Originally posted by PVSLil B, you suggest that both sides come up with proof, but there is no proof. there is no proof at all as to whether gays choose to be gay or if they are just born that way. if proof is a requirement for this topic, then im afraid all threads of this nature are rendered invalid.
When did i suggest that? I didnt even get into the actual argument of the thread.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If you have a strong argument against all Jackie Malfoy, then show it.
^^^^
quote which i misinterpreted
you're right lil b.. my appologies.
i guess my train of thought got ahead of me.
JM preaches that there is no proof that being gay is genetic, thus they can be reformed. thus, the only way to argue that is to either:
-come up with proof that she is wrong (impossible)
-inform her of her use of a classic fallacy (appeal to ignorance)
which has been done time and time again, which she ignores and continues repeat postings.
only option left is to say STFU and pray that she listens.
topics like this need to be discussed and not spammed with
repeatative redneck junk science.
I had listen to yu guys and we both share a different thought on it.Just because my thought is different it should be thought too.Both of us could be wrong.
But saying that you are right all the time is not fair.and it is also not debating.I doubt it if you disargee with everything I said.Inleast you read my other posts in other threads.
Which I doubt that you did.If you have anything to discuss with me you can pm it to me.And we will talk about it.That way there is not another flame war on this thread.
and we can go back to the normal topic.OK?Anyone have a promblem with me pm me about it.And I see if we can work it out.JM That sounds fair right?JM
tptmanno> while i do not see marriage in a church and marriage in a court or whatever as the same, they are considered the same thing by the government. what i mean by that is both recieve the same benefits, etc. Civil unions, i don't care about. Let them get united or whatever. Give them the same benefits, fine. BUT don't call it marriage. I have said it before, and this isn't just directed towards tptmanno, Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. It should be kept that way. As for why we, as the conservative right, want the government to recognize this, is because if we do not stand up for our beliefs, then when gay marriage is legalized, and pastors have to start holding gay marriages in their churches because if not they will go to jail or whatnot, where does that leave our faith?
as for christians skwirming(sp?) when confronted about divorce, adultery, etc. I do no. Adultery is a sin. Divorce is not admissable.
Originally posted by JediHDM
I have said it before, and this isn't just directed towards tptmanno, Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. It should be kept that way. As for why we, as the conservative right, want the government to recognize this, is because if we do not stand up for our beliefs, then when gay marriage is legalized, and pastors have to start holding gay marriages in their churches because if not they will go to jail or whatnot, where does that leave our faith?
JediHDM: When has a Pastor gone to jail for not sanctioning a marriage?
If the couple knows the Church is not willing to give the (spiritual) title of marriage, they should go to a Church that will.
I disagree that any Father or Pastor should go to jail because they feel so strong about a given topic. Now on the other hand I feel People should not be discriminated against because of their Age, Race, Creed, Gender, or Sexual Orientation.
That is why I stated in a previous post that there should be a true division between Church and State.
-- (Here is that previous post. It was in responce to RageRemorse.) --
Hehe Not in the Bible belt! They don't like it when two boys or girls wanna kiss, let alone get married. Were you not paying attention to the Election on Tuesday? They think Gay marriage is a Big Sin. 😛
Funny thing is the Problem Of gay marriage can easily be fixed.
If there were a true separation between Church and State the Problem would disappear all together.
If the State would recognize all unions (Male & Female, Male & Male, Female & Female, Gay, Straight) as civil Unions and Treat them all equally, that would solve one half of the problem.
Then If the Church would give the blessing of the title of Marriage (through God Or whatever deity you worship) to whoever they see fix. They would solve the other half of the problem.
If a certain church has a problem with two men getting married they would not be forced to give the title of marriage to them, without interfering with their civil right (State) to get married. If a gay couple were not happy with the Church’s stance on gay marriage they could go to another one that will bless them with the (spiritual) title.
In my opinion this solution would cut down on all the B*llsh*t and bigotry against Gay people in this country & world.
Again The State gives the authority (and all the equal right that comes with it) for everyone to have the right to a civil union, while the Church has the right to give the (Spiritual) title of marriage.
There is a difference.
Example: When a couple goes to a church to get married, the Father or Pastor will ask them did they go to City Hall to get the Marriage License? If not the marriage would not be considered legal in the eyes of the State. The State would not care if the couple stated that God has blessed them to be married, because the State does not recognize God as the authority on marriage.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/in_god_we_trust.html
1. Our nation was founded as a secular government, based on the authority of "We, the People," not a god, king, or dictator.
2. The U.S. Constitution does not contain a single reference to a "God".
3. The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof..."
4. U.S. treaty with Tripoli, signed by President Adams: "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of Musselmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
5. The U.S. Constitution clearly states there shall be no religious test for public office. Article VI: " . . . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
6. Thomas Jefferson: "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship." (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom)
7. The original Pledge of Allegiance, which was crafted by a Baptist minister, was completely secular and contained no reference to a “God.”
You can be legally married without the church's blessing only if you have a governmental license, it doesn't work the other way around. 😉
while i do not see marriage in a church and marriage in a court or whatever as the sameLet them get united or whatever. Give them the same benefits, fine. BUT don't call it marriagemarriage is a custom that has been around long before any church picked it up as their treat, you can see the importance of the church work as you please. But displaying that kind of views as you have here just show you as a narrow minded git that dont look any further than your nose reach. So you crawl back to the cave you came from cause you better leave the real world to people who really wanna live in it as free, and not bound by the rules of a bigot and judgmentale state as the conservative moron followers of a fairy tale book
urot> that is a very good idea. And i didn't say that a pastor has gone to jail because he denied a marriage to someone, but it could be on the horizon. anyway, i have nothing against that idea.
finti> thank you for not realizing what i am saying and lumping me with narrow-minded retards who can't read, much less understand coherent thought. because i LOVE it when that happens. as for your narrowmindedness in stating that i am judgemental and follow a fairy tale book, well, i stand by my previous statements
Originally posted by JediHDM
urot> that is a very good idea. And i didn't say that a pastor has gone to jail because he denied a marriage to someone, but it could be on the horizon. anyway, i have nothing against that idea.
Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
This should really be moved to the gay marriage thread and not here.Is there a mod in this thread?JM
😠 JM will you please take the bug out of your A$$ about this thread, I mean damn leave the thread alone... OK?
* Stop your incessant meddling will ya, because it’s starting to become tiresome. *
Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. It should be kept that way.this is whats narrow minded, and it aint all that hard to understand regardless on how you think it comes out
in stating that i am judgemental and follow a fairy tale book, well, i stand by my previous statementsi said that people who want to live as free and not bound by the rules of a bigoted and judgmental group that are the followers of a fairy tale book .If you regarded that as personal towards and feel you are paret of that group well so be it
Originally posted by JediHDM
Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. It should be kept that way.
Since when has marriage been held sacred between male and a female?
All this talk about how marriage between a man and a women is sacred, and we can let gays be included because their ruin it, reminds me that well heterosexuals have already ruined it. Don't any of you remember this show?
Marriage can also be a good thing... i wouldnt say that the whole institution of marriage is completely outdated, though I doubt I will ever get married. Its just that you are pretending that marriage is dependant upon both people being male and female. I think that that notion is getting pretty outdated...
I think that the only thing that should matter is whether or not they love each other. Every group has a slightly different view of what marriage is... according to Christians its one man, one woman. According to some Mormons you might here one man, more than one woman. People in the country side of Nepal might tell you one woman, more than one man. According to homosexuals (and many free thinking straight individuals) you should be able to marry one man,and another man or one woman, and another woman.
People's definition of what marraige is depends upon your culture and your religion... in the USA, a nation supposedly where church and state are separate, why must the official definition of marriage equal the Christian view of marriage?
Shouldnt government policy accommodate a broader definition of marriage in order to better serve the people, regardless of Christian opposition?
Where have you been monkey boy?It been written in the contition that a marriage is between a man and a woman.Nothering had changed.For one thing we still say the same words to the flag.
"Under god and so on" and even the coins still say "In god we trust" so why would they suddenly change the marriage thing?No reason too.If they want to get married fine.
But they can't do it at a church but they can go to Las Vegas if they want to.We don't have to change anything in order for them to get married.
Even if it is not in the eyes of god for gay people to get married they will do it anyway.So we might as well not do anything different to change that.Right?
Right!JM
It does not say in either the "contition" or the "constitution" anything about about marriage being between a man and a women, although hardcore christians are trying to change that, they have not changed it yet. And despite the words "In God we trust" appearing ocasionally on places like currency and courtrooms etc, thankfully religious icons in public places are being removed (Link) , however there has always been a movement by the religious right wing to change things so that religion is the law and that it is everywhere (Link).
And why can't they be married in a Church? There are churchs where gays are allowed to be priests, why couldnt those same church's marry gays? The Church that my family goes to has a gay priest, and there have been numerous "commitment" ceremonies held there for gay couples; they dont mean shit though legally. Those couples pay more in taxes and receive less in benefits than do straight couples, regardless of whether or not you think homosexuality is okay, why is okay to deny them the insurance benefits that are due to married couples or to make them pay more in taxes than straight couples do?
Why is it okay to deny them their social security survivor benefits when their partner dies, or what about when hospitals deny them visiting rights when one of them is hospitalized, because they arent the spouse and arent related?
They gave each other rings, they live together, and some have even adopted kids so that they have a family. Why shouldnt they have the same rights as any other family? Because Christians say so? Along the same lines as Urot said earlier, the Church has to deal with the laws and ruling of the Government... not the other way around. If there is a group of citizens who ask for a more inclusive legal title, and there is no good reason why they shouldn't, except for a bunch of religious fundamentalists who say that it conflicts with what their religion teaches... who should the government accommodate? I think that they should allow them to marry, because there arent any good reason that they shouldnt that doesnt involve christianity, and while christianity is okay for you... it has no place in the arena of government and policy decisions in a supposedly secular state.
-TC
in ireland for years the church practically ran the country, and now we're all paying for it. marriage is and should be a loving union between two human beings (not including muslims, becasue their marriage traditions are different), regardless of gender. mixing religion and politics is a joke in any country. changing the american constitution just to please some conservative christians is wrong in every possible way.
sexual freedom is something that has to be acknowleged and enforced.
and even the coins still say "In god we trust" so why would they suddenly change the marriage thing?just a little historical info here the "in god we trust was put on the coins in 1864 during the civil war so it and on the bills in 1955 so it hasent alwasy been there 😖mart:
It been written in the contition that a marriage is between a man and a woman.Nothering had changedis that supposed to be written in the constitution?