And despite the hand-wringing by some religious fundamentalists (those who decry birth control as "immoral"), the number of contraception use is inversely proportional to the number of abortions.


-Fox

Sperm cells are alive. They have the potential to reproduce and generate tissue that has the potential to become a human being. How is that different from an embryo?

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

There is no diffrence exsept killing an embro is worse cause sperms aren't human they are only half... an embro is an actually living human organism.

------------------
Don't be unwise judge me not by my size. You wont believe your eyes watch the xwing rise!

Because sperm cells die by the thousands anyway. If you really think that a developing child and a single-cellular object with a flagellum is all the same thing...

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it

So do humans, but that's beside the point. The term "creating new life" is a misnomer, since there is no new life. It would be correct if sperm and ovum were not alive, however.


-Fox

------------------
The Pale Blue Dot.

But they affect minors, who aren't considered responsible enough to make that kind of decision.

------------------
MadQuack has a signature.

Hey anti-gay marriage people, guess what? Allowing gays to marry is only giving an already existing activity both the financial and legal protections/hardships of straight marriages. Homosexuality isn't going away just because they can't marry. If you allow gays to marry, that will probably get them to shut up.

------------------
Beware of music. It brings out the animosity in everyone.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited March 31, 2004).]

As some people seem unclear on this point:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage




You will note the word "religion" or some derivative thereof does not appear there. Which is why it's perfectly possible, at the moment no less, for two people to be "married" (rather than "unified civally") in a ceremony that does not mention a diety or any religious belief, and yet they still enjoy all the benefits and rights (and if you're being cynical; hardships) that marriage entails.

Marriage is a legal act- if certain religions want to forbid same sex marriages conducted under their guidelines (in a church, performed by a minister etc.) then that's an internal church decision, but marriage in itself is not a religious matter, and so cannot be treated as such.




You have evidence to support this I assume. Otherwise it would just be a crassly stupid thing to say. There is no "slope"; why, if consenting adults can marry other consenting adults of the opposite sex, can they not marry consenting adults of their own sex?



And how, exactly, is it different other than the fact that the marriage cannot produce a child (and to produce a child is not, last I checked, the sole reason people get married)?



Again, what happens between two consenting adults is being confused with things that simply aren't comparable. Laws to prevent pedophilia are there to protect children- laws against homosexual marriage don't protect anyone; they simply infringe people's rights.

* the definition here simply reflects current government policy, so justifying a lack of rights based on the dictionary is flawed as well, before you ask.

[This message has been edited by CookedHaggis (edited March 31, 2004).]

I like the anti-gay marriage argument that, if we allow gay marriges, EVERYONE will become gay, and we will just stop having children in this country

------------------
"Just remember -- No matter how bad things get, Northern Minnesota will always be there"
-- Garrison Keeler

The word christian should not even be uttered in government. US or Canadian. If I had a choice I would vote for the declared athiest regardless of what his platform consisted of.

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.
HTP
babble, babble, b!tch, b!tch, rebel, rebel, party, party.

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

Incorrect. Sex cells != complete human DNA. They consist of only 23 unpaired chromosomes. That doesn't constitute as a human at all. The only exception to majority rule is when in conflicts with the constitution. How many times has the US Supreme Court had to rule a law or act unconstitutional? Plenty of times. Either of three things: The majority doesn't know the constitution, the majority doesn't care about the constution, or the majority hopes to clip something by that they know is unconstitutional until they get caught.
That's how I feel about congress. Life isn't fair, so we should continue to do unfair things? That seems reasonable.
Like I said in my last post: Marriage has religious foundations and implications. I don't know what you particularly believe in, but how would you feel if someone came along and said, "Hey, you believe in this. We're going to change the meaning of it." Or "You're [some religion]. You have to believe this because we changed it's definition."
That's exactly what's happening. Most religions consider marriage sacred or something, yet do not allow homosexuality. By changing the definition of marriage, it's actually going to create conflicts in religious texts. "Hey. Leviticus 18:22 forbids homosexuality. Yet Hebrews 13:4 says marriage is honorable. That's a conflict."
As naive as such a tactic sounds, people will try it, I'm sure. Nice try, but instead of using a dictionary as a sole reference, try researching history & origins[/i] of marriage. And who made this argument? That's right. Nobody.

------------------
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
- Proverbs 27:17

Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited March 31, 2004).]

"You're a Christian who believes marriage can be between people of the same sex. You have to believe it is only between people of the opposite sex, because we made that the LAW."

------------------
MadQuack has a signature.

As well as the fact that sperm don't grow or consume nutrients. They're nearly a virus, a vessel for nucleic acid.

------------------
Roach - I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.--Frank Lloyd Wright

0 of 14.

Then stop treating gays unfairly and let them marry!

Pagewizard is one.

------------------
Beware of music. It brings out the animosity in everyone.

CookedHaggis said all I have to sayon the gay marriage issue. Remove marriage from the books, change it to civil union and everyone is happy

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

What Avenger said.

Hellequin: All of your examples are perfect illustrations of what happens when you allow the majority to infringe on the rights of minorities. None would be allowed in a civil libertarian's utopia because they all infringe on the rights of others.

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but just want to respond to this.
We were talking about a similar argument in my Social Issues class today, only with guns.
"If you ban assult rifles, then soon all guns will be banned!"

This statement, and your similar one, doesn't make much sense. It's not like making a card pyramid, and then removing a bottom card. If you ban/allow one thing, it won't necessarily open the floodgates of Hell..
I can't possibly see the legalization of gay marriages leading to animal/human marriages..

------------------
MadQuack on Military school: Pro's: I get to shoot a gun. Con's: Everything else.
"I'm going to beat you until the laws of physics are violated!!" ! Maeve's Warcry

RIP -MaDaVentor-. You will be missed.

Zaa? So athiests can't get married?

Oh, and...
[edit- I didn't see what'shisnames post above mine for the dictionary reference, but here it is from A DIFFERENT dictionary!



Still no religion!

------------------
MadQuack on Military school: Pro's: I get to shoot a gun. Con's: Everything else.
"I'm going to beat you until the laws of physics are violated!!" ! Maeve's Warcry

RIP -MaDaVentor-. You will be missed.

[This message has been edited by happydud (edited March 31, 2004).]

The bottom line is religion and government do not mix.

------------------
Don't be unwise judge me not by my size. You wont believe your eyes watch the xwing rise!

Except it's not law. There are ways around the whole issue to appease both sides. Civil unions (or "Legal Marriages") provide the same legal benefits as a marriage, and religious people don't have to worry about the term "marriage" becomming associated with homosexuality. Simple solution. Again, the term "civil union" should appease both sides. Actually, he's saying that acceptance of one thing will lead to acceptance of another. I don't recall him ever saying "gay marriages will cause everyone to turn gay." Also, if you'll note, there aren't any national laws regarding sexual morality. None that I'm aware of, anyway. I said it has religious origins and implications. Still a dictionary!

Who marries people together? An ordained priest/pastor/rabbi/whatever.
Civil unions require only legal documentation. Albeit, marriage is usually *both* a religious and civil union.

------------------
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
- Proverbs 27:17

Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited March 31, 2004).]

Curious. When we got married there was no church, no priest and no mention of God. Was he hiding behind the cake?

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

[This message has been edited by Jaiph (edited March 31, 2004).]

No, that was me.

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

He said it in another thread.

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

Eh. It sounds a lot like you said a marriage is a religious union, and athiests aren't too religious.


And I'm pretty sure you don't have to be married by a priest/rabbi/ect. That may be what usually happens, but it's not a requirement.

------------------
MadQuack on Military school: Pro's: I get to shoot a gun. Con's: Everything else.
"I'm going to beat you until the laws of physics are violated!!" ! Maeve's Warcry

RIP -MaDaVentor-. You will be missed.

Civil unions would be acceptable, provided the law makes no distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex civil unions, or same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.
Legalising same-sex marriage doesn't mean priests/pastors/rabbis/etc HAVE to marry same-sex couples. It just means they're allowed to.

------------------
MadQuack has a signature.

Yeah, You're talking as if you had more logic than people. Guess what, a good MAJORITY of human beings still beleive in making their own life choices.



------------------
* Seb goes around singing "I'm too sexy for my body"
* Wolfy goes around singing "I'm too sexy for Seb's body"
* Cave_Demon steals Seb's underwear (underwear stolen: 39)

Guys. Please read my posts more carefully before responding.
I never said priests/pastors had to marry anyone. But thats one of the things that separates a marriage from a civil union. Where did your marriage take place, then? Need more info, though. You're joking?
How deliciously absurd![/Hedenism-bot]

------------------
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
- Proverbs 27:17

Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited March 31, 2004).]

Aaaaannnd, this affects you how?

------------------
Map-Review | My Portfolio | The Matrix: Unplugged

As long as a civil union has the exact same legal ramifications as a marriage. But then at that point it is a "rose by another name" and you are essentially fighting over a word which is kind of silly.

oh whoops. I thought the matter at hand was gay marriages leading to bestiality etc. Sorry.

------------------
Beware of music. It brings out the animosity in everyone.

rant rant boohoo

Lets get a BUDDHA US Government!!!

What say ye men?

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

At the local botanical gardens.

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

You seemed to be implying it here:



At least, implying that by allowing gay marriage (thus changing the definition of marriage?), religious people are being forced to believe gay marriage is right and to marry gay couples in their churches (or other religious-type buildings).

------------------
MadQuack has a signature.

I think the topic was intended to imply better Christian values in the US government, not necessarily Christian theological beliefs. Ok... that didn't really tell me much. Marriages performed by priests or whatever can be performed in the same kind of place. The former may be what I meant, but not the latter. Simply put, changing the definition = confusion.

------------------
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
- Proverbs 27:17

Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited March 31, 2004).]

Americans should have the freedom to do anything they want as long as it does not infringe upon another's rights.

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

ding, ding, ding, Bob gets a new mercedes.

------------------
Beware of music. It brings out the animosity in everyone.

....right, but it wasn't as I stated before.

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

So you'd rather settle for a solution that satisfies only one side, whereas the other satifies the majority of both?

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it

Once again, you miss the point, Dogsrool. The term was "creating life". That's a misnomer, since sperm and egg cells are demonstrably alive.



I was referring to the fact that the US government is designed to protect the minority against the majority. As such, laws designed to specifically infringe on the rights of a minority group are unconstitutional (bans against flag burning, for example).



Jeff said it best.



Appeal to tradition fallacy. Marriage in the US, at least, has legal implications. As such, in a legal sense, it has no religious connotation. Rights of inheritance are not intrinsically religious.



No, but people have argued that being accepting of gay marriage will lead to children "becoming" gay, which is not the case.


-Fox

It was just a mockery of the argument anyway. The all-become-gay argument that is.

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.