Their opinion?

I don't base my opinion off religion.

Can't call the integrity of the Bible into question unless you can prove that the Bible has been altered. Evolution isn't covered by the Bible, Crusades are not covered by the Bible, Inquisition is not part of the Bible, and priest-altar boy relations are covered by the Bible, but not in the way you're mentioning.

Oh, and you're neglecting Judaism and Islam, two religions which did not grow from the Catholic church and both have morals against homosexuality.



...? Do you, then, say that we should return to Hammurabi's Code, since it comes from an ancient culture? There are cultures in Africa - ancient ones, too - that maintain clitorectomies of their girls or sew their genitals shut. They also promote homosexuality (because giving their seed to women would drain their power). So, because these civilizations promote homosexuality, surely their ideas are good, right?



Any public official who says that everyone must convert to Christianity is breaking the First Amendment. Any public official who bases his decisions and opinions off of their own personal beliefs is being a person.



Married gays would qualify for the benefits of spouses on income tax. Not that I think this is any real argument against legalization of gay/lesbian marriage, but it does counter such a silly argument as "gay marriage = more taxes".



So someone else should follow your beliefs with concern to religion? Isn't that a bit...of a violation of the First Amendment?

'Kay... hoo boy.

Seeing as my mom is lesbian (Don't worry, I'm not screwed up in the head or something due to this, she found it out a few years after I was born), I have some problems with gays. Especially if they screw around with people's lives like my mom did, then it aggravates me to no end. BUT, if they love each other and it doesn't affect ANYONe else, then I'm okay with it. Anyone can love anyone, just as long as they respect others around them.

Now that's silly. By your thinking, straight people corrupt their children with straight propaganda, raising their children to discriminate their love to one sex.

I don't think it's half as extreme as you make it sound: In either direction. As long as parents preach love, gay straight or whatever, I don't care what their sexes are.

Wouldn't that be more of an argument for thinking before getting into marriage rather than an argument pertaining to homosexuality?

Word.

mentis made me do it

see what I did there?

Way to not analyize. Will to survive and to procreate is a very strong evolutionary trait. Homosexuality defies this, because procreation between a man and a man is not possible. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality could be considered "bad" as it doesn't help to expand and develop the species. However, we have evolved to a point where we know that this is irrelevant. For example, we already have over population.

Wouldn't it be interesting if a rise in homosexuality was an evolutionary response to overpopulation? I have absolutely no basis for this conjecture, but it is interesting. It's better than just shutting off genes that give us the desire to reproduce, because in the case of some disaster which killed off many humans, homosexuals could choose to reproduce if they had to.

Anal sex hurts.





Sorry.

I imagine you have to get used to it.

I am merely pointing out points in history that the Catholic church has done stuff that is morally wrong. Murdering innocents in the name of God (Crusades and the Inquisition) are examples of when the Catholic church did something wrong, more current examples are the molestation charges. I am not questioning any religion, merely saying that 99% of the people who says "OMG its wrong cause the bible says it is" (and thats one of the biggest responses) should stop and realize that perhaps the bible is wrong as well. I never mentioned Islam or Judaism, even though Judaism does worship the same God.




I can not even begin to fathom how you came up with that idea based off me mentioning that. If I recall though, Hammurabi's Code only was used in the middle East and not in major Western civilization. The works of Aristotle and Socrates (well he never wrote but you know what I mean ) and Plato have influenced this country back when it was formed, versus some tablet that says an eye for an eye, and gold mina, etc.



Major difference between saying "I will vote against this in congress because GOD says it is wrong" and "I will vote against this because I think homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because I think it would cause an economic instability in this country."



My parents usually pay more when they file together. Hmm. Anyhoo, there are also the cases of loans. Would a bank rather loan out $$ to an unmarried man and woman for a $150K house with great credit, but they are not engaged/married and have a possibility to eventually break up and cause financial problems and difficulty returning the loan, or 2 men/women who are married with equally great credit with less chance of splitting up?

While you may be right as far as taxes go, you did not mention anything regarding marriage license which generates $ or loans or financial things like health/life insurance protection.



If you belief on voting, and you are a government official (say this were around the country and Bush struck it down and said "BECAUSE GOD SAID IT IS WRONG!") then your opinion is being based on religion. Government officials shouldn't use religion to dictate something like this. It's like saying "Well the bible said it's ok to kill your neighbor if they work on the Sabbath so lets go ahead and make that legal." No, if I kill my neighbor cause he/she works on the Sabbath I will go to jail and face murder charges. Religion won't save me there. It shouldn't be brought in this either.

I agree with Emon (on his second to last post) and was going to make an argument similar to that. Homosexuality is generally counteractive to reproduction. But it may or may not be detrimental to Evolution. Personally I don't think gay people pose any evolutionary risk to mankind. At this point in our existence, we don't really run that big a risk of extinction. The much more immediate threat is overpopulation. Over the past couple thousand years we've managed to relatively fill up the planet. A leveling off of the world population would be better than constant growth. A smaller population can live longer and more prosperously than one that consumes more of the natural resources. But that's a bit off topic. Are homosexuals going to bring a balanced population to the earth? Probably not. People will just stop reproducing when they need to.

Back on topic and in relation to gay marriage and the government, it's the governments job to respect the rights of the individual. If gay marriage were somehow harmful to the environment or other people, then there would be an issue. But this is not the case. While religions have the right to bar gay marriage if they want, religious matrimony and legal marriage are two separate things. The government cannot impose laws on religion and vice versa. Religious and personal moral issues take a back seat to the government's obligation as protector of its constituent's rights. Homosexuals are part of this country, and therefore deserve every right that straight people have, including legal marriage.

Straight sex can hurt sometimes too the first few times, for the woman. But just because it can hurt, doesn't mean it doesn't feel good.


I have no idea who you are, but I love you. You just perfectly summed up my beliefs on the issue.

(PS: I'd like to commend you guys for keeping it civil. Props to Wolfy and THRAWN, your debate rocks.)

K Im tired and going to bed. Managed to finally find my registration card and after class tomorrow Im gonna swing in and vote. I kind of wish I had known about this a couple weeks in advance. I'd of bought this shirt and worn it in there just for laughs. No this is *NOT* the primary reason why I support it. Just thought it'd be a nice slap in the face to others there who are uber against it.

I'm in favour.

Noone is going to convince me that sincere love between two people is 'morally wrong' just because they happen to be of the same sex.

I don't care what the bible says about it, the 'laws' in there were simply made up by ancient tribesmen who needed something to base their authority on.

From a non-Semitic religious standpoint, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism worship the same God. They all received revelations from the same God, and these revelations include bans on homosexuality. Thus, if the Catholic church got it wrong on homosexuality, you're saying that Judaism and Islam have misinterpreted their own scriptures, as well.



First off, you didn't specifically say ancient Western civilizations - you only cited two as an example. Furthermore, my point remains valid - simply because an ancient culture embraced something doesn't make it a good idea. The Punic Wars? Persecution of Jews, Christians, and pagans? Greek soldiers' molestation of boys to strengthen their relationship? The argument of "they did it, too" is as valid as the "legalizing gay marriage will destroy the family units of America!" argument.



Again, you are saying that people should only be allowed to base their opinions and moral beliefs in a source that you find acceptable.



There's no real argument against it, so I saw no reason to post concerning it.



Jews and Muslims believe in capital punishment for such acts. The New Testament does not advocate such extremes. You're assuming that anyone who believes that God's word is truth also believes in an extreme response to sin. This is a fallacious argument. You're also stating that someone's opinions should only stem from a source you approve of. That, I state again, is a violation of the freedom to practice religion.



The Old Testament was written by tribesmen, yes, in the sense that they came from one of twelve Jewish tribes. But the Old Testament talks continually about the Jews and their fall from God's grace, their redemption, and their fall once more. It talks about the followers of God being tested in hardships and persecution, saved by God's grace. These people didn't grow up to be powerful leaders in the world.

On the same note, the New Testament wasn't written by tribesmen. It was written by people persecuted by the Jewish pharisees and the Romans. The people responsible for it never rose to power.

That's very interesting. Never thought about it like that, although doesn't an evolutionary response take millions of years before showing up?

I remember in psychology my teacher said a rise in population usually increases homosexuality and cannibalism in order to bring population back down.

Keep in mind that psychology is a lot of theory. Less than half a century ago, the DSM listed homosexuality and nymphomania as mental disorders. Now, homosexuality is considered a natural part of sex, and hypoactive sexual drive disorder is the prevailing opposite.

[ Whoo, 100th post, and no flame war! ]

In this case it would seem that homosexuality has existed for millions of years and is only becoming more prevalent because of modern evolutionary pressures.

If my professors won't let me cite Wikipedia in my papers due to it's failure to meet academic integrity standards (because it's a compilation of articles/facts by different authors) then you can call the Bible into question. Seriously, it's been edited (books added/omitted) over the past thousand years, how can you sit there and say it hasnt been altered?

And in relation to the thread, gay people are people and should be able to do what they wish. If you're so concerned about your marriage if gay people get married then you've obviously got underlying issues... like your spouse is ugly.

The only books omitted/added after the Bible was compiled was the Apocrypha, a collection of Jewish scriptures that they did not consider to be divinely-inspired, and were thus not included in Protestant Bibles (though can be found in many Catholic Bibles).

Now, can you provide evidence that the contents of the books within the Bible this day have been changed since their original creation?

Evolutionary responses can appear very quickly, but take millions of years to actually develop, species resist major evolutionary changes until an environmental change triggers a period of diversity

Homosexuality occurs in all mammals, and also in insect populations where population rise is very rapid. (See ) Homosexuality* is probably the result of a combination of genes, so that the proportion of a population displaying homosexual tendancies remains more or less fixed as population rises.

See

* Or perhaps 'increased levels' of homosexuality, as it isn't necessarily an either/or trait, and rather follows a continuous spectrum of behaviour, from extremely aggressive, competitive males to passive, defensive males to males attracted to other males. In animals that survive as groups, a mix of different males across the spectrum would most benefit the population, with a fixed proportion of homosexual males serving to 'dampen' population rise and preventing unnecessary competition between males during population falls.

If you read only one of the cites, read this one

Well, unless you're fluent in Hebrew, then the Bible that you're reading has been changed in a rather dramatic way from the original.

Ask a girl. The regular kind does too at first.

....Damn you! It's so much easier with Wikipedia!

It can hurt, sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't hurt. And when it doesn't hurt, it can be pleasurable. You just have to do it right, and take it slow, and then you can go from there.

Who honestly knows? You could argue that if God didn't want homosexuality, maybe he shouldn't have let nature do it. Does the bible discuss how man first discovered sex/reproduction? Maybe Adam and Eve saw some animal have sex.

There are some studies of religion out there that even say the first woman born was not Eve, but someone else who actually was a vampire (no joke) or became a vampire or something along those lines.

And there are aspects through history where multiple people might have been wrong. Slavery for example, that's round, correct? Yet for hundreds of years thousands of people participated in it. Or the Divine selection of Kings/Queens where they said "It must be done because God made me King/Queen."





Well an eye for an eye still exists today in some countries. While the Christians/Jews/Pagans were being killed by the Romans, which still remains today (even though people think Pagans are evil and don't see them as just the original hippie).




I am saying it based off the FIRST ammendment of the US constitution, freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. If an elected offical brings in a religious standpoint to justify his/her action and dictation, then they are in a sense molesting the first ammendment because they are allowing religion to control the government. I think murder, rape, molestation, robbery, etc. is wrong, but I don't base these beliefs off the bible. I would find it wrong if someone killed me or someone in my family for working the Sabbath, again that is something I don't base on religion. People, the majority of them, come down to it they see it as a "pick and choose" on what to and not to listen to from the bible. You can have moral beliefs but not use religion to base them. Elected officals who vote on these should not let religion be brought into it. They should say:

1.) Who will it effect?
2.) How will it effect?
3.) What are the benefits?
4.) What are the loss?

Sadly they just listen to their party and say "Hey, Billy Joe Bob, whatcha voting for?"




K.



Beliefs in running this country, not necessarily beliefs that effect you. If your son/daughter does something wrong, you shouldn't have to ask the government what should be ample punishment (Unless like the kid commits grand theft auto or something) and you can let religion control every other aspect of your life that does not directly come from the government. And while I don't doubt the extremists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) who say "Kill those who work on the Sabbath" I also don't turn on my TV every weekend and hear "16 people were murdered today inside a grocery store when a Jewish male entered and produced a gun and shot them for working on the Sabbath."



Interesting.

No. Are you arguing that we've been going about sex wrong all these years?



Her name is Lillith, and (it's my impression) that it's a belief perpetuated by some Jewish sects.



Yes, there have been multiple instances where a lot of people have been wrong. That doesn't mean that when numerous groups of people agree on something they're necessarily wrong - in this case, that one of God's commandments is against homosexuality.



I've never supported leaders who say, "God wants me to do this." When Bush says something like that, I always cringe. You may think this is hypocritical when viewed in light of my responses concerning peoples' base of opinion, but, whenever a leader says "God wants me to do this," I see it as a throwback to medieval Europe and divine mandates, which I wholeheartedly agree was a bad time for people.



I'm not sure what your counter-argument here is. Mine was that "ancient civilizations accepted it" is a bad argument in this context, as those same ancient civilizations did things that we would all generally view as bad things to do. Could you perhaps elaborate on what you meant?



The American government is part republic - these people are supposed to represent the majority of the district they represent. If a person is elected without concealing his or her religious foundations, then why should they check those beliefs at the door when they enter the house? The voters have elected that person into office with the knowledge that this person derives personal opinions and beliefs from their religion, and to force them to abandon those beliefs would be undermining the electoral process.

Why do you hate freedom? :p

They're only "molesting the first amendment" if their actions somehow prevent you from practicing religion.



Beliefs that are based on the Bible are not necessarily good or bad, and beliefs that are not based on the Bible are not necessarily good or bad.



I'm assuming that, by your use of "Billy Joe Bob," your implying a conservative Republican - and I honestly hope that you're not implying that Republicans are the only ones who do that.



(Assuming you're spreaking about extremist Christians) I've not once defended the actions of abortion clinic bombers or people who fall into a situation similar to your example. I won't start now. All I'll say is that they weren't following Christianity when they committed those crimes.

not necessarily.

It's all a matter of preference. Vaginal and anal sex can both hurt for some, or not at all for others. Then there are obviously people for whom it hurts but who still find it pleasurable.

I'm sure there are plenty of women who would testify in the affirmative

Haha no. But if we are wrong, don't tell me cause I like it as it is. What I was saying that if man/woman discovered sex by watching say a cow and bull, what's to say that God didn't intend homosexuality then if later on 2 bulls were seen? (Not by Adam and Eve though, just saying that man discoverd things through nature).



Yeah it was Judacism.



There is an actual commandment that says being gay is wrong? One of the 10? Unless its #2 the 10 commandments seem pretty straight forward.



Individuals should do whatever they want to dictate action. It's not possible to make every American say "No, I can't say yes/no to this because my religion would dictate my response." But for leaders they should ignore religion.



I was just noting that 1.) The eye for an eye still exits today. 2.) It's ironic that the people being murdered by Romans still exist, yet Italy hasn't had a stable government in...well...since then. (Aside from the constant assassinations of the Ceasers).



So why is it that everyone is Christian in the government (to my knowledge?). I can't name any who are Hindu, Muslim, etc. Heck, I don't even know if anyone of a different religion aside from Christianity has held a major political office. If someone votes for someone PURELY because they are Catholic/Baptist/Luthern/Protestant, then that person is an idiot. You should vote for someone based off their stand on something, what they agree/disagree with.

Case in point, I met a gentleman last week who is running to take place Joe Barton in the US House of Represenitives. This man is 24 years old, a Republican (just like Mr Barton), and will barely be 25 by the time the election is carried. If by some grace he gets elected, then he will be the youngest person in US Congress. I told him he has my vote. Why? Because I've met Mr Barton once, heard him speak, heard his views. And as soon as I got up, I turned to my teacher and said "That man is an idiot." Not because he is a Republican, not because he agrees/disagrees with my views. But because after hearing him speak, contradict himself and not able to give a reasonably honest answer to ANY question he was asked (by the students at my college, which btw were also idiots) I realized he was nothing but dumb. Maybe I am wrong, maybe he has an IQ of 180 and a member of Mesa, but from my gathering of seeing him, I came away with a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm voting for this younger guy.



Didn't you know? Liberals hate America. :p I'm actually reading Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken and I gotta say, the 2 best parts in the book were the Bill O'Reilly part and the part with him talking about how much John Glenn hated American (for those of you who don't read the book, the John Glenn hating America is a joke because he is a Liberal who has done so much stuff for the country "he hates" according to radicals who think Liberals hate America).




Some out there believe the Bible can do no wrong.



Sorry, just the first 3 names that came to mind. And yeah, I know this comes from both sides.



Well you could say the same thing about the Crusades, Inquisition and preists molesting little boys about how they aren't following Christianity. And yeah, I wouldn't defend them either (The bombers OR the 3 I listed). I'm very hypocritical though about abortion. At this point in time, I would honestly say I could not raise a child and so if it came down to it, I would have an abortion (Unless adoption were an option as well). But it would hurt me to have a child of mine be adopted. BUT, and here is the hypocritcal part. Ready? I am against abortion in most cases. And I'm liberal. :em321:

EDIT:

Well I just cmae back from voting. Funny really, the thing didn't say *exactly* it was about gay marriage. It said that the ammendment would be added saying only marriage can be done in this state between a man and woman. So if the ammendment fails, can I marry a sheep? (sarcasm).

What blows though is I kind of told my mom about it. Shouldn't have, cause she went and voted against it. So I had to go cancel her vote out.

The same thing that says God isn't a purple moo-cow. Nothing. It's rather pointless conjecture.



One of God's commandments, not one of God's Commandments.



Why? If their beliefs are (at least) partially rooted in religion, you're asking them to leave behind their moral roots. It's the belief that's important, not the source.



I was just noting that 1.) The eye for an eye still exits today. 2.) It's ironic that the people being murdered by Romans still exist, yet Italy hasn't had a stable government in...well...since then. (Aside from the constant assassinations of the Ceasers).



Because they haven't ran for office, and that America has heavy, heavy Christian roots - roots that don't disappear easily in less than 200 years.



Agreed.



The Bible can do no wrong. Man's interpretation and actions can be wrong.



I agree.

Yes I can.

*pickes up his King James Version* *IN ENGLISH*

*picks up his New International Version* *IN ENGLISH*

*picks up his printouts of 'Dead Sea' manuscripts in which whole paragraphs of Isaiah are ommited or added* *NOT IN ENGLISH*

Honestly, this isn't something new, if you want pretty pictures to look at, and won't believe anything unless you can see it for yourself, get to learning Hebrew and Greek or you won't see a difference. The people who hold that the books composing the Bible are COMPLETELY unchanged are ignoring facts. I can't say the Bible can't be inerrant, because lots of people believe that God changed it on purpose so that it would be correct TODAY. I think that is absurd because it rips off so many people in such a bad way.

...your best argument is that it's in English?

"El carro es azul."

"The car is blue."

...the difference is astounding.

Not all English is derived from Latin, you know. Parts of Latin that were dropped from English long ago need figurative translations.

Wolfy, that may be true on the small extent, but remember that case of the translation of Revenge of the Sith into Chinese then back to English? If the original bible were written in Latin, then translated into Arabic then translated into English you think it would be the same way fully? I could get on an online translator, translate a sentence into Spanish then French then German then Spanish then English and I would bet moneyi t won't be the same.