Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

what have you got to say about this?

That the guy mixes a few good points with a lot of incomplete analysis and arrives at bad conclusions.

Originally posted by docb77
That the guy mixes a few good points with a lot of incomplete analysis and arrives at bad conclusions. well you do have to think about it.

This guy misses the fact that we not God bring this shit upon ourselves.

However this guy does make a good point about Organized Religion. Mohandas Gandhi said it best...

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-Mohandas Gandhi

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
This guy misses the fact that we not God bring this shit upon ourselves.

However this guy does make a good point about Organized Religion. Mohandas Gandhi said it best...

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-Mohandas Gandhi Ghandi is not a saint.

This guy made a good point saying "Biblical man was lucky to live past 30. Modern man has an average death age of 75 thanks to hated science."

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ghandi is not a saint.

This guy made a good point saying "Biblical man was lucky to live past 30. Modern man has an average death age of 75 thanks to hated science."
Did I say he was? No and besides WTF does being or not being a saint have anything to do with his quote? He makes a very valid point.

Oh please spare me the "hated science" crap. It's not God's fault that the Catholic church was so obsessed with control they were afraid of science and what it might be able to do. You're associating the Catholic church with all other Christians which drives me nuts. Really I have little good things to say about the Catholic Church...

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
Did I say he was? No and besides WTF does being or not being a saint have anything to do with his quote? He makes a very valid point.

Oh please spare me the "hated science" crap. It's not God's fault that the Catholic church was so obsessed with control they were afraid of science and what it might be able to do. You're associating the Catholic church with all other Christians which drives me nuts. Really I have little good things to say about the Catholic Church... you assume god's a person and intends us for things?

Originally posted by lord xyz
you assume god's a person and intends us for things?
Well if your Christian that's the general idea... duh... although I have not a clue WTF you mean by "intends us for things".

For him being a person... don't where you got that shit from. I believe him to a conscience force that transcends the realm of physics. Whether other Christians agree I have no idea... we never seem to agree on anything.

Oh and you would not spell it god's because that is possessive... it would be simply God is a person.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
Well if your Christian that's the general idea... duh... although I have not a clue WTF you mean by "intends us for things".

For him being a person... don't where you got that shit from. I believe him to a conscience force that transcends the realm of physics. Whether other Christians agree I have no idea... we never seem to agree on anything.

Oh and you would not spell it god's because that is possessive... it would be simply God is a person. god's = short for god is.

you said "he" being possesive, you also said "It's not God's fault that the Catholic church was so obsessed with control they were afraid of science and what it might be able to do." meaning you believe god has planned us or something and intends us for something, but his intensions are different to the catholic church which you said was good. Which historical evidence has shown us, it was nothing of the sort.

Now we're going off-topic. Back to the decline of religion.

..it started as soon as religion was invented.

The decline of religion is when people started to question.

/realized they had brains.

Originally posted by lord xyz
god's = short for god is.

you said "he" being possesive, you also said "It's not God's fault that the Catholic church was so obsessed with control they were afraid of science and what it might be able to do." meaning you believe god has planned us or something and intends us for something, but his intensions are different to the catholic church which you said was good. Which historical evidence has shown us, it was nothing of the sort.

Now we're going off-topic. Back to the decline of religion.
You should have clarified this in your first post... and yes at the expense of perhaps insulting every Catholic on here. I believe the Catholic Church to be full of hypocritical fire and brimstone idiots and ruined and destroyed every Christian's reputation because of their totalitarian jackass policies...

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
I believe the Catholic Church to be full of hypocritical fire and brimstone idiots and ruined and destroyed every Christian's reputation because of their totalitarian jackass policies...

Thats funny but from my personally view most religions have done the same. Though personally I have limited exposure, living in the US.

(We're not very diverse)

Originally posted by Alliance
Thats funny but from my personally view most religions have done the same. Though personally I have limited exposure, living in the US.

(We're not very diverse)
Indeed most religions have...

I myself do not belong to any actual Christian "sect". I'm just one of those "accept Jesus into your heart and you're done" kinds of person. Hell I don't even read my Bible or go to church on a regular basis.

So now you know why I hate religion? If you wanna believe in supernatural, try philosophy.

Philosophy owns Religion!

You can't discount supernatural........Supernatural doesn't have to be Christian.

so Jesus was normal (according to the myth)?

Religions is DECLINING because it ISNT WORKING.

In South America religion is one of the reasons people there are so miserable.

The Church teaches that poverty is BLESSING in South America, it encourages racism by always portraying a WHITE GOD and it EXCUSES racism and murder by claiming that in order to spread God's word we must wipe out those who would refuse to beleive.



Religion was the motivation behind the SALEM WITCH TRIALS, the CRUSADES, the World Trader Center destruction, the spanish INQUISITION, it justified Slavery (Christians thought darkness to be sinful, black people had dark skin, therefore they beleived them to be SUB HUMAN), and strengthened the logic behind the HOLOCAUST (The jews killed Christ Hitler claimed and many followed)




Organized Religion DOES NOT WORK...it has done more bad than good.

WAKE UP PEOPLE

WAKE UP !!!!

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Religions is DECLINING because it ISNT WORKING.

In South America religion is one of the reasons people there are so miserable.

The Church teaches that poverty is BLESSING in South America, it encourages racism by always portraying a WHITE GOD and it EXCUSES racism and murder by claiming that in order to spread God's word we must wipe out those who would refuse to beleive.



Religion was the motivation behind the SALEM WITCH TRIALS, the CRUSADES, the World Trader Center destruction, the spanish INQUISITION, it justified Slavery (Christians thought darkness to be sinful, black people had dark skin, therefore they beleived them to be SUB HUMAN), and strengthened the logic behind the HOLOCAUST (The jews killed Christ Hitler claimed and many followed)




Organized Religion DOES NOT WORK...it has done more bad than good.

WAKE UP PEOPLE

WAKE UP !!!!

Only place I've seen God being portrayed as white is in paintings, no scriptures or anything like that.

Boy you sure are one sided about religion. Religion also is what motivated the end of slavery. And most of the other examples you cited are better examples of religious hypocrisy than actual religion.

Religion itself (at least the post abrahamic variety) has greatly increased the human condition (for the most part, I'm not arguing that people haven't done stupid things in the name of religion). just look at the way things were before it versus after.

that's like saying saying "Is Jesus black?".

Only place I've seen God being portrayed as white is in paintings, no scriptures or anything like that.


In South America and even North America, Jesus, God and Mary are portrayed as white through paintings and textbooks and most Biblical art....why? Because it was a way for whites to ensure their own power psychologically, most probably.


Do I care? Not personally....I am half white, so it doesn't hurt me per say. But I am also half hispanic, and it does hurt knowing that so many of my relatives believed that they were the wrong race because God did not belong to them"

Ask the NATIVE AMERICANS what race they think God is from everything they learned in United States culture.......your eyes will be OPENED my freind...OPENED







Boy you sure are one sided about religion. Religion also is what motivated the end of slavery. And most of the other examples you cited are better examples of religious hypocrisy than actual religion.



Actually I am not. I am agnostic and come from a Christian family. Been to Catholic School all my life. My grandfather is Evangelical. I have read the Bible many a time my freind !

Religion is not what helped end slavery. Abraham Lincoln set the blacks in the South free so that the North could win the war. You see my freind, the South was very powerful because of slave labor. Once the slaves were freed, they had to start PAYING for weopons, troops, and food.

It was a victory strategy, religion had little to do with it.


Religion also HELPED slavery in fact. In the Old Testament, slavery was only condemned for "God's Chosen people". For everyone else slavery was okay, the Bible condones it. It tells Slaves to obey their masters and work honestly for them.


Also....In the early ages when Africans were starting to be sold as slaves, European Christians beleive that Africans were sub human. They thought this because they thought evil was "dark". Since blacks have DARK skin, they figured they are FLOODED with sin from head to toe. They justified enslaving them because thier religion said evil was darkness, and blacks were OH SO DARK.....religion helped START slavery for blacks, do dont even try it bro. Take a college history course one day.




Religion itself (at least the post abrahamic variety) has greatly increased the human condition (for the most part, I'm not arguing that people haven't done stupid things in the name of religion). just look at the way things were before it versus after.


Science has done more good than religion though. Psychology revealed the truth of Dissassociative Identity Disorder. Before hand, people with this horrible disease were burnt alive or executed in other ways for being under "demonic possession"


Doesn't matter over all. Religion is still the force and excuse behind the Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition......

This is by no means excusable.


TODAY religion contradicts itself by violating free will. To try and BAN gay marriage is not only taking away a CIVIL RIGHT that all Americans are entitled to, but impedes on the freedom to make our own choices.

PREACH all you want about the "sinfullness" of being gay, but do not FORCE a gay person into SUBMISSION by taking away thier chance at happiness. YOU and no force in this Universe HAS that right.

There is no religious decline.

There's just an INCREASE of Atheism .

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
There's just an INCREASE of Atheism . No, there isn't. There is the same amount of Athiest's as there was before. The belief in mainstream religions might be falling, but there are a lot of underground religions that have spawned up in the last 100 years.

Then there is a higher AWARNESS of Atheism and Agnosticism.

I don't care for religion, even though I used to be very religious and my family still is.

Come to New York City, and you'll see how religion is the minority here.

Only place I've seen God being portrayed as white is in paintings, no scriptures or anything like that.


In South America and even North America, Jesus, God and Mary are portrayed as white through paintings and textbooks and most Biblical art....why? Because it was a way for whites to ensure their own power psychologically, most probably.


Do I care? Not personally....I am half white, so it doesn't hurt me per say. But I am also half hispanic, and it does hurt knowing that so many of my relatives believed that they were the wrong race because God did not belong to them"

Ask the NATIVE AMERICANS what race they think God is from everything they learned in United States culture.......your eyes will be OPENED my freind...OPENED







Boy you sure are one sided about religion. Religion also is what motivated the end of slavery. And most of the other examples you cited are better examples of religious hypocrisy than actual religion.



Actually I am not. I am agnostic and come from a Christian family. Been to Catholic School all my life. My grandfather is Evangelical. I have read the Bible many a time my freind !

Religion is not what helped end slavery. Abraham Lincoln set the blacks in the South free so that the North could win the war. You see my freind, the South was very powerful because of slave labor. Once the slaves were freed, they had to start PAYING for weopons, troops, and food.

It was a victory strategy, religion had little to do with it.


Religion also HELPED slavery in fact. In the Old Testament, slavery was only condemned for "God's Chosen people". For everyone else slavery was okay, the Bible condones it. It tells Slaves to obey their masters and work honestly for them.


Also....In the early ages when Africans were starting to be sold as slaves, European Christians beleive that Africans were sub human. They thought this because they thought evil was "dark". Since blacks have DARK skin, they figured they are FLOODED with sin from head to toe. They justified enslaving them because thier religion said evil was darkness, and blacks were OH SO DARK.....religion helped START slavery for blacks, do dont even try it bro. Take a college history course one day.




Religion itself (at least the post abrahamic variety) has greatly increased the human condition (for the most part, I'm not arguing that people haven't done stupid things in the name of religion). just look at the way things were before it versus after.


Science has done more good than religion though. Psychology revealed the truth of Dissassociative Identity Disorder. Before hand, people with this horrible disease were burnt alive or executed in other ways for being under "demonic possession"


Doesn't matter over all. Religion is still the force and excuse behind the Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition......

This is by no means excusable.


TODAY religion contradicts itself by violating free will. To try and BAN gay marriage is not only taking away a CIVIL RIGHT that all Americans are entitled to, but impedes on the freedom to make our own choices.

PREACH all you want about the "sinfullness" of being gay, but do not FORCE a gay person into SUBMISSION by taking away thier chance at happiness. YOU and no force in this Universe HAS that right.

I believe there is a decline in the Old Religion and an increase in the awareness of something bigger....

Religion did not bring about the end of slavery. Infact, the Bible advocates slaves in several places.

What ended slavery was the Constitution and the fact that black people were fed up with white people's crap.

Actually both sides of the slavery question were arguing from the bible. Slavery was in the Bible, but it wasn't the same as what we think of as slavery, You could actually work your way to freedom in it.

And if you think that Lincoln wasn't motivated by religion at least somewhat you haven't read his speeches and writings. Read his 2nd inaugural address and tell me that it doesn't sound a tad religious.

Actually I believe Lincoln was jumping on the religious band wagon and using it as politicians do today...His main goal was to keep the states together...

docb77....

everyone in power uses religious reasons to back up thier actions..Bush and Cheney pull that crap today.

Religion is an easy way to sway the masses, people will automatically buy into it if they think its in the service of a "higher good"


Especially in this time, when religion was universally publically accepted as Truth, and Atheism wasn't welcome. He HAD to use religion in his argument, otherwise many people would have not cared about the negativity of slavery.

I guess what it really boils down to since both sides of any issue can use religion as an argument, is that the real impact of religion is on the lives of individuals. When religion becomes a state power it can get out of hand, which is why the founders of the US wanted government and religion separate. However, Individual lives can benifit greatly from religion. I've seen lives improve dramatically because a person accepted religion. In fact I've never seen a life go downhill because of faith in God (excepting the financial losses of some televangelist donors.)

How about when gays commit suicide because thier Faith says there is something wrong with them, and they feel they cannot live up to it.

How about the parents who have such a strong Faith that they kick out thier daughters for being pregnant, or deny thier sons for being gay.

How about the person who loses valuable friendships because they want to stay away from "sinners"...


Yes Docb77, religion is great for many people. But for others it does not work. You imagine that if every1 followed the Bible, this world would be better, but that will never happen.

The Bible is not compatible for everyone, nor is your Faith.

If it were, everybody would be converting right now.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How about when gays commit suicide because thier Faith says there is something wrong with them, and they feel they cannot live up to it.

How about the parents who have such a strong Faith that they kick out thier daughters for being pregnant, or deny thier sons for being gay.

How about the person who loses valuable friendships because they want to stay away from "sinners"...


Yes Docb77, religion is great for many people. But for others it does not work. You imagine that if every1 followed the Bible, this world would be better, but that will never happen.

The Bible is not compatible for everyone, nor is your Faith.

If it were, everybody would be converting right now.

Those are sad examples. And in those cases, I think that God will be more merciful to the sinners than the parents or "friends" at the final judgement.

I do think that religion is great for everyone, but you are right that different people can only accept the truth at different levels. I think that religious truth is a little like math, you start with addition, and over time work your way up to the calculus and such. Giving someone too much at once would definitely overwhelm them.

As far as the bible goes, yes if everyone had a perfect understaning of it and followed it the world would be a great place, but it would be an even better place if people would go to the source (God) directly. I like what Moses said at Mt. Horeb. "Oh that they were all prophets".

No, neither the bible nor my faith tries to conform to fit the world. It's up to the different people to better themselves to the point where it works for them. I think everyone will get a chance at salvation.

Oh, and many are converting to my religion, it's one of the fastest growing religions in the US.

No, neither the bible nor my faith tries to conform to fit the world


Yes it does. If you vote to ban gay marriage you are forcing limits upon people who do not owe you anything. You are therefore violating thier free will, taking away thier civil rights, promoting "seperate but equal" and thereby contradicting yourself.

I beleive many Christians confuse Love with Control.

I didn't mean that it doesn't try to change the world, I meant that it doesn't change itself to fit into the world.

Fine ...but my point WAS: please answer




If you vote to ban gay marriage you are forcing limits upon people who do not owe you anything. You are therefore violating thier free will, taking away thier civil rights, promoting "seperate but equal" and thereby contradicting yourself.

I beleive many Christians confuse Love with Control.

Yes it does, expalin Vatican II, or the rise of internet preaching/televangalism/Christian rock concerts for 12 year olds.

If religion didn't conform, it would die all the more rapidly.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Fine ...but my point WAS: please answer




If you vote to ban gay marriage you are forcing limits upon people who do not owe you anything. You are therefore violating thier free will, taking away thier civil rights, promoting "seperate but equal" and thereby contradicting yourself.

I beleive many Christians confuse Love with Control.

You may be right about some christians. Love and control are different. My views on homosexuality don't have anything to do with either though, for me it's about right and wrong.

I'm failing to see the contradiction. Or the denial of civil rights. I've maintained that they can get married if they want to. The marriage just has to be between a man and woman. no separate, just equal. The law has a lot of restrictions. you can't steal, can't kill, can't drive while drunk, must where seatbelt while driving, etc. Do those laws violate free will or take away any civil rights? Do anti-theft laws deny cleptomaniacs their civil rights? I don't think so, it's just what's necessary to have an orderly society. I'm saying that by my definition it's impossible for a man to marry another man, or a woman another woman. They can love each other, sure, have benefits that are usually considered part of a marriage, but that doesn't make it a marriage.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes it does, expalin Vatican II, or the rise of internet preaching/televangalism/Christian rock concerts for 12 year olds.

If religion didn't conform, it would die all the more rapidly.

I don't count catholics or new age religion. I'm not one of them.

Funny thing is that the religions that don't conform are the ones that are growing the most rapidly.

Originally posted by docb77
I'm failing to see the contradiction. Or the denial of civil rights. I've maintained that they can get married if they want to. The marriage just has to be between a man and woman. no separate, just equal. The law has a lot of restrictions. you can't steal, can't kill, can't drive while drunk, must where seatbelt while driving, etc. Do those laws violate free will or take away any civil rights? Do anti-theft laws deny cleptomaniacs their civil rights? I don't think so, it's just what's necessary to have an orderly society. I'm saying that by my definition it's impossible for a man to marry another man, or a woman another woman. They can love each other, sure, have benefits that are usually considered part of a marriage, but that doesn't make it a marriage.

All the laws you mentioned govern behavior of everyone and everyone is held to the same distinctions. The US has many laws BANNING discrimination or SEGREGATION (principles which you seem to uphold).

Maybe your opinion is different, but my opinion is that of the US constitution. If you don't like the US constitution, revoke your citizenship.

Originally posted by Alliance
All the laws you mentioned govern behavior of everyone and everyone is held to the same distinctions. The US has many laws BANNING discrimination or SEGREGATION (principles which you seem to uphold).

Maybe your opinion is different, but my opinion is that of the US constitution. If you don't like the US constitution, revoke your citizenship.

Ok, spell it out for me.

If a gay man can court and marry a woman, and a straight man can court and marry a woman, and they are both prohibited from "marrying" a man, wheres the discrimination or segregation?

I love the country, and the constitution, that's why I don't want to see it go down the drain. You don't see me attacking your views of the country or saying that you want to destroy it do you? Give me a little respect here.

the descrimination lie in the fact that one couple is not treated as antoher couple. They are treated differently. You describe almost word for word the "seperate but equal" policy. You essentially said <<oh, they can have the same rights, just you cant call it marriage>>

I never said you wanted to destroy the country, but you don't stand up for American ideals. But what part of "all men are created equal" do you not get? Its US law that segrgation is wrong, that discrimination is not legal. The law is NOT ambiguous.

docv77

how can you not get this yet? By only allowing a gay man to marry a woman you are creating a bullshit marriage...this marriage means nothing, because a gay man is not capable of having sexual or romantic feelings for a woman.


You would rather have a "straight" marriage that lacks love then a marriage of two men or two women that has love ?


How blind are you ?

Originally posted by Alliance
the descrimination lie in the fact that one couple is not treated as antoher couple. They are treated differently. You describe almost word for word the "seperate but equal" policy. You essentially said <<oh, they can have the same rights, just you cant call it marriage>>

I never said you wanted to destroy the country, but you don't stand up for American ideals. But what part of "all men are created equal" do you not get? Its US law that segrgation is wrong, that discrimination is not legal. The law is NOT ambiguous.

I stand up for american ideals all the time. Self determination, right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, etc. I just don't buy your argument. All men are created equal - true. What you're saying is that all couples are created equal, that I don't buy.


Originally posted by Lord Urizen
docv77

how can you not get this yet? By only allowing a gay man to marry a woman you are creating a bullshit marriage...this marriage means nothing, because a gay man is not capable of having sexual or romantic feelings for a woman.


You would rather have a "straight" marriage that lacks love then a marriage of two men or two women that has love ?


How blind are you ?

I would rather have a straight marriage (the only kind that I see as being a marriage) based on love and trust.

I'm not forcing anyone to get married, but if they want to that's the only option open. I don't accept that gays can't change. Anyone can change, It can be dam hard, but it's possible.

Gays dont have 2 change just because you say so.

Either way you are violating free will by limitting gay's rights.

Thats the bottom line.

I never said they had to, just that they could.

I'm not violating anyone's civil rights by saying I'd vote to define marriage as a 2 gender institution.

Bottom line is we disagree.

I do like your little thanos vs darkseid thing though.

Thanks

Then lets agree to disagree.....things that neither of us like happen in this world. Arguing over meaninless things liek someone's marriage is pointless compared to war, poverty, etc.

Those are the issues we should be fighting.

Either way, its obvious...neither of us will budge.

I'm Alain. whats ur name ?

Originally posted by docb77
All men are created equal - true. What you're saying is that all couples are created equal, that I don't buy.
So women aren't included in that then? Because it only says "men." I don't think it does. You proabably don't either. The point is we know that mankind refers to man in general. A couple is two people. In a homosexual couple, both people are denied a legal contract based on an aspect of their existance.

The point is that you are limiting two people from entering into a two person institution that gives them mutual rights superior to other relationships. This isn't about the right to marry a woman, its about the right to marry the person of your choice. You are excluding a group of people from fully participating in the institutions govenrment offers. Thats discrimination.
Originally posted by docb77
I'm not forcing anyone to get married, but if they want to that's the only option open. I don't accept that gays can't change. Anyone can change, It can be dam hard, but it's possible.
Could you change your race for me? I know it's be hard, but then you could just fit in with every else. Its more...natural.

Some of us are in their shoes. Some of us were born in them, some of us can put ourselves in them. Try it. Its eye opening. How would you like it if you were denied marriage because you wanted to marry a woman that you loved? Your love is not recognized, appreciated, or understood.

People don't just wake up one day and decide to be homosexual, its a part of your existance, you can't descriminate based on that. YOu can have sex with lots of different people, but what you feel inside is love. If you're a guy and you feel love for antoher guy, thats not a decision you make. Anyone who is in love can tell you that. Tis part of who you are. You were born to love that person.

I understand that you have moral concerns over gay marriages, but legally, its bulletproof.

Damn Alliance....you are a much better debator than me or anyone else here !

I get to personal with my debates sometimes when i feel I am encountering brainwashed minds.

Originally posted by docb77
I'm not forcing anyone to get married, but if they want to that's the only option open. I don't accept that gays can't change. Anyone can change, It can be dam hard, but it's possible.
There is no conclusive data that shows ex-gay reparative therapy is possible.

Storm's right.

well, you never know.

Yeah but even if it's the case, people don't have to do it.

Gay people developed differently. They shouldn't have to change thier sexuality, they do not HURT anyone else by being who they are.

People can change their skin color, get plastic surgery to look different. Is that right? Should thay do that just to fit in? Shouldn't we appreciate who we are? I thought somehting existed called self-respect.

Originally posted by Alliance
So women aren't included in that then? Because it only says "men." I don't think it does. You proabably don't either. The point is we know that mankind refers to man in general. A couple is two people. In a homosexual couple, both people are denied a legal contract based on an aspect of their existance.

The point is that you are limiting two people from entering into a two person institution that gives them mutual rights superior to other relationships. This isn't about the right to marry a woman, its about the right to marry the person of your choice. You are excluding a group of people from fully participating in the institutions govenrment offers. Thats discrimination.

All men are equal, all women are equal, that doesn't mean that they are identical. If they were everyone would be bi.

So what you're saying is that it's about a right that no one even thought of until the past 5 or so years. I would hardly say that's an "unalienable right". The hypothetical homosexual couple are denied that legal contract based on not meeting the qualifications of said contract. I can't apply for a blacks only scholarship, or a native american one. Should I whine about that? The prerequisites for the marriage license include that the two parties applying for it must be of the opposite gender.

Originally posted by Alliance
Could you change your race for me? I know it's be hard, but then you could just fit in with every else. Its more...natural.

Well, I guess I wouldn't have said what I did above if I could do that. What I could do is change my lifestyle, fit in with another culture. I could assimilate to living a mexican - for instance - lifestyle if I needed to. Race and sexuality are not the same thing. Ones genetic, the other - no conclusive proof either way.

Originally posted by Alliance
Some of us are in their shoes. Some of us were born in them, some of us can put ourselves in them. Try it. Its eye opening. How would you like it if you were denied marriage because you wanted to marry a woman that you loved? Your love is not recognized, appreciated, or understood.

I can imagine that, heck I can even say that I've experienced it. Feelings aren't always mutual, and it does hurt. Doesn't change the law.

Originally posted by Alliance
People don't just wake up one day and decide to be homosexual, its a part of your existance, you can't descriminate based on that. YOu can have sex with lots of different people, but what you feel inside is love. If you're a guy and you feel love for antoher guy, thats not a decision you make. Anyone who is in love can tell you that. Tis part of who you are. You were born to love that person.

Oh, I really doubt even the most die-hard believers in it being a choice think that it's an overnight choice. My own theory is that it's like addiction. perhaps there's even a genetic proclivity to it, but like alcoholism (which also has a genetic component), if that weakness isn't triggered it won't be a problem. Likewise, if someone does fall into it, it doesn't mean that the should just go with it. So while a person may have less control over their feelings than they'd like, they still have some control. I've liked girls emotionally who I knew wouldn't be good for me. I didn't pursue those relationships. Same deal with gays. It's hard, but it is possible.

Originally posted by Alliance
I understand that you have moral concerns over gay marriages, but legally, its bulletproof.

There are moral concerns. I also have concerns about incestuous marriages, bigamist marriages and mutually abusive marriages. Should all of those be allowed as well? Legally it doesn't hold water any more than it does morally.

By the way Urizen, My name is Eric.

Originally posted by docb77
All men are equal, all women are equal, that doesn't mean that they are identical. If they were everyone would be bi.
Men and woman are legally identical. Unless your sexist...

Originally posted by docb77
So what you're saying is that it's about a right that no one even thought of until the past 5 or so years. I would hardly say that's an "unalienable right". The hypothetical homosexual couple are denied that legal contract based on not meeting the qualifications of said contract. I can't apply for a blacks only scholarship, or a native american one. Should I whine about that? The prerequisites for the marriage license include that the two parties applying for it must be of the opposite gender.
Actually, If you know your history, homosexuality began being publically discussed in the 1950s in the US. I belive all people whould be treated equally under the law. Marriage is a privledge given to all US citizens, except homosexuals. Civil rights are in place to protect the rights of minorities, do make sure that they are not discriminated against by people with opinions similar to yours. The prequistes for a marriage license are unconstitutional. You cant have a discriminatory contract.

Originally posted by docb77
Well, I guess I wouldn't have said what I did above if I could do that. What I could do is change my lifestyle, fit in with another culture. I could assimilate to living a mexican - for instance - lifestyle if I needed to. Race and sexuality are not the same thing. Ones genetic, the other - no conclusive proof either way.
Since when has the US been about assimilation. When your family immigrated, they didn't assimilate. America's strength lies in its diversity of people. YOu can't pretend to be something you're not.

Part of the reason there is no conclusive proof is that no one trusts the science talking about sexuality. If people claim a genetic link, they often want to engineer babies to not be homosexual or to discriminate based on the "gay gene." If there is no genetic link, people like you claim its a behavior and want to condition it out of society. If you know anything about genetics, you know that most everything is a combination of genetic predisposition and behavior.

Try talking to homosexuals, you'll find that most don't think its a behavioral pattern. Certainly don' tpass judgements on things untill you talk face to face with homosexuals and explain why you are partially disenfranchizing them.

Originally posted by docb77
I can imagine that, heck I can even say that I've experienced it. Feelings aren't always mutual, and it does hurt. Doesn't change the law.
Is a law just if tis discriminatory. The "laws" as you put them are unconstitutional. There is a reason the extreme religous conservatives want to put in a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. THe constitution protects gay marriage. The only way to stop that is by raping the constitution with ant-gay marriage amendments.

YOure saying <<we'll its ok that we have segregation, because its the law>> THAT is unamerican.

Originally posted by docb77
Oh, I really doubt even the most die-hard believers in it being a choice think that it's an overnight choice. My own theory is that it's like addiction. perhaps there's even a genetic proclivity to it, but like alcoholism (which also has a genetic component), if that weakness isn't triggered it won't be a problem. Likewise, if someone does fall into it, it doesn't mean that the should just go with it. So while a person may have less control over their feelings than they'd like, they still have some control. I've liked girls emotionally who I knew wouldn't be good for me. I didn't pursue those relationships. Same deal with gays. It's hard, but it is possible.

If you read my post, its not a choice at all. Calling homosexuality an addiction and a weakness is personally disgusting on the highest of levels.

Men aren't all genetically (as you mentioned) to like women. YOu can't force someone in this country to do somehting agianst your will. Your story doesnt make sense and isn't based on any fact. YOur "theory" is actually on conjecture.

There is a difference between choosing which specific people you like and which sex you like. Homosexuals dont feel sexual attraction for the oposite sex. You cant just choose another any more than you can choose to feel sexually attracted towards men.

Originally posted by docb77
There are moral concerns. I also have concerns about incestuous marriages, bigamist marriages and mutually abusive marriages. Should all of those be allowed as well? Legally it doesn't hold water any more than it does morally.

Abusive, incestusous, and bigamist marriages have been shown to hurt people. Abusive rlationships certianly hurt people. Incestuous marragies lead to twisted. Bigamist/polygamist marriages often lead to spousal neglect. Incestuous marriages are often used for cult religous family structures. Gay marriages don't hurt people. They most likely help in the same way that straight couples are helped by marriages.

Originally posted by Alliance
Men and woman are legally identical. Unless your sexist...


Actually, If you know your history, homosexuality began being publically discussed in the 1950s in the US. I belive all people whould be treated equally under the law. Marriage is a privledge given to all US citizens, except homosexuals. Civil rights are in place to protect the rights of minorities, do make sure that they are not discriminated against by people with opinions similar to yours. The prequistes for a marriage license are unconstitutional. You cant have a discriminatory contract.


Since when has the US been about assimilation. When your family immigrated, they didn't assimilate. America's strength lies in its diversity of people. YOu can't pretend to be something you're not.

Part of the reason there is no conclusive proof is that no one trusts the science talking about sexuality. If people claim a genetic link, they often want to engineer babies to not be homosexual or to discriminate based on the "gay gene." If there is no genetic link, people like you claim its a behavior and want to condition it out of society. If you know anything about genetics, you know that most everything is a combination of genetic predisposition and behavior.

Try talking to homosexuals, you'll find that most don't think its a behavioral pattern. Certainly don' tpass judgements on things untill you talk face to face with homosexuals and explain why you are partially disenfranchizing them.


Is a law just if tis discriminatory. The "laws" as you put them are unconstitutional. There is a reason the extreme religous conservatives want to put in a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. THe constitution protects gay marriage. The only way to stop that is by raping the constitution with ant-gay marriage amendments.

YOure saying <<we'll its ok that we have segregation, because its the law>> THAT is unamerican.



If you read my post, its not a choice at all. Calling homosexuality an addiction and a weakness is personally disgusting on the highest of levels.

Men aren't all genetically (as you mentioned) to like women. YOu can't force someone in this country to do somehting agianst your will. Your story doesnt make sense and isn't based on any fact. YOur "theory" is actually on conjecture.

There is a difference between choosing which specific people you like and which sex you like. Homosexuals dont feel sexual attraction for the oposite sex. You cant just choose another any more than you can choose to feel sexually attracted towards men.



Abusive, incestusous, and bigamist marriages have been shown to hurt people. Abusive rlationships certianly hurt people. Incestuous marragies lead to twisted. Bigamist/polygamist marriages often lead to spousal neglect. Incestuous marriages are often used for cult religous family structures. Gay marriages don't hurt people. They most likely help in the same way that straight couples are helped by marriages.

I answered this post in the gay marriage thread.

ok, perhaps we should keep it in there. I hate writing books.

deal thumbsup

^ What?