Should Same Sex Marriage Be Allowed?

[Master_Keralys]

Sure I can accept that they feel that way.

 

That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor does it mean that I have to believe it's right. Just as I believe that premarital sex is wrong, I believe extramarital sex (or homosexual, or whatever) is wrong. Now, yes that is strongly influenced by my religion. But I'm also attempting to show you that it's influenced by other factors. I just haven't had time to demonstrate it all the way.

 

Good point about the animals thing as a metaphor. I'll try to watch that. But the point remains - you can't know, so you err on the side of caution. But the animal was to consent (in some strange way, it's just a thought) it would be just as right as homosexuality.

 

Morality is internal, yes. But it's based on external truth, or should be. Maybe it's time to debate that a little over in the rational/irrational thought thread (if we didn't already cover it). I believe that my morality regarding this is based on fact. You (and others) choose not to accept it - as is your right. It's my job to find the facts - and your job to find stuff that disproves what I've said. Just because I have to find the proof to demonstrate that what I say is true doesn't mean you guys don't also have to find proof to show it isn't. Something that I haven't seen a whole lot of on this thread... But I've got to go, so...

 

I'll keep researching that stuff and see what I can get. By the way - that Project SIGMA was a secular research project completely unrelated to anti-gay agendas. It actually has some pro-gay bias, from what I've been able to see, so...

[Master_Sunblade]

Well said Keralys. People's morals in this world have been turned around.

 

Anyone who thinks homosexuality is moraly right should stop and think a minute...

[CloseTheBlastDo]

But the point remains - you can't know, so you err on the side of caution. But the animal was to consent (in some strange way, it's just a thought) it would be just as right as homosexuality.

 

Hmm - I think you would have been wiser to drop this particular sub-topic, but oh well.

 

Trying to compare beastiality to homosexuality is simply and utterly perposterous. Please get serious.

 

To try and tackle the ACTUAL issue you are trying to get at, consenting does not automatically mean right. This has already been pretty well established on both sides of the argument, so I really wish you'd stop trying to milk it for all it's worth, especially in this way.

 

Incest we've already covered.

 

A minor CAN consent to under-age sex, but it would still be illegal. Well, while different laws in different countries can take slightly different stances on the details, the 'moral' behind it is clear...

...a minor has reduced rights because they are considered not old enough to make their own informed desicions - and this doesn't just incude sex, it covers many other areas (drinking & smoking, driving a car etc. etc.)

 

So please drop the 'were trying to say literally ANYTHING concentual is ok'. There are limits - we just need to define them sensibly and (this is the important word) FAIRLY.

 

Morality is internal, yes. But it's based on external truth, or should be.

 

Morals are how we 'react' to the truth.

So first you have to actually know WHAT the facts are -THEN you can make a sound moral judgement.

 

...so what are the truths about homosexuality?

 

I have referenced the brain studies, which have also been referenced by others in this thread. THis evidence clearly indicates that homosexual traits - in the majority of cases - are inborn and not learned.

 

...dispute the evidence, or accept the fact.

 

You have only provided ONE actual source of information thus far regarding homosexuality - namely the duration and 'strength' (for want of a better term) of homosexual relationships.

 

I will not dispute the statistic mentioned - the study seems to be legit from what I can tell, although I've only looked into it briefly.

 

..but I want to contest how meaningful (if at all) this statistic is to your argument.

 

To start with, I want to quote from a Christian site teaching about the benefits of fidelity within marriage (the particular section I've marked in bold):

 

Christian teaching about sex outside marriage being off limits is just that – sex outside marriage, not just sex before marriage. Christian marriages are not immune from the pressures that other marriages have, Christian marriages breakdown because of adultery. The statistics are horrifying, particularly amongst those involved in positions of leadership in churches.

 

So -wait a sec -isn't this passage saying that ALL relationships are prone to infidelity? Both homosexual and hetrosexual?!! Ohh wait - not just hetrosexual, but marriages made up of Christians!!. ...and wait - it get's even better. THe statistics are even more shocking for church leaders!!!

 

..wow - SHOCK HORROR!!

Well, the answer is obvious - make ALL marriages illegal, since it seems there are people from ALL kinds of demographics - and people who should CLEARLY know better - who can't seem to stay faithful..!!

 

THat doesn't demonstrate the pointlessness of this stance to you...?

 

..ok, fair enough. How about this...

 

Your saying that homosexual marriages shoudln't be allowed because a certain study shows that from data collected from certain towns and cities in England and Wales, the reported percentage of 'faithful' homosexual relationships is around 30%

 

OK - let's forget for a moment that this has any moral impact on whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and let's pretend this statistic actually has anything to do with the subject.

 

So - here's what we'll do. YOU decide what the minimum 'fidelity' percentage should be for ANY demographic. 30% is obviously too low for you, so it must be higher than that. I'll let you decide...

 

...40%? 50%? 60%? At what percentage does marriage become 'morally justified'? (btw - I'd be interested on which basis you reach the final figure...)

 

Now - once you have chosen the 'morally correct' percentage, I'll do my own bit of reserch. If I can find a particular demographic which also doesn't fit this criteria, then I'll say that those people shoudln't get married either.

 

...for example, if I can find a few towns where the HETROSEXUAL population show an fidelity rate BELOW the required boundry, I will say that ALL hetrosexuals should not get married.

 

...seems fair to me - don't you agree...?

 

Just as I believe that premarital sex is wrong

 

..fine. You want to make that illegal too...?! In fact, why don't you just write a big list of all the things you don't like, and we'll get them all banned.

 

..can I make a list too? Cos I'd put boybands right up the top - now THERE is something disgusting and abhorent!

I HATE those f***ers! Get their unlawful arses behind bars I say!! ...for crimes against humanity...

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Well said Keralys. People's morals in this world have been turned around.

 

Anyone who thinks homosexuality is moraly right should stop and think a minute...

 

Ahh - I KNEW I forgot to do something today - THINK! THat was it.

 

Cheers Sunblade.

 

btw - do I have to think for a FULL minute to realise homosexuals don't deserve equal rights? Or will 40-odd seconds do...?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

and if its not an illness then why would you want to have sex with your own gender!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

Oh my god, that girl has dark skin!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111 She must be suffering from a skin illness!!!!!!!!!!111

 

Oh my God, can you believe that guy just ATE a cow?????????!!!!!!! They just took a living cow and killed and ate it! Mental illness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111111

 

Just that you think it's gross and doesn't lead to reproduction doesn't have to mean it's a mental illness. Homophobia, on the other hand...

 

Oh, and stop comparing pedophilia and animal sex with homosexuality. While I think pedophilia maybe is medically the same as homosexuality (although I don't see what good purpose it would serve?), sex with children and animal is abuse. Sex as a mutual agreement is different.

[Elijah]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Oh my god, that girl has dark skin!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111 She must be suffering from a skin illness!!!!!!!!!!111

 

Oh my God, can you believe that guy just ATE a cow?????????!!!!!!! They just took a living cow and killed and ate it! Mental illness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111111

I see the point you are trying to make, but those examples hardly cut it...

 

Oh, and stop comparing pedophilia and animal sex with homosexuality.

Why? I have to agree with them on this... If homosexuality is so right, then what is wrong with having sex with a family member? I mean, if both family members agree, its ok isnt it?

Or how about an animal? I mean what if the animal likes it?

Or how about a kid? what if the child enjoys it also?

 

Rather then demanding everyone see it your way, look at how they see it, in hopes that you can better underastand the point you are trying to argue.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I see the point you are trying to make, but those examples hardly cut it...

 

...on the contrary, I believe the analogies Dagobahn Eagle used were perfectly valid.

 

A lot of vegaterians do indeed see killing and eating a cow as barbaric and unmoral... Now I'm not one of them (I'm not a vegaterian), but it demonstrates the point were trying to make.

 

...if you have no better reason to 'ban' homosexual unions then 'you don't like homosexuality, it's revolting, disgusting blah blah blah' - well - plain and simply, that's just not a good enough reason. It would be the same as a vegetarian trying to tell me I have no right to eat meat JUST because they don't agree with it.

 

Do vegeterians have a point? In certain respects, they have very good points. But do they have the right to tell me what to do JUST because we have different moral outlooks?

 

...hell no is the answer to that...

 

 

If homosexuality is so right, then what is wrong with having sex with a family member? I mean, if both family members agree, its ok isnt it?

Or how about an animal? I mean what if the animal likes it?

Or how about a kid? what if the child enjoys it also?

 

Rather then demanding everyone see it your way, look at how they see it, in hopes that you can better underastand the point you are trying to argue.

 

If you read my last few posts, you will see that I have already covered all this... do try and keep up...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Why? I have to agree with them on this... If homosexuality is so right, then what is wrong with having sex with a family member? I mean, if both family members agree, its ok isnt it?

Or how about an animal? I mean what if the animal likes it?

Or how about a kid? what if the child enjoys it also?

I'm not even going to answer this.

 

and if its not an illness then why would you want to have sex with your own gender!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

I want to further address this: The only argument you've used against gays is that they have a mental illness. So let's suppose for a second that that is true (which it isn't, and I should hardly have to point that out, should I?). Well, just that someone has a mental illness doesn't have to mean you have a sound reason to hate them.

 

Do you hate everyone who's bipolar or depressed too? Do you hate everyone who have Alzheimer's? Do you hate people who hear voices? Do you hate people with Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome?

[Lathain Valtiel]

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

...on the contrary, I believe the analogies Dagobahn Eagle used were perfectly valid.

 

A lot of vegaterians do indeed see killing and eating a cow as barbaric and unmoral... Now I'm not one of them (I'm not a vegaterian), but it demonstrates the point were trying to make.

 

...if you have no better reason to dislike homosexual unions then 'you don't like homosexuality, it's revolting, disgusting blah blah blah' - well - plain and simply, that's just not a good enough reason. It would be the same as a vegetarian trying to tell me I have no right to eat meat JUST because they don't agree with it.

 

Do vegeterians have a point? In certain respects, they have very good points. But do they have the right to tell me what to do JUST because we have different moral outlooks?

 

...hell no is the answer to that...

 

Ah ah ah, don't be hypocritical... You just told him that 'it isn't a good enough reason', in essence telling him to think differently as well. It is not your right to tell him if his reasons are good enough unless by a technical standpoint.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ZDawg

Why? I have to agree with them on this...

 

Then my opinion of you isn't as high as it was before you said that.

 

Originally posted by ZDawg

Or how about an animal? I mean what if the animal likes it?

 

Having sex with another species, one that isn't sentient, is hardly the same as falling in love and making a mutual commitment with an adult of your own species, now is it?

 

Originally posted by ZDawg

Or how about a kid? what if the child enjoys it also?

 

Falling in love and expecting a commitment with a child isn't the same as two consenting adults agreeing that they are compatible for a long-term relationship. I think using the "child" analogy is a sign that your digging for straws.

 

Originally posted by ZDawg

If homosexuality is so right, then what is wrong with having sex with a family member? I mean, if both family members agree, its ok isnt it?

 

Why would you assume that incest taboos that exist in families of heterosexuals wouldn't also exist in families of homosexuals. The fact of the matter is, the incest taboo has the hidden agenda of maintaining variation within the gene pool. In addition, incest taboos within families also prevent the complications that go along with intimate relationships (familial relationships can be complicated enough). But throughout history, this taboo has been ignored in the interests of socio-economic and political gain. King Tutt was likely husband to his sister as were monarchs in England or France in the past.

 

Originally posted by ZDawg

Rather then demanding everyone see it your way, look at how they see it, in hopes that you can better underastand the point you are trying to argue.

 

The only "demand" is that the "moral majority" end it's illogical oppression of homosexuals. The institution of marriage belongs to the state, not the church. Laws of the state should should ensure that all people have equal access to the law itself. This means that marriage between two people of the same gender should be allowed. Ending this prohibition will most likely have lasting economical contribution to society in general as the number of "family" incomes will increase (A unit with $50 - 100 k income per year can afford to buy more than a unit with $25 - 50 k income per year).

 

MK finally posted some of the data, which I admittedly haven't had the opportunity to look at yet, but if Datheus' quote was accurate: "The median length of homosexual relationships in the SIGMA survey was 21 months," then one also has to consider that there is a full 50% of those surveyed that had relationships lasting longer than 1.8 years. One has to wonder how many of that 50% had relationships that were still on-going at the close of the study. I'll check the link later, perhaps it will give me a clue as to where I can find the actual peer-reviewed paper that includes all data and methodology......

 

An interesting point, too, is that the study group included "gay and bi-sexual men in England and Wales." Question: is same-sex marriage legal here? If not, wouldn't the study be affected by the stresses associated with couples who cannot finalize a legal commitment to each other?

 

Even not having the chance to read it yet, it looks like the SIGMA data favors the same-sex marriage argument.

[lukeskywalker1]

I wasnt planning on posting here.. because i truly think its pointless. but anyways..

 

If thats not the case and you like your own sex, you must have been abused, raped, or have grown up in some way that damaged the way you think and behave.

 

 

I agree mostly with this, but i dont think that has to happen to be homosexual. You know how you can "convince yourself" of some things, im sure thats happend before. Also, ive said this before, but i know a guy in school thats homosexual, and his dad hates him. I think what happend was (i could be wrong, since i dont know the guy very well) he lacked the "male attention" from his father, so he decided to look elswhere for it, becoming homosexual. Like i said, it may not have happend, but I think its possible that it did. I dont know, maybe his dad hates him because he is homosexual.

 

-lukeskywalker1

[lukeiamyourdad]

I don't think lack of male attention can be a reason of homosexuality. Love from a father and love from another man is very different.

 

I feel sorry for him that his father hates him...

[Tyrion]

If homosexuality is so right, then what is wrong with having sex with a family member? I mean, if both family members agree, its ok isnt it?

 

Except they will directly hurt the child they could have, because of genetic deficiancy.

 

Or how about an animal? I mean what if the animal likes it?

 

Find me an animal that openly consents it, and then I'll listen to your point.

 

Or how about a kid? what if the child enjoys it also?

 

Gee, that's why there are laws of consent. Children dont have the education nor wisdom to fully understand things like sex or alchohol.

[Datheus]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

I agree mostly with this, but i dont think that has to happen to be homosexual. You know how you can "convince yourself" of some things, im sure thats happend before.

Well, then perhaps you are convincing yourself that you are heterosexual when you are indeed homosexual. Maybe everyone is. And don't tell me that "it's not natural!" Hardly anything we do is natural anymore. If you want to go out and hunt for twigs and berries (the NATURAL way we get food) for a month, please do so. If you survive, I'd be willing to listen to your "natural" argument.

 

As humans, we are smart enough to have homosexual relationships yet still continue to populate the Earth.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Also, ive said this before, but i know a guy in school thats homosexual, and his dad hates him. I think what happend was (i could be wrong, since i dont know the guy very well) he lacked the "male attention" from his father, so he decided to look elswhere for it, becoming homosexual. Like i said, it may not have happend, but I think its possible that it did. I dont know, maybe his dad hates him because he is homosexual.

Doctor Phil, there is nothing below the surface here. Plenty of fathers disown their sons and some of them are gay. Some of them are straight. Plenty of fathers love their sons. Some of them turn out gay. Some of them are straight. Some fathers are gay. Plenty of their sons are gay. Plenty are not.

 

You can't just draw a single line and say that A causes B. The human mind is much more complext than that. Hell, a monkey's mind is much more complex than that. A person is the collective sum of every nanosecond in their life. You can't just pinpoint one thing in someone's life and draw a conclusion. It doesn't matter if it homosexuality, pedophilia, inferiority complexes, superiority complexes, love, hate, or humor. Just because your nanoseconds equate to heterosexuality does not Billy Bob from High School's nanseconds are messed up at one particular sliver of time. It does not mean your nanoseconds are messed up either.

 

Just as there are universal laws that we are taught in science class, everyone's universe is their own. They have their own set of rules. Their rules do not apply to you. And you do not apply to them.

[Elijah]

Thank you to everyone who answered my questions, but you guys misunderstood what I was saying...

 

All I was trying to say, is I agree with them, in the sense of "well if this is right and acceptable, why isn’t this"

I understand there are health issues involved in incest, having sex with animals and mental problems with having sex with children... but I'm trying to see this from the view of all the anti homosexuals out there. As I've already seen it from the other point of view.

 

Skinwalker, saying I agree with them, is not the same as me saying I support them... I was simply using the same reasoning as Dagobahn Eagle, if A can be right, why cant B?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The Eagle theorem states that A might perfectly well equal B.

 

However, I never used it as broadly as you did. I maintain the Eagle Theorem is true, but it depends on what you use for B.

 

The full theorem states that

In an equation where A=An accepted harmless act, and B=An unaccepted harmless act, A may equal B.

 

For example, if you let B stand for rape or child sex while you let A stand for petting someone you love, and who loves you, on the back when you both want it, you ruin the equation.

 

But if A=Traditional marriage and B=Gay marriage, it does. You see (and don't make me quiz you on this)?

[C'jais]

What makes you think Homosexuals don't want a lasting relationship? Proof from "studies"? Studies that asked homosexuals if they wanted to get married, when they knew full well they couldn't get married and would live with the stigma a "union" gave them?

 

Be reasonable. This is about the same as saying all bisexuals must be whores that will sleep with anyone, and all live in an "open relationship" - another popular myth.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Ah ah ah, don't be hypocritical... You just told him that 'it isn't a good enough reason', in essence telling him to think differently as well. It is not your right to tell him if his reasons are good enough unless by a technical standpoint.

 

Sorry, my mistake.

 

I said you can't just 'dislike' homosexuality for so and so reason. Sorry, I typed the wrong thing. I meant to say 'ban' homosexuality (i.e. gay marriages).

 

...I've edited my post and corrected that...

I'm not saying people don't have the right to dislike gay unions - they do.

I AM, however, against people telling other people they can't have them, just because they don't personally like it.

 

 

And I also mirror C'jais and SkinWalker's worries about how accurate or 'meaningful' the stasistic mentioned is - concerning the frequency and duration of homosexual 'closed' relationships.

 

You DO have to take into account the fact that these homosexual relationships will be under immense pressure. I'm sure many of them are conducted in secret, to avoid condemnation from people such as those who post in this forum.

...and you thought celebrity couples had it bad!! I can only imagine what it must be like to try and hold a relationship like that together - with a good majority of the world looking down on you - and comparing you to animals...

 

..but anyway, in the end - the bottom line is I don't think the statistic even matters, even if it IS accurate, or representitive of the under-lying truth.

The fact is if two gay people ask for a marriage, but are told that they can't because statistically, the marriage isn't destined to last - that's just blatently irrelavent. WHy should a statistic decide the fate of THAT particular couple?

[ShockV1.89]

I love watching people trying to justify forcing religious beliefs on others and then turning around and saying its not because of their religion....

 

Get my point? Overwhelmingly, the people who are against homosexuality are also Christian, or religious in some sense. They have already come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin, and it's wrong, and it's evil, and it's a choice, because an old book says so.

 

Based on this presumption, they then search for reasoning to back up their position. Of course, to properly come to a conclusion, they would have to have none to begin with....

[El Sitherino]

Ok, Gay couples "statistically" don't last, so what, neither do many heterosexual relationships. Hell my parents are divorced. So are we saying you can't get married unless you are destined to live a wonderful life in a monogamous relationship?

 

Why do many of these homophobic men say it's not right to be gay unless you're a hot blonde with huge assets and are kissing on another chick of equal hotness? I support all harmLESS "alternative" lifestyles (I use the word alternative loosely because who am I or anyone else to label peoples personal lives). People use the example of incest and child molestation, well I have statistics for you, child molestations and acts of incest are more often commited by the Heterosexual people. So if you are a heterosexual man you are more likely to rape a little boy than a gay man.

 

Now the thing about the argument of if we allow gay marriages we should allow child sex, well that's just complete and utter bullsh*t (as stated many times before), the point of allowing gay marriages is to give free rights to two consenting adults. Rape, incest, pedophilia, and beastiality are not harmless choices, they are damaging and life altering events.

I remember hearing of a time when whites were not allowed to marry blacks or anyone non-white people, Christians used the bible to protest interracial marriages, just as they do to say gays can't marry. I also remember when whites considered non-whites to be animals in a human shape, Christians used the same "unatural" case then as they do now with homosexuals. People need to understand that using religion to interfere with personal choices (of a harmless nature) is pure BS and complete fascism. Many of these people against gays are also the guys saying America stands for freedom of choice and religion and life, liberty yada... yada well I think they really mean America stands for freedom of choice and relgion unless it's not my religion and the same choice as me.

 

Personally I don't believe in marriage in the religious fashion, I just wish to be married to symbolize my love for the woman I love, and for those wonderful financial benefits (shared tax filing, lower taxes, lower mortgage rate, etc.)

Just because you allow gay marriages to be recognized by the state doesn't mean the church should be the place it's set at. Hell when I get married I'm getting married at the courthouse, marriage isn't just a religious ceremony.

 

Though I think churches should accept gay marriages like they eventually did interracial marriages, but as I've said before, this is America: where everyone has a choice and a voice, NO ONE can force their opinions on anyone.

 

I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe in courtesy and being polite.

[lukeskywalker1]

Christians used the bible to protest interracial marriages, just as they do to say gays can't marry.

 

....

 

Christians used the same "unatural" case then as they do now with homosexuals.

 

When? Where? Link? Ive never ever heard about that? Not even in school... or anywhere. Im not saying it didnt happen, but I just want to know what happend. How did they use the bible to back themselves up? I've never read anything in the bible (that i can remember) that says whites and blacks cant mix. Now, i have read, there is no male nor female, no jew nor greek, no slave or free... so that basically says everyone is equal... ill stick with that. Also, im not sure if i said that right, im not sure where its at (dont remember) but the meaning is still the same.

 

Even if it did happen, if they didnt actually have something from the bible, its most likely a "false prophet" whos just starting trouble If they did, ill check it out.

 

-luke

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

When? Where? Link? Ive never ever heard about that? Not even in school... or anywhere.

 

It was a pretty common thing back in the day I was in school, but perhaps not so common now... I think it can be found in Alabama and other "deep South" states.

 

Basically, the idea stemmed from passages in the Bible that stated that Christians should marry only Christians. Since Christianity was largely a "white" institution back in the middle ages (at the era of the Protestant Reformation for example), non-whites were generally considered to be non-christian.

 

A look at the OneHumanRace website will show both sides of the argument (they present the other side but argue against it).

 

Basically, some fundamentalists, even today, use argue that because of Acts 17:26 and the mention of "one blood," people should stick to their own race. This bible verse must really be read into to get that, however!

[Elijah]

I love it that every debate in this forum turns to an anti-Christian argument...

 

Insanesith, please do not mistake the Old Catholic church of England, for the modern day Christian churches of America.

 

The Catholics also burned anyone they thought was a witch, and many other ridiculous things.

 

Interracial? please do read some of the old testament before you say that people would not marry out of race... try the story of Sampson for example. Among many other story’s, even before the old law was fulfilled

[C'jais]

Originally posted by ZDawg

I love it that every debate in this forum turns to an anti-Christian argument...

 

This has much to do with how almost every Christian's religiously enforced morals shine through in every ethical and scientific debate we have here. When we point it out, some people get obstinate.

 

The Catholics also burned anyone they thought was a witch, and many other ridiculous things.

 

So did the protestants.

 

Interracial? please do read some of the old testament before you say that people would not marry out of race... try the story of Sampson for example. Among many other story’s, even before the old law was fulfilled

 

The Bible also says you shall never kill, not even in self defense. It also tells us to be very nice to our neighbor. It even commands us not to pass judgment.

 

The Bible is just a book. It's not the Bible that's going around voting against homosexual marriages, refusing to take down a monument of the Ten Commandments, blowing up abortion clinics and murdering doctors.

[lukeskywalker1]

It's not the Bible that's going around voting against homosexual marriages, refusing to take down a monument of the Ten Commandments, blowing up abortion clinics and murdering doctors.

 

 

True, and I doubt God ment for "christians" (keep in mind, i seriously doubt they are christians) to blow up abortion clinics, and murder doctors.

 

Actually, interesting. You say homosexuality is harmless, and theres nothing wrong with allowing it. But, the ten commandments statue wasnt exactly doing anything wrong.

 

Remember, its not the bible's fault or God's fault that people do things. He commands, we can obey, or not obey. Hes not responsible for it.

 

Basically, some fundamentalists, even today, use argue that because of Acts 17:26 and the mention of "one blood," people should stick to their own race. This bible verse must really be read into to get that, however!

 

A christian cant use that to say you cant marry a black or white person. Think about it, according to the religion Adam was the first man, whether he was black or white is irrelavent. He was the first, therefore everyone is related, included blacks and whites.

 

Basically, the idea stemmed from passages in the Bible that stated that Christians should marry only Christians.

 

Yeah, think about how much we argue/debate online, and we dont even know each other. You think 2 people married together could live "peacefully" unless they both believe the same thing? Im not saying it couldnt happen, because it could, but it could also fail.