Republicans

Cxwf · April 2005

Except it then usually doesn't wind up being "the best person for the job" anyway because of a host of other reasons (mostly related to Corruption)...

But anyway, back on topic. Uh...what was the topic again? I've lost track of exactly what we're supposed to be discussing now.

*looks up some quotes from last page*

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your major hangup on legalizing homosexual marriage is the choice of word used to describe a union between two people of the same sex? I didn't know God was so semantic.

Frankly, I don't care if homosexuals are given marriage or civil unions, as long as they are entitled to the exact same rights granted to married heterosexual couples.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

We religious types are big on symbolism. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

But yes, primarily I want a recognizeable difference between the blessing that a church gives to a Man-Woman Union, and the recognition that that state gives a Man-Man union. I'd even be happy with CMEasts solution from a couple of pages ago, where the Church Marriage is separated completely from the legal union, and made something totally different with a different name. And we get to keep the "marriage" word, of course. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /> You have to come up with something like "civil union" for the legal aspect.

Cyndane · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 26 2005, 09:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm going to fall back on CS Lewis' quote here--

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of the utmost importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

It only matters to me that "marriage" was originally a religious concept because I firmly believe that the Christian God was responsible for that religious concept. If he wasn't, then it doesn't really matter if it was invented by some other religion thousands of years ago, or if you just came up with the idea in your backyard last week. There's no in between.
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
That quote is over used, and has absolutely no relevance at all.

Prior to christianity, there was no "christian god." Logical fallacy does not become you.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf Posted on Apr 26 2005 @ 09:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So while in theory you might convince me that all religious concepts were actually invented by men and therefore have no relevance, you will never convince me that my particular religious concepts should be overruled by someone elses just because they wrote it down first.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again the stubbornness comes out of those who believe themselves to be so correct that nothing can be proven wrong. Even though I have pointed out, prior to christianity your "god" said it was ok to join people of the same gender, be it man to man or woman to woman. In fact many religions still ahere to the ancient way of thinking. I applaud those for their tolerance.

Cxwf · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 26 2005, 12:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> That quote is over used, and has absolutely no relevance at all.

Prior to christianity, there was no "christian god." Logical fallacy does not become you.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
How do you manage to misunderstand this point constantly? <i>IF</i> you are correct and there "was no Christian God" prior to 2,000 years ago, then there <i>still</i> isn't a Christian God today, and there's no reason why <i>any</i> of his supposed words should have any relevance at all.

But <i>IF</i> there is a Christian God today, then he is much older than the Christian Faith or even your beloved Egyptians, and his words <i>are</i> worth listening to...and among them is a command limiting marriage to a Man and a Woman.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf Posted on Apr 26 2005 @ 09:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So while in theory you might convince me that all religious concepts were actually invented by men and therefore have no relevance, you will never convince me that my particular religious concepts should be overruled by someone elses just because they wrote it down first.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again the stubbornness comes out of those who believe themselves to be so correct that nothing can be proven wrong. Even though I have pointed out, prior to christianity your "god" said it was ok to join people of the same gender, be it man to man or woman to woman. In fact many religions still ahere to the ancient way of thinking. I applaud those for their tolerance.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You are getting this out of the mistaken assumption that all Gods are identical, even when they say demonstrably different things. You are trying to get me to say that my God supports something, not because he ever said so, but because some other God supported it and therefore every God should support it. And THATS not a logical fallacy?

Sky · April 2005

Well, considering there's only one God according to Christianity, he would have to be <u>all</u> Gods, wouldn't he?
Unless of course Christianity is the one true religion....of course then you have the arduous task of not just proving every other religion in the world that has ever existed to be false, but also proving that none of them worship(ped) the same God that you do, because God would never allow his Word to be corrupted, right?
Of course, then you have to deal with the rather sticky situation of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim faiths all supposedly worshipping the same God, and why God would allow his Word to be changed so much so quickly.

It's crap like this that made me conclude God doesn't care what religion you worship; if you're a moral, decent individual you'll get into Heaven.

Oh, and
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Constituents vote for who they believe will represent their interests legislatively. If representatives were meant to vote exactly as the majority in their districts would, you'd get a direct democracy by proxy aka majoritarianism. Representative democracies instead place "the best person for the job" in a position to make decisions.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Direct democracy in this country would be all 275,000,000 - or whatever our population - Americans getting out to vote for <i>every single law</i> ever proposed. Representative democracy is what you described: the people elect representatives to gather and decide policy for them. The representatives are supposed to act as the people would, but the fact that they represent a large number of people means that it is a lot easier to get things done.

A republic, on the other hand, allows the people to elect representatives to decide policy for them, however, these representatives are not merely extensions of the people. They try to place the country first, their constituents second. Of course, they'll always vote against something that would directly hurt their constituents with no forseeable benefits, but the emphasis on the welfare of the entire nation as opposed to the majority means that republics support programs and laws that help and protect people in the minority.

Cyndane · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 26 2005, 11:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, considering there's only one God according to Christianity, he would have to be <u>all</u> Gods, wouldn't he?
Unless of course Christianity is the one true religion....of course then you have the arduous task of not just proving every other religion in the world that has ever existed to be false, but also proving that none of them worship(ped) the same God that you do, because God would never allow his Word to be corrupted, right?
Of course, then you have to deal with the rather sticky situation of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim faiths all supposedly worshipping the same God, and why God would allow his Word to be changed so much so quickly.

It's crap like this that made me conclude God doesn't care what religion you worship; if you're a moral, decent individual you'll get into Heaven. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Exactly the point I was trying to get across this entire time. Sometimes you take the words I intend to say and make them come out correctly. I lub you. :-)

Sky · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 26 2005, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 26 2005, 11:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, considering there's only one God according to Christianity, he would have to be <u>all</u> Gods, wouldn't he?
Unless of course Christianity is the one true religion....of course then you have the arduous task of not just proving every other religion in the world that has ever existed to be false, but also proving that none of them worship(ped) the same God that you do, because God would never allow his Word to be corrupted, right?
Of course, then you have to deal with the rather sticky situation of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim faiths all supposedly worshipping the same God, and why God would allow his Word to be changed so much so quickly.

It's crap like this that made me conclude God doesn't care what religion you worship; if you're a moral, decent individual you'll get into Heaven. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Exactly the point I was trying to get across this entire time. Sometimes you take the words I intend to say and make them come out correctly. I lub you. :-) </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
[edit]That's enough outta me[/edit]

Cxwf · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 26 2005, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, considering there's only one God according to Christianity, he would have to be <u>all</u> Gods, wouldn't he?
Unless of course Christianity is the one true religion....of course then you have the arduous task of not just proving every other religion in the world that has ever existed to be false, but also proving that none of them worship(ped) the same God that you do, because God would never allow his Word to be corrupted, right?
Of course, then you have to deal with the rather sticky situation of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim faiths all supposedly worshipping the same God, and why God would allow his Word to be changed so much so quickly.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
If I was trying to convince you to join me in worshipping the Christian God, then yes, I would have to do all of that. But if all I want to do is explain my reasons for not supporting homosexual marriages, then I don't have to do any of that...I merely have to explain that <i>I</i> believe that Christianity is the one true religion. Now, you're welcome to try to convince me otherwise...but that's a whole different debate, totally separate from the debate over US law.

CMEast · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 26 2005, 03:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm going to fall back on CS Lewis' quote here--

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of the utmost importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

It only matters to me that "marriage" was originally a religious concept because I firmly believe that the Christian God was responsible for that religious concept. If he wasn't, then it doesn't really matter if it was invented by some other religion thousands of years ago, or if you just came up with the idea in your backyard last week. There's no in between.

So while in theory you might convince me that all religious concepts were actually invented by men and therefore have no relevance, you will never convince me that my particular religious concepts should be overruled by someone elses just because they wrote it down first.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
And for that exact same reason you will never convince us that the term marriage can never be applied to same-sex unions. You may only believe in the christian version because you are a christian but for those who don't believe in a god or don't believe that a/the/any god would be anti-homosexual the traditional 'christian' version is false and is therefore unfair.

You argue that they are all treated the same so it is fair... depends on what your idea of the 'same' is doesn't it? In my eyes treating people the same would mean that you could marry the people that you love, not just the people you are limited too. It would be like all vegetarians being forced to eat meat and, when they complain, pointing out that they have access to exactly the same foods as us and we are perfectly happy.

How about if the government decided to ban all clothes but the ones they gave you and then gave everyone the same trousers. Not just the same colour and style but exactly the same size too. That might be fair for those who fit into them perfectly but what about people that are much smaller or larger? They are being forced to wear uncomfortable, restricting clothing for no decent reason. Now that would be very unfair wouldn't it, instead they should all be issued trousers that fit them, then while there would be lots of different types of trouser around, each person would finally be treated equally.

You say we need a lot of proof? What, you mean to believe in a mythical being? Yes. If I told you that a pegasus existed you'd laugh in my face. If I showed you photos you'd believe them fakes, movies the same. If I put one in front of you you'd probably believed but even then you'd want to see it fly and check it for signs of fakery. It's natural, the idea of a flying horse is pretty silly... except I can more readily conceive of a flying horse than I could some intangible father figure that has absolutely no proof in. Yes, we want him/her/it to come down to earth and shake hands with us and, once we've done that, we want to see him turn water into wine, make a slap up meal for an army with a couple of bits of bread and fish and then maybe tap dance on top of a swimming pool for a bit. No, him visiting 2000 years ago doesn't count, he could have visited 50 years ago and I wouldn't believe still. He could be curing tropical diseases in the amazon somewhere right now and unless he stopped by over mine I wouldn't believe. Oh and when he did that and convinced me I'd become a very devout believer and get extremely upset when people just like me didn't believe me when I said I'd seen him.

Yes that is a fair amount of proof but then, you'd be the same with that pegasus (I got fed up of invisible pink things, why are they always pink?). It's pretty natural.

Oh and the 'leap of logic'. The idea of God is easy to come up with, you just think of the father you always wanted, make him infinitely powerful and just like that, you've got him. Ok so yes, my lonely scientist would soon start making up stories himself although if you want to inject some realism into the hypothetical situation and miss the point completely then 1) He wouldn't know to be lonely because he'd never have the comparison of not being lonely, you can't miss what you never knew existed. 2) He would assume that he himself was the center of the universe, not god (after all he just isn't dying and is so 'obviously' superior to everything else). 3) You couldn't create the idea of a god without having some humans to base it on, there is no father figure if you just popped into this world as the lone adult human.

Oh, and I'd say a 'strong' athiest was one that <i>knew</i> the only forces that existed were natural. That there are no 'super'natural forces.

Sky · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 26 2005, 02:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 26 2005, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, considering there's only one God according to Christianity, he would have to be <u>all</u> Gods, wouldn't he?
Unless of course Christianity is the one true religion....of course then you have the arduous task of not just proving every other religion in the world that has ever existed to be false, but also proving that none of them worship(ped) the same God that you do, because God would never allow his Word to be corrupted, right?
Of course, then you have to deal with the rather sticky situation of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim faiths all supposedly worshipping the same God, and why God would allow his Word to be changed so much so quickly. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If I was trying to convince you to join me in worshipping the Christian God, then yes, I would have to do all of that. But if all I want to do is explain my reasons for not supporting homosexual marriages, then I don't have to do any of that...I merely have to explain that <i>I</i> believe that Christianity is the one true religion. Now, you're welcome to try to convince me otherwise...but that's a whole different debate, totally separate from the debate over US law.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I'm Catholic; you don't have to convince me of God's existence. I'm just arguing from the middle here.

And it is rather important to the particular point you were debating with Cyndane, that the term "marriage" used to be a religious yet not strictly man-woman bond. It's where the word and the institution came from, therefore the argument that marriage has always been a relgious ritual between a man and a woman is bunk unless you disprove the orginal 'marriage' as being God's "intended" marriage. This would require you to prove that no religion that came before Christianity worshipped the true God. Good luck with that.

Cxwf · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 26 2005, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And for that exact same reason you will never convince us that the term marriage can never be applied to same-sex unions. You may only believe in the christian version because you are a christian but for those who don't believe in a god or don't believe that a/the/any god would be anti-homosexual the traditional 'christian' version is false and is therefore unfair.
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Well, I'd say we are at an impasse then, aren't we? I believe that marriage was created by God for Man and Woman, and you believe that marriage was created by Man and therefore should serve Man's desires. I guess the next step is to go the polls, and see who has more support.

*/me points to numerous recent state constitutional amendments prohibiting homosexual marriage*

Cyndane · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 26 2005, 05:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 26 2005, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And for that exact same reason you will never convince us that the term marriage can never be applied to same-sex unions. You may only believe in the christian version because you are a christian but for those who don't believe in a god or don't believe that a/the/any god would be anti-homosexual the traditional 'christian' version is false and is therefore unfair.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well, I'd say we are at an impasse then, aren't we? I believe that marriage was created by God for Man and Woman, and you believe that marriage was created by Man and therefore should serve Man's desires. I guess the next step is to go the polls, and see who has more support.

*/me points to numerous recent state constitutional amendments prohibiting homosexual marriage*  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
*points to the only reason those are even in effect is because our president is a putz and christian*

Side note... it is only illegal in about six states.. that is all.

Spooge · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 26 2005, 07:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> */me points to numerous recent state constitutional amendments prohibiting homosexual marriage* </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
*points to the only reason those are even in effect is because our president is a putz and christian* </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Incorrect (IMHO). One of those ballot initiatives took place here in Michigan. As it turns out, MI has a Democrat governor, both National Senators are Democrats, a good chunk of Representatives are Democrats, and a majority that voted for Kerry in the last election. (no, I don't know what's wrong with my neighbors. usually, I just blame Detroit <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />)

Through all that, the initiative passed with 60% of the votes. That's a very large margin considering the politics here. The reason isn't a result of religion (though it is a definate factor). People did not and do not want judges rewriting laws without their consent. Regardless of ideology, people generally understand and are committed to the proper form of legislative process. They do not want to be taken out of the loop.

This is also the reason why you haven't seen a big push for the Federal Constitutional amendment. The President doesn't have enough push behind him. People want this handled at a State level. Yes, I know there are many here who would disagree, but the White House has had their feelers out and they know it won't happen.

theclam · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 26 2005, 06:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 26 2005, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And for that exact same reason you will never convince us that the term marriage can never be applied to same-sex unions. You may only believe in the christian version because you are a christian but for those who don't believe in a god or don't believe that a/the/any god would be anti-homosexual the traditional 'christian' version is false and is therefore unfair.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well, I'd say we are at an impasse then, aren't we? I believe that marriage was created by God for Man and Woman, and you believe that marriage was created by Man and therefore should serve Man's desires. I guess the next step is to go the polls, and see who has more support.

*/me points to numerous recent state constitutional amendments prohibiting homosexual marriage*  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Back when interracial marriage was first legalized, almost every single American was against it (I'm talking 90% here, not 60% in the case of **** marriage). Just because something is popular doesn't mean that it's right and just becomes something is a law doesn't mean that it's right.

Cxwf · April 2005

Your point being? You've given me all of your arguments for why it should be allowed, I've given you all of mine for why it shouldn't, and we didn't agree. So the logical next step is to vote on it. No, that doesn't necessarily mean that the most popular vote will be the "right" idea, but we haven't found any better means of determining what the "right" idea is yet. So this is what we're stuck with for now.

Sky · April 2005

So you'd rather go through all the ugliness of the sixties all over again than just give people rights that matter a great deal to them, and shouldn't matter at all to you?

Cxwf · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 26 2005, 07:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Side note... it is only illegal in about six states.. that is all. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Incorrect. It is illegal in 49 out of 50 states I believe.

The number you are thinking of is the number of states with a constitutional amendment against it (which I believe is 9). This is simply insurance to prevent a small number of people (say, 5 judges on a 9 judge court) from overturning the will of both the legislative and public majorities.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So you'd rather go through all the ugliness of the sixties all over again than just give people rights that matter a great deal to them, and shouldn't matter at all to you?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Who are you to determine what "should" and "shouldn't" matter to me? I've already explained in great detail just exactly WHY it matters to me.

Sky · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 26 2005, 09:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So you'd rather go through all the ugliness of the sixties all over again than just give people rights that matter a great deal to them, and shouldn't matter at all to you?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Who are you to determine what "should" and "shouldn't" matter to me? I've already explained in great detail just exactly WHY it matters to me.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
No, you've explained that your faith dictates that homosexuality is a sin. Do I really have to repeat my "faith vs. belief" post?

How about you tell me why it "should" matter to you? You don't like it. Whoop-dee-doo. It's against your morals. Good for you. I don't particularly enjoy the thought of bdsm. That doesn't mean I'm going to support a government crackdown on all bdsm activities, because quite frankly I don't care what people do behind closed doors as long as everyone involved is okay with it.

Your life, on the other hand, will flat out not change one bit whether or not homosexuals marry. Please enlighten me how allowing homosexuals to marry will affect you. Therefore, and this has been asked of every single anti-homosexual marriage debater in this forum, why do you care?

Seph_Kimara · April 2005

Your reasons are based on your religious morals , whereas most other people posting are basing it on what benefits society.

**** couples gain the right to the same legal priveledges of straight couples.
Straight people and the unattached members of society lose nothing.

If you don't want to give up the term marriage, then that's fine. You can take the term, and even take the traditional ceremonies and keep them for those of the religious persuasion. So long as everyone else can still have a union of some kind and the additional rights that come with it as well, I have no issues.

Sky · April 2005

Incidentally, anyone on the East coast who is watching the Daily Show tonight just saw Jon Stewart pwn several anti-**** marriage pundits, as well as two CNN news anchors at the same time. ^_^ Just thought I'd mention it.

Cyndane · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 26 2005, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Incidentally, anyone on the East coast who is watching the Daily Show tonight just saw Jon Stewart pwn several anti-**** marriage pundits, as well as two CNN news anchors at the same time. ^_^ Just thought I'd mention it.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I just finished watching it in the Midwest.. let me tell you that was absolutely beautiful.

Sky, I love the part where that one president was talking about tolerance and then went on to be intolerant. Not to mention the CNN reporter ignoring the complete BS from the anti-homosexual marriage woman with her "findings" on foster care of same sex individuals.

Again Cxwf... since your beliefs are incorrect, (yes I said it) and since marriage was not orginally determined as a man/woman union. You really do not have any arguement, as it does not affect you and grants people rights that they deserve anyway.

Cxwf · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 26 2005, 09:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Who are you to determine what "should" and "shouldn't" matter to me? I've already explained in great detail just exactly WHY it matters to me.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
No, you've explained that your faith dictates that homosexuality is a sin. Do I really have to repeat my "faith vs. belief" post?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Actually, if you look back you'll notice that you are the first one to even bring up that point. I've never even mentioned my views on homosexuality itself, merely my views on marriage. And my faith dictates that marriage is reserved for 1 man and 1 woman.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How about you tell me why it "should" matter to you? You don't like it. Whoop-dee-doo. It's against your morals. Good for you. I don't particularly enjoy the thought of bdsm. That doesn't mean I'm going to support a government crackdown on all bdsm activities, because quite frankly I don't care what people do behind closed doors as long as everyone involved is okay with it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Nor I. (In general...I could probably find an exception)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your life, on the other hand, will flat out not change one bit whether or not homosexuals marry. Please enlighten me how allowing homosexuals to marry will affect you. Therefore, and this has been asked of every single anti-homosexual marriage debater in this forum, why do you care?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The institution of marriage is much more than a legal convenience that grants partners some rights under the government. I don't care what legal conveniences are offered to homosexual partners. But Marriage is an institution designed by God for a specific purpose, and so I care that it retains that purpose. I care about the word itself. I want to keep the word!

(And you have already all pointed out that you don't believe me when I say God designed marriage...good for you. No reason to repeat yourselves, unless you've got some evidence (which would probably require a separate thread to discuss).)

Grendel · April 2005

For as long as the majority of a nation's population follow a religion, you'll never have separation between church and state. Children are indoctrinated by the church from birth, either directly or via third parties, like parents, friends, the media, their laws and their culture.

If you are brought up in a society which is founded upon dogma, then you don't actually ever need to go to church to become indoctrinated.

Sky · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 26 2005, 11:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 26 2005, 09:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Who are you to determine what "should" and "shouldn't" matter to me? I've already explained in great detail just exactly WHY it matters to me.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
No, you've explained that your faith dictates that homosexuality is a sin. Do I really have to repeat my "faith vs. belief" post? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Actually, if you look back you'll notice that you are the first one to even bring up that point. I've never even mentioned my views on homosexuality itself, merely my views on marriage. And my faith dictates that marriage is reserved for 1 man and 1 woman. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Uh...you say that marriage is between a man and a woman, but you also say that you have no opinion on the issue of homosexual marriage? There's a dot in London and a dot in New York; connect them.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How about you tell me why it "should" matter to you? You don't like it. Whoop-dee-doo. It's against your morals. Good for you. I don't particularly enjoy the thought of bdsm. That doesn't mean I'm going to support a government crackdown on all bdsm activities, because quite frankly I don't care what people do behind closed doors as long as everyone involved is okay with it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Nor I. (In general...I could probably find an exception)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your life, on the other hand, will flat out not change one bit whether or not homosexuals marry. Please enlighten me how allowing homosexuals to marry will affect you. Therefore, and this has been asked of every single anti-homosexual marriage debater in this forum, why do you care?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The institution of marriage is much more than a legal convenience that grants partners some rights under the government. I don't care what legal conveniences are offered to homosexual partners. But Marriage is an institution designed by God for a specific purpose, and so I care that it retains that purpose. I care about the word itself. I want to keep the word!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Fine then, keep the damn word. Now I have to take issue with the fact that a ridiculously obvious solution to the problem exists - allow civil unions between **** couples and grant them the same legal rights as marriages - yet Republicans aren't even trying to compromise. This entire debate would be ended - or at least largely abated - if just that simple change of legislation were to take place, but no. No, that would be too close to marriage to suit the religious Right.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(And you have already all pointed out that you don't believe me when I say God designed marriage...good for you. No reason to repeat yourselves, unless you've got some evidence (which would probably require a separate thread to discuss).)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Actually, that was Cyndane. I just helped her rephrase her points. I still don't have a solid opinion on the subject (or at least an opinion I would be comfortable debating on) because I haven't personally done the research.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>For as long as the majority of a nation's population follow a religion, you'll never have separation between church and state. Children are indoctrinated by the church from birth, either directly or via third parties, like parents, friends, the media, their laws and their culture.

If you are brought up in a society which is founded upon dogma, then you don't actually ever need to go to church to become indoctrinated.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Then explain me. Grew up in a Catholic home, went to Church, I even went to a few years of Catholic school. I am neither a fundamentalist Christian nor another angsty-Christian-turned-atheist, and a lot of people I know in my town are the same. Obviously there has to be something else that turns people into extremists, and whatever it is, I haven't had much contact with it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sky, I love the part where that one president was talking about tolerance and then went on to be intolerant. Not to mention the CNN reporter ignoring the complete BS from the anti-homosexual marriage woman with her "findings" on foster care of same sex individuals.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The part where he basically screamed out "Do your f***ing jobs!" was my favorite, actually.

CMEast · April 2005

Indoctrinated doesn't necessarily mean you follow their views, it just means you have been taught to think in certain ways.

Cxwf: When we say marriage we don't want to force some priest that thinks it is a sin to do the ceremony, this would be more like a marriage in a different culture. After all people of most religions get married (and it uses that exact word) and yet it doesn't somehow damage or cheapen the idea of marriage to christians. Why would a same-sex marriage be any different from a marriage in a different religion?

A quote from a <a href='http://www.weddingguide.co.uk/articles/ceremonies/' target='_blank'>UK website</a> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> A couple can be married in the eyes of the law by having a Buddhist ceremony as long as the person who conducts their ceremony is registered to conduct weddings. If this is not the case, a civil ceremony will also have to be held</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Or doesn't that count as 'marriage'. Are you going to force them to stop using that word as well?

In the end the only reason for making a law against it is prejudice and intolerance.

theclam · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 27 2005, 03:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Indoctrinated doesn't necessarily mean you follow their views, it just means you have been taught to think in certain ways.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Like being taught that it's ok to use superstition and irrationality to support your position? It's difficult to argue with Cxwf, when he takes positions that he doesn't justify rationally.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Cxwf: When we say marriage we don't want to force some priest that thinks it is a sin to do the ceremony, this would be more like a marriage in a different culture. After all people of most religions get married (and it uses that exact word) and yet it doesn't somehow damage or cheapen the idea of marriage to christians. Why would a same-sex marriage be any different from a marriage in a different religion?

A quote from a <a href='http://www.weddingguide.co.uk/articles/ceremonies/' target='_blank'>UK website</a> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> A couple can be married in the eyes of the law by having a Buddhist ceremony as long as the person who conducts their ceremony is registered to conduct weddings. If this is not the case, a civil ceremony will also have to be held</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Or doesn't that count as 'marriage'. Are you going to force them to stop using that word as well?

In the end the only reason for making a law against it is prejudice and intolerance.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This is a good point. My father is a lapsed Jew and my mother is somewhere between an agnostic and a deist. They got married by a judge. Their marriage isn't sanctified by God, yet we still call it a marriage. Why should it be any different for homosexuals?

Seph_Kimara · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 27 2005, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> This is a good point. My father is a lapsed Jew and my mother is somewhere between an agnostic and a deist. They got married by a judge. Their marriage isn't sanctified by God, yet we still call it a marriage. Why should it be any different for homosexuals?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Primarily because it's still a man and a woman, I guess. The mindset seems to be that marriage HAS to be the union of a man and a woman as the bare minimum.

But then again, as far as I can see it, it's just dicing words over semantics, really. But I'm not christian so the mindset is obviously not one I an associate myself with.

CMEast · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Seph Kimara @ Apr 27 2005, 08:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Primarily because it's still a man and a woman, I guess. The mindset seems to be that marriage HAS to be the union of a man and a woman as the bare minimum. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes but it is in the name of others gods, something expressly written about in the 10 commandments. Plus some of those ceremonies include things like polygamy (and aren't official/legal).

[Edit]... does this mean that you don't plan to address my point?

Oh and I think I might have missed one of yours although the others are perfectly capable of answering it.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, I'd say we are at an impasse then, aren't we? I believe that marriage was created by God for Man and Woman, and you believe that marriage was created by Man and therefore should serve Man's desires. I guess the next step is to go the polls, and see who has more support.

*/me points to numerous recent state constitutional amendments prohibiting homosexual marriage*</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

When it comes to situations like this you can't ask for an opinion for the masses because they are biased. They do not determine what is good and bad for society, that the point of politics. Bear in mind that you believe the Christian *anti-homosexual version* god invented marriage and not any of the other previous religions before christianity was around or that it is something that could have appeared without religion at all despite our natural desire to find permanent mates... In other words I want you to bear in mind that your 'opinion' is based on no proof whatsoever but you still wish to force other people to do as you wish. Now take a million people with the same attitudes (and not necessarily the same opinions) and you have a group that are not capable of making laws.

Hence my posts against religion being involved with politics.

Sky · April 2005

Actually, and this is again from last night's Daily Show (#1 source for news, hell yeah <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /> ), Spain has just declared homosexual marriages legal, with full legal benefits. Does that make "marriage" a different concept in Spain?

Cyndane · April 2005

I would just like to point out that almost all states have this as their marriage law (quote from the SD state law)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (South Dakota State Law)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between two people, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization.

Source: SDC 1939, § 14.0101; SL 1959, ch 50, § 1; SL 1996, ch 161.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

With the exception of the nine who have offically banned homosexual marriage, none of the other forty-one have.

@Sky: Yes, when I heard Spain made such a bold move I was like "hell yeah." Daily Show FTW!.

Not to forget to mention, but Spain is quite a bit more religiously devout then the US. (Catholic) They just happen to have smart people in thier governmental offices.

Cxwf · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 27 2005, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 26 2005, 11:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Actually, if you look back you'll notice that you are the first one to even bring up that point. I've never even mentioned my views on homosexuality itself, merely my views on marriage. And my faith dictates that marriage is reserved for 1 man and 1 woman. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Uh...you say that marriage is between a man and a woman, but you also say that you have no opinion on the issue of homosexual marriage? There's a dot in London and a dot in New York; connect them.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Big jump in logic there. I didn't say "no opinion on the issue of homosexual marriage", I said I hadn't stated an opinion on the homosexual lifestyle (in response to your post "No, you've explained that your faith dictates that homosexuality is a sin.") I have a very clear opinion on homosexual marriage.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Fine then, keep the damn word. Now I have to take issue with the fact that a ridiculously obvious solution to the problem exists - allow civil unions between **** couples and grant them the same legal rights as marriages - yet Republicans aren't even trying to compromise. This entire debate would be ended - or at least largely abated - if just that simple change of legislation were to take place, but no. No, that would be too close to marriage to suit the religious Right.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I can't speak for them, only for myself. If you want to attack them, go ahead.

Republicans

Comments