I agree wit da op.

4/20/2007 9:35:54 AM

I swear to god, Wlfpk4Life would have a more defensible argument if he just said "I hates teh faggits" and left it at that. This is some edomite-grade bullshit.

4/20/2007 12:48:55 PM

swearing to god is a time honored tradition you shall not sully it with your heathenistic ways.

4/20/2007 1:11:36 PM

Quote :

"So is marriage."

Boone, I thought you said you were a Christian? Either you need to touch up on your Biblical knowledge or be honest about your faith instead of lying about it.

Quote :

"Let's ban people from being part of any subset of society that performs poorly in comparison to middle-classed white Christians."

Pssst, I hate to inform you of this, but there are plenty of Christians that aren't white. I know that it doesn't fit into your tidy little stereotyped box, but hey, somebody needs to let you know what's up.

Quote :

"Hahah, well I'm sure they don't much care for what you think, either. But that doesn't make a good argument, does it?"

Most people in this country, by far, have always identified themselves as being Christian, and hence some of our laws are based on a Christian tradition.

As to these other many yet nameless religions that have a tradition of marrying homosexuals, would you care to inform me of said religious sects?

Quote :

"Suffrage was a basic and fundamental right of a land-holding white male. You've yet to tell me why the suffrage analogy is invalid."

Voting is a basic right, as is owning property, and yes even owning a firearm. But none of those rights are religious in nature.

Marriage has always been clearly defined as a union between a woman and a man. Marriage didn't have to be outlined as a right in the Constitution because it was clearly understood just exactly what a marriage encompased. Its doubt has never been in question until very recently, and I seriously question the dubious merits of those who support it.

Quote :

"Well that's a moot point; Wlfpk4Life doesn't like those other religions, thus they have no 1st Amendment rights."

Again, I hate to inform you of this, but the United States has always been overwhelmingly Christian, and thus, the concept of a Christian marriage has become time honored and understood.

Quote :

"Any chance of legalizing polygamy in North Carolina? Talk about some multiplied tax deductions!"

A very good point, and one that I'd like to see Boone or one of his many aliases answer.

Quote :

"I swear to god, Wlfpk4Life would have a more defensible argument if he just said "I hates teh faggits" and left it at that. This is some edomite-grade bullshit."

Unlike liberalism, which is purely based on emotion and not reason, I do not hate others for being different, and hence, I do not hate homosexuals. Strawmen fall like raindrops 'round these parts.



[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 6:47 PM. Reason : more]

4/20/2007 6:45:42 PM

Speaking of marriages, a guy at work showed us a pic of his son....he said he was happy 50% of the time......the other 50% his wife has him.....we were like awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

4/20/2007 7:02:21 PM

Quote :

"Unlike liberalism, which is purely based on emotion and not reason, I do not hate others for being different, and hence, I do not hate homosexuals."

I didn't say you hated homosexuals. I said that the position that being against gay marriage because of a hatred of gays is more logical and defensible than being against gay marriage because it undermines the establishment clause, a position which I have never heard a single other person take (primarily because it is fundamentally flawed).

Quote :

"As to these other many yet nameless religions that have a tradition of marrying homosexuals, would you care to inform me of said religious sects?"

Unitarians, for one. Some of the Unitarians that founded this country were John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Paul Revere, and Benjamin Rush.

[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 7:39 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2007 7:34:14 PM

Quote :

" Marriage is a religious institution and should be kept out of the law books contextually. "

Wow... this comment tells me everything about someone.

Marriage is NOT a religious institution!!! Marriage has existed since history first was recorded in some form of text/drawing. As far as I know, marriage exists in EVERY culture on earth. In my parents culture, marriage had nothing to do with their religious practices. Marriage was a social tradition.

So don't use religion as your scapegoat. You're no better than a "bible banger" if you go around pushing your personal beliefs (or "unbeliefs") on others.

[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 8:07 PM. Reason : ninja edit]

4/20/2007 8:01:06 PM

Quote :

"I didn't say you hated homosexuals. I said that the position that being against gay marriage because of a hatred of gays is more logical and defensible than being against gay marriage because it undermines the establishment clause, a position which I have never heard a single other person take (primarily because it is fundamentally flawed)."

The establishment clause is one of several reasons. The basic concept of a Christian marriage is that of a man and a woman. It's been that way since the beginning of human existence. Changing it now, for purely political reasons, violates a long set precedent that has long been recognized, not only by Congress, but by the Courts as well.

Quote :

"Unitarians, for one. Some of the Unitarians that founded this country were John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Paul Revere, and Benjamin Rush."

Ah yes, the Unitarian/Universalists. The same "denomination" that teaches sex courses to its young, not to mention that you don't even have to believe in Christ to be a member. When did they begin to conduct same sex marriages? Was it around the time that Adams or Jefferson existed?



[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 8:39 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2007 8:37:47 PM

Quote :

"The establishment clause is one of several reasons. The basic concept of a Christian marriage is that of a man and a woman. It's been that way since the beginning of human existence. Changing it now, for purely political reasons, violates a long set precedent that has long been recognized, not only by Congress, but by the Courts as well."

Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment clause. Once again, allowing other people to marry in the way they see fit does not in any way interfere with allowing you to marry in the way you see fit. For this same reason, it is not a violation of the establishment clause to prohibit people from practicing any religion besides Catholicism (I think I just died a little having to actually make that statement).

Quote :

"Ah yes, the Unitarian/Universalists. The same "denomination" that teaches sex courses to its young, not to mention that you don't even have to believe in Christ to be a member. When did they begin to conduct same sex marriages? Was it around the time that Adams or Jefferson existed?"

OH NOES, SEX EDUCATIONS!!11@ Belief in Christ is not a prerequisite to being a religion. Nevertheless, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, and the Metropolitan Community Church all believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and all allow gay marriage. Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish denomination in the United States, allows gay marriage as well. The Unitarian Universalist Church started performing gay marriages in the late sixties and made its stance official in, I believe, 1970. Nevertheless, you completely discount the validity of this particular religious organization, valuing only your own, despite the fact that many of our founding fathers were members.

On a somewhat related note, although I doubt the Unitarians supported gay marriage at the time of the American revolution, the Catholics had only recently decided that Galileo's heliocentric model wasn't heresy, over 100 years after taking that position. Surprise, surprise, things can change.

[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 11:01 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2007 10:38:00 PM

Quote :

"I think it is still at least a stepping stone towards what we will one day need to achieve."

I too long for a pipe dream! I believe, taking a dump on the John (john) one day's going to turn it into milorganite and provide fertilize for someone's back yard.

I'm glad we adumbrate shit packing as terminus avenues for the future.

4/21/2007 1:55:26 AM

Quote :

"Boone, I thought you said you were a Christian? Either you need to touch up on your Biblical knowledge or be honest about your faith instead of lying about it."

I'm sorry, I was speaking from a rational interpretation of history; not a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Quote :

"Marriage has always been clearly defined as a union between a woman and a man. Marriage didn't have to be outlined as a right in the Constitution because it was clearly understood just exactly what a marriage encompased. Its doubt has never been in question until very recently, and I seriously question the dubious merits of those who support it."

As of 1869, I could've written this:

Marriage Suffrage has always been clearly defined as a union between a woman and a man right reserved for white males. Marriage Suffrage didn't have to be outlined as a right in the Constitution because it was clearly understood just exactly what a marriage suffrage encompassed. Its doubt has never been in question until very recently, and I seriously question the dubious merits of those who support it.

Look for yourself; voting requirements are nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Tradition clearly outlined who received voting rights.

Quote :

"A very good point, and one that I'd like to see Boone or one of his many aliases answer."

Well this is a first. I assure you, Boone is my only alias.

Quote :

"Unlike liberalism, which is purely based on emotion and not reason, I do not hate others for being different, and hence, I do not hate homosexuals. Strawmen fall like raindrops 'round these parts."

Can you really say this stuff with a straight face?

Liberals hate people who are different?

Social conservatives embrace reason?

Is this a joke?

Quote :

"Ah yes, the Unitarian/Universalists. The same "denomination" that teaches sex courses to its young, not to mention that you don't even have to believe in Christ to be a member. When did they begin to conduct same sex marriages? Was it around the time that Adams or Jefferson existed?"

Again, the 1st Amendment only applies to religions Fundamentalist Christians agree with.

[Edited on April 21, 2007 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

4/21/2007 11:21:43 AM

Quote :

"I'm glad we adumbrate shit packing as terminus avenues for the future."

huh?

4/21/2007 1:53:55 PM

4/22/2007 12:28:44 PM

up until 1876, marriage was not defined in North Carolina.

4/22/2007 12:34:47 PM

He's for civil unions, personally against gay marraiges saying that the gov shouldn't tell churches which unions to bless.

4/22/2007 4:07:58 PM

As if the gov't could or would tell them which marriages to bless anymore than they could tell a church to marry an atheist couple.

Why is this idea still alive?

4/22/2007 5:18:08 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry, I was speaking from a rational interpretation of history; not a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible."

You're a real benefit to your faith. You said marriage was created by man, and if you are a Christian, that idea is completely false.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" Genesis 2:24

No where does the marriage distinction allow for anything other than a man and a woman. But it's your faith and you'll have to justify it one day, so good luck with that.

http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/040513_FMAHearingTestimony.pdf

Pay close attention to the result of France's recognition of same sex marriage and its effect, legally and otherwise, on its culture.

All of the benefits of a traditional marriage are an integral part to preserving a healthy society, and the benefits are felt at all levels, between the man and the woman as well as the children. There isn't one single benefit, societal or otherwise, that will stem from allowing same sex unions and will only further erode and cheapen the one stable thing that keeps our society a prosperous one.

4/22/2007 8:50:39 PM

Quote :

"You're a real benefit to your faith. You said marriage was created by man, and if you are a Christian, that idea is completely false. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" Genesis 2:24"

so do you take the old testament to be literal?

4/22/2007 8:53:57 PM

The New Testament is full of examples of marriage as well, and this might shock you, in every instance it refers to the relationship between a husband and wife.

4/22/2007 8:58:32 PM

now you are backing away from your statement. The new testament is about something that happened just under 2000 years ago. Civilization existed longer than that. So how can you call that the begining?

now back to the point, do you take the Old Testament as literal?

4/22/2007 10:18:00 PM

So you're just going to ignore the fact that the New Testament continues the tradition of marriage as it was established in the Old Testament?

But no, I don't take everything literally in the Old Testament. The Bible is very clear on the new covenant, what changed (such as dietary laws and laws concerning circumcision) and what stayed the same (murder is still murder, marriage is still marriage, the 10 Commandments plus loving your neighbor, etc.).

4/22/2007 10:22:08 PM

very fitting that you keep missing the point and going through your asshole to get to your elbow.

4/22/2007 10:23:48 PM

No, the problem is that I didn't give you the answer you wanted.

4/22/2007 10:24:40 PM

Quote :

"You're a real benefit to your faith. You said marriage was created by man, and if you are a Christian, that idea is completely false. No where does the marriage distinction allow for anything other than a man and a woman. But it's your faith and you'll have to justify it one day, so good luck with that."

I don't read the Bible literally. Most Christians (including Catholics, durrrr) don't, either.

Quote :

"The New Testament is full of examples of marriage as well, and this might shock you, in every instance it refers to the relationship between a husband and wife."

1. Way to not answer the question
2. We're way off topic; Our personal religious beliefs are an entirely moot point in This discussion.

Quote :

"All of the benefits of a traditional marriage are an integral part to preserving a healthy society, and the benefits are felt at all levels, between the man and the woman as well as the children. There isn't one single benefit, societal or otherwise, that will stem from allowing same sex unions and will only further erode and cheapen the one stable thing that keeps our society a prosperous one."

I really don't see the logic behind this. Are you saying that allowing homosexuals to marry we'll make marriage in this country worse? How about you focus on the 52% of straight people who get divorces. Should subsets of society who are more-likely to get a divorce also be disallowed from marrying? Poor people divorce more, should we only be able to marry if we're making >$75k/yr?


Could you please stop embarrassing yourself and just admit that you want to legislate your religion?

4/22/2007 10:28:05 PM

no, the problem is, you mind has been so crippled by religion that you cannot fathom the fact that your beliefs are extremely fundamental judeo-christian centric that you cannot understand that there are different religious beliefs out there. Furthermore, you cannot comprehend the fact that not everyone believes in god and that religion should not be the barometer of what is and is not accepted by society.

4/22/2007 10:28:41 PM

Quote :

"I don't read the Bible literally."

Fixed that for ya.

Quote :

"I really don't see the logic behind this. Are you saying that allowing homosexuals to marry we'll make marriage in this country worse? How about you focus on the 52% of straight people who get divorces. Should subsets of society who are more-likely to get a divorce also be disallowed from marrying? Poor people divorce more, should we only be able to marry if we're making >$75k/yr?"

Divorce isn't an issue here. The statistics clearly indicate the many benefits to marriage and how it is an integrel part to any healthy society.

Conversely, marriage has gotten worse in places where gay marriage is allowed.

What's embarrassing is that the statistics do not lie and you want to tear down our society anyway. And for what? To extend some "man made" right to those that it was never intended to be extended to?

Quote :

"no, the problem is, you mind has been so crippled by religion that you cannot fathom the fact that your beliefs are extremely fundamental judeo-christian centric that you cannot understand that there are different religious beliefs out there. Furthermore, you cannot comprehend the fact that not everyone believes in god and that religion should not be the barometer of what is and is not accepted by society."

And this has to do with my response to your baited question about the OT how? You got owned, it's ok to admit it.

Name on major religion that endorses gay marriage. I am well aware that there are latter day sects that have supported it, mostly in the last 30 or so years, but name one that has embraced gay marriage since its inception. Good luck, pal!

Besides, precedent and tradition have long been considered viable barometers of law. This country's practice of marriage has been based on this country's Judeo-Christian roots, like it or not. This has to do with respecting law and religious tradition.

As for athiests and marriage, nobody forces them to participate. That's their choice.

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 10:44 PM. Reason : more]

4/22/2007 10:41:20 PM

Quote :

"And this has to do with my response to your baited question about the OT how? You got owned, it's ok to admit it. Name on major religion that endorses gay marriage. I am well aware that there are latter day sects that have supported in, mostly in the last 30 or so years, but name one that has embraced gay marriage since its inception. Good luck, pal! Besides, precedent and tradition have long been considered viable barometers of law. This country's practice of marriage has been based on this country's Judeo-Christian roots, like it or not. This has to do with respecting law and religious tradition."

give me a religious organization that supported heliocentrism from its inception. precedent and tradition can change. you are acting like this is gravity. Furthermore, this countries marriage laws came directly from the preceived threat of polygamy.

Shit, in the Bible, people had multiple wives. Shouldn't we practice biblical polygamy?

also, if we want to continue to talk about precedent and tradition, shouldn't the catholic church still be giving the liturgy in latin and still preach limbo?

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 10:45 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2007 10:44:51 PM

^ Show me where in the NT where polygamy is endorsed.

Quote :

"precedent and tradition can change. you are acting like this is gravity"

There are lots of clearly defined beliefs in the Bible that remain unquestioned and accepted as fact. Marriage happens to fall into that category.

Quote :

"also, if we want to continue to talk about precedent and tradition, shouldn't the catholic church still be giving the liturgy in latin and still preach limbo?"

There are Latin Mass Churches for those who want to go to pre-Vatican II Masses.

Besides, show me where the Mass has to be said in latin (unlike marriage, which is clearly defined) and as for limbo, from the Catechism:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 10:55 PM. Reason : more]

4/22/2007 10:53:06 PM

Quote :

"Fixed that for ya."

"Fixed that for ya. I'm an self-righteous bigot who assumes way too much about people I've never met."

Fixed that for you.

Quote :

"Conversely, marriage has gotten worse in places where gay marriage is allowed."

Cite

Quote :

"What's embarrassing is that the statistics do not lie and you want to tear down our society anyway. And for what? To extend some "man made" right to those that it was never intended to be extended to?"

Wait, state laws aren't man-made? That's interesting.

Quote :

"Besides, precedent and tradition have long been considered viable barometers of law. This country's practice of marriage has been based on this country's Judeo-Christian roots, like it or not. This has to do with respecting law and religious tradition."

But precedent only goes so far.

Until you address 1) why the suffrage analogy is false and 2) rebut the argument I made regarding America's secular roots, you're not holding an honest debate.

Quote :

"Show me where in the NT where polygamy is endorsed."

He wasn't talking about the NT, chief.

BUT YOU KNEW THAT

and you expect us to take you seriously.

Quote :

"There are lots of clearly defined beliefs in the Bible that remain unquestioned and accepted as fact. Marriage happens to fall into that category."

I don't think you realize how hilarious this is for me.

You keep trying to argue against gay marriage on legal grounds, but whenever cornered you invariably fall back on your bigoted religious beliefs

4/22/2007 11:13:27 PM

Quote :

" Unlike liberalism, which is purely based on emotion and not reason, I do not hate others for being different, and hence, I do not hate homosexuals. Strawmen fall like raindrops 'round these parts. "

I'm going to hold you to this argument based on reason thing...

Quote :

"http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/040513_FMAHearingTestimony.pdf Pay close attention to the result of France's recognition of same sex marriage and its effect, legally and otherwise, on its culture. "

Perhaps I missed it, but can you point out specifically the part about France I should be looking for? The first thing it noted was a decrease in the population of Europeans, and it blamed this on same-sex marriage. This is very clearly a false statement (and you would have to be an idiot to believe it). Looking at the population growth for Europe, there is no correlation with slow or negative growth rate, and there is even a slight correlation with country that allow same sex marriage and that have a positive growth rate.

The second thing noted in the article was a gradual decline in American quality of life and rise in the need for social programs. But paradoxically it noted this rise has been going on for a while, where as same-sex marriage is a relatively new issue. So it is at the very least unfounded to claim that same-sex marriage will catalyze this problem to catastrophic proportions, when you are also implicitly stating the terrible conditions came to rise out of conditions where only opposite sex marriages are allowed. It's like worry about a splinter when you have a 2x4 going through your gut (to adapt a passage from the Bible...).

Thirdly, the vast majority of scientific studies on same-sex lead families have shown them to be as health, and sometimes more healthy than other families, with the primary problems being on how society treats kids with gay parents, rather than any fault of the gay parents themselves.

(I was going to post specific articles but you can just pick one: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=homosexual+parents&btnG=Search )

4/22/2007 11:19:18 PM

I think it's bigoted to force your views on a time honored precedent. You have no respect for the faith that you claim to believe in or anybody else who has a respect for the rule of law.

Quote :

"Cite[/link] http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/040513_FMAHearingTestimony.pdf Like I said earlier and which you completely ignored, pay close attention to the result of France's recognition of same sex marriage and its effect, legally and otherwise, on its culture. [quote]Wait, state laws aren't man-made? That's interesting."

You see, now you're just being stupid. And you wonder why I can't take anything you say seriously. Where did this particular law come from? Did the states just pull it out of mid air? Or wait...is it based on, can it be...precedent? Wow. I feel like a record.

Quote :

"Until you address 1) why the suffrage analogy is false and 2) rebut the argument I made regarding America's secular roots, you're not holding an honest debate."

Where are voting rights outlined in any religious tradition?

You mentioned a handful of founders who were unitarians. The fact is that most of the founders were Christian, some were deists but they believed in a higher autonomous power. Sorry if the truth hurts.

Quote :

"You keep trying to argue against gay marriage on legal grounds, but whenever cornered you invariably fall back on your bigoted religious beliefs"

Um, maybe because the concept of a legal marriage in this country is based on traditional religious beliefs?

Bigoted = anybody who disagrees with you. Wow, you're such an openminded and enlightened liberal.

Legal grounds = precedent = respecting a religious tradition

You want the government to force your beliefs on everybody else. Typical of your kind.

4/22/2007 11:29:03 PM

Actually, the French allow civil unions, not same sex marriages.

This is how the French rule on same sex marriages. They finally got something right. And who'd a thunk it? They use prececent and tradition to justify it! They also cite conclusions based on research as to why a marriage is fundamental to a healthy society and why it is important for children to have a mother and a father instead of 2 moms or 2 days. You see kids, the courts actually understand the rule of precedent and do not always dismiss things just because their biases say otherwise.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006_docs/Francesummary.pdf

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 11:43 PM. Reason : more]

4/22/2007 11:41:02 PM

Quote :

"I think it's bigoted to force your views on a time honored precedent."

I think the time-honored precedent is bigoted; I couldn't care less if you follow it or not, so long as you don't force it on others.

Quote :

"You have no respect for the faith that you claim to believe in or anybody else who has a respect for the rule of law."

You seem unable to accept that there are many beliefs within Christianity.



The rest of your "argument" honestly wasn't coherent, so let me see if I can articulate it for you...


You're saying that intertwining religion and civil law does not violate the 1st Amendment?

And that to separate religion from civil law somehow violates the 1st Amendment?

The act of secularizing a law violates the religion it's detaching itself from? Suddenly, the 1st Amendment is null and void, because removing religion from government violates said religion.


It'd be a good argument if it made any logical sense what-so-ever




[Edited on April 23, 2007 at 12:03 AM. Reason : .]

4/22/2007 11:47:59 PM

Quote :

"Actually, the French allow civil unions, not same sex marriages. This is how the French rule on same sex marriages. They finally got something right."

so you're in favor of civil unions?

4/23/2007 10:09:44 AM

Quote :

" They also cite conclusions based on research as to why a marriage is fundamental to a healthy society and why it is important for children to have a mother and a father instead of 2 moms or 2 days."

In the link you posted, no such research was posted.

What WAS stated though was the assertion that ALL the existing research on homosexual parents was flawed, then later on in another context, it states that while no existing research points to it being innately detrimental, the studies aren't long-term enough to determine conclusively that it's not damaging (which is not true of all the studies) and to be on the safe side, they should disallow them (it was written as a question in the document).

Other than that, it was pure assertion that society needs only m/f parents to work, which is an assertion not based in reason.

4/23/2007 11:32:43 AM

Wlfpk4Life has been so sourly pwnt in this thread that I don't understand why he keeps coming back. I have yet to read or hear the words of a person who is has shut themselves off from the possibility of others having different beliefs in the incredible manner that Wlfpk4Life has. Not only does he essentially say that any other religious belief other than his own is wrong, he is able to infer the personal beliefs of numerous people in this thread without ever meeting them in person.

In the GWB dictionary I guess this would be called "steadfastness". I think the inability to accept change, nay the inability to accept that things have already changed, is more akin to stubbornness.

And please don't bother yourself with a response to this post, Wlfpk4Life. I've been on these forums long enough to know where it will go. I'm not going to bother responding to anything else you write, since this thread only solidifies my many years of observations of your beliefs and behavior. I'm not attacking you as a person, as I imagine you are a decent person IRL, but on TWW there are only a few people who absolutely dumbfound me in regards to lack of logical reasoning.

4/23/2007 12:16:00 PM

Quote :

"And please don't bother yourself with a response to this post, Wlfpk4Life. I've been on these forums long enough to know where it will go. I'm not going to bother responding to anything else you write, since this thread only solidifies my many years of observations of your beliefs and behavior. I'm not attacking you as a person, as I imagine you are a decent person IRL, but on TWW there are only a few people who absolutely dumbfound me in regards to lack of logical reasoning. "

I'm not trying to be an ass, but you're combatting "steadfastness" with more "steadfastness?"

4/23/2007 12:26:06 PM

Please explain how so? I've tried for years to have rational debates with this guy to no avail. I'm simply saying that eventually it gets old, and there's no point in him responding to me because I'm not going to have yet another back and forth since the previous times have been so ridiculously illogical. I honestly don't care if he responds, doesn't matter to me. Mainly I just wanted to add my commentary to this thread, for the ages...

4/23/2007 12:34:31 PM

Name on major religion that endorses gay marriagearguing on the internet. I am well aware that there are latter day sects that have supported it, mostly in the last 30 or so years, but name one that has embraced gay marriagearguing on the internet since its inception. Good luck, pal!

4/23/2007 1:08:11 PM

He hasn't responded in a while, maybe he's hiding in shame?

4/24/2007 2:27:03 AM

Quote :

"And please don't bother yourself with a response to this post, Wlfpk4Life. .... I'm not attacking you as a person, as I imagine you are a decent person IRL"

im pretty sure he's not.



[Edited on April 24, 2007 at 3:15 AM. Reason : ]

4/24/2007 3:14:54 AM

^^ Some of us work for a living.

Opstand, I would care if I knew who you were. And then chances are that I wouldn't even then.

Quote :

"I think the time-honored precedent is bigoted; I couldn't care less if you follow it or not, so long as you don't force it on others.[/qwuote] But at the same time it is perfectly fine for you to force your views on others. I see how it works now. You may think the law is bigoted. That's fine. I'm sure that murderers think that our criminal laws are bigoted. I'm sure that child molestors think that laws like Meghan's law is bigoted. [quote]You seem unable to accept that there are many beliefs within Christianity. "

I am not going to let a small but vocal minority of churches dictate their opinion on this or anything else.

And you never answered my question. Name one major world religion that has recognized gay marriages from its inception as being a natural right.

Quote :

"You're saying that intertwining religion and civil law does not violate the 1st Amendment?"

Respecting the traditional marriage is not a violation of law, it is a respect and recongition of it and thus governing accordingly.

Besides, what church is being established here? When our government began, there was never a question of what constituted a marriage. It has only been in recent times that it even became an issue.

Quote :

"The act of secularizing a law violates the religion it's detaching itself from? Suddenly, the 1st Amendment is null and void, because removing religion from government violates said religion."

You might have a point if a marriage wasn't traditionally religious in nature.

This reminds me of a Southpark episode where they removed Santa and Christ from Christmas, along with anything else that might offend somebody, and they were left with total and utter crap that nobody liked. That is essentially what you want to do with the concept of marriage.

Quote :

"so you're in favor of civil unions?"

In principle, no. I was referring to the French government's stance on gay marriage.

Quote :

"In the link you posted, no such research was posted."

That is because the link I made was a summary of the report. I'll find the actual report when I have the time.

Quote :

"Other than that, it was pure assertion that society needs only m/f parents to work, which is an assertion not based in reason."

Sure it is. Studies have shown that children of marriages reap greater benefits, socially, mentally, and otherwise. I linked this in another thread talking about this very same subject.

Quote :

"im pretty sure he's not."

I'll consider the source on this one.

4/24/2007 6:00:57 PM

Quote :

"Sure it is. Studies have shown that children of marriages reap greater benefits, socially, mentally, and otherwise. I linked this in another thread talking about this very same subject. "

I never disputed this. Studies have also shown that children of homosexual couples are not damaged by there not having straight m/f parents too. I even put a link.

Quote :

""In the link you posted, no such research was posted." That is because the link I made was a summary of the report. I'll find the actual report when I have the time. "

I meant no such research was referred to.

Quote :

"This reminds me of a Southpark episode where they removed Santa and Christ from Christmas, along with anything else that might offend somebody, and they were left with total and utter crap that nobody liked. That is essentially what you want to do with the concept of marriage. "

Except gay marriage has absolutely 0 (zero) bearing on straight families and marriage. Nothing is being subtracted or gutted from regular marriages here.

4/24/2007 6:21:52 PM

4/24/2007 6:23:21 PM

Quote :

"Respecting the traditional marriage is not a violation of law, it is a respect and recongition of it and thus governing accordingly."

Don't you mean, "and thus legislating is accordingly"?

In other words, legislating religion?

In other words, violating the 1st Amendment.

Quote :

"Besides, what church is being established here? When our government began, there was never a question of what constituted a marriage. It has only been in recent times that it even became an issue."

You've already used this argument. I responded:

"As of 1869, I could've written this:

Marriage Suffrage has always been clearly defined as a union between a woman and a man right reserved for white males. Marriage Suffrage didn't have to be outlined as a right in the Constitution because it was clearly understood just exactly what a marriage suffrage encompassed. Its doubt has never been in question until very recently, and I seriously question the dubious merits of those who support it.

Look for yourself; voting requirements are nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Tradition clearly outlined who received voting rights."

Your only response was that marriage was religious while suffrage was not. What you still seem incapable of understanding is that every time you fall back on the religious argument, you're defeating your argument. Religious justifications are not valid in a secular government.

Quote :

"You might have a point if a marriage wasn't traditionally religious in nature."

Government-sanctioned marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's a liberty afford to its people and has nothing to do with religion. Using your reasoning, we'd be be similarly justified to ban atheist marriages.

4/24/2007 6:41:02 PM