Banning gay marrages should it be allowed

[SkinWalker]

He has said it, it's in His word, called the Bible.

 

An unproved assertion. Indeed, the evidence indicates that the bible is simply the culmination of oral traditions and myths of antiquity and from various cultures -Akkadian, Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite, Caananite, etc. Nothing is demonstrated to be divine and every indication is that it is completely the work of man. Therefore it is irrelevant for a discussion of civil matters.

 

And what has humanity gotten us? Nothing but death.

 

Humanity has offered great works of literature (including this bible of yours), art, technology, improved subsistance strategies, etc. To see only the "death" is to simply be pessimistic. A simple application of math demonstrates that humanity has offered more than "death" when the population growth rates, infant mortality rates, and expected life-spans of humanity are compared through history.

 

What has Christianity "gotten us?" should be the question. Inquisitions, crusades, slavery, witch crazes, bigotry, etc, etc. is, of course the answer along with any charitable and positive contributions gained.

 

I re-assert: there is no logical, reasoned argument that can be made to disallow same-sex marriage. There are some very logical, reasoned arguments that can be made to ensure it as a right for those that wish to take advantage of it.

[ET Warrior]

wait one hot second I hate religion I don't dislike people because they are religious if that is what you thought.

And most of the people against gay marriages hate homosexuality, not homosexuals. So how does that make you any better than them?

 

second I believe in tolerance which there is none towards other religions

And which you have none towards any religion apparently.

 

so stop and just the fact that you are argueing with me is another sign of intolerance amoung religions

And yet you argue right back. That statement is part of an argument, which makes it among the more hypocritical aspects of this thread.

[SkinWalker]

Let's cut the bickering about one person and focus on the topic, please. I'm tempted to go through and prune the spammy/flamey posts, but it doesn't seem to be an easy or fair task, so I ask that we turn back toward the topic of same-sex marriage and whether or not it should be allowed.

 

If, however, you are going to assert that a religion or personal belief is reason for this, then that is open to scrutiny and criticism. But whether or not one person 'hates religion' is irrelevant and borders on ad hominem argument.

[riceplant]

I still don't see an answer to my previous question: 'Is anyone who is opposed to homosexual unions (nothing more) an agnostic or atheist?'

 

"God gave man free will;

Christians are doing there utmost to take it away again" - erm, me, actually

[El Sitherino]

Saying you hate religions because you dont agree with their view points and values isnt really hypocrisy.

It is when you constantly call someone else intolerant, just to turn around and be intolerant.

 

The only non-religious person I can think of that is opposed to homosexuality is Al.

[SkinWalker]

I'm opposed to homosexuality in the same way I'm opposed to liver and onions. I just have no appetite for it. But I won't stand for anyone imposing their religious taboos on you, keeping you from eating liver and onions.

 

I think Revan noticed the decidedly anti-religious slant of many of the posters here (perhaps even me ) and was attempting to appeal to them with his statements. I didn't infer that he was particularly intolerant in general, but more likely that his new-found skepticism of religion is bringing forth an "epiphany" (if you will) that presents religion in a new light. One that he is eager to share and discuss as he explores what that means to him.

 

I, for one, can relate to that. My "epiphany" regarding the true nature of religion began years ago and is on-going even now.

 

But wanting to express oneself in the relatively anonymous forum of the internet while exploring his new opinions and attitude doesn't automatically imply total intolerance. Many of you are right to question his position and point out his fallacy, but lets not simply offer harsh critique without the hand of friendship. Otherwise, you become as intolerant as you accuse.....

[El Sitherino]

Well I never said I wasn't intolerant. I'm only human.

 

(The way I see it)It's not religion that is bad, but general human nature. Religion is merely the tool.

[lukeskywalker1]

dude I used to got to church and the whole nine yards so DON'T lecture me I know both sides

 

Uhhh, that means nothing.

 

I mean I can say I understand C++ I have attended a few classes and read a few books... I got this. In reality, its possible I know nothing. Judging from your posts, you don't have a great understanding of the Bible. Your just going along with the usual religious gossip crap and rumors spreading around.

 

and I have read the bible cover to cover and lets say "GOD" is in tolerant of those who don't believe as he thinks they should. now how the puck is that treating other fairly I ask you. answer it isn't so how is your "god" right I ask. this is just one of the many values of mine that religion goes against.

 

Lets say I spit in your face- Do I deserve your respect? Think about it.

 

You know, I guess its not enough that created you, and that he sustains your life... I guess its not enough that he is willing to open his home to a people who have spat in his face their entire lives. If I punch you in the face, the next time you see me will you say "Hey come on in, in fact, why not move into my house?" You might, but you might not. The fact is, people do worse to God, and He is still willing to save them.

 

If thats not tolerant, what is?

 

you don't know me so DON'T make conclusions that you have no proof of

 

Prove it to me then, what do you know of the Bible- so far not a lot of what your saying is fact, and when it is, its taken out of context. Reading and understanding are two different things.

 

so stop and just the fact that you are argueing with me is another sign of intolerance amoung religions

 

so how can you say that you are right you can't geeze

 

What the... ? Hah, really? If I am not mistaken, your arguing with me aswell! Am I correct? Wouldn't that make you intolerant?

 

and as for being gay is a sin who the heck said that and what makes you think he is right jeeze (yet another one of my values that is looked down on by religions)

 

Good question. I have answered it, but I will restate: He made you, me, and everything else. Of course, all this is written from a religious perspective- I think he knows what He is talking about, and has the right to define what a sin is.

 

Besides, you and Aash Li are the only ones questioning whether its a sin or not. The fact is, it is. This is solid fact.

 

Well I never said I wasn't intolerant. I'm only human.

 

(The way I see it)It's not religion that is bad, but general human nature. Religion is merely the tool.

 

Yup, human nature. Its never the religions fault, its just human nature, like I have been saying all along...

 

The crusuades, extremists killing people/blowing up stuff, hate crimes - All human people acting, not the religion, and that certainly means there is no reason to attack the religion, but the individual person(s) who did the actual crime.

 

 

Point: the bible says man should not lay with man... and while that is a pretty sexist view point, we could go along with that to the other extreme and say that it says nothing about women laying with women.

 

OH NOES! YOUR RIGHT! AND YOU KNOW WHAT? The Decleration of Independence uses the word "MEN" when it says "All men are created equal"

 

Man, must suck to be a woman right now. Of coarse, all of that was sarcasm, I really don't mean that. What I am saying is that many documents use the word "MEN" in general, as in the whole "population" or all people... or something.

 

I think Revan noticed the decidedly anti-religious slant of many of the posters here (perhaps even me )

 

Didn't notice...

 

edit: I am leaveing this thread alone for a while

 

Thats too bad, but when you return you can check out whats happend and post accordingly. A lot of people leave threads temporarily, or even permanently... I know I have in the past. Sometimes its a good thing, I guess. It lets the debate continue and move to a new point and you sort of restart when you return...

[El Sitherino]

The crusuades, extremists killing people/blowing up stuff, hate crimes - All human people acting, not the religion, and that certainly means there is no reason to attack the religion, but the individual person(s) who did the actual crime.

True, but you must also protest to their tool. Religion was used as a means to destroy. And when you find people using religion as a tool to oppress you must protest and argue if their religion truely approves of what they're seeking. Jesus was not exactly someone that saught the oppression of other humans.

 

Embrace your enemy with love, not turn them away with anger.

[riceplant]

Why is there a problem with Gay marriage? You think someone just said "HEY !!!! GUYZZZ I H4T3 TEH GAY PEOPELZ!"?

Actually, yes, but because he claimed that god had told him, everyone accepted it. I remember someone posting that the New Testament is all we are supposed to follow these days, and we should ignore the old, I'd be very interested where they got this idea from, because if it is true, that answers the whole question here and now. I still find it hard to believe that a religion supposedly built around love and peace can be so vindictive, oppresive and judgemental, and have yet to see one person give a reason defending implementation/retaining a law based on religious teaching. You believe it's wrong, fine, don't propose to a guy. It's a sin. But who are you to stop others doing it? Last time I checked, adultery was a sin. People don't get arrested for it. I am a vegetarian, but I don't press for eating meat to be illegal. This is not rhetorical, why do christians have such a big problem with live and let live?

[Druid Bremen]

This is not rhetorical, why do christians have such a big problem with live and let live?

 

A simple question, with a simple answer: They want to spread the good news all over the world. They won't allow you to live your life the way you want it if they perceive it to be bad, even if you truly benefit from it.

[lukeskywalker1]

Actually, yes, but because he claimed that god had told him, everyone accepted it. I remember someone posting that the New Testament is all we are supposed to follow these days, and we should ignore the old, I'd be very interested where they got this idea from, because if it is true, that answers the whole question here and now.

 

Actually, Aash Li said that... and Im not sure, but wasn't she arguing against the religion? Lol. Reguardless, the New Testament restates that we shouldn't engage in sexual sin, and lists men with men as one of those.

[TK-8252]

So is homosexuality okay if you just don't engage in sexual acts?

 

*I'll admit, I haven't read the bible*

[Rogue15]

eh, lust is a sin.

[Rogue15]

we could go along with that to the other extreme and say that it says nothing about women laying with women.

 

 

Found where it says some stuff..

 

Romans 1: 15-32

 

15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[SkinWalker]

I'll be interested in what religion has to say about social issues when the religious can figure out how to keep themelves from commiting crimes and being socially deviant. When christians don't fill our prisons, rape each other, kill each other, cheat on each other, steal from each other, etc., then they can try to convince me that two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to form civil contracts that afford them all 1200 or so legal rights that come with marriage. Particularly when said civil contract has nothing to do with their religion or anyone outside their marriage.

 

Until such time as when Christianity has solved these other, more serious and socially disruptive violations of their faith, let's not quote large amounts of scripture. Particularly quotes that aren't accompanied with some sort of commentary. Small, relevant quotes will suffice.

[Master_Ginn]

I'll be interested in what religion has to say about social issues when the religious can figure out how to keep themelves from commiting crimes and being socially deviant. When christians don't fill our prisons, rape each other, kill each other, cheat on each other, steal from each other, etc., then they can try to convince me that two men or two women shouldn't be allowed to form civil contracts that afford them all 1200 or so legal rights that come with marriage. Particularly when said civil contract has nothing to do with their religion or anyone outside their marriage.

 

Until such time as when Christianity has solved these other, more serious and socially disruptive violations of their faith, let's not quote large amounts of scripture. Particularly quotes that aren't accompanied with some sort of commentary. Small, relevant quotes will suffice.

So do you expect Christians to be perfect? WE can't make mistakes, but YOU can? You honestly have no idea about Christianity do you? And it's pointless to try and explain it to you. I can see that there is absolutely no way to get you to understand.

[SkinWalker]

Mistakes are fine. I just don't want to be preached to about how a particular segment of society is evil or counter to christian doctrine, certainly not while it cannot demonstrate that said doctrine is important enough to follow. I hypothesize that if you were to go through and physically count all the references in the bible to homosexuality then do the same for adultery, you'd see a huge disparity in favor of the latter. That indicates to me that adultery is considered by the ancient authors of the bible to be far more serious a problem then homosexuality. Yet, I see far less effort on the part of christians to do away with adultery. Indeed, adultery is even legal (unless you are in the military).

 

As to whether or not I have any idea "about Christianity," I assert that I am fully aware of Christianity -better than the vast majority of "christians." Indeed, I assert that, as an atheist, I'm a better Christian than most so-called "christians." But you are right, there is no way I'll ever understand the hypocrisy of those that claim to be "faithful" and use their faith as a weapon to suppress and oppress others. Those that are so eager to "cast stones" without first acknowleging their own weaknesses and "sins."

 

The argument against same-sex marriage that cites religion as its reason is invalid. We must toss this argument out.

 

What logical arguments against same-sex marriage remain?

[lukeskywalker1]

But SkinWalker this whole debate is about homosexuality, why would we talk about anything other than homosexuality?

 

What logical arguments against same-sex marriage remain?

 

Can't it cause physical "problems"?

 

Until such time as when Christianity has solved these other, more serious and socially disruptive violations of their faith, let's not quote large amounts of scripture. Particularly quotes that aren't accompanied with some sort of commentary. Small, relevant quotes will suffice.

 

Shall I requote Sith? Its not the religion, its the people. Whats so hard to understand that people act on their own, reguardless of the religion?

 

One of the major points in Christianity is basically admitting, yeah, Im a dirty rotten sinner who deserves to burn for my sins. I need help!

 

Beside Skin, havn't you agreed in the past that the Bible contains one of the greatest moral codes ever written?

[SkinWalker]

But SkinWalker this whole debate is about homosexuality, why would we talk about anything other than homosexuality?

 

I don't think I've suggested any line of discussion other than homosexuality or same-sex marriage. I'm saying that the religious argument against same-sex marriage is invalid and therefore must be tossed out of any discussion that seeks explore the subject in a rational and logical manner.

 

I'm not making that statement as a moderator, but as a participant in the discussion. As a moderator, however, I *am* asking that we not quote large tracts of scripture or any other source when small, relevant quotes will suffice and particularly not with out detailed commentary by the poster.

 

 

Can't it cause physical "problems"?

 

I edited your post to include the word "marriage" after I edited my own. I typed fast and didn't review and omitted the word by mistake. I'm assuming that you inferred the meaning of the sentence, however. If so, then are you asking if same-sex marriage can cause "physical problems?" None that I'm aware of.

 

Shall I requote Sith? Its not the religion, its the people. Whats so hard to understand that people act on their own, reguardless of the religion?

 

I've no problem with understanding that at all. In fact, I agree with it. But until such time as religion can be considered a social success, it has no business attempting to push its agenda on civil matters. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: religion can restrict same-sex marriage all it wants. Within its own cult. But outside of the cults of religion, it is the government's responsibility to determine if there is legitimate reason to disallow same-sex marriage. And government should reach this decision by applying logic and reason not religious superstition.

 

I've yet to see one logical reason to disallow same-sex marriage and many logical reasons *for* allowing it.

 

One of the major points in Christianity is basically admitting, yeah, Im a dirty rotten sinner who deserves to burn for my sins. I need help!

 

Beside Skin, havn't you agreed in the past that the Bible contains one of the greatest moral codes ever written?

 

I don't recall ever using the words "greatest moral codes." I do agree that the bible contains some of humanities greatest literature and, like many great works, one can find wisdom or inspiration. Shakespeare, Milton, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, Twain, and Harper Lee provide wisdom and inspiration as well. Moral "codes" of the bible were clearly written for the people of antiquity and do not apply to modernity.

 

Any of those authors above are far better reads than biblical authors and their messages are far more relevant.

[Master_Ginn]

As to whether or not I have any idea "about Christianity," I assert that I am fully aware of Christianity -better than the vast majority of "christians." Indeed, I assert that, as an atheist, I'm a better Christian than most so-called "christians." But you are right, there is no way I'll ever understand the hypocrisy of those that claim to be "faithful" and use their faith as a weapon to suppress and oppress others. Those that are so eager to "cast stones" without first acknowleging their own weaknesses and "sins."

I wonder Skinwalker, do you not understand Christianity because you can't or because you won't? I'm a hypocrite, how can I say do not sin, when I sin. I'm simply saying what it is that God has already said. I do not claim these words as my own. And again it all goes back to my beliefs, which in my opinion, is more than enough to say what is right and what is wrong.

[Kain]

The problem with alot of people is that they don't follow the Bible word for word; They find something that stirs their petty hatreds(Homosexuality, in this case), and they dwell on what the Bible says on that, ignoring the bigger issues. As SkinWalker said, adultery is worse than homosexuality in the Bible - its even got its own damn commandment! - but people would still rather do some gay-bashing then, oh I don't know, anything constructive for the betterment of mankind.

[SkinWalker]

I wonder Skinwalker, do you not understand Christianity because you can't or because you won't?

This isn't a thread about christianity. What, with regard to same-sex marriage, are you suggesting that I don't understand about Christianity? If you want to challenge my understanding of Christianity (I believe I understand it far better than yourself and am willing to take any challenge you might issue on that assertion), create another thread or use an existing one.

 

The topic of this thread is same-sex marriage and whether or not it should be allowed. I assert, as a member of the discussion not a moderator, that religion (regardless of which cult) has nothing to offer us in argument against the idea. No more than it does on what to teach in science classes. Marriage is a civil contract and it's authority is government, not religion.

 

If religion doesn't want to allow same-sex marriages in its ceremonies, then, by all means religious cults shouldn't allow it. But these same cults have no business interfering in government and civil contracts. If you don't want to marry someone of the same gender... don't.

 

Let me add that my use of the word "cult" is one of objective perspective, and not intended to be an insult. I don't see the word "cult" as perjorative but descriptive. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "cult" as: "Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies."

 

And my criticism of religion (be it Christianity or any other) is fair. Religion (particularly Christianity) is attempting to muscle its way into government, politics and education. If religion is going to be cited as reason for legislature, then it should be willing to withstand scrutiny and criticism. My criticisms are certainly not intended to be directed toward any individual in this forum and certainly not in this thread. Lukeskywalker1 and I go back a ways and I consider him a friend, in spite of my disagreement with his beliefs. Many of my best friends are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist (two of them) and Hindu (1).

 

If my comments about religion have offended you personally, please accept my apologies. But I stand by my convictions.

[lukeskywalker1]

Aha! The mighty Kain returns to the Senate Chambers!

 

 

Let me add that my use of the word "cult" is one of objective perspective, and not intended to be an insult. I don't see the word "cult" as perjorative but descriptive. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "cult" as: "Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies."

 

Yeah, I think a lot of people misunderstand the meaning of that word. When I hear it I think about underground freaks with crazy rituals involving blood and fire... O.O Its just not a word used to describe popular religions... even though, technically, it does mean a "religious group." :-\

 

I think it all boils down to what we can control (in response to kain awell) Believe me, if we had the power to make adultery illegal, it would be. We can't control whether or not a man has sex with another man, because how we would know it happend? We can't possibly know what happens in another persons house, legally, anyways. But, on the other hand we can control the marriage part.

 

Lukeskywalker1 and I go back a ways and I consider him a friend, in spite of my disagreement with his beliefs.

 

Yup, plus being friends helps lighten the mood a lot. You know, we can throw jokes around here and there. Plus, outside the Senate a lot of us actually agree on things! Well, we agree in the Senate too, like in that video game thread, but thats sorta biased, because most of us are gamers

[Kain]

But controlling marriage isn't Religions place, my friend. The ceremony belongs to the established religion - the actual law should not be swayed by religion in ANY shape or form. If the church as an entity doesn't want to perform the sevice so be it. I won't go around with a sign saying 'Allow Ceremony' - its not my style or my place. Just like its not relgions place to say who can be miserable and who can't