11 states vote on gay marriage

[nbcrusader]

Nope. Ours does NOT conflict. YOURS actually diverges and sometimes is totally devoid of things, and sometimes is totally in conflict. I study the Bible, too, and I know what I have and know.

Really, the point is moot. Your verdict is wrong.

I am Christian.

Covering your ears and screaming "I'm right, you're wrong" is not discussion. I suggested that this go to a different thread when it came up. If you don't want to discuss the issue, that is fine

 

[sharky]

This is the same thing. People think homosexuality is a sin therefore they shouldn't have this right. Well as soon as that line is crossed the next step will be well your religion is a sin therefore you shouldn't have that right. It's a dangerous dangersous line. Thanks George for putting it up there with everything else.

Indeed. Gays make up an estimated 1% of the population. Jews make up 2%. If you ask a Christian majority which religions are not the proper religions, what do you think would happen? And how would being Jewish in this case be any different than being gay? Both would be looked down as sinful by Christians. So what would be the difference?

 

[deep]

Indeed. Gays make up an estimated 1% of the population.

where?

at a klan meeting?

 

[nbcrusader]

Both would be looked down as sinful by Christians. So what would be the difference?

Your portrayal of Christianity is off base here. Christian doctrine is that we are all sinful. There is no looking down at another.


A Christian is no better or worse than anyone else.



I think we are projecting one doctrine as a superiority complex of the Christian. That is the part of the Bible were Jesus says that He alone is the way to forgiveness of sins.

 

[BVS]

Your portrayal of Christianity is off base here. Christian doctrine is that we are all sinful. There is no looking down at another.

I agree with this 100%, so then why would one sin now make the law books and not others. Even if homosexuality is a sin, which I do not believe, why does it all of a sudden need to be a political issue. No one has shown me where two men or two women getting married hurts anyone.

Murder - obvious
Traffic laws - save lives
Robbery - obvious
Fraud - makes sense
Gays not being able to marry -

Religion does not nor should it determine our laws. So can anyone give me a reason for this?

 

[U2Traveller]

Covering your ears and screaming "I'm right, you're wrong" is not discussion. I suggested that this go to a different thread when it came up. If you don't want to discuss the issue, that is fine

 

[U2Traveller]

Covering your ears and screaming "I'm right, you're wrong" is not discussion. I suggested that this go to a different thread when it came up. If you don't want to discuss the issue, that is fine

I AM A CHRISTIAN! THERE IS NOTHING TO DISCUSS...AND AS A CHRISTIAN I THINK IT'S VERY SAD THAT YOU SHOULD TREAT OTHER CHRISTIANS BADLY. That was my original point. At least I think it was think thread.

Ah well.

 

[Screaming Flower]

i think you need to take a little break traveller. relax already.

 

[Anthony]

This thread is going MODERATELY well. nbcrusader has tried and succeeded in keeping his tone cordial, U2Traveller, if you can't do the same I suggest you take a break.

Ant.

 

[speedracer]

yes he was, he directly compared incest to gays.

Yes I did.

You, however, replaced "incest" with "a relationship between a father and his young daughter", when I intended it to refer to a consensual relationship between two biologically related adults.

I refer you to the thread "Religious Fanatics..." in this forum if you want to see me and The_Sweetest_Thing debate gay marriage.

If you want to see a far wittier defense of federalism and gay marriage laws, I refer you to

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg070103.asp

Good day.

 

[mellyinsf]

Yes I did.

You, however, replaced "incest" with "a relationship between a father and his young daughter", when I intended it to refer to a consensual relationship between two biologically related adults.

I refer you to the thread "Religious Fanatics..." in this forum if you want to see me and The_Sweetest_Thing debate gay marriage.

If you want to see a far wittier defense of federalism and gay marriage laws, I refer you to

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg070103.asp

Good day.

ok two consensual adults. I do not see this as a problem in our society, I do not know of any relationships of this sort happening. There are however millions of gay people and thousands of children that have been abused by an adult in this country. Taking this arguement to obsure does not make a great argument.

 

[speedracer]

ok two consensual adults. I do not see this as a problem in our society, I do not know of any relationships of this sort happening. There are however millions of gay people and thousands of children that have been abused by an adult in this country. Taking this arguement to obsure does not make a great argument.

You are addressing the wrong point.

The point is that there are probably incestuous adult couples out there who desire a union. They might even be menopausal or gay, precluding the possibility of giving birth to deformed children.

Will you deny their union? If so, what is your principle for doing so? And how is it different from denying gays marriage?

 

[mellyinsf]

You are addressing the wrong point.

The point is that there are probably incestuous adult couples out there who desire a union. They might even be menopausal or gay, precluding the possibility of giving birth to deformed children.

Will you deny their union? If so, what is your principle for doing so? And how is it different from denying gays marriage?

I guess if there were millions of incestuous adult couples that wanted to get married I would have no right to deny them of what they wanted to do, HOWEVER this is such a ridiculous comparison because there are not millions. I doubt there are really very many at all. And I know no laws that ban a MAN and a WOMEN who are second cousins to marry. Am I wrong? Do you think 3rd cousins can marry, 4th, 5th?

 

[nbcrusader]

I guess if there were millions of incestuous adult couples that wanted to get married I would have no right to deny them of what they wanted to do, HOWEVER this is such a ridiculous comparison because there are not millions. I doubt there are really very many at all.

I thought rights were not based on numbers. Therefor, in Speedracer's example, if only one incestuous adult couple sought to marry, they should be forwarded the right as well.

 

[mellyinsf]

I thought rights were not based on numbers. Therefor, in Speedracer's example, if only one incestuous adult couple sought to marry, they should be forwarded the right as well.

You're correct, rights are not based on numbers. They are based on freedom and equality--things that are enshrined in our Constitution. The Bible is completely irrelevant to any dicussion about the rights of US citizens. This is a secular country. There are very good reasons why close relatives should not marry. There are no good reasons--under our Constitution, not under any religious document--why consenting gay adults should not marry. To bring up incest is begging the question--it's a specious argument.

 

[speedracer]

You're correct, rights are not based on numbers. They are based on freedom and equality--things that are enshrined in our Constitution. The Bible is completely irrelevant to any dicussion about the rights of US citizens.

Who said anything about the Bible???

This is a secular country. There are very good reasons why close relatives should not marry.

Such as?

In anticipation of your response, I narrowed the question down to this: are there any good reasons why gay incestuous couples or menopausal incestuous couples should not marry?

There are no good reasons--under our Constitution, not under any religious document--why consenting gay adults should not marry. To bring up incest is begging the question--it's a specious argument.

"Begging the question" is something entirely different -- it means to assume the truth of a proposition one is attempting to prove.

You might have meant to call it a "red herring" -- but you'll see the punchline soon.

 

[mellyinsf]

NBcrusader and numerous other posters on this thread have injected the Bible into this argument. If a gay incestuous couple wants to marry, there is no good reason--again, under the Constitution--why they shouldn't. However, to bring up these extreme incest examples only serves to take the thread away from the salient point: there is nothing in the Constitution that supports not giving gays the right to marry.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that the rules of marriage should be uniform here, the abnormalities the can result from incestuous relationships are the reason why most of the worlds religions consider them wrong, those laws are there for a decent reason. If you allowed gay marriage then it should be applied equally and forbid incestuous relationships even gay ones. After all, this is all about equality.

 

[nbcrusader]

NBcrusader and numerous other posters on this thread have injected the Bible into this argument.

While a devote Christian, I haven't engaged in a Biblican discussion regarding gay marriage as it seems to be outside the bounds of what people want to discuss. Speedracer is pointing to the non-Biblical principles of why we do things.

 

[sharky]

where?

at a klan meeting?

See, I thought that was low. I got the 1% number from some web site. I'm thinking it's more like 10% right?

 

[deep]

i have seen 5 and ten thrown around, too.

it is difficult to pin down

i just got to believe it is quite a bit more than 1 per cent.

 

[GOP_Catholic]

Marriage is the institution which to create and foster children. Since those of the same sex cannot have children together, they do not need a marriage. They can rent a condo together somewhere down on the shore, preferably well away from me and out of view of our children, but we the majority will not be granting them any marriage licenses.

If at any point these same-sex couples do wish to get married, they can create their own anything-goes country and issue their own licenses and we will wish them the best of luck and even help them pack their bags and fill their Volkswagens with their belongings. This is a Democracy, a nation founded by Christians and we still rule the land as evident by Tuesday's family-values victory, and we're not about to let the far-left hijack our family units and redefine them.

They may have taken our televisions and hijacked them with far-left ideas and perversion, but we're not about to let them take our family units. That is all, we're now the majority, and we have no intentions of changing our ideas or our core principles.

 

[U2Traveller]

GOP, where do you live?

 

[deep]

That is all, we're now the majority, and we have no intentions of changing our ideas or our core principles.

...we are 60 million strong and we will not sit quietly in the closet anymore.

 

[EmilyBono]

If at any point these same-sex couples do wish to get married, they can create their own anything-goes country and issue their own licenses

See, but it wouldn't be an "anything goes" country... because discrimination wouldn't "go."

 

[GOP_Catholic]

See, but it wouldn't be an "anything goes" country... because discrimination wouldn't "go."

Oh, so no discrimination, so in your country a 3 year old could drive a car, since age-discrimination is wrong.

And in your country, a handicapped blind person could become a surgeon, since we can't discriminate against the handicapped.

Just more liberal logic.... no wonder you folks lost with that logic on Tuesday

 

[UnforgettableLemon]

Not to play devil's advocate, but I thought Deists played a pretty hefty part in founding this country too (Not a deist myself, Church of the Brethren here).

Also, I personally believe the government shouldn't be involved with marriages at all. Some sort of codependence benefit, universal for any persons living together (including non-romantic relationships), perhaps. But marriage is a relgious institution, and is better staying that way. Just my .02.

 

[EmilyBono]

Oh, so no discrimination, so in your country a 3 year old could drive a car, since age-discrimination is wrong.

And in your country, a handicapped blind person could become a surgeon, since we can't discriminate against the handicapped.

Just more liberal logic.... no wonder you folks lost with that logic on Tuesday

Well, first of all, a 3 year old couldn't physically drive a car. Both of your examples would most likely harm people, and gay marriage wouldn't harm anyone. And to call liberals "You folks"... that just separates our country even more. It isn't faulty logic, it's not being prejudiced against someone for something they can't help (i.e., who they are attracted to). Why deny homosexuals the benefits of marraige when we get that right just because we happened to be born heterosexual? And also, it wouldn't really be "my country" because I'm straight. I guess I get to stay in America then - gee that seems fair for homosexuals.

 

[GOP_Catholic]

yes Emily, you can stay, we'll need you to help us pack their Volkswagens

 

[U2Traveller]

This is just pure hateful talk.