Two States Down, Forty-Eight More to Go [Archive]

Arsène

06-18-08, 08:45 PM

As of June 16th, 2008, two states in the United States of America have legalized same-sex marriage. With California following the lead of Massachusetts, gay marriage seems to be gaining a real foothold in the U.S.

Many people considered gay marriage a far off and even foolish dream. But now that California allows it, it seems a far more feasible goal than once believed.

However, this raises a number of questions. Is America ready for same-sex couples to be married on a more widespread, or even total state basis? Is it morally right? Is it economically correct? Are there any unforeseen dangers and does this jeopardize the sanctity of marriage?

I want to know how Althanas feels about this. We're something of a random selection of America and other nations.

Visla Eraclaire

06-18-08, 08:50 PM

For anyone who values "the sanctity for marriage", they should realize that legal marriage is just that, a legal status which has nothing to do with anything "holy". If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, or six women and one man, or three midgets and a donkey, good for you. Your beliefs aren't being sullied by what other people are doing. For you, it's not marriage, right? It's just a legal status, like tax exemption. Other religions than yours are tax exempt. That's no different.

</ brief non-rping related post before sleep >

Saxon

06-18-08, 08:53 PM

I understand the fight for rights and all that, but at least you folks have an excuse not to get married. Even if the reason is based around social bigotry. ;)

Doomsday

06-18-08, 08:55 PM

well it's not solid her in Cali. There's going to be a proposed change to the California constitution to only allow strait marriage and if that passes it'll be tough to reverse. Still I hope that it doesn't pass. More marriages means more people coming to Tahoe for their honeymoons and ergo more business.

Canen Darkflight

06-19-08, 02:49 AM

As someone who lives resident in the UK, which has allowed same sex partnerships (we call them Civil Partnerships), I can't see an issue with it. The big question for America is, just like having a potential black president, the country as a whole ready for this? I'm not so sure. Time will tell, though, I just believe from what i've seen and heard on American history that there are quite a lot of folks who would really quite strongly oppose this.

Still, there is always bound to be opposition on such matters, it's just a case of turning over the minority with a majority.

My opinion is that it should be allowed. People have the luxury of freedom of speech, and civil rights, and it should be the right of anybody to be with who they want to be with, full stop.

The Writing Writer

06-19-08, 03:30 AM

My whole stand point is, if it doesn't affect you, why do you care? Alot of people jump all over the whole same sex marriage thing like it were the plague, and all I can think is " Who the fuck cares!? It doesn't affect your life, in any way. Just let it go. "

The Bloody Son

06-19-08, 09:39 AM

I support gay marriages, totally. I've been all over the world and I've seen tons of stuff some old fart in the US will never see and just golfs all day long. When the end of the day comes, these old farts will just talk shit and deal with the end result.

Give it 10 years and I'll guarantee you that HALF the states will be on their way to Gay Marriages. Why do I think this?

Baby Boomers are dying. ;)

Nautilus

06-19-08, 10:52 AM

I'm all for it. One of my good friends is homosexual and frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing about this sorta crap. If you're opposed to gay marriage, well...there you go. It's not hurting anybody, it's not hurting you or detracting another gold star from your "I'm a perfect religous person who follows my perfect religion to a T" chart, so why the heck should you give a flying fuck? And if you do, you should keep your stupid narrow-minded opinions to yourself and let everyone else evolve.

So that's my view on it. Is the US ready? I actually think this country is making some progress, but it's hard to say. I suspect however Bloody may be right about the whole extinction of the Baby Boomers thing.

The Bloody Son

06-19-08, 11:48 AM

Heh heh heh ... extinction. n_n! Lmao.

I have plenty of gay friends and I just think that there isn't a reason for them to not have the same chance as any other human. It's not hurting anyone. Anything. Who cares?
I'm a born and raised Christian and I don't give two shits about gay marriage. I think it's a great idea and good for the unity of the country. Who cares what some old tight wads think? Out with the old, in with the new... ;D

Taskmienster

06-19-08, 12:39 PM

I personally think that gay marriage should have been legal a long time ago. There's not really a clear argument as to why it shouldn't be. Honestly, you look to the Bible to disregard an entire group of people's rights? Screw that. Last I knew Church and State were separated a long time ago, so why should religious doctrine have any say in how things are run?

Go gay marriage! I'd vote for it here in Florida.

Winterhair

06-19-08, 02:22 PM

Destrudo

06-19-08, 03:48 PM

I think that marriage should be entitled to any sentient being capable of making their own mind up on the matter, and of a legal age to do so. No other limits should be in place.

Breaker

06-19-08, 04:00 PM

What a silly, backwards thinking country you cats live in. Maybe one day the USA will catch up with Canada. Until then, just head north of the border if you need to get hitched and Witchblade and I will be your witnesses. If necesarry, I will dress up as Elvis and sing at the reception.

So yeah, I support same sex marriages. I grew up doing proffesional musicals, so (and I hate this stereotype, but it's true) I have a lot of gay friends. Actually a few people I grew up with have come out of the closet in the last couple of years, and they'd probably be pretty upset if they didn't have the possibility of marriage somewhere in their future.

I think A LOT of marriage laws should be revisited, but this particular rule seems like a bit of a no brainer.

The Forgotten

06-19-08, 04:32 PM

I personally think that gay marriage should have been legal a long time ago. There's not really a clear argument as to why it shouldn't be. Hoenstly, you look to the Bible to disregard an entire group of people's rights? Screw that. Last I knew Church and State were separated a long time ago, so why should religious doctrine have any say in how things are run?

Go gay marriage! I'd vote for it here in Florida.

Because you're an ignorant bigot who doesn't know how to think for yourself. If you actually READ the constitution, there is nothing about a separation of church and state. Let me say again: The constitution says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a separation of the church and state. Th first amendment says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For those ignorant enough to think that the constitution says anything about the separation of church and state, have a read at this: Thomas Jefferson used that phrase in a letter he wrote to the Dansbury Baptist Church in 1802. [Link (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Jefferson_letter_to_Neremiah_Dodge_and_others)]

Now, on to my opinion of the matter. I abhor the idea of marriage between same-sex couples. I am a Christian, yes. I hate the idea of homosexuality. That doesn't mean I hate the people, though.

streak101

06-19-08, 05:08 PM

I believe same-sex marriage should be allowed. It doesn't affect me or anyone else who isn't a homosexual, and it makes them happy, why should we try and deny happiness?

And to the person above, Wikisource, (or Wikipedia for that matter) isn't a credible source of information since it allows almost anyone to enter or edit information.

And: I don't know why you'd abhor the idea, and hate the idea of homosexuality, it's not like its a contagious plaque. If they want to get married let them, it's not going to affect your life or the way you think, so why deny them the satisfaction?

Serilliant

06-19-08, 05:22 PM

Because you're an ignorant bigot who doesn't know how to think for yourself. If you actually READ the constitution, there is nothing about a separation of church and state. Let me say again: The constitution says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a separation of the church and state.

You're half right. In 1787, the Establishment Clause read as you have quoted. However, to ignore the vast 200+ years of case law that transpired since that date is to misunderstand the nature of our Constitution. When someone says, "the Constitution is the supreme law of the land," what they really mean is that "the text of the Constitution plus every US Supreme Court case to date is the supreme law of the land." You see, SCOTUS decisions not only interpret the Constitution, but, as a side-effect, also define it.

Therefore, when Justice Black said that "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State," Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947), that line essentially became a piece of our Constitution.

Now I'm not going to go so far as to assert that you don't know how to think for yourself, but I'd shy away from the Kool-Aid, dear.

Winterhair

06-19-08, 06:06 PM

Serilliant strikes again. *two drums and a cymbal* xD

I basically agree with everything the Writing Writer says, and I'd just like to say 95 percent of all my friends are either gay or bisexual. And you know what? Go them.

And if Christianity demands that I hate homosexuality, then there's just another reason for me to stay the hell (hehe) away from that damned religon. I wouldn't be able to stand sitting amongst close-minded fools like that for even a hour. No offense, Forgotten. Just in general.

Breaker

06-19-08, 06:15 PM

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

-Karl Marx

grim137

06-19-08, 06:24 PM

The only thing I don't like about this is more marriage = more tourism in Florida = more of you damn snow birds clogging up our streets and beaches.

So yeah, I have absolutely no problems with gay marriage/civilunion/two people getting together for the sake of legal benifits. In fact I support it. I think they should have all the same rights as us straight people. Period. And honestly given how dysfunctional some straight couples are I think the santicty of marriage was violeted by us straight people long ago anyways.

Arsène

06-19-08, 06:27 PM

This isn't just a religious issue. Sure, it's a great mask to hide behind for a lot of people, but at the end of the day it's really people's own insecurities about gender roles (their own included) and socially acceptable behavior. While religion has played some part in creating these, it isn't the ring leader.

I know I think homosexuality is disgusting for those reasons. In fact, I'm sure you all know that's my position on it.

The Writing Writer

06-19-08, 07:37 PM

That sort of brings it into perspective for me. What it's really all about is that people don't want to have to explain to their kids why Billy and Johnny are holding hands on the subway, or why Lisa and Karen were making out in the park. Parents are awkward enough as it is explaining heterosexual sex to their kids, most don't even touch on homosexuality. It's all about fear really. People are afraid that if homosexuals get more rights and are more socially accepted, their children will be homosexuals aswell. That's all it is really.

@ The Forgotten: I'm a Christian too. Have been all my life. And while I understand where you're coming from, I'd appreciate it if you didn't call my friend an ' ignorant bigot '. Thanks.

Visla Eraclaire

06-19-08, 09:31 PM

Thank God Serilliant saved me from having to construct a legal argument in my non-work time. Bless you, sir.

Seeing people say things like that about the constitution makes bile swell up deep inside whatever foreign organ exists within me that makes me love the law so dearly.

Taskmienster

06-19-08, 10:41 PM

You're half right. In 1787, the Establishment Clause read as you have quoted. However, to ignore the vast 200+ years of case law that transpired since that date is to misunderstand the nature of our Constitution. When someone says, "the Constitution is the supreme law of the land," what they really mean is that "the text of the Constitution plus every US Supreme Court case to date is the supreme law of the land." You see, SCOTUS decisions not only interpret the Constitution, but, as a side-effect, also define it.

Therefore, when Justice Black said that "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State," Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947), that line essentially became a piece of our Constitution.

Now I'm not going to go so far as to assert that you don't know how to think for yourself, but I'd shy away from the Kool-Aid, dear.

Thank you Serilliant...

And don't call me an ignorant bigot, child, I don't like it and won't stand for it. That's called flaming and I know we don't have an OOC moderator other than Serilliants help here and there... but it won't be put up with.

And thanks Jimmy.

My post came from an in class debate about gay marriage (for and against from two different groups). In the sociology class, using quite a bit of research it came down to that and the awkwardness of parents having to explain things to their children.

I believe that they'd have to do that anyway, chances are that whether marriage is legal or not you're bound to see two people of the same gender holding hands or kissing. I see it all the time, both with friends and strangers in the mall in my area.

The Forgotten

06-19-08, 10:49 PM

Sorry if I was harsh, but I was in a bad mood earlier. I just hate it when people say stuff like that without knowing what it means.
I've seen Godhand and others say far worse things about people and get no bad report... I don't see why everyone is so defensive now. I'm sorry for calling you that, Task. I was wrong.

I know that wikis are not credible sources in themselves because anyone can edit them, but the important part of that page was in the letter it contained. Here's another site with the exact same letter from a non-wiki source if it makes you feel better. Is the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html) credible enough?

And about the ruling, yes, I did read it. I am not a law major (as you are, Serilliant) so I don't know all 200 years of rulings, but what Justice Black said is pretty clear to me.

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. [...] In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164Source (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1)

Meaning that the government can neither create laws to promote religion nor can it crate laws to hinder them. That doesn't mean that there can be no religion in public schools, but that the government cannot help or hinder a one.

I can not verify this next claim, but I believe I read in my search that the chief justice was reading an erroneously transcribed version of Jefferson's letter. I know it doesn't change things now, but I would like a definitive statement on that so I am no longer confused.

The primary reason I do not like homosexuality is biblical. I have an aunt who happens to be a lesbian. There is a concept in Christianity called "Hate the sin, love the sinner". I don't have to agree with your viewpoints to be a friend. At my church, we have people who used to be gay. They were not "fake" gays; they had no intentions of turning. Now they are heterosexual and wouldn't even think of going back to what they were.

I'll make another topic soon to continue another tangent on this topic... once I get the relevant research compiled.

And if Christianity demands that I hate homosexuality, then there's just another reason for me to stay the hell (hehe) away from that damned religon.Again, hate the sin, love the sinner. Might I ask for a response (in PM) to why you think of Christianity that way?

As a final note, I believe the title of this should be "Two states down, Forty-seven to go" based on the fact that Michigan's constitution was recently amended amended to include this line.

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.
The Michigan Supreme Court also ruled this:

[T]he amendment prohibits the recognition of a domestic partnership “as a marriage or similar union . . . .” That is, it prohibits the recognition of a domestic partnership as a marriage or as a union that is similar to a marriage.
Effectively saying that only unions between one man and one woman will be viewed as marriages and be given the benefits thereof. Opinion (http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/DOCUMENTS/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/20080507_S133429_164_natlpride3Nov07-op.pdf)

Winterhair

06-20-08, 01:18 AM

Again, hate the sin, love the sinner. Might I ask for a response (in PM) to why you think of Christianity that way?No need for PM. I've had a lot of bad experiences with just religion in general, including satanism and Christianity, particularly the latter. My grandfather was one of those priests people make jokes about all the time: "Toss a small boy in between two priests and watch them fight to the death" kind of jokes. He made my life hell as a child, and even though he's behind bars now I still hate his guts. And I know, I know, thats the past and whats in the past is in the past right? Well, he ruined the meaning of just religion in general for me.

So yeah, I hold a grudge against Christianity, mostly because I find what they preach and what they do two different things, and what I hate the most is hypocrites.

There's my say on the whole subject. Anybody up for coffee and a donut?

EDIT: Hate the sin, love the sinner. How about not? I don't mind homosexuality myself. Were it not for my thought that 95 percent of men on this planet are horny assholes, I might have been bisexual myself, but that same thought has turned me straight permanently.

Serilliant

06-20-08, 02:50 AM

As a final note, I believe the title of this should be "Two states down, Forty-seven to go" based on the fact that Michigan's constitution was recently amended amended to include this line.

Well, shoot. Homosexual activists stymied again. That's probably going to be as unbeatable as Michigan's 1838 amendment to ban interracial marriage.

Visla Eraclaire

06-20-08, 05:46 AM

Well, shoot. Homosexual activists stymied again. That's probably going to be as unbeatable as Michigan's 1838 amendment to ban interracial marriage.

Prohibition is still going strong. UNSTOPPABLE.

He'll Scream

06-20-08, 06:24 AM

Well, shoot. Homosexual activists stymied again. That's probably going to be as unbeatable as Michigan's 1838 amendment to ban interracial marriage.

Or that whole prohibition thing in the 1920's...

Tshael

06-20-08, 07:58 AM

A very good friend of mine is both a raging homosexual AND a Christian. For him, marriage is a sanctimony of the church he belongs to and a legal state that he would one day like to share with the boy of his dreams. Jesus Christ himself was friends with prostitutes and tax collectors (ha! now THAT'S sin!) but most of his followers ignore the tolerance that he used his life to teach. I'd love to see gay marriage or civil unions with the same legal pros as marriage made the law here in Oklahoma, but I have the feeling that we'll be one of the last states to see the light. I mean, tattooing was only just legalized in '06 and the lottery made legal to hold here in '05. When I was in middle school, I took AP Biology in 8th grade and Evolution was a five minute "run-down" because the teacher was required by law to "teach" it in case it was on a standardized test in the future. He wasn't allowed to teach Creationism, but told us that because of his beliefs, he refused to go in depth on Evolution. The school board agreed with him! and our high school teachers were no better. >.< Oklahoma isn't the most progressive state in the Union, at all, and my family is VERY Oklahoman. There's not a single one of them that knows I'm bisexual. And if gay marriage was legal, then I'm sure that Moonlit Raven wouldn't be married to Shadar and Zook would never have had a chance with me. ^_~

Bloodrose

06-20-08, 08:12 AM

Arsène

06-20-08, 08:47 AM

If we REALLY want to be picky about the title, it should be 3 States down, 47 to go. Last I knew, State Law here in my home state of Vermont allows for Civil Unions between same-sex couple that provide all the same legal/tax benefits of a traditional marriage.

They just don't call it a "marriage", so if you're looking at the issue from a purely legal/tax status POV, then Vermont beat out Mass. and California a while ago.

Vermont Civil Unions (http://www.sec.state.vt.us/otherprg/civilunions/civilunions.html)

EDIT: July of 2000 was when the Civil Union laws passed here. Yes, it is exactly like marriage, but it still isn't marriage.

Until the title of marriage is given instead of Civil Unions, it's a modern policy of separate but equal.

EDIT: If we're looking at it from an issue of equality, Mass. and California beat out Vermont.

Godhand

06-22-08, 12:49 AM

What a silly, backwards thinking country you cats live in.

On the other hand, at least it's a real country.

Incidentally, all queers will burn in Hell.

Winterhair

06-22-08, 02:39 AM

All the best musicians burn in hell, Godhand. Screw heaven: I'm going on the lolcoaster with Satan and Apocalypse Pony, and Pestilence can take a backseat to Pollution because he's a lazy bastard. (Props to anyone who knows what the hell I'm rambling about at all.)

On a happier, slightly less assholic note (Note to self: make that a word in Destrudo's dick-shunary.), I just found out my aunts a lesbian millionaire. Woo.

Mathias

06-23-08, 11:09 PM

I think Louis C.K. said it the best when he said, "There's no real legal argument against gay marriage." As a matter of fact... This clip is hilarious. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow)

I support gay marriage. Religious beliefs and such aside, I think society needs to be more progressive towards individual tolerance in general. Every social construct like religion and nations and such are meant to CONFORM to the progression of social equality and tolerance. That is the basis they are all grounded in. Or, the good ones, atleast.

Lighthawk76

06-29-08, 03:40 PM

Hmm, a little late to the party as always, but let's see if anyone's up for a bit more tango.

Those who see my few, elusive appearances know what my viewpoint on this manner is. For those who haven't, pick up a copy of the NAB Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic, with the historical works of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal John Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and Peter Kreeft to weld it together.

So with my own viewpoint accounted for, I would like to make my first few steps in the dance. Now to take control of my partner with a powerful, wordy, and prodigious statement and argument of belief will most likely cause some awkward and rather clumsy steps to follow, with hurt feet on both partners. Rather, allow me to gracefully intimate the movements with subtle and humble hints, movements made to elicit simple responses until we are both moving in accord with the music of the intellect and the grace of kindred spirits. Let me begin with a few questions.

On the topic of law:

What dictates, here and now, the law of the United States of America? The constitution? Man's interpretations of it? What God wants the law to be? What the People want the law to be? Natural Law? What is it?

Once we have found what dictates the law, is this what should be dictating the law? What should be dictating the law?

What, feasibly, should be dictating the law? This question in very different from the above.

On the topic of homosexuality:

What is the purpose of the human body and human sexuality and how should this purpose affect, or not affect, man's actions in the world?

What is relation of body and soul? Or is there one?

On religion:

What is religion's responsibility to it's followers and the society they live in? Should it dictate their actions? Should it be a goal to make your society conform to it's teaching, and if so, how do you make it so?

What is "marriage"? What is "union"?

Many may find my questions far off the mark, going too far out of the topic, but think on the basic question started in the thread: Should homosexuals be granted marriage? Oh the facets of the question, oh the complexity. The emotions and diversity of opinions all around are testament to the beautiful and wonderful challenge it brings before our minds.

And so I listen as the music play, the musicians wondering if it is time to pack up, leaving one poor soul alone on the dance floor.

Godhand

06-29-08, 04:13 PM

Awesome.

"For my opinion on this subject, please read the entire works of Yeats, Keats and Goethe.

Now that that's done, allow me to dress up the fact that I don't actually have an opinion in pretenscia-geeko fuckery and intellectual masturbation so loud you can practically HEAR ME panting over the internet."

Wolftrappe

07-01-08, 08:47 AM

Oh, Godhand, it's nice to see you haven't changed.

Tainted Bushido

07-01-08, 05:01 PM

And its so good to see you still lurking in the distance there Wolftrappe.

Wolftrappe

07-01-08, 07:22 PM

Hey, this place consumed a good bit of my teenage years.

Godhand

07-01-08, 08:46 PM

May I light your clove cigarillo?

Wolftrappe

07-01-08, 10:10 PM

I smoke normal cigarettes now, Andrew. It's the only way to get through law school.

Glad to see everyone here is still arguing about homosexuality and religion.

Visla Eraclaire

07-03-08, 06:18 AM

I smoke normal cigarettes now, Andrew. It's the only way to get through law school.

I seem to be doing fine with just the occasional mug of cider, but I just never got into killing myself slowly as a coping mechanism.

Godhand served that fellow so thoroughly that I'm struggling to make myself actually read his post to see if there's anything worth actually countering.

Ok, I read it, and I feel rather sick. Especially the part where "What God wants it to be?" was a possible answer to "What is the law?"... I need to go blaspheme and look at some pornography until I get that revolting idea out of my head.

Lighthawk76

07-03-08, 11:38 AM

Godhand pegged me pretty well, though I think he went a little too far with intellectual masturbation. What he was getting at was quite right, I kill for intellectual debate. I just don't understand how it's masturbatory?

Visla, I found it funny how people condemn those of a religious inclination to being close-minded when they seem rather close-minded towards religion. I am exceedingly curious what people's views of the religious-minded really are.

I posed questions since everyone seems to already have their unshakable viewpoints with regards to homosexuality. If any discussion is to be had, then we must find where our viewpoints become shakable. My own viewpoint on homosexuality is rather unshakable. It is a disordered desire that must be quelled and controlled by the individual.

I also believe that the country needs to stop trying to define "marriage," an event and state of being that originated in religious faith. The country needs to allow for civil unions across the board, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The law, or as is stand now, is meant to keep the citizens safe and protect certain rights, not legislate morality. One of those rights, I believe, is the ability to choose the good for yourself. The law needs to create an environment where one can seek out the truth. This environment requires that certain perceived truths be quelled, such as the belief that one should be allowed to kill who they wish. This belief hinders another's ability to seek truth and so the first role of the state, keeping us safe, comes into play.

The matter of homosexuality, while I believe as truth to be a disordered desire (and thus deny those who believe otherwise), is not a matter which hinders another's search for truth. The government should understand that since the American people want this door opened, they will need to open it, unless they wish to make a claim for truth, which is asking for civil unrest with how we've allowed our country to develop.

If one wishes to deny or argue any of this, if one wishes to shake belief, they must find the flaw in it. The flaw is apparently not here, since this is unshakable (or I am a dunce and bigot who can't see his own error). The flaw must be elsewhere, further back in my reasoning, most likely with what most philosophers will call my "first principals." The only way for any discussion to occur is figure out where our principals come closer together, and thus make it easier to see why the other person believes what they believe.

A statement of "I think homosexuals are evil" does nothing but rise indignant anger. A response of "You're wrong, homosexuals aren't evil" will not do anything but raise even more indignant anger. One must search out why the other persons believe what they believe and prove that wrong.

To make an example that will probably get me hurt:

Hater: "I believe homosexuals are evil."
Truth seeker: "Why?"
Hater: "The bible says so."

Now you know their reasons. Either prove the bible wrong (no one's done it in 2000 years), prove their understanding of the bible is flawed (HAS been done over the past 500 years), or prove that the bible isn't everything (make them non-biblical Christians or Catholic).

You get to a persons first principals and discussion can be made. Otherwise, you get people making fun of others points and making inane comments about a need blaspheme because they are to set in their mindset to believe that anyone with any religious faith is worth listening to. Visla, please check the definition of bigot or persecution.

Well, I guess that's the sign to return to my lurking. Good day to you gentlemen.

Winterhair

07-03-08, 11:42 AM

^^^^ Satan cried.

Wolftrappe

07-03-08, 11:59 AM

I seem to be doing fine with just the occasional mug of cider, but I just never got into killing myself slowly as a coping mechanism.

You must be Canadian and not American. ;-)

Godhand

07-03-08, 07:02 PM

Either prove the bible wrong (no one's done it in 2000 years)

What?

Smuggler's Run

07-03-08, 07:17 PM

prove the bible wrong (no one's done it in 2000 years).

People can't walk on water.

I win.

Tainted Bushido

07-03-08, 07:51 PM

To make an example that will probably get me hurt:

Hater: "I believe homosexuals are evil."
Truth seeker: "Why?"
Hater: "The bible says so."

Now you know their reasons. Either prove the bible wrong (no one's done it in 2000 years), prove their understanding of the bible is flawed (HAS been done over the past 500 years), or prove that the bible isn't everything (make them non-biblical Christians or Catholic).

You get to a persons first principals and discussion can be made. Otherwise, you get people making fun of others points and making inane comments about a need blaspheme because they are to set in their mindset to believe that anyone with any religious faith is worth listening to. Visla, please check the definition of bigot or persecution.

Well, I guess that's the sign to return to my lurking. Good day to you gentlemen.

Yeah except when Paul was preaching against Homosexuals, that was back during the Roman Era. Roman soldiers were known to take 12 year old boys as lovers. THAT was the practice Paul condemned, not the actual act of Homosexuality. So Paul was condemning Pedophilia.

Nice try though.

And don't you dare go back into the old testament and cite examples. You either argue from a Jewish mindset or Christian. Claiming that the Old Covenant is still in effect kills the entire last supper's purpose; To destroy the old covenant and replace it with the New and Everlasting Covenant.

Wrong on TWO fronts now.

Paul understood that the segregation of Homosexuals was wrong, and that they needed to be accepting, hence why he was hesitant to speak out about it at all. Instead he chose his words carefully, you have to take every letter from the apostles from the context of the times, rather than try to apply them verbatim to today. Without that context you become nothing more than a bible thumper, preaching the word, but without understanding the underlying meaning.

EDIT: And don't you DARE start that Catholics aren't christians bullshit. There is NOTHING wrong with my religion thank you very much, and if you think I'm angry at your misuse of the bible, don't even get me started on you jackalopes that call my religion a cult, dead or misguided.

Godhand

07-03-08, 08:06 PM

'Sup, dude. Your dead cult is misguided.

Winterhair

07-03-08, 09:54 PM

I'll spread your MOM's red sea, if you know what I mean.
*ahem*
Go all you provin' the bible wrong people. I will make T-shirts for you once I get off my lazy ass and feel like doing so.

Visla Eraclaire

07-04-08, 01:30 PM

Visla, I found it funny how people condemn those of a religious inclination to being close-minded when they seem rather close-minded towards religion. I am exceedingly curious what people's views of the religious-minded really are.

Visla, please check the definition of bigot or persecution.

Well, I guess that's the sign to return to my lurking. Good day to you gentlemen.

Just because I have, after extensive time, patient listening, genuine effort, and lengthy discussion concluded that the religious point of view is flawed and counter to the progress of humanity doesn't make me close-minded. I gave your kind a fair shake for a good long while. Eventually, you have to make a decision. And once you do, those that weren't around for the decision making process might think it was a snap judgment, but it isn't. There was a time when I wanted so desperately to be a person of faith. But we all make mistakes. I open the decision to reconsideration when I see someone religious who exhibits a unique perspective or manner of expression that I think deserves renewed scrutiny. You do not display such characteristics.

I love it when the religious feel persecuted. It puts a smile on my face. Not because I think they should be, but because they are once again the origin of the persecution. Unless you live somewhere rather unique, religion still holds substantial sway, and the idea that the faithful are truly persecuted is nothing but a paranoid delusion.

Regarding the bible being proven "wrong"... oh, so much to say, so little patience to say it... That interesting little text has been re- and mis-translated, edited, and altered plenty in the past 2000 years. I wouldn't say so much that it's been proven wrong as been put in a shell game. If you sincerely believe that one of the biblical texts is the word of God, you're in a tough spot to justify which one by anything but personal preference. The book, like any other, is a work of man, an extremely perverse and effective piece of writing that has held sway for longer than any idea so disjointed ever should.

Oh and there was a comment about being Canadian in there. No, I'm not. I'm American. Not particularly proud to be one on this Independence Day, but the fact remains.

It should be noted that Bushido's contextual interpretation of the New Testament's anti-homosexual statements is interesting. I don't know whether it has merit, but it piqued my interest. How people interpret and re-interpret systems of rules will always interest me, even if the rules themselves are flawed or baseless. Law is one of the elements of humanity which is most unique and fascinating in our species.