PDA

View Full Version : Iowa Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage


Black Mamba
04-04-2009, 12:03 AM
I bet my grandparents and uncle crapped a brick. :blink:


DES MOINES, Iowa Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state and first in the nation's heartland to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.

The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.

The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.

Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."

The Iowa attorney general's office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.

Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who represented gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."

At a news conference announcing the decision, he thanked the plaintiffs and said, "Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream."

Plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."

"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.

Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.

"If being together though all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa."

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.

"Today, dreams become reality, families are protected and the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality and fairness has been fulfilled," Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor said.

John Logan, a sociology professor at Brown University, said Iowa's status as a largely rural, Midwest state could enforce an argument that gay marriage is no longer a fringe issue.

"When it was only California and Massachusetts, it could be perceived as extremism on the coasts and not related to core American values.

"But as it extends to states like Iowa, and as attitudes toward gay marriage have evidently changed, then people will look at it as an example of broad acceptance," Logan said.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for the case to be reconsidered.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is, and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said.

Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said.

Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, said many Iowans are disappointed with the ruling and do not want courts to decide the issue.

"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," English said. He said the group immediately began lobbying legislators "to let the people of Iowa vote" on a constitutional amendment.

"This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue."

Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.

Todd Pettys, a University of Iowa law professor, said the state's equal protection clause on which Friday's ruling was based is worded slightly differently than the U.S. Constitution. But Iowa's language means almost "exactly the same thing."

Still, he said, it's difficult to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court would view the issue the same way as the Iowa justices.

Linda McClain, professor at Boston University School of Law, said she doubted Iowa's ruling would be "a realistic blueprint" for the U.S. Supreme Court," particularly considering the court's conservative leadership.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.

Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session.

Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.

rearnakedchoke
04-04-2009, 12:05 AM
This is great news !!!!... why should only heterosexuals be allowed to make the mistake of marriage ... LOL ...

TexasRN
04-04-2009, 02:35 AM
I deleted the other post that said the same thing. Not to be mean but because the person who posted it asked the mods to delete it.

Ok, back to the legally married gays....


~Amy

Chris F
04-04-2009, 02:51 AM
This is great news !!!!... why should only heterosexuals be allowed to make the mistake of marriage ... LOL ...

Why? Because Marriage is a religious institution and it should remain one man and one woman. I personally do not think non Christians should be allowed to marry. If they want the tax rights they should enter into domestic partnerships. Gays have every constitutional right straights do. marriage is not a right and these Judges should be disbarred and sent back to law school.

Miss Foxy
04-04-2009, 03:10 AM
Why? Because Marriage is a religious institution and it should remain one man and one woman. I personally do not think non Christians should be allowed to marry. If they want the tax rights they should enter into domestic partnerships. Gays have every constitutional right straights do. marriage is not a right and these Judges should be disbarred and sent back to law school.
I personally wouldnt go as far as saying only Christians could be married. I am now realizing how important the sacrament of marriage is and I would like to keep the unity between man and wife only. I used to not care, however I feel that is the problem with society not enough morals. I need to think and act better for my kids and preserving marriage is definitely a start.

Neezar
04-04-2009, 03:21 AM
DES MOINES, Iowa Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state and first in the nation's heartland to allow same-sex couples to wed.



http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r130/Lamarr2D/samuel_L_Jackson.gif

Vizion
04-04-2009, 06:04 AM
Ugh. I bet if you polled every Iowan it would be in the 80% range that would oppose this.

Thanks goodness for judges who legislate from the bench, yay democracy!!!

works well don't it?:blink:

Tyburn
04-05-2009, 06:48 PM
Why? Because Marriage is a religious institution and it should remain one man and one woman. I personally do not think non Christians should be allowed to marry. If they want the tax rights they should enter into domestic partnerships. Gays have every constitutional right straights do.
ABSOLUTELY AGREE!

Except that you'll find they DONT have the right to be next of kin...at least not in this country...which matters for inheritance reasons :ninja:

Look at it this way Chris...You can call the ceremony what you want...but only GOD can sanctify a Marriage.....NOT even the Supreme Court of Appeals could force GOD to do something he doesnt want to do.

Tyburn
04-05-2009, 06:56 PM
I personally wouldnt go as far as saying only Christians could be married.
I would

its a CHRISTIAN Ceremony.

Do you really think that Non-Christians get away with it anymore then homosexuals? You ask GOD to consecrate a Union between two Heathen??

Personally, I aggree with Chris...when you take it to its logical conclusion, its a Christian Ceremony. :laugh:

Buzzard
04-05-2009, 08:41 PM
I disagree. If I get married without any mention of a god, it is not a christian ceremony. The idea and concept of marriage is a lot older than Christianity.

NateR
04-05-2009, 08:59 PM
I disagree. If I get married without any mention of a god, it is not a christian ceremony. The idea and concept of marriage is a lot older than Christianity.

Actually, I agree. In fact, if you read the Bible, then you will see that the very first "human institution" that GOD created was a marriage, not a church. A relationship, not a religion.

So, yes, technically it predates the religion of Christianity. However, since it was created by GOD to be a bond between a man and a woman, then it's not our place as humans to redefine that in any way.

The problem here is the idea of civil marriages that are carried about by a judge and completely free of any religious or spiritual establishment. Those never existed in ancient times.

However, this is just the beginning. If gay marriage is legalized, then expect the polygamists in Utah to get permission to marry multiple spouses. Then the pedophiles will be fighting for the "right" to marry young children. After that, I guess we'll get people trying to marry animals. Once you allow immorality to get a foot in the door, then it's just a matter of time before the entire house is torn down.

Buzzard
04-05-2009, 09:56 PM
Actually, I agree. In fact, if you read the Bible, then you will see that the very first "human institution" that GOD created was a marriage, not a church. A relationship, not a religion.

So, yes, technically it predates the religion of Christianity. However, since it was created by GOD to be a bond between a man and a woman, then it's not our place as humans to redefine that in any way.
Where you and I disagree is that marriage was created by a god. Even after having read the bible, I still don't believe in a god, nor a devil either.

The problem here is the idea of civil marriages that are carried about by a judge and completely free of any religious or spiritual establishment. Those never existed in ancient times.
I see no problem in that at all, though you are making an assumption that people getting married by a judge have no spirituality in their vows.

However, this is just the beginning. If gay marriage is legalized, then expect the polygamists in Utah to get permission to marry multiple spouses.
Why would I expect this?

Then the pedophiles will be fighting for the "right" to marry young children. After that, I guess we'll get people trying to marry animals.
Ah, the old tie trying to equate homosexuality to pedophilia and then to bestiality. You are comparing a relationship between consenting adults to a criminal relationship between an adult and a child where the child isn't lawfully allowed to consent, and to a relationship in which an adult forces himself upon an animal. How can you equate them? Just wondering.

Once you allow immorality to get a foot in the door, then it's just a matter of time before the entire house is torn down.
Immorality has a firm footing in the door in most heterosexual marriages and relationships IMO if you are going to base it on the term sodomy. Not saying that you are basing your opinions upon that word, but I'm almost sure that it is in there somewhere.

I don't see how allowing homosexual marriage would have any negative effects on my heterosexual marriage.

Vizion
04-05-2009, 10:02 PM
I don't see how allowing homosexual marriage would have any negative effects on my heterosexual marriage.You may not, but others do. In fact, MOST Americans oppose gay marriage.

And why would that be? Because they don't feel it is against God and the natural order of things?

Tyburn
04-05-2009, 10:09 PM
I disagree. If I get married without any mention of a god, it is not a christian ceremony. The idea and concept of marriage is a lot older than Christianity.
You mean in a registry office....NOT using a Christian liturgy in ANY way? then I aggree...that would be a Pagen Union I suppose...If you considered it more then just a legal contract.

But face it...how many Non-Christians dont use the Christian ceremony? I bet vertually none. I suspect most of them get married in a Church and its probably the only time besides their funeral, that they visit one :laugh:

Tyburn
04-05-2009, 10:11 PM
I still don't believe in a god, nor a devil either.
.

So what do you believe in? :huh:

its not just Christianity that opposes the idea of Homosexuality.

Buzzard
04-05-2009, 10:38 PM
You may not, but others do. In fact, MOST Americans oppose gay marriage.

And why would that be? Because they don't feel it is against God and the natural order of things?

How would legalizing gay marriage affect your heterosexual marriage? Can you put up something to back your claim that "most Americans oppose gay marriage?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/03/polls-majority-of-americans-oppose-gay-marriage/

While the above link shows a poll in which the majority oppose it, it clearly does not show that most Americans oppose it. How would it affect your marriage? Do you and your spouse engage in any "immoral" acts?

Buzzard
04-05-2009, 10:42 PM
You mean in a registry office....NOT using a Christian liturgy in ANY way? then I aggree(sic)...that would be a Pagen(sic) Union I suppose...If you considered it more then(sic) just a legal contract.

But face it...how many Non-Christians dont(sic) use the Christian ceremony? I bet vertually(sic) none. I suspect most of them get married in a Church and its(sic) probably the only time besides their funeral, that they visit one :laugh:

I've been to numerous non-christian marriages that weren't held in a church and didn't incorporate god into the ceremony.

Tyburn
04-05-2009, 10:51 PM
I've been to numerous non-christian marriages that weren't held in a church and didn't incorporate god into the ceremony.
Really... :huh:

I'd like you to tell me about some of them please :)

Buzzard
04-05-2009, 10:52 PM
So what do you believe in? :huh:

its not just Christianity that opposes the idea of Homosexuality.

Do you think that homosexuals are born that way or choose it as a lifestyle?

If you think that they are born that way and believe in god, yet oppose it, then aren't you opposing something that god created?

Tyburn
04-05-2009, 10:57 PM
Do you think that homosexuals are born that way or choose it as a lifestyle?

If you think that they are born that way and believe in god, yet oppose it, then aren't you opposing something that god created?
Bear in mind your talking to someone who was active in the homosexual lifestyle

Are you ready for my answer :huh:

rearnakedchoke
04-05-2009, 10:59 PM
Why? Because Marriage is a religious institution and it should remain one man and one woman. I personally do not think non Christians should be allowed to marry. If they want the tax rights they should enter into domestic partnerships. Gays have every constitutional right straights do. marriage is not a right and these Judges should be disbarred and sent back to law school.
Marriage in a court is not a religious institution .. that is why i am okay with gay marriages ..... they can't force religions to marry gay couples, but if someone wants to get "married" in a court, in front of a JP, well there is no mention of God ... As for marriage being a Christian ceremony, you are wrong, there were plenty of people getting married and religions older than Christianity that have marriage as a ceremony, so don't know what you are talking about

NateR
04-05-2009, 11:00 PM
Do you think that homosexuals are born that way or choose it as a lifestyle?

If you think that they are born that way and believe in god, yet oppose it, then aren't you opposing something that god created?

Born homosexual? That's yet to be proven. Born sinful? Definitely. So the point is moot. The Bible tells us that ALL people are born sinful and corrupted and that we can NEVER make ourselves worthy of GOD's salvation. That's why Jesus needed to come to Earth, born of a virgin, to break the curse of sin and give humankind a chance for salvation.

NateR
04-05-2009, 11:10 PM
Marriage in a court is not a religious institution .. that is why i am okay with gay marriages ..... they can't force religions to marry gay couples, but if someone wants to get "married" in a court, in front of a JP, well there is no mention of God ... As for marriage being a Christian ceremony, you are wrong, there were plenty of people getting married and religions older than Christianity that have marriage as a ceremony, so don't know what you are talking about

Actually marriage was created by GOD, as documented in Genesis chapter 2. So it existed alongside the first two humans. While it does predate the founding of Christianity, the basic point that Chris F is trying to make is that the institution was created by the same GOD who is worshiped by the Christians and Jews. So, in that sense, any marriages performed that don't honor the only true GOD are illegitimate in the eyes of GOD.

I'm not sure if I agree with that completely, since the Bible seems to hold pagan marriages as equally binding compared to Jewish marriages (there are no accounts of Christian marriages in the Bible, that I am aware of). If there is a verse that someone knows about that suggests otherwise, then I'd be interested to read it.

rearnakedchoke
04-05-2009, 11:11 PM
Ugh. I bet if you polled every Iowan it would be in the 80% range that would oppose this.

Thanks goodness for judges who legislate from the bench, yay democracy!!!

works well don't it?:blink:

Well, i am sure when they ended segregation and slavery, most people were opposed to it also ... so don't get your point ...

rearnakedchoke
04-05-2009, 11:13 PM
Actually marriage was created by GOD, as documented in Genesis chapter 2. So it existed alongside the first two humans. While it does predate the founding of Christianity, the basic point that Chris F is trying to make is that the institution was created by the same GOD who is worshiped by the Christians and Jews. So, in that sense, any marriages performed that don't honor the only true GOD are illegitimate in the eyes of GOD.

I'm not sure if I agree with that completely, since the Bible seems to hold pagan marriages as equally binding compared to Jewish marriages (there are no accounts of Christian marriages in the Bible, that I am aware of). If there is a verse that someone knows about that suggests otherwise, then I'd be interested to read it.

right, but Chris said non-Christians, so that would include Jews ...

NateR
04-05-2009, 11:18 PM
Well, i am sure when they ended segregation and slavery, most people were opposed to it also ... so don't get your point ...

Untrue, the Civil Rights movement was actually extremely popular at the time and was only heavily resisted in the southern states. Primarily by southern Democrats.

Plus, Civil Rights (like the Abolitionist Movement) was a largely Christian movement (Martin Luther King Jr. was a Reverend after all) and was supported by many churches in the north.

Finally, nobody can contest that blacks are a race that people are born into. Two black parents will produce black children, that's the way race works. However, we've had no accounts of two gay parents naturally producing gay offspring. Simply because gay parents can't naturally reproduce.

So, trying to compare Gay Rights to the Civil Rights movement is really just a distortion of the facts. A black person can't choose to not be black (Michael Jackson doesn't count), however homosexuals can be successfully rescued from that lifestyle. There are plenty of Christian organizations that do just that and are very successful at it.

NateR
04-05-2009, 11:20 PM
right, but Chris said non-Christians, so that would include Jews ...

Well, if that's what he meant, then I would disagree with him on that point. However, the rest of my argument stands.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
04-05-2009, 11:21 PM
Folk's are no more born or excused Homosexual than they are Drunkards or Drug addicts!

Buzzard
04-05-2009, 11:31 PM
Really... :huh:

I'd like you to tell me about some of them please :)

Not much to really tell, but here goes. There were flowers, guests and an official who married them. They both recited their vows, agreed to stay true to each other and were pronounced husband and wife.

Another one was very similar, except for the amount of guests. Both of these couples are still married the last time I heard.

I went to a Buddhist or Hindu wedding when I was younger, and I really don't remember any of it to tell the truth. It was the last place I wanted to be. I would rather have been out playing or skating or doing anything else besides being at a wedding. I was told that since I was invited, it would be polite for me to attend.


Bear in mind your talking to someone who was active in the homosexual lifestyle

Are you ready for my answer

If you feel comfortable in sharing, don't let me stop you.

NateR
04-05-2009, 11:32 PM
Folk's are no more born or excused Homosexual than they are Drunkards or Drug addicts!

I would agree with that. Until 1973, Homosexuality was listed as a mental illness. It was removed from the medical textbooks for purely political and idealistic reasons. There is no scientific evidence, that I'm aware of, that states homosexuality is anything but a mental disorder.

Even if it is a mental disorder that they are born with, then I would liken it to schizophrenia. An illness that can be treated, but also one that you are going to have for the rest of your life. However, no one would ever try to claim that there is nothing wrong with a schizophrenic and that they are brave for accepting their schizophrenia and that doctors are bigots for trying to treat them. That just wouldn't be logical.

Vizion
04-05-2009, 11:37 PM
Well, i am sure when they ended segregation and slavery, most people were opposed to it also ... so don't get your point ...
Apples and oranges...:Whistle:

Vizion
04-05-2009, 11:43 PM
I would agree with that. Until 1973, Homosexuality was listed as a mental illness. It was removed from the medical textbooks for purely political and idealistic reasons. There is no scientific evidence, that I'm aware of, that states homosexuality is anything but a mental disorder.Statisically I once read that 50% of gay men were molested as children, and 80% of gay women were. I don't know where I read that for sure but I think it was in a book entitled "the Unhappy Gays"...(the book was written sometime in the 70's if I recall)...

And yes, it used to be listed as a mental illness, almost all pyschologists agreed, it was standard textbook material. Now, in our sinful and proud world, homosexuality has transcended the deviant subculture and gone mainstream. Sex is a strong addiction, some people fall into ssa (same sex attraction) because they want sex and can't get it from attractive members of the opposite sex often enough, or ever.

rearnakedchoke
04-05-2009, 11:48 PM
Untrue, the Civil Rights movement was actually extremely popular at the time and was only heavily resisted in the southern states. Primarily by southern Democrats.

Plus, Civil Rights (like the Abolitionist Movement) was a largely Christian movement (Martin Luther King Jr. was a Reverend after all) and was supported by many churches in the north.

Finally, nobody can contest that blacks are a race that people are born into. Two black parents will produce black children, that's the way race works. However, we've had no accounts of two gay parents naturally producing gay offspring. Simply because gay parents can't naturally reproduce.

So, trying to compare Gay Rights to the Civil Rights movement is really just a distortion of the facts. A black person can't choose to not be black (Michael Jackson doesn't count), however homosexuals can be successfully rescued from that lifestyle. There are plenty of Christian organizations that do just that and are very successful at it.

i am not comparing race to being homosexual, i was saying that in some states where segregation was being abolished, there were a majority of people that didn't agree with it ...

and imo i do think that there is a homosexual "gene", now this is my opinion and i am probably going to get some hate for it .. but i believe in natural selection and the "strong" survive ... you say that homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, however, i believe that since being gay was such a stigma for years, gays were getting married to avoid persecution .. thus spreading the gene .. i actually think that you would have seen a reduction in homosexuals ... but now with invitro fertilization, homosexuals are having their genes passed down ... sounds kinda messed up, but that is what i think ...

Buzzard
04-05-2009, 11:59 PM
Born homosexual? That's yet to be proven.
It also hasn't been dis-proven.

Born sinful? Definitely. So the point is moot.
That too has yet to be proven.


The Bible tells us that ALL people are born sinful and corrupted and that we can NEVER make ourselves worthy of GOD's salvation. That's why Jesus needed to come to Earth, born of a virgin, to break the curse of sin and give humankind a chance for salvation.

While it may state that in the bible, the bible was written by fallible men and used to control mankind and to set an agenda. There are many many parts of the original bible that were omitted throughout the many rewritings and translations of it. The bible uses many stories from many different cultures. There is no proof the the bible is the word of god.

Actually marriage was created by GOD, as documented in Genesis chapter 2. So it existed alongside the first two humans.
Absolutely no proof of this.

Finally, nobody can contest that blacks are a race that people are born into. Two black parents will produce black children, that's the way race works. However, we've had no accounts of two gay parents naturally producing gay offspring. Simply because gay parents can't naturally reproduce.

Completely false. If a gay man marries a gay women, they can produce children as long as there aren't any medical conditions preventing it.

So, trying to compare Gay Rights to the Civil Rights movement is really just a distortion of the facts. A black person can't choose to not be black (Michael Jackson doesn't count), however homosexuals can be successfully rescued from that lifestyle. There are plenty of Christian organizations that do just that and are very successful at it.

For as many "success" stories that you could find, I'm pretty sure I could find as many that say otherwise.

There is no scientific evidence, that I'm aware of, that states homosexuality is anything but a mental disorder.

There are studies out there that are revealing more into this than you are aware of.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978923,00.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html

These were only a few of the ones showing on the first page of a google search.

Neezar
04-06-2009, 12:30 AM
Immorality has a firm footing in the door in most heterosexual marriages and relationships IMO

How do you decide, in your opinion, on what is moral and what is immoral if you don't believe in God?

Buzzard
04-06-2009, 12:42 AM
How do you decide, in your opinion, on what is moral and what is immoral if you don't believe in God?

It's quite easy to live a good life without the belief in god. While religions use the "Golden Rule", others including myself can and do live an ethical life by adhering to those same principles.

Vizion
04-06-2009, 12:47 AM
While it may state that in the bible, the bible was written by fallible men and used to control mankind and to set an agenda. There are many many parts of the original bible that were omitted throughout the many rewritings and translations of it. The bible uses many stories from many different cultures. There is no proof the the bible is the word of god.You're watching too much of the History Channel :laugh: And falling right into Satan's hands too :sad:

NateR
04-06-2009, 12:53 AM
It also hasn't been dis-proven.

You're just talking in circles now.

That too has yet to be proven.

It also hasn't been disproven.:tongue0011:

While it may state that in the bible, the bible was written by fallible men and used to control mankind and to set an agenda. There are many many parts of the original bible that were omitted throughout the many rewritings and translations of it. The bible uses many stories from many different cultures. There is no proof the the bible is the word of god.

That is your opinion, but the evidence says otherwise.

Absolutely no proof of this.

That's not true, there is the written historical account. It's historical evidence, whether you consider it reliable or not. So you can't say there is "absolutely no proof" because there is proof, you just choose not to believe it.

Completely false. If a gay man marries a gay women, they can produce children as long as there aren't any medical conditions preventing it.

However, will they produce a homosexual child? That's the point.

For as many "success" stories that you could find, I'm pretty sure I could find as many that say otherwise.

I'm sure we could find conflicting "success" stories involving alcoholism as well. That doesn't mean that programs for helping alcoholics are a waste of time.

There are studies out there that are revealing more into this than you are aware of.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978923,00.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html

However, nothing conclusive has been found. It's still all speculation. Just the cautiousness of the wording of those articles shows that they are reading a lot into the evidence. If modern science was able to firmly prove a link between genetics and homosexuality, then it would literally be everywhere in the news media.

Like Thomas Jefferson said:
"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory."

So, these scientists are trying so hard to find a genetic reason for homosexuality that they might be making connections that simply don't really exist.

My point is that it doesn't matter. There are plenty of neurological disorders that are passed down genetically. Alcoholism is believed to be genetic, but that doesn't mean that alcoholism is not a destructive lifestyle.

Chuck
04-06-2009, 01:03 AM
It also hasn't been dis-proven.


That too has yet to be proven.




While it may state that in the bible, the bible was written by fallible men and used to control mankind and to set an agenda. There are many many parts of the original bible that were omitted throughout the many rewritings and translations of it. The bible uses many stories from many different cultures. There is no proof the the bible is the word of god.


Absolutely no proof of this.



Completely false. If a gay man marries a gay women, they can produce children as long as there aren't any medical conditions preventing it.



For as many "success" stories that you could find, I'm pretty sure I could find as many that say otherwise.



There are studies out there that are revealing more into this than you are aware of.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978923,00.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html

These were only a few of the ones showing on the first page of a google search.

What do you consider proof? Aren't facts simply theories and assumptions made by men that we choose to believe?

You site multiple "studies" you found on Google. Is that proof? Facts? Or just theories and assumptions believed by some and not by others?

NateR
04-06-2009, 01:18 AM
What do you consider proof? Aren't facts simply theories and assumptions made by men that we choose to believe?

You site multiple "studies" you found on Google. Is that proof? Facts? Or just theories and assumptions believed by some and not by others?

That's a good point. Christians come under a lot of fire for putting faith into a book that non-believers claim was written by men with an agenda.

However, putting your faith in science is merely believing in the words of different men with a different agenda.

Scientists are under great pressure to perform and justify the grant money that they rely on. So you have to have complete faith in those scientists that they are not skewing the facts or misrepresenting their findings in any way. You also have to put faith in their competence level. The only proof that we have of their qualifications is a college degree that was granted by other people who, it is believed, have the authority to determine who is competent and who is not. What gives these other people (we call them professors) the ability to judge competence? Well that is determined by still another group of people.... and on and on....

The only way to KNOW for sure that what you believe is a scientific fact is to conduct the experiments yourself. However, even then you are trusting in your own abilities and competence level. So you are still putting your faith in a person.

Chuck
04-06-2009, 01:26 AM
That's a good point.
Sweet...

I got kudos from the Big Dog....

Can we put this on the front page or maybe sticky it or something??? :D

Buzzard
04-06-2009, 01:34 AM
You're watching too much of the History Channel :laugh: And falling right into Satan's hands too :sad:

Is there such a thing as "too much of the History Channel?"

Tyburn
04-06-2009, 01:36 AM
don't let me stop you.

:laugh: wouldnt dream of it :laugh:


There is no conclusive evidence whether people are "born" homosexual or not. Some speak of a "gay" gene, but its not identified, and is counter to Nature, for the simple and undenyable reason that gays cant reproduce...and that the idea of nature. Some say its nurture, a conditioned behaviour, some say its an illness, probably a mental one.

BUT we do know that GOD would not endorse homosexual behaviour, either in the old, nor in the New Testament. So why would he want Homosexuals to marry? Marriage is a symbolic action depicting a sacred union. The union is between Church and Christ, between all the faithful belivers and GOD. Its pure and without sin. The symbolic gesture cant really be indorsed with anything other then a man and a woman

If homosexuals must get married, what is wrong with a civil partnership? nothing..and even if they do get married...like I said before...you can CALL it what you want...but without it being endorsed by GOD, it is NOT a marriage

Just because you are tempted to sin, doesnt mean you must sin. You have choice NOT to. You cant accidently have homosexual sex, you cant accidentaly cheat on your spouse...and you certainly cant accidentally marry against GODs wishes and believe it to be anything other then a big sham

:mellow:

Vizion
04-06-2009, 01:39 AM
Is there such a thing as "too much of the History Channel?"Haha...yes. :laugh:

What are they, the grand authority on all history? I guess what I'm getting at tho is that they are a little bias when it comes to certain histories. They tend to lean too far in one direction and lose objectivity. Would you agree?

Tyburn
04-06-2009, 01:41 AM
How do you decide, in your opinion, on what is moral and what is immoral if you don't believe in God?
:ninja: indeed. Where is the moral code that he lives by, and on whose authority is it truthful :)

Tyburn
04-06-2009, 01:42 AM
It's quite easy to live a good life without the belief in god.
define what you mean by "good"

Buzzard
04-06-2009, 01:57 AM
Buzzard:
While it may state that in the bible, the bible was written by fallible men and used to control mankind and to set an agenda. There are many many parts of the original bible that were omitted throughout the many rewritings and translations of it. The bible uses many stories from many different cultures. There is no proof the the bible is the word of god.

NateR:
That is your opinion, but the evidence says otherwise.

Really? Do you care to share any of your evidence? I'd really like to see some scientific evidence to back this up. I can show evidence of my claim, as it is pretty easy to find in libraries and on the internet if you are so inclined. Please lead this learning man in his quest for knowledge.

Is it your claim that the bible wasn't written by men and changed throughout the years, and that many parts of it were omitted? Is it also your claim that the Council of Nicaea never happened?

NateR:

Simply because gay parents can't naturally reproduce.

So you still stick by this claim? I have shown you how your are in the wrong. Gay people can reproduce. Do you still say that they can't? Have you ever seen a redhead born to non redheads, or brown haired people having a blond child? Genetics doesn't necessarily pass down everything into the first generation.

NateR:
Actually marriage was created by GOD, as documented in Genesis chapter 2. So it existed alongside the first two humans

Buzzard:
Absolutely no proof of this.

NateR:

That's not true, there is the written historical account. It's historical evidence, whether you consider it reliable or not. So you can't say there is "absolutely no proof" because there is proof, you just choose not to believe it.

Where is the first person account of an actual witness to this event? Where is the proof? It's great if you believe it, but don't go trying to say that this is fact unless you can offer something of substance to substantiate your claim. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

NateR
04-06-2009, 02:34 AM
Really? Do you care to share any of your evidence? I'd really like to see some scientific evidence to back this up. I can show evidence of my claim, as it is pretty easy to find in libraries and on the internet if you are so inclined. Please lead this learning man in his quest for knowledge.

Most of my information comes from actual books, so I'll have to look around to see if there is anything reliable on the internet that talks about this.

The first thing that comes to mind is the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were scrolls that were lost for over a thousand years and rediscovered in the 1950s. They contained Hebrew manuscripts for many books of the Old Testament. The interesting part about that is, even though they were 1000 years old, when translated they still matched up nearly word for word with modern versions of those same books in Jewish AND Christian Bibles. If the books of the Bible could remain essentially unchanged over a millennium, even though the world's governments and nations had been in turmoil during those 1000 years, then it's not hard to believe that they could have been preserved for longer than that.

Also, we have the Jewish and Christian Bibles. The Jewish Bible is essentially the Christian Old Testament. The interesting part about that is they match up pretty well when you compare English translations. No other major world religions have such similar texts.

Then you'd have to read about the extreme standards of accuracy that the Jewish scribes were held to. They had to copy the manuscripts that made up the Torah (the first five books in the Bible) word for word. In fact, even word for word wasn't good enough, they had to perfectly replicate even the decorations on the letters. A single mistake would cause the entire scroll to the thrown out.

Is it your claim that the bible wasn't written by men and changed throughout the years, and that many parts of it were omitted? Is it also your claim that the Council of Nicaea never happened?

My claim is that the Bible was written by GOD through men. In the same way that a book is written by a man through a pencil, pen, keyboard, etc. The Council of Nicaea is an established historical fact, however, if you believe that GOD is ultimately in control of how His Word is preserved, then He would be guiding such a council to make sure that they don't eliminate anything necessary or add anything heretical.

Also, that council had a method of verifying the authenticity of the books and there were many books removed simply because they could not be verified as historically accurate.

So you still stick by this claim? I have shown you how your are in the wrong. Gay people can reproduce. Do you still say that they can't? Have you ever seen a redhead born to non redheads, or brown haired people having a blond child? Genetics doesn't necessarily pass down everything into the first generation.

Actually, a gay person can reproduce, but a gay couple CANNOT reproduce. If a homosexual man and a lesbian have sex, then that is a heterosexual partnership. I never claimed that homosexuals were sterile. I simply claimed that two men cannot have a child and two women cannot have a child by natural means. Of course, both of the lesbians are still capable of getting pregnant and both of the homosexual men are still capable of fertilizing an egg. HOWEVER, if Jack and Bruce are married, then they cannot produce a child, by natural means, that is a mix of Jack and Bruce's DNA. Reproduction requires an egg and a sperm, neither Jack nor Bruce can produce an egg to fertilize. Same with a lesbian couple (we'll call them Priscilla and Blair - mainly because I don't know any women by those names). Well they both have eggs to fertilize, but neither of them is capable of fertilizing the other's eggs. In both cases, a third party is required to provide sperm or an egg which in essence excludes one of the gay partners from the reproductive cycle. In other words, using natural methods of reproduction, one of the gay partners will not be able to contribute any genetic material to the offspring. THUS, gay partnerships cannot produce children in and of themselves.

Where is the first person account of an actual witness to this event? Where is the proof? It's great if you believe it, but don't go trying to say that this is fact unless you can offer something of substance to substantiate your claim. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

Again, whether you consider it fact or not, it's still evidence. It's the testimony of a reliable eyewitness. GOD is perfect and incapable of lying, thus His account of the events can be considered reliable.

Buzzard
04-06-2009, 02:44 AM
Haha...yes. :laugh:

What are they, the grand authority on all history? I guess what I'm getting at tho is that they are a little bias when it comes to certain histories. They tend to lean too far in one direction and lose objectivity. Would you agree?

Yes I would agree. I see an American bias, due to it being an American owned station if I am correct. Also, the winners write the history. But yes, I do get the gist of what you are getting at.

Buzzard
04-06-2009, 02:48 AM
:ninja: indeed. Where is the moral code that he lives by, and on whose authority is it truthful :)

As I stated before, a lot of what I follow is written in the "Golden Rule." If it is good enough for many religions to follow and base codes of conduct by, shouldn't it be good enough for us non-believers too? I'm not saying that religions don't have some good lessons to be learned, but the lessons aren't solely belonging to religions, nor were necessarily founded by religions.

Buzzard
04-06-2009, 02:56 AM
Most of my information comes from actual books, so I'll have to look around to see if there is anything reliable on the internet that talks about this.

Thanks, I'm interested in hearing from where you get some of your information.


My claim is that the Bible was written by GOD through men. In the same way that a book is written by a man through a pencil, pen, keyboard, etc. The Council of Nicaea is an established historical fact, however, if you believe that GOD is ultimately in control of how His Word is preserved, then He would be guiding such a council to make sure that they don't eliminate anything necessary or add anything heretical.

Also, that council had a method of verifying the authenticity of the books and there were many books removed simply because they could not be verified as historically accurate.

I still have more reading to do in regard to the Dead Sea Scrolls.



Actually, a gay person can reproduce, but a gay couple CANNOT reproduce. If a homosexual man and a lesbian have sex, then that is a heterosexual partnership. I never claimed that homosexuals were sterile. I simply claimed that two men cannot have a child and two women cannot have a child by natural means. Of course, both of the lesbians are still capable of getting pregnant and both of the homosexual men are still capable of fertilizing an egg. HOWEVER, if Jack and Bruce are married, then they cannot produce a child, by natural means, that is a mix of Jack and Bruce's DNA. Reproduction requires an egg and a sperm, neither Jack nor Bruce can produce an egg to fertilize. Same with a lesbian couple (we'll call them Priscilla and Blair - mainly because I don't know any women by those names). Well they both have eggs to fertilize, but neither of them is capable of fertilizing the other's eggs. In both cases, a third party is required to provide sperm or an egg which in essence excludes one of the gay partners from the reproductive cycle. In other words, using natural methods of reproduction, one of the gay partners will not be able to contribute any genetic material to the offspring. THUS, gay partnerships cannot produce children in and of themselves.


Thanks for the clarification.


Again, whether you consider it fact or not, it's still evidence. It's the testimony of a reliable eyewitness.

Who is this reliable eyewitness?


GOD is perfect and incapable of lying, thus His account of the events can be considered reliable.

Really? So his telling Adam and Eve that the apple tree was a tree of knowledge was what? If god is all knowing and all powerful, you don't think god could be capable of a lie?

Next fight is on, will continue this later.

Buzzard
04-06-2009, 03:07 AM
:laugh: wouldnt dream of it :laugh:


There is no conclusive evidence whether people are "born" homosexual or not. Some speak of a "gay" gene, but its not identified, and is counter to Nature, for the simple and undenyable reason that gays cant reproduce...and that the idea of nature. Some say its nurture, a conditioned behaviour, some say its an illness, probably a mental one.

How do you explain animals that engage in homosexual behavior?


BUT we do know that GOD would not endorse homosexual behaviour, either in the old, nor in the New Testament. So why would he want Homosexuals to marry? Marriage is a symbolic action depicting a sacred union. The union is between Church and Christ, between all the faithful belivers and GOD. Its pure and without sin. The symbolic gesture cant really be indorsed with anything other then a man and a woman


Only in the eyes of those that believe in god.


If homosexuals must get married, what is wrong with a civil partnership? nothing..and even if they do get married...like I said before...you can CALL it what you want...but without it being endorsed by GOD, it is NOT a marriage


What was wrong with women not being able to vote? Make an argument that holds up without forcing your religion into it and we can continue this talk, otherwise forcing your religious views on me in my country goes against what my country stands for.


Just because you are tempted to sin, doesnt mean you must sin. You have choice NOT to. You cant accidently have homosexual sex, you cant accidentaly cheat on your spouse...and you certainly cant accidentally marry against GODs wishes and believe it to be anything other then a big sham


That's all great if you believe in god. I don't so your arguments don't stand up, unless you want to force me to believe in your beliefs. I will fight to the death to defend my freedom from religion. How would you like to be forced to obey muslim sharia law?

Chuck
04-06-2009, 03:18 AM
How do you explain animals that engage in homosexual behavior?
Animals also practice polygamy, incest and cannibalism.... your point? Animals do not and have never entered into homosexual relationships. Animals acting purely on lust and instinct will show homosexual behavior... but not relationships. I would think that pointing out that animals do it would actually weaken your argument not strengthen it. But that's just me.

What was wrong with women not being able to vote? Make an argument that holds up without forcing your religion into it and we can continue this talk, otherwise forcing your religious views on me in my country goes against what my country stands for.
Who forced you to do anything?

I will fight to the death to defend my freedom from religion. How would you like to be forced to obey muslim sharia law?
I fully respect your right to freedom from religon... however upon your eventual death... I fully believe you will regret that choice.

Until then I'll be praying for you. :)

Hughes_GOAT
04-06-2009, 03:27 AM
i will say this....until i was a teen, i had no interest in males or females. i actually liked being around guys more. then, around 13 or so, i started getting chubs around girls and wanting to be around them more. i think homos are the same way, except they get these feeling around the same sex. so i'm saying i believe being gay or not gay, is genetic. sure, you can fight it and live a straight lifestyle but will you truly feel the same as you did when you were with the same sex partner?

and Nate, when you said the God that Christians and Jews believe in....you were referring to Jehovah, right? cause i'm pretty sure Jews don't believe in Jesus. and why aren't Jews just called Christians?

Vizion
04-06-2009, 03:31 AM
Yes I would agree. I see an American bias, due to it being an American owned station if I am correct. Also, the winners write the history. But yes, I do get the gist of what you are getting at.I wouldn't say an American bias or a winners bias writes history. Times have changed and everything has become subject to interpretation often by high-minded "intellectuals".

I once watched a History Channel programme on the life of Jesus, about 9 of the 10 "learned commentators" were bias to a humanistic perspective like yours, and the one with a close Biblical perspective was barely seen and offered no chance to rebuttal. One of those learned men said this exact phrase: "I don't think Jesus really thought of himself as the Messiah..." Tho scripture clearly portrays his own words to the contrary this man's interpretation was erroneous speculation based on a mere "hunch". That's the tip of the iceberg with that channel, so now that you and I agree that it isn't balanced why is it you would credit them as something worth sourcing with particular regard to this?

Buzzard
04-06-2009, 03:31 AM
I fully respect your right to freedom from religon... however upon your eventual death... I fully believe you will regret that choice.

Until then I'll be praying for you. :)

Do so if you must, but I would really rather you rake your own leaves in your backyard.

My animals remark was to show that it can be nature, not nurture. I never knew that animals could do the human acts of marrying and practicing polygamy, as well as practicing incest. I learn something new every day.

Denying something because of your religious views is forcing your religious beliefs upon me. Please keep your religion out of my life. Would you follow sharia law if it was forced upon you?


EDIT: Please don't take my comments as offensive, they're not meant to be. It's funny, the gay marriage issue has no effect on me whatsoever, but I can't see the logic in refusing this to a group of individuals because of religious reasons.

If you wish to pray for me, I would not want to deny you your right to do so. Thanks for thinking enough of me and offering your prayers for me.

Chuck
04-06-2009, 04:11 AM
Do so if you must, but I would really rather you rake your own leaves in your backyard.
It's not that I must my friend.. it's that I choose to. That's the difference between you and I. You can live your life by the "Golden Rule" but Christianity goes far, far beyond that. Is there anything in you the brings you to love your enemies? To forgive those who persecute you? To love unconditionally? That's certainly not what the "golden rule" teaches. A true life after Christ is one of love, forgiveness, compassion etc. That why I choose to pray for you. :wink: And my backyard is in perfect order.. it's yours I'm concerned with. :huh:

My animals remark was to show that it can be nature, not nurture. I never knew that animals could do the human acts of marrying and practicing polygamy, as well as practicing incest. I learn something new every day.
But if it's nature then it's purely instinctual. Aren't we beyond that? Aren't we as humans called to practice self control? That's what separates us from the animals. If you're right and it IS nature then it's purely instinctual. And that is something we can control. Why would you think that polygamy and incest are human acts? Can't a male animal procreate with many partners? Can't it mate with it's offspring?

Denying something because of your religious views is forcing your religious beliefs upon me. Please keep your religion out of my life. Would you follow sharia law if it was forced upon you?
Christians around the world and here in the U.S. have our beliefs and faith trampled on by laws every day? Do you feel the same way when it's your lack of faith that's forced on me?

NateR
04-06-2009, 04:36 AM
Denying something because of your religious views is forcing your religious beliefs upon me. Please keep your religion out of my life. Would you follow sharia law if it was forced upon you?

Well, I can't speak for Chuck, but this is where we get into a conundrum. First of all, you are confusing GOD with religion. It's a common mistake that non-believers make. GOD is the Supreme Being who created all that exists. Religion is a man-made institution that seeks to understand GOD; but generally gets caught up in traditions, customs and rituals and is highly vulnerable to corruption. If you can't separate GOD from religion, then you are incapable of truly understanding either one.

Let's compare it to plants and botany. Botany is the study of plants. Plants existed for thousands (some would claim millions) of years without botany; but botany is pretty pointless without plants. It's the same with GOD and religion. GOD existed long before any religion, but religion is pretty useless without belief in a higher power of some sort.

I believe in GOD first and foremost. Every other belief that I hold is based on that one conviction. Every decision that I make in life is based on my understanding that GOD loves me and wants what's best for me. Which is why He makes laws, not to oppress me, but to give me the option to live the happiest and most productive life possible.

So all of my political, scientific, religious opinions and just general preferences are based on my belief in GOD.

Thus I cannot argue my political views without bringing GOD into the equation. You'll just have to accept that and if you feel that I am pushing my religious beliefs on you, then you can exit the conversation anytime you want.:)

Buzzard
04-06-2009, 05:06 AM
Well, I can't speak for Chuck, but this is where we get into a conundrum. First of all, you are confusing GOD with religion. It's a common mistake that non-believers make. GOD is the Supreme Being who created all that exists.
For those that believe. I don't not believe that so your point holds no water with me. I do respect your views and your reasons for them though, and don't wish to denigrate them.

Religion is a man-made institution that seeks to understand GOD; but generally gets caught up in traditions, customs and rituals and is highly vulnerable to corruption.
Here I think we can agree.

If you can't separate GOD from religion, then you are incapable of truly understanding either one.
Without one, there can't be another can there? I understand what you are saying though. It's not God (to be respectful of your views, I will capitalize it from now on) that I have a problem with, but religious institutions.

Let's compare it to plants and botany. Botany is the study of plants. Plants existed for thousands (some would claim millions) of years without botany; but botany is pretty pointless without plants. It's the same with GOD and religion. GOD existed long before any religion, but religion is pretty useless without belief in a higher power of some sort.

Again, unless one believes in God, one could say that God has never existed.

I believe in GOD first and foremost. Every other belief that I hold is based on that one conviction. Every decision that I make in life is based on my understanding that GOD loves me and wants what's best for me. Which is why He makes laws, not to oppress me, but to give me the option to live the happiest and most productive life possible.

So all of my political, scientific, religious opinions and just general preferences are based on my belief in GOD.

Thus I cannot argue my political views without bringing GOD into the equation. You'll just have to accept that and if you feel that I am pushing my religious beliefs on you, then you can exit the conversation anytime you want.:)

I respect your belief in God as long as you respect my lack of belief and my reasons for my beliefs. I will try to respectfully disengage myself from this conversation as I see that we are at a probable impasse on this issue. Thank you though for the respectful conversation that we have engaged in. I find it both refreshing and enlightening.

Crisco
04-06-2009, 02:36 PM
I don't understand why it's easier to believe that everything that has happened in the history of the universe has happened for no particular reason at all then it is to believe in a higher power.

That everything we see and everything we do is some big accident and we all climbed out of a pool of pond scum and billions of years later that bacteria formed everything that has been and will be...

I don't understand how that is easier to believe... Can you give me some of your insight on the matter?

rearnakedchoke
04-06-2009, 03:20 PM
I don't understand why it's easier to believe that everything that has happened in the history of the universe has happened for no particular reason at all then it is to believe in a higher power.

That everything we see and everything we do is some big accident and we all climbed out of a pool of pond scum and billions of years later that bacteria formed everything that has been and will be...

I don't understand how that is easier to believe... Can you give me some of your insight on the matter?

Pretty much .. but scientists can make up anything to prove themselves right and that there is no God .. that is up to them ... all we can do is pray for them .. and i believe that in the end, when they are dying or dead, they will see that life after and believe ...

Crisco
04-06-2009, 03:22 PM
Pretty much .. but scientists can make up anything to prove themselves right and that there is no God .. that is up to them ... all we can do is pray for them .. and i believe that in the end, when they are dying or dead, they will see that life after and believe ...


But by then it's too late for them...:cry:

rearnakedchoke
04-06-2009, 03:24 PM
But by then it's too late for them...:cry:

well, that is your belief .. i believe that God is loving and forgiving .. he will give them one last chance to believe .. i am not saying there is no paying for your sins, but eventually God takes back all His sheep .......

Crisco
04-06-2009, 03:32 PM
well, that is your belief .. i believe that God is loving and forgiving .. he will give them one last chance to believe .. i am not saying there is no paying for your sins, but eventually God takes back all His sheep .......

Is this belief something you made up yourself or did you get it from somewhere?

rearnakedchoke
04-06-2009, 03:44 PM
Is this belief something you made up yourself or did you get it from somewhere?

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say I made it up myself .. but Jesus always talks about forgiveness "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do"
, "forgive not seven, but seventy-seven" times .. If God is asking us to be forgiving, will he not grant us forgiveness?

Crisco
04-06-2009, 03:52 PM
Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say I made it up myself .. but Jesus always talks about forgiveness "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do"
, "forgive not seven, but seventy-seven" times .. If God is asking us to be forgiving, will he not grant us forgiveness?

Not really sure what God does behind the scene but the bible pretty much lays out how it works... Repent and be saved while alive or you won't see heaven.

I actually hope it works the way you say I would hate to see a lot of the nice people I know be condemned because they don't believe...

I guess this is one of those things where you kind of hope the bible got it wrong.

rearnakedchoke
04-06-2009, 04:32 PM
Not really sure what God does behind the scene but the bible pretty much lays out how it works... Repent and be saved while alive or you won't see heaven.

I actually hope it works the way you say I would hate to see a lot of the nice people I know be condemned because they don't believe...

I guess this is one of those things where you kind of hope the bible got it wrong.
i don't know ... i am not taking a chance ... i just think there are so many people out there that never ever hear about Jesus' word .. but there are others that hear and do not listen, i just believe that God would give us all a second chance ... i could be wrong, who knows ... but like i said, i will do my best to not let it get to that point for me and those i know ......

Buzzard
04-06-2009, 04:50 PM
I wouldn't say an American bias or a winners bias writes history. Times have changed and everything has become subject to interpretation often by high-minded "intellectuals".

I once watched a History Channel programme on the life of Jesus, about 9 of the 10 "learned commentators" were bias to a humanistic perspective like yours, and the one with a close Biblical perspective was barely seen and offered no chance to rebuttal. One of those learned men said this exact phrase: "I don't think Jesus really thought of himself as the Messiah..." Tho scripture clearly portrays his own words to the contrary this man's interpretation was erroneous speculation based on a mere "hunch". That's the tip of the iceberg with that channel, so now that you and I agree that it isn't balanced why is it you would credit them as something worth sourcing with particular regard to this?


Vizion:

You're watching too much of the History Channel

My comment regarding the History Channel was a response in jest to your response of the quote directly above this statement. I never said nor implied that my source for this information was the History Channel, nor did I credit them as something worth sourcing with regard to the subject. If my response in jest implied that, I apologize for the confusion.

rockdawg21
04-06-2009, 06:58 PM
Hippies

Vizion
04-06-2009, 08:14 PM
My comment regarding the History Channel was a response in jest to your response of the quote directly above this statement. I never said nor implied that my source for this information was the History Channel, nor did I credit them as something worth sourcing with regard to the subject. If my response in jest implied that, I apologize for the confusion.
Uh-huh, suuuurree it is was in jest :wink: :laugh: :tongue0011:

Moose
04-06-2009, 08:15 PM
Let people live the way they want in America, gays aren't hurting you.

Crisco
04-06-2009, 08:20 PM
Let people live the way they want in America, gays aren't hurting you.

You ever had to see two dudes make out in a park?

ITS GROSS

rearnakedchoke
04-06-2009, 08:21 PM
You ever had to watch two dudes make out in a park?

ITS GROSS

someone made you watch them? look a way ...

Crisco
04-06-2009, 08:22 PM
someone made you watch them? look a way ...

Yea but there was still the initial view of the act happening that I had to witness before I knew to turn my head... That initial view was gross.

rearnakedchoke
04-06-2009, 08:26 PM
Yea but there was still the initial view of the act happening that I had to witness before I knew to turn my head... That initial view was gross.

your reaction is why I think there is a "gay" gene ... to the men who don't have it, they can't just find anything normal with it ... someone said to me "oh it is just a fad" ... i couldn't believe it ... straight men could never start making out with another dude just to be in .... there is something that is inside driving you to want to do it ...

Crisco
04-06-2009, 08:27 PM
I always say a chick can be straight and touch a girl...

but if you do a guy then there is no going back you are a ROMO

Buzzard
04-06-2009, 08:30 PM
Uh-huh, suuuurree it is was in jest :wink: :laugh: :tongue0011:

:laugh:

Tyburn
04-06-2009, 08:47 PM
As I stated before, a lot of what I follow is written in the "Golden Rule." If it is good enough for many religions to follow and base codes of conduct by, shouldn't it be good enough for us non-believers too? I'm not saying that religions don't have some good lessons to be learned, but the lessons aren't solely belonging to religions, nor were necessarily founded by religions.

How does that one rule possibly cover anything except how you treat other people?

...it doesnt tell you right from wrong. It just tells you to treat others how you would want to be treated. I Can assure you...that your value system will be based on more then just that...because that cant tell you what is right and wrong.

How do you judge what is right and wrong.

Oh..btw...As I know there is only ONE GOD, and the Golden Rule belongs to Him...your essentially stealing a Christian Basis for yourself. Why would you follow a Rule set down by a GOD or infact any Religion, that you dont believe in...what makes them so right that you feel the need to copy them :huh:

Tyburn
04-06-2009, 08:59 PM
Really? So his telling Adam and Eve that the apple tree was a tree of knowledge was what? If god is all knowing and all powerful, you don't think god could be capable of a lie?

Next fight is on, will continue this later.

The Tree of The Knowledge of Goodness and Evil...is only ONE half of a Pair of Trees...you'd know this if you were up on Genesis...you would also know WHY GOD banished them from the Garden.

See The Tree of The Knowledge of Goodness and Evil, is EXACTLY what we are debating here. How do YOU know the difference between what is Good and what is Evil...what is Right and what is Wrong?

What the Apple from that Tree does is essentially spark a conscious awareness within the being. It is what WE have that Animals do NOT have. The ability to be aware of ourselves, the ability to question our motives, the ability to believe there is such a thing as right and wrong. Unfortunately it is also the Source of Original Sin. That in itself is not actual Sin...but the ability TO sin.

Now GOD banishes Adam and Eve from the Garden to STOP them from eating the SECOND apple. This Apple hangs from The Tree of Life. In essence, the meaning of life is to search for that second apple...and that Second Apple is symbolic of the Eternal Life that you only get through Christ

Funny how Christ said "take, eat, this is my body..." when you think that an Apple also has to be eaten. Its symbolic. Christ is that Apple...if you want Eternal Life you MUST be saved by Him. His Spirit must be INSIDE you.

When we Die we are made perfect. When we are made perfect, presumably we will not sin either. It reflects back to the Worry that GOD had in Eden. The Humans must be cast out, lest they eat of the Apple of The Tree of Life and become "like us" is what the Trinity says. When we are made perfect, we SHALL be like GOD for we will have a SHARED inheritance with Christ.

Theologically speaking, each human steps into the Trinity on a par with Christ. That is what Union with GOD is all about. That is why Marriage is so important...its the union of Christ and the Church, GOD and man

and what does a Union lead to?

NEW LIFE.

Sorry If I'm overwhelming you, if you need clarification just ask. but this is pretty standard Theology of the Mystical Tradition :)

Tyburn
04-06-2009, 09:16 PM
1)How do you explain animals that engage in homosexual behavior?



2)Only in the eyes of those that believe in god.



What was wrong with women not being able to vote? Make an argument that holds up without forcing your religion into it and we can continue this talk, otherwise forcing your religious views on me in my country goes against what my country stands for.



That's all great if you believe in god. I don't so your arguments don't stand up, unless you want to force me to believe in your beliefs. I will fight to the death to defend my freedom from religion. How would you like to be forced to obey muslim sharia law?
1) Animals can be conditioned...so if its a conditioned response, that would satisfy ALL animals

Animals can be mentally unwell...so if its a matter of ill health, that would satisfy ALL animals

If its a matter of genetics..well perhaps that extends to all animals aswell. The difference between US and the rest of the animals, is that we have the awareness to do something about it. We have eaten the first apple...they have not.

2) What else matters :huh:

3) Firstly, I dont believe in moral relativity, so what is wrong onces, is ALWAYS wrong throughout History.

Secondly...you are so wrong about your own Country. Freedom UNDER GOD, does not equal Freedom to do whatever you like. You Country infact expressly preserves Christianity...you've just perverted the original pragmatic of the word to suit yourself.

You and all Americans, are NOT free to live as you please, to do what you please, to tollerate everysingle notion. To do that is very UN-American..and the problem with half the so called Americans on the planet. If you arent living as "one nation UNDER GOD" then you are actually NOT American by the definition laid out by your forefathers. Sorry to break it to you...but I am the American Patriot in this discussion YOU are the missguided stray. Has to be said. If you dont understand that then...frankly...you dont understand WHAT your country actually stands for...because it DOESNT stand for what you think.

Are you UNDER GOD??? You do realize thats a pre-requisit for post-civil war Americanism..right :huh:

I'm not trying to force my views...I'm just telling you what I KNOW is True. You dont have to believe me...but I did ask you if you were ready for me to reply.
4) lets just say that Englands ahead of you with the whole Sharia Law thang...just like it already allows homosexual marriage

Tyburn
04-06-2009, 09:18 PM
and Nate, when you said the God that Christians and Jews believe in....you were referring to Jehovah, right? cause i'm pretty sure Jews don't believe in Jesus. and why aren't Jews just called Christians?
Some Jews Do...they are called "messianic Jews" and there is NO difference between them and Christians

Tyburn
04-06-2009, 09:23 PM
Without one, there can't be another can there? .
Yes there can.

It happened between Eden and The Law. Abraham had no "religion" because he was before the Jews were called Jews...same with Noah. He was pre the flood...the Jews didnt apear until Jacob...and the Law wasnt given until AFTER they left Egypt...which means before then,...there couldnt have been much and an "established" religion beyond a belief in GOD

Tyburn
04-06-2009, 09:24 PM
well, that is your belief .. i believe that God is loving and forgiving .. he will give them one last chance to believe .. i am not saying there is no paying for your sins, but eventually God takes back all His sheep .......
:cry: I used to be a platonic universalist aswell.

Tyburn
04-06-2009, 09:25 PM
You ever had to see two dudes make out in a park?

ITS GROSS
:laugh: :laugh:

Hughes_GOAT
04-06-2009, 09:47 PM
Some Jews Do...they are called "messianic Jews" and there is NO difference between them and Christians

yeah i know some do.

Tyburn
04-06-2009, 09:49 PM
yeah i know some do.
the only thing that separates the rest of the Jews from the Christians is the level of revelation given to them. Sadly, that revelation is the thing which equals eternal life. Without acceptance of that...well...as my Karate Tutor used to say " a miss is as good as a mile" :unsure-1:

Moose
04-07-2009, 12:38 AM
You ever had to see two dudes make out in a park?

ITS GROSS

So if something is gross it should be banned? Tell me you were being sarcastic.

Chris F
04-07-2009, 01:18 AM
So if something is gross it should be banned? Tell me you were being sarcastic.


Moose by your counter logic if you too are not being sarcastic then Bestiality, pedophilia, rape and all other sorts of sex crimes should be legal. Homosexuality was made illegal because it is not natural. They now let them do what it is they do, but Marriage should not be an option. It is a religious event, if they want the benefits of marriage they can fie for domestic partnership. The real problem here is society lives in a grey world and real life is in black and white. There is right and wrong and it is not relative it is absoulte.

Moose
04-07-2009, 01:36 AM
Moose by your counter logic if you too are not being sarcastic then Bestiality, pedophilia, rape and all other sorts of sex crimes should be legal. Homosexuality was made illegal because it is not natural. They now let them do what it is they do, but Marriage should not be an option. It is a religious event, if they want the benefits of marriage they can fie for domestic partnership. The real problem here is society lives in a grey world and real life is in black and white. There is right and wrong and it is not relative it is absoulte.

Why was interracial marriage illegal Chris? Laws and society's views are often in need of a tune-up.

rearnakedchoke
04-07-2009, 01:55 AM
Moose by your counter logic if you too are not being sarcastic then Bestiality, pedophilia, rape and all other sorts of sex crimes should be legal. Homosexuality was made illegal because it is not natural. They now let them do what it is they do, but Marriage should not be an option. It is a religious event, if they want the benefits of marriage they can fie for domestic partnership. The real problem here is society lives in a grey world and real life is in black and white. There is right and wrong and it is not relative it is absoulte.

you keep saying that marriage is a religious event, but if people can be "married" in a court, with no mention of God, then it is not religious .. they are not being granted to be allowed marriage in churches, synogogues, temples etc, but in courts ... so they are asking that their unions be recognized as marriages in a legal sense and not a religious sense ... as even in many religions, marriage is treated different, so which religion is right?

Vizion
04-07-2009, 02:12 AM
you keep saying that marriage is a religious event, but if people can be "married" in a court, with no mention of God, then it is not religious .. they are not being granted to be allowed marriage in churches, synogogues, temples etc, but in courts ... so they are asking that their unions be recognized as marriages in a legal sense and not a religious sense ... as even in many religions, marriage is treated different, so which religion is right?What matters is what God Himself recognizes. Whether it be in a church or a court the point is that if you are legally married it is recognized as a marriage in God's eyes.

Vizion
04-07-2009, 02:13 AM
So if something is gross it should be banned? Tell me you were being sarcastic.Gross and immoral are two different absolutes.

rearnakedchoke
04-07-2009, 02:14 AM
What matters is what God Himself recognizes. Whether it be in a church or a court the point is that if you are legally married it is recognized as a marriage in God's eyes.
so God recognizes international law? so the muslims who are legally married to more than one woman, God recognizes those marriages?

Vizion
04-07-2009, 02:19 AM
so God recognizes international law? so the muslims who are legally married to more than one woman, God recognizes those marriages?God appointed Adam and Eve, one man for one woman. Never does the Bible talk about polegamy as being just in His eyes. Therefore, no, God doesn't see it like that.

Moose
04-07-2009, 02:33 AM
God appointed Adam and Eve, one man for one woman. Never does the Bible talk about polegamy as being just in His eyes. Therefore, no, God doesn't see it like that.

Yet God called David a man after his own heart. How many wives did David have?

Vizion
04-07-2009, 02:50 AM
Yet God called David a man after his own heart. How many wives did David have?Too many. Although David was a man after God's own heart he still was, well, a man like any of us, fallible and thinking with the wrong ahem, head to be sure :unsure: Remember: power corrupts the best of us and he was a KING.

Deut. 17:17 states: "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."

Clearly he disobeyed the Law and believe me, it was a black spot in his life as King. Not long after all his sin, and adultery Go declared that "the sword shall not depart from thy house." Samuel 12:10

I'm not sure if David repented after all the ensuing chaos or what...

Buzzard
04-07-2009, 04:01 AM
How does that one rule possibly cover anything except how you treat other people?

...it doesnt tell you right from wrong. It just tells you to treat others how you would want to be treated. I Can assure you...that your value system will be based on more then just that...because that cant tell you what is right and wrong.

How do you judge what is right and wrong.

Oh..btw...As I know there is only ONE GOD, and the Golden Rule belongs to Him...your essentially stealing a Christian Basis for yourself. Why would you follow a Rule set down by a GOD or infact any Religion, that you dont believe in...what makes them so right that you feel the need to copy them :huh:

You may need the bible to teach you how to be a good person, those like myself who are non-believers are able to do so without the aid of your book. Like it or not, people can live a rewarding life with strong values without the need for religion. To think or say that I can't be or am not a good person because I don't believe is quite an insult.

You base your argument on the assumption that I too think that there is only one true God, and you don't know this at all. You believe this, which is fine, but you don't know this.

Moose
04-07-2009, 04:03 AM
Too many. Although David was a man after God's own heart he still was, well, a man like any of us, fallible and thinking with the wrong ahem, head to be sure :unsure: Remember: power corrupts the best of us and he was a KING.


Indeed. We start taking liberties from each other. You know, personal choice.

Buzzard
04-07-2009, 04:12 AM
The Tree of The Knowledge of Goodness and Evil...is only ONE half of a Pair of Trees...you'd know this if you were up on Genesis...you would also know WHY GOD banished them from the Garden.

See The Tree of The Knowledge of Goodness and Evil, is EXACTLY what we are debating here. How do YOU know the difference between what is Good and what is Evil...what is Right and what is Wrong?


You seem to go off in strange directions and not comprehend what I have written, and then try to change what I say. Until you stop this, I have no need to have anything more to say to you.


Sorry If I'm overwhelming you, if you need clarification just ask. but this is pretty standard Theology of the Mystical Tradition :)

You overwhelm me with your lack of understanding on what I have written and then going off on tangents based upon things I have not said.

Vizion
04-07-2009, 04:13 AM
Indeed. We start taking liberties from each other. You know, personal choice.
elaborate please.

Buzzard
04-07-2009, 04:35 AM
Secondly...you are so wrong about your own Country. Freedom UNDER GOD, does not equal Freedom to do whatever you like. You Country infact expressly preserves Christianity...you've just perverted the original pragmatic of the word to suit yourself.

Show me where I have stated what you say I have stated. Stop putting words in my mouth.


You and all Americans, are NOT free to live as you please, to do what you please, to tollerate everysingle notion. To do that is very UN-American..and the problem with half the so called Americans on the planet. If you arent living as "one nation UNDER GOD" then you are actually NOT American by the definition laid out by your forefathers. Sorry to break it to you...but I am the American Patriot in this discussion YOU are the missguided stray. Has to be said. If you dont understand that then...frankly...you dont understand WHAT your country actually stands for...because it DOESNT stand for what you think.

Are you UNDER GOD??? You do realize thats a pre-requisit for post-civil war Americanism..right :huh:

You do realize that the words "under God" weren't part of the original pledge don't you. If you don't, look it up and educate yourself before you call me un-American. I am getting sick of listening to your crap like this. You're quite the pompous one and you really deserve a swift kick in the ass. I would like to see you call some of my military friends who don't believe un-American to their faces.:punch: Seeing as how I am not a violent person, I will say to you to keep that bs to yourself. It's people like you that make me think that some religious folks are case studies for mental institutions and out of touch with the real world.

To those of you who have spoken to me respectfully, I apologize for my words towards Tyburn.


I'm not trying to force my views...I'm just telling you what I KNOW is True. You dont have to believe me...but I did ask you if you were ready for me to reply.
4) lets just say that Englands ahead of you with the whole Sharia Law thang...just like it already allows homosexual marriage

You think you know what is true, but you seem quite delusional to me. Your obnoxious attitude does little to bolster your opinions. I don't think it is really worth my while to study a fictional book that is full of inconsistencies and has stories that were plagiarized from many other different stories from multiple cultures.

If you wish to discuss this further, PM me so I don't irritate the membership with my views, as I did say that I would try to refrain from posting more in this thread.

Again my apologies to those I may have offended. My response in kind was to Tyburn due to his lack of respect in questioning my status as an American. Don't tread on me Tyburn.

Neezar
04-07-2009, 04:43 AM
Show me where I have stated what you say I have stated. Stop putting words in my mouth.



You do realize that the words "under God" weren't part of the original pledge don't you. If you don't, look it up and educate yourself before you call me un-American. I am getting sick of listening to your crap like this. You're quite the pompous one and you really deserve a swift kick in the ass. I would like to see you call some of my military friends who don't believe un-American to their faces.:punch: Seeing as how I am not a violent person, I will say to you to keep that bs to yourself. It's people like you that make me think that some religious folks are case studies for mental institutions and out of touch with the real world.

To those of you who have spoken to me respectfully, I apologize for my words towards Tyburn.



You think you know what is true, but you seem quite delusional to me. Your obnoxious attitude does little to bolster your opinions. I don't think it is really worth my while to study a fictional book that is full of inconsistencies and has stories that were plagiarized from many other different stories from multiple cultures.

If you wish to discuss this further, PM me so I don't irritate the membership with my views, as I did say that I would try to refrain from posting more in this thread.

Again my apologies to those I may have offended. My response in kind was to Tyburn due to his lack of respect in questioning my status as an American. Don't tread on me Tyburn.



Ole Dave can piss anybody off. :laugh:

Buzzard
04-07-2009, 04:57 AM
Ole Dave can piss anybody off. :laugh:

I should talk to some TSA and Customs agents I know and make sure he gets multiple cavity searches when he arrives in the US.

Neezar
04-07-2009, 05:05 AM
I should talk to some TSA and Customs agents I know and make sure he gets multiple cavity searches when he arrives in the US.

No. He might like that.


:laugh:

Chris F
04-07-2009, 05:45 AM
Why was interracial marriage illegal Chris? Laws and society's views are often in need of a tune-up.

Jim Crow laws were based on a way a person was born. Homosexuality is a choice. Apples and oranges huge difference.

Chris F
04-07-2009, 05:49 AM
you keep saying that marriage is a religious event, but if people can be "married" in a court, with no mention of God, then it is not religious .. they are not being granted to be allowed marriage in churches, synogogues, temples etc, but in courts ... so they are asking that their unions be recognized as marriages in a legal sense and not a religious sense ... as even in many religions, marriage is treated different, so which religion is right?

There are no marriages in courts. They are technically referred to as civil unions. Try researching fact before you openly rebuke someone. Gays are perfectly allowed to engage in a domestic partnership. Every religion has their own marriage ceremony and thus by the 1st amend. congress can make no laws changing that. Gay marriage would force churches to accept it and Christinas to accept it. That infringes on our constitutional rights.

Hughes_GOAT
04-07-2009, 05:54 AM
No. He might like that.


:laugh:

beat me to it

Hughes_GOAT
04-07-2009, 05:57 AM
Ole Dave can piss anybody off. :laugh:


it's better to be pissed off than pissed on

Hughes_GOAT
04-07-2009, 05:58 AM
That infringes on our constitutional rights.

get used to it

Tyburn
04-07-2009, 01:22 PM
you keep saying that marriage is a religious event, but if people can be "married" in a court, with no mention of God, then it is not religious .. they are not being granted to be allowed marriage in churches, synogogues, temples etc, but in courts ... so they are asking that their unions be recognized as marriages in a legal sense and not a religious sense ... as even in many religions, marriage is treated different, so which religion is right?
thats actually not a marriage.

It might be a civil partnership that the state refers to as Marriage...but TRUE definition of marriage is a religious ceremony conducted in a place of worship

Tyburn
04-07-2009, 01:26 PM
Yet God called David a man after his own heart. How many wives did David have?
David paid a heavy price for his Sin:sad:

Tyburn
04-07-2009, 01:27 PM
You may need the bible to teach you how to be a good person, those like myself who are non-believers are able to do so without the aid of your book. Like it or not, people can live a rewarding life with strong values without the need for religion. To think or say that I can't be or am not a good person because I don't believe is quite an insult.

You base your argument on the assumption that I too think that there is only one true God, and you don't know this at all. You believe this, which is fine, but you don't know this.
I'm not assuming anything.

I am asking a VERY simple question. Please answer it.

How do you know the difference between Right and Wrong? The Golden Rule doesnt cover that. So just answer the question

Moose
04-07-2009, 01:29 PM
Jim Crow laws were based on a way a person was born. Homosexuality is a choice. Apples and oranges huge difference.

Most gays have the same amount of choice in the matter as a black person born in 1930.

Tyburn
04-07-2009, 01:32 PM
You seem to go off in strange directions and not comprehend what I have written, and then try to change what I say. Until you stop this, I have no need to have anything more to say to you.



You overwhelm me with your lack of understanding on what I have written and then going off on tangents based upon things I have not said.
Do you find me indimidating :huh: Do you fail to understand what I'm saying. If you dont understand what I'm saying, ask. If you avoid it...there is a reason behind that...probably because you feel uncomfortable...I'd ask you why you feel uncomfortable.

What are you frightened of in engaging me. Frightened I might present you with something you dare not believe. You asked a question about the Tree of the Knowledge of Goodness and Evil...and I answered it. :)

Tyburn
04-07-2009, 01:44 PM
1)Show me where I have stated what you say I have stated. Stop putting words in my mouth.



2)You do realize that the words "under God" weren't part of the original pledge don't you. If you don't, look it up and educate yourself before you call me un-American. I am getting sick of listening to your crap like this. You're quite the pompous one and you really deserve a swift kick in the ass. I would like to see you call some of my military friends who don't believe un-American to their faces.:punch: Seeing as how I am not a violent person, I will say to you to keep that bs to yourself. It's people like you that make me think that some religious folks are case studies for mental institutions and out of touch with the real world.

To those of you who have spoken to me respectfully, I apologize for my words towards Tyburn.



You think you know what is true, but you seem quite delusional to me. Your obnoxious attitude does little to bolster your opinions. I don't think it is really worth my while to study a fictional book that is full of inconsistencies and has stories that were plagiarized from many other different stories from multiple cultures.

If you wish to discuss this further, PM me so I don't irritate the membership with my views, as I did say that I would try to refrain from posting more in this thread.

Again my apologies to those I may have offended. My response in kind was to Tyburn due to his lack of respect in questioning my status as an American. Don't tread on me Tyburn.
1) it was in the quote I highlighted!!!! You told me your country stands for something other then Christian Value...Thats wrong, constitutionally wrong. You told me not to force my opinion onto you because it went against what your country stood for...my opinion is the opinion the founders of your Society held...so your Country stands for Christ. How can you call yourself American, and not hold to what your country REALLY stands for :huh:

2) Your Forefathers were Freemasons. They were considered CHRISTIAN. They. Dont blame me for the fact your country has its entire basis on something YOU dont believe. I'm telling you facts.

I also have absolutely no care what you think of me. I'm not intimidated by your "military friends" what do you think this site is made up of?? Primarily Forces and Ex-Forces...and they seem to tollerate me just fine.

You have expressed what you DONT believe in, please allow me to Express what I DO believe in. (I was going to say "its only fair" but you've yet to state simply where your sence of Justice comes from!!)

3) Dont tell me what I mean. I know what I mean. I dont "think I know" about GOD. I know. Period. You can tell me I am wrong. But you cant tell me I dont mean what I say...because when I say, I KNOW GOD exists, and I KNOW Christs Salvation...I'm NOT telling you an opinion, or a possiblity. I am telling you THE Truth. You can either Accept it...or Reject it. Thats your choice.

I dont need to PM you to discuss further. If you dont want to know, thats your issue, but dont expect me to just fall silent. If you can express your thoughts...I will express mine. :)

Tyburn
04-07-2009, 01:46 PM
No. He might like that.


:laugh:
:ashamed: I have nothing to hide LOL

rearnakedchoke
04-07-2009, 02:00 PM
There are no marriages in courts. They are technically referred to as civil unions. Try researching fact before you openly rebuke someone. Gays are perfectly allowed to engage in a domestic partnership. Every religion has their own marriage ceremony and thus by the 1st amend. congress can make no laws changing that. Gay marriage would force churches to accept it and Christinas to accept it. That infringes on our constitutional rights.
that civil union is referred to as marriage ... and that is what gays are being granted ... the law does not mean that a church or synogogue or temple will be forced to "marry" to same sex individuals ... it is stating that gays will be allowed to marry in courts ...

Neezar
04-07-2009, 02:24 PM
that civil union is referred to as marriage ... and that is what gays are being granted ... the law does not mean that a church or synogogue or temple will be forced to "marry" to same sex individuals ... it is stating that gays will be allowed to marry in courts ...

Didn't jolly ole England do that? And then not far to follow was the churches either performed the weddings or were cut off from government help and/or benefits?

Our government is contemplating cutting the tax breaks on people giving monies to the churches and charities (or have they done it already:unsure-1: I find it hard to keep up these days). So the government has already shown that they don't have any qualms about cutting church priviledges. Therefore, the government forcing the church to perform these weddings or else face losing their governmental funding is exactly where this is heading, imo.

Do you agree?

rearnakedchoke
04-07-2009, 02:57 PM
Didn't jolly ole England do that? And then not far to follow was the churches either performed the weddings or were cut off from government help and/or benefits?

Our government is contemplating cutting the tax breaks on people giving monies to the churches and charities (or have they done it already:unsure-1: I find it hard to keep up these days). So the government has already shown that they don't have any qualms about cutting church priviledges. Therefore, the government forcing the church to perform these weddings or else face losing their governmental funding is exactly where this is heading, imo.

Do you agree?
see, i don't know about how it works there, but here, i haven't seen any signs of that .. we have been allowing these and the churches have still had their rights to allow marriages as they see fit .. the government hasn't forced let's say catholic churches to marry people who have been divorced ... but in the US, who knows .. i just think that "court" marriages are a mockery of marriage, why is it that a heterosexual can go to a drive thru in vegas, get married, get divorced and do it all over again when "the ink isn't dry on their divorce paper" (tribute to Godfather II) ... but a homosexual couple who wants to do the same can't?

Neezar
04-07-2009, 03:30 PM
see, i don't know about how it works there, but here, i haven't seen any signs of that .. we have been allowing these and the churches have still had their rights to allow marriages as they see fit .. the government hasn't forced let's say catholic churches to marry people who have been divorced ... but in the US, who knows .. i just think that "court" marriages are a mockery of marriage, why is it that a heterosexual can go to a drive thru in vegas, get married, get divorced and do it all over again when "the ink isn't dry on their divorce paper" (tribute to Godfather II) ... but a homosexual couple who wants to do the same can't?

:huh:

You don't see any signs of that coming?

That is the way government funding works. You follow government rules and regulations in order to obtain government funding. As soon as this law becomes federal then this is soon to follow.

Buzzard
04-07-2009, 04:58 PM
Do you find me indimidating
Anything but. I find you obnoxious and semi-illiterate. I have a hard time with taking things you say seriously because if you still have no grasp of your language and how to spell, I question whether you have grasped other things that you have learned. You are not a true Englishman if you can't even use your own native tongue with proficiency in both the written and oral manner.


What are you frightened of in engaging me. Frightened I might present you with something you dare not believe. You asked a question about the Tree of the Knowledge of Goodness and Evil...and I answered it. :)
Frightened? You give yourself too much credit. Do you even know what I asked and in what context I asked the question? From your answer, you haven't the slightest clue. If you wish to engage in more conversation, do it in PM. I don't wish to offend the entire forum. I really don't care much if I offend you now.

Miss Foxy
04-07-2009, 05:40 PM
Anything but. I find you obnoxious and semi-illiterate. I have a hard time with taking things you say seriously because if you still have no grasp of your language and how to spell, I question whether you have grasped other things that you have learned. You are not a true Englishman if you can't even use your own native tongue with proficiency in both the written and oral manner.


Frightened? You give yourself too much credit. Do you even know what I asked and in what context I asked the question? From your answer, you haven't the slightest clue. If you wish to engage in more conversation, do it in PM. I don't wish to offend the entire forum. I really don't care much if I offend you now.
I know Dave spells differently than some of us, but he isnt a bad guy at all. Give him a chance.:mellow:

Tyburn
04-07-2009, 05:54 PM
that civil union is referred to as marriage ... and that is what gays are being granted ... the law does not mean that a church or synogogue or temple will be forced to "marry" to same sex individuals ... it is stating that gays will be allowed to marry in courts ...
Not in England.

Because the State is connected to The Church by Endorsment of Anglicanism.

This means that in a Church of England marriage, no member of Law is needed to make the civil part of the contract happen. There is no need for a registrar, the Priests carry the legal authority to make a marriage a Civil Contract also.

This means they essentially arent any different then a court. Homosexuals dont want to be civil partnered in court...thats been open to them for AGES...nope...we are probably talking about the religious.

btw...the only real people to take it up in England were two homosexuals priests :laugh:

Tyburn
04-07-2009, 06:00 PM
1)Anything but. I find you obnoxious and semi-illiterate. I have a hard time with taking things you say seriously because if you still have no grasp of your language and how to spell, I question whether you have grasped other things that you have learned. You are not a true Englishman if you can't even use your own native tongue with proficiency in both the written and oral manner.


2) Frightened? You give yourself too much credit. Do you even know what I asked and in what context I asked the question? From your answer, you haven't the slightest clue. If you wish to engage in more conversation, do it in PM. I don't wish to offend the entire forum. I really don't care much if I offend you now.
1) Really? then why to you attack me and my character? your very defensive for someone who claims they arent intimidated :ninja: What would you know about English people?? You dont seem to understand your own countries heratage.

2) Did you listen to what I said before? I have absolutely no intention of continuing anything with you in PM. I will continue to partake in this debate. I will continue to voice my thoughts...just like you voice yours. If you embariss yourself infront of the Forum, that will just show you lacking in self discipline. :rolleyes:

Now STOP avoiding the Question

HOW do you know what is Right and Wrong? How do you distinguish the difference?

rearnakedchoke
04-07-2009, 06:17 PM
Not in England.

Because the State is connected to The Church by Endorsment of Anglicanism.

This means that in a Church of England marriage, no member of Law is needed to make the civil part of the contract happen. There is no need for a registrar, the Priests carry the legal authority to make a marriage a Civil Contract also.

This means they essentially arent any different then a court. Homosexuals dont want to be civil partnered in court...thats been open to them for AGES...nope...we are probably talking about the religious.

btw...the only real people to take it up in England were two homosexuals priests :laugh:
well, that is what i thought that is ... is gay marriages in court ... if it is essentially being forced on religions to also recognize and perform them, then I don't agree with it ... but if it is just saying that homosexuals can go in front of a court and judge and get married, i don't see the big deal ...