner.

Not too be condescending or anything ;D

EDIT: and if you're so religious and holier than thou, why is your display pic the shocker? Why do you choose to watch an anime that advocates violence?

EDIT AGAIN: TO QUOTE YOU "Anything worth taking seriously, is worth making fun of" I HEREBY CLAIM YOU TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY.

also your signature has a gun in it. DID JESUS USE GUNS?!

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

He's from Alberta so there is no hope of convincing him of anything logical. :D

Anyway, I personally dislike Christianity as a religion because it rejects many aspects of human nature as being wrong, even though it is much more healthy for people to accept the sexual aspects of themselves. The great fault of religion lies in the organization of worship, by its nature this leads to divisiveness and blind worship. Its a shame really.

Back on topic, gay marriage in no way even affects Christians, I don't see how it hurts a Christian to allow two men to get married by a judge, or an open minded minister. A reverend's son once told me that gay marriage would hurt him because he would be uncomfortable by having to explain to his children about gay marriage if they ever saw a gay couple; this kind of ignorance is the basis of all opposition to gay marriage.

[DonEmu]

He's from Alberta so there is no hope of convincing him of anything logical. :D

Anyway, I personally dislike Christianity as a religion because it rejects many aspects of human nature as being wrong, even though it is much more healthy for people to accept the sexual aspects of themselves. The great fault of religion lies in the organization of worship, by its nature this leads to divisiveness and blind worship. Its a shame really.

Back on topic, gay marriage in no way even affects Christians, I don't see how it hurts a Christian to allow two men to get married by a judge, or an open minded minister. A reverend's son once told me that gay marriage would hurt him because he would be uncomfortable by having to explain to his children about gay marriage if they ever saw a gay couple; this kind of ignorance is the basis of all opposition to gay marriage.

Christianity doesnt say anything about sexuallity being wrong, it teaches promiscuity and no sex outside marriage. Would help i our hiv filled world today if ppl listened.

And what the reverend said was sorta right in his circumstances, as a reverend he shouldnt accept homosexuality, i remember a certain story in the bible "Sodom And Gommora", note Sodom( the root of the word sodomy). I personally dont have anything agaisnt homosexuals, but religiously speaking it would be considered unnatural in the biblical sence. God did make man and woman not man and other-man.

[Flyin]

HA! Ohh you're funny! Alberta = Alcoholic, Gun toting, pick-up driving, wife abusing redneck.
Octo, yes, what I say and do does contradict what I've been advocating through the Bible. Like you mentioned, my sig does say anything worth taking seriously, is worth making fun of. None of what I said in the past few posts were untrue, and I didn't intend to just shoot down Bap, only correct him on what many believe, but is wrong. Everything I said there is true, other than the whole sum of it being true, because that is unanswerable. The Bible however, teaches exactly what I've said there, I only meant to clear up the myths about what the Bible teaches.

You're right DonEMU. In fact theres a scripture....in 1 Cor 6:9-11 'Unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom. Idolatures, adulturers, fornicators, men who lie with men, drunkards, etc. The Bible openly condemms homosexual acts. That is why it bothers those that feel you're insulting God if you're gay. Much like you're insulting Alah if you eat beef, Damn...he must hate me. ;)

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Muslims can eat beef it just has to be slaughtered in a specific way, just like jews.
And what I was trying to say is, that how can it be fair that it just upsets Christians it doesn't affect their lives. The measure of the significance is much greater for homosexuals: homosexuals are much happier being able to get married, than Christians are upset about seeing them out in public. And donemu the bible does go against basics of human sexuality, such as homosexuality and masturbation. Moreover, I'de like to point out the damage religious groups do by promoting abstinence over safe sex, it has been statistically proven that in communities where principles of safe sex are taught that there are less teen pregnancies and STDs, not to mention the insanity of the Catholic church still preaching abstinence in rural Africa when it is obviously detrimental. About it being unnatural, it has been shown that homosexuality also exist in apes (including sodomy), dolphins (engage in oral sex) and some species of birds will partner with the same sex (although they are incapable of sex).
And Flyin I wasn't implying that Albertans are alcoholics or wife beaters, I was however implying the other stuff. Or, to be more specific making reference to the strong support conservatism receives in that our only province where the provincial government is opposed to gay marriage. I am greatly looking forward to the defeat of the conservatives in the next election, hopefully.

[Flyin]

Don't worry, I wasn't offended, I added the rest 'cause I know it's true.
Example - One day I get to work and go to the workshop, Ohh, there's my boss's truck, and Oh, there's a dead deer in the back. Hmm. Another time I'm at the table, and he comes in with a loaded, LOADED shotgun, and is trying to fix it, because it wont fire properly. My boss, although desperately in need of guys, fired a 2nd yr because he said my boss's brother, who is a conservative politition, was wrong and supported facist Ideals.
My boss....yeah he's a redneck. I live in a world that is totally ANTI gay. The rest of you have NO idea.

[Bap]

And what the reverend said was sorta right in his circumstances, as a reverend he shouldnt accept homosexuality, i remember a certain story in the bible "Sodom And Gommora", note Sodom( the root of the word sodomy). I personally dont have anything agaisnt homosexuals, but religiously speaking it would be considered unnatural in the biblical sence. God did make man and woman not man and other-man.

I don't recall Sodom and Gommorah ever having anything to do with sodomy. It was just an evil place, so God destroyed it. Sodomy does come from this, but this was developed later. I don;t think there was any anal sex mentioned in the bible here.

And Octo, can you not agree that there are many interpretations of the Bible? Flyin's theory is his interpretation, so respect it. I still don't believe it, you don't have to either. He's just explaining what he believes.

My parents are against gay marriage. They say it undermines Christianity, that marriage is divine binding of a man and a woman. Perhaps they think they can take power into their own hands. If it is ordained by God, let him decide if gay marriage is holy or not. Why can't governmental decisions be based on wordly knowledge?

[Octo]

"And Octo, can you not agree that there are many interpretations of the Bible? Flyin's theory is his interpretation, so respect it. I still don't believe it, you don't have to either. He's just explaining what he believes."

I agree here Bap, sorry I did seem direspectful. Just I mistook intelligence for ignorance, however flyin explained himself and I'm happy again.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Grrr, people are still acting as if marriage was the sole property of religion, it has long been anything but holy. It falls into the legal domain, as most people don't chose to get married for religious reasons anymore, but for more romantic ideals like love, in a lot of places you end up considered commonlaw spouses just by living together for a year. Same sex marriage is a matter of civil equality and religion should have nothing at all to do with it. Homosexuals should have the right to inherit the property of their loved ones after their passing, should be given visitation rights at hospitals, co-guardianship of children and the right to adopt.

[Fool Of Doom]

I think that gays can do whatever they want as long as they arent virgins, we have a girls everywhere with unpoped cherrys >.< (yes im a virgin stfu i dont wanna here it)

[isaiahLIII]

by the way, someone whos religious, answer this please(seriously ive been wondering), if god is all powerful, and god loves everyone, why does he send people to hell. he can easily send em to heaven if hes all powerful, and if he loves them he should be doing that, not giving them eternal damnation, some love that is

It cannot be stressed too strongly that God sends no one to hell, or everlasting punishment. People go to hell because of their willful rejection of Christ, not because of God's desire. The Bible says of God;
"Who would have all men saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:4
Peter wrote.
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as so