lukeskywalker1 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Well, I'd say thats not what "TJ" was talking about... and you know this. Also, I wouldn't say that I have ever seen any man and woman create a "MAN" I believe the text does say "MEN." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 It could be interpreted both ways (or actually several different ways), but it seems to me they mean that all men (includes women, or are they sexist?) are created (by their parents) equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Meh, I edited my post while you posted. I'll restate, it says men, and its impossible for a woman to give birth to a man. :-p I know I am being picky, but hey, was Adam not a man? EDIT: Here you go: Decleration of Indepence We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. TJ clearly acknowledges a creator. A creator creates. Just because he doesn't say God doesn't mean thats not what he was talking about. We all know he wasn't... ummm.. some other religion with a creator. :-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 It wouldn't sound very good to say "all fetuses are created equal" now would it? But anyway, people talked different back then, so it's better to just focus on the meaning of it rather than the individual working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Hah! I edited again... :D Well... at least this post stops you from double posting! Besides, now we are both being picky Ok- Overall meaning - Everyone is Equal. Got it, but I havn't said they aren't equal. EDIT: Im going to elaborate a bit further- Like I said, no one says homosexuals are inferior (well, some people do.) Im just saying a man can't marry a man. That means me too... as you can see, I am violating my own rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted August 30, 2005 Author Share Posted August 30, 2005 Yeah your right. That totally resolves it. Notice the created part. By who? God. God says no gay marriage. He doesn't just change his mind either. If he didn't want it 2000 years ago, what has changed since then? pfftt who gives a crap what god thinks I don't even think he/she exsitists any way and this is a legal debate not a religious one and anyway religions need to keep up with the times and stop living in the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Creator doesn't automatically mean god. Even if it does, it doesn't automatically mean Christian god. It was purposefully created to be vague so as to appease all who live here. Non-specifics allow for inclusion of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 That means me too... as you can see, I am violating my own rights. But it is of no consequence to you. You're merely making a "sacrifice" that has no meaning. It's essentially like slaughtering Bob and saying it's comparable to Jesus' sacrifice. His sacrifice has no meaning as he's not the son of god and he didn't take the sins of man upon himself. And you're not violating any of your own rights, you're living your life. Law as it is right now however is depriving people of being able to live their life to the fullest. The law as it is now has no real oppressive value towards you, where as to a homosexual or bisexual there is an oppressive value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Regarding the argument on marriage "traditionally" being between a man and a woman and the importance of "maintaining tradition": Traditionally speaking, marriage was a union of a man and a woman of the same background and economic class. A marriage between a rich aristocrath and a widow struggling at the edge of starvation was unheard of, as was the marriage of a Swedish man and an Egyptian woman. If society and Christianity survived twisting and crumbling traditional marriage into the mutant it is today, with pink people marrying brown people and rich stock market-giants marrying unemployed people on welfare who live in slums (OK, so that's pretty unheard of still:p), who's to say it won't survive the addition of gay marriage? Yeah your right. That totally resolves it. Notice the created part. By who? God. God says no gay marriage. He doesn't just change his mind either. If he didn't want it 2000 years ago, what has changed since then? And marriage's transformation into a Christian tradition is another breach of tradition. Christianity has been around for two millenia. Marriage has been around "forever". You do the math. Your "God" most likely hasn't changed his mind of eating pork, cutting your hair or beard, or wearing clothes made from different garments either. Why do so many bishops sin by doing that? The Catholic Church is in a crisis where the Pope himself is a mortal sinner who, according to the Bible, should be executed, yet no one lifts a finger to stop it . Yeah you're right. That totally resolves it. Notice the [America] created part. By who? God. [Edited for context] I thought it was the Founding Fathers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I thought it was the Founding Fathers? You misunderstand, the sentence said "All men were created equal" Im making the the word created more... realised. Someone has to create, nothing makes itself out of nothing. Thats what it says, basically, I am saying Revan proved himself wrong. pfftt who gives a crap what god thinks I don't even think he/she exsitists any way and this is a legal debate not a religious one Fine, I don't give a crap about any thing else you say, considering you miss the entire point of a thread you have made. You don't even understand the issue. Why is there a problem with Gay marriage? You think someone just said "HEY !!!! GUYZZZ I H4T3 TEH GAY PEOPELZ!"? No, Judiasm started the whole don't have sex with the same sex thing. Christianity supported it, and still does. You know, if it wasn't for this, this thread wouldn't be here. Not to mention you (As in Revan the Great) started it by qouting stuff that had partial religious meaning. :-p and anyway religions need to keep up with the times and stop living in the past Meh, its all relevant to now, you just don't understand, and there is no point in explaining it to you. If you want to drop religion fine... I'll stay out. To be honest... your saying "Lets leave Religion out of a Religous debate" which is stupid. This whole thing revolves around homosexuals, and religion. Nothing else. The law is only like that because of religious principle. Christianity has been around for two millenia. Marriage has been around "forever". You do the math./quote] Don't forget Judiasm, so you can subtract 5000 years (I think) making a total of 7000 years ago. Creator doesn't automatically mean god. Even if it does, it doesn't automatically mean Christian god. It was purposefully created to be vague so as to appease all who live here. Non-specifics allow for inclusion of all. Jefferson mentions God earlier in the text. God was capitalized, like a name. How many other gods do you know of that are called "God" beside the Christian one? The fact that he capitlized the word tells me it is a name. The word god isn't a name, unless your talking about the Christian God (in english.) Oh and Revan left out the next part of the sentence when TJ also uses the word "Creator" with a capitalized "C." Creator is not plural, and it is capitalized so its a name. You know, like when someone capitalized "Him" or "He" or "Lord" they are talking about God, same with "Creator." While he may have meant it to be vague, it certainly is perceived to be the Christian God. Besides, we do know what he was talking about... we understand the era in which it was written. They showed a lot of tolerance for Brittish partriots living in the US at that time.[/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 You misunderstand, the sentence said "All men were created equal" Im making the the word created more... realised. Someone has to create, nothing makes itself out of nothing. Thats what it says, basically, I am saying Revan proved himself wrong. We create humans through sex. Sure, there had to be something to create us- but in the context of the Founding Fathers they meant we were born equal. Fine, I don't give a crap about any thing else you say, considering you miss the entire point of a thread you have made. You don't even understand the issue. Why is there a problem with Gay marriage? You think someone just said "HEY !!!! GUYZZZ I H4T3 TEH GAY PEOPELZ!"? I agree with you. Even though I don't agree with your opinions- the homosexual marriage argument is based entirely on religious principle. No, Judiasm started the whole don't have sex with the same sex thing. Christianity supported it, and still does. You know, if it wasn't for this, this thread wouldn't be here. What? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Jefferson mentions God earlier in the text. God was capitalized, like a name. How many other gods do you know of that are called "God" beside the Christian one? The fact that he capitlized the word tells me it is a name. The word god isn't a name, unless your talking about the Christian God (in english.) I don't think that's how it goes. From a subjective point of view, whatever god you worship would be "God." Jefferson might had been Deist- meaning that he believed that there was a God but he didn't believe it meddled in worldly affairs. Far different from Christianity's view of God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God According to that, the reason why you capitalize God is to differentiate between Monotheistic and Polytheistic religions. Oh and Revan left out the next part of the sentence when TJ also uses the word "Creator" with a capitalized "C." Refering to a single Creator, not the Christian Creator. While he may have meant it to be vague, it certainly is perceived to be the Christian God. Only because Christianity is the most popular religion in the United States. I'm sure to Muslims it's just another name for Allah. Besides, we do know what he was talking about... we understand the era in which it was written. They showed a lot of tolerance for Brittish partriots living in the US at that time.[/sarcasm] It's my understanding that they did show some tolerance for British patriots, at least in the Southern States. They were reluctant to fight; they felt loyalty to Britian but not to the king. Thus, they let the British citizens stay in the country as long as they didn't hurt the US's revolution. But I'm probably wrong about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Allah is merely the arabic term for God. I'm sure you don't believe "tocador" is a different device from "toilet", merely because of difference in language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceplant Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 I think it's interesting that religious types so strongly defend the fact that gay marriage is 'wrong' somehow. Well, that isn't really that interesting. What is interesting is that when you stop trying to persuade them there's nothing wrong with it, and ask 'what gives you the right to stop people doing it?', they can't answer that one, and keep on talking about why it is wrong. But we don't dispute that it's a sin. Lot's of things are sins, though, and are perfectly legal. What gives them the right to ban homosexuality in particular? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted August 31, 2005 Author Share Posted August 31, 2005 Creator doesn't automatically mean god. Even if it does, it doesn't automatically mean Christian god. It was purposefully created to be vague so as to appease all who live here. Non-specifics allow for inclusion of all. um ok but I used it as a general term I didn't mean to make it seem like I was referencing one particular religion cuz they all have and equivalent to the christian god anyway and the bottom line is that banning gay marriages is AGAINST the constitution and is basically voiding the SEPARATION of church and state and pay attention to this VERY important quote from the Declaration of Independence "We hold these TRUTHS to be self evident that ALL men are created EQUALLY" so to deny the right for gays and lesbians to marry each other is against the basic principle that our country was created under and what good is the separation of church and state if we allow religious beliefs to dictate what laws we make which is exactly what Bush is doing with this whole I'M gonna ban gay marriages thing. so How can you as US citizens sit by and let Bush do as he pleases even though he is undermining the very concept that our four fathers had when creating the USA. I think it's interesting that religious types so strongly defend the fact that gay marriage is 'wrong' somehow. Well, that isn't really that interesting. What is interesting is that when you stop trying to persuade them there's nothing wrong with it, and ask 'what gives you the right to stop people doing it?', they can't answer that one, and keep on talking about why it is wrong. But we don't dispute that it's a sin. Lot's of things are sins, though, and are perfectly legal. What gives them the right to ban homosexuality in particular? thank you *adds you to the people who are trying to discount religion in law making* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 ... Uh, why the hell did you quote me? I was helping you out of the hole you dug yourself into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted August 31, 2005 Author Share Posted August 31, 2005 ... Uh, why the hell did you quote me? I was helping you out of the hole you dug yourself into. oops sorry I miss understood your post I thought you were correcting me sorry for that and thanks for the help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Yeah, reread my post :-p Your really confusing the crap out of me. Allah is merely the arabic term for God. I'm sure you don't believe "tocador" is a different device from "toilet", merely because of difference in language. Whats up with the Arabic phrase "There is no God but Allah" Funny how they use the english term in their phrase. Seems to me, that they don't view the Christian God as the same god as Allah. I don't either. They describe him totally different, even though, technically Islam was born from a mixture of Christianity and Judiasm... with some new stuff. We create humans through sex. Sure, there had to be something to create us- but in the context of the Founding Fathers they meant we were born equal. TJ was refering to a god. I'll say, its sorta unclear which one-- but he is saying that a god created us. Reread my last post. Your leaving out the end of the sentence, which validates my point when TJ references a SINGLE CREATOR. Notice, it doesn't say CREATORS. I made it clear that the word was not plural--- as in ONLY ONE. Unless humans turned asexual... well.. I don't think he was referring to men and women Fact- He was refering to a single diety. 3 monothiestic religions around are Judiasm, Christianity (sorta... its complicated) and Islam. None of these condone homosexuality. So, TJ is basically saying one of these religions is right (I can't think of any other monothiestic religions, Hinduism has more than one God... buddhism doesn't really have a God... for the most part) anyways-- yeah, he is at least stating that one of those religions has to be right. In my opinion, the creator of the universe has a right to say whats right and whats not. and what good is the separation of church and state if we allow religious beliefs to dictate what laws we make which is exactly what Bush is doing with this whole I'M gonna ban gay marriages thing. so How can you as US citizens sit by and let Bush do as he pleases even though he is undermining the very concept that our four fathers had when creating the USA. Simple, I can sit by very easily. Ever hear of Checks and Balances? It's not just Bush using religion to dictate laws, he can't do that (by himself.) He needs support. Write to congress, or better yet, Bush himself. He's not a dictator, he can't just do what he wants. thank you *adds you to the people who are trying to discount religion in law making* A list? what the.... what are talking about/doing? You got a petition going, lol? I don't think that's how it goes. From a subjective point of view, whatever god you worship would be "God." Would be A God. But, I see your point. Either way, reguardless of whether or not Jefferson was a Diest, he would still have to believe that God created everything, but then just brushed it all aside. I think it's interesting that religious types so strongly defend the fact that gay marriage is 'wrong' somehow. Well, that isn't really that interesting. What is interesting is that when you stop trying to persuade them there's nothing wrong with it, and ask 'what gives you the right to stop people doing it?', they can't answer that one, and keep on talking about why it is wrong. But we don't dispute that it's a sin. Lot's of things are sins, though, and are perfectly legal. What gives them the right to ban homosexuality in particular? Hmmm, thats a good perspective. An excellant question. From a Christian's perspective (because thats what your asking for) Marriage is sacred, between a man and a woman, a gift from God. God gave marriage to Adam and Eve. This has led to the common phrase "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." This is a Christian perspective. As to why is gay marriage attacked more than anything else? I guess a lot of Christians think they are condoning it by allowing it. They can't stop homosexual relations, but by allow marriage you are condoning the sin. It does seem to be kinda "picked" on a lot. I guess because right now its a hot topic, 20 years ago I don't think it was like this. Not to mention, like I said, they can't stop whats done in other peoples homes, but they can stop the marriage (stop, what am I saying, something has to start before it can stop... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Whats up with the Arabic phrase "There is no God but Allah" You must have heard wrong. It's " 'Allah' is the one true god, and Muhammad is his prophet." And effectively your point is moot. That has no voiding effect on what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Well... yeah, but yeah. I have heard both phrases. Either way, Islamics don't accept homosexuality either, I don't think, so it really doesn't matter. Christians just... speak out more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted August 31, 2005 Author Share Posted August 31, 2005 ok why don't we just learn from the ancient Greek state of Sparta WHERE HOMOSEXUALITY was excepted and in most cases encouraged among the ranks of soldiers heck if it could be excepted then WHY NOT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 ok why don't we just learn from the ancient Greek state of Sparta WHERE HOMOSEXUALITY was excepted and in most cases encouraged among the ranks of soldiers heck if it could be excepted then WHY NOT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not that I don't agree with what you're really trying to say, but one could mention that Sparta and Greece fell precisely because of hedonism, among which Homosexual would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Trying to explain why gay marriages are wrong from a point of view as a christian, to someone who does not share the beliefs is like trying to fit a circle through a triangular hole. For one it is wrong for two of the same sex to marry, under christian beliefs which are my beliefs. You can argue over theology all you want but it's not going to change. I could quote scripture as to why homosexuality is wrong, but some would brush it off because they don't believe in the Bible or God. My reasons as to why it is wrong may not be a "worthy" answer to some, but it is what I believe. So what i'm getting at is that those who do not be believe in God cannot grasp our reasonings as to why it is wrong, and why gay marriages should not be allowed. And yes, i will admit, if this country is totally free, gay marraiges should be allowed. But then a lot of other things would have to be allowed, until total anarchy. But thats just taking it a little too far, but don't you see my point. To be totally free is anarchy. My morals and beliefs are different than many in this forum, and you can attack them all you want, because i have faith. Faith that there is a God, faith in His Word, and faith that one day all will see His truth. Argueing that gay marriages should be allowed is moot, because neither side will change their minds, which brings us back to square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 If you don't like the idea of gay marriages, the answer is simple: don't marry someone of your own gender. Otherwise, there's no logical reason to disallow same-sex marriage. None. Religious reasons are irrelevent. Religion does NOT have domain over marriage any more than it does processing the dead at a funeral. Sure marriages, like funerals, can have a religious aspect, but both are more social and cultural than religious. Funerals and marriages are civil problems with certificates, rules, policies, and protocols set by governments. If religion wants to be involved they follow civil procedure FIRST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Religious reasons are irrelevent. Religion does NOT have domain over marriage any more than it does processing the dead at a funeral. Sure marriages, like funerals, can have a religious aspect, but both are more social and cultural than religious. Funerals and marriages are civil problems with certificates, rules, policies, and protocols set by governments. If religion wants to be involved they follow civil procedure FIRST. That is your opinion, but like i said before, you can't understand my reasonings, becuase you are not a christian. And I don't expect you to understand, because you can't. God's reasons are not irrelevent, because he made everything, why wouldn't the Creator of life and everything on this earth, have a say in what is right and what is wrong, and where His reasons are relevent or not. His reasons are always relevent, and right. And it's hard to explain to someone who does not share any of the same beliefs as me, especially my belief in God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted August 31, 2005 Author Share Posted August 31, 2005 That is your opinion, but like i said before, you can't understand my reasonings, becuase you are not a christian. And I don't expect you to understand, because you can't. God's reasons are not irrelevent, because he made everything, why wouldn't the Creator of life and everything on this earth, have a say in what is right and what is wrong, and where His reasons are relevent or not. His reasons are always relevent, and right. And it's hard to explain to someone who does not share any of the same beliefs as me, especially my belief in God. but I AM technically a christian I was baptised as one but I DON'T BELIEVE in religion any more because it conflicts so much with my system of values and to ban gay marriage based solely on religious reasons is not a VALID reason at all because of the SEPARATION of church and state and there is NO legal reason to ban such a thing and I'd like to see you give me one valid legal reason why to ban gay marriage and because it is a SIN is not valid at all see my first post for my reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.