Gay Marriage and the Church

[VinceZeb]

Originally Posted by mew barios

poor vince must be torn between his religiosity and the fact that neal boortz thinks gay marriage is a-ok.

You really should think before you... well, you should start thinking at all. Boortz is ok with homosexuality (which I am not), but he and I agree with the fact that marriage is between men and women and that is what it was originally set up for.

Learn before you speak.

[sspadowsky]

Say, fatty, how do you know? Did "god" tell you? And what is it, exactly, that you've got against it? And can you explain how denying gays the right to marry is not unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by dim bulb

but he and I agree with the fact that marriage is between men and women and that is what it was originally set up for.

Source that one for us, why dontcha? Note: the bible doesn't count, as it is a work of fiction.

[Rez]

sex isnt for pro-cree-a-shun

SEX IS FOR FUN

[The One and Only...]

If you want to be honest, I'm not sure why people who say sex is for fun tend towards agnosticism/atheism, and why people who say sex for is procreation tend towards being religious.

It just seems so wrong.

One would think that evolutionists would accept that sex's sole purpose is for procreation, regardless of why it was performed.

One would think that religious folks would accept sex for fun as a sign of human transcendance.

Oh well.

[El Blanco]

Source that one for us, why dontcha? Note: the bible doesn't count, as it is a work of fiction.

Because you say so? What the hell is that? Its another argument all together, and you state it as a fact like your omniscient or something.

How about this:

The Constitution is based on the works of Locke, and I think he was full of shit and completly off, therefor, you can no longer use the Constitution as a reference in this argument.

See how it works?

If you are going to debate, can you atleast keep it honest?

[Pee Wee Herman]

The Bible isn't 100% fiction, but so much of it changed or was misinterpreted that it can't be considered anywhere near 100% fact. Many of the things in the bible very likely did happen, but it's hard to tell what's fact and what's fiction. It's not as reliable as thje consitution because the consitution (or the Canadian charter of right and freedoms in Canada) has only had 1 version, with a some changes, but the Bible has been around for almost 2,000 years so there is bound to be some extaggeration or embellishment in certain parts of it.

[El Blanco]

But, the Constitution is vague is some areas, or there are just some things that the Founding Fathers didn't account for.

Oh, and there have been changes to the Constitution. They're called Ammendments and quite a few were politcally motivated. Does this make the Constitution a "work of fiction"?

[ItalianStereotype]

Originally Posted by sspadowsky

And what is it, exactly, that you've got against it? And can you explain how denying gays the right to marry is not unconstitutional?

not just against homosexual marriage, but homosexuals in general. I think this will provide some insight into your character.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I just can never understand why this board likes having these arguments about the Bible. I mean, it's only like one of the biggest debates in the universe EVER. Yeah, we're going to solve this one here.

I also find it terribly condescending the way some on these boards completely dismiss not only religion, but the religious. Those who believe and practice within the United States.

I believe that the argument should be framed in that context. I mean, politics is all about perception anyway, right? Whether you on the board like it or not, There are MANY people in America who at least "claim" to follow some sect of Christianity. Demonizing what they believe and follow, dismissing it as archaic and "fictional," will get you nowhere, believe me. These people vote, contribute to campaigns, and campaign themselves through letters, phone calls, and other forms of activism. They are a massive, and ACTIVE voting bloc. In many places in this country, they will make-or-break a candidate.

So, just my opinion, but I feel the debate should be kept within a legal/Constitutional framework. Otherwise, this good thread will undoubtedly devolve into OAO talking about his penis size. Thank you.

[Ant10708]

If a man wants to marry another man then I want to marry multiple women. As long as they are okay with it why should me and my multiple wives be denied our tax benefits.

[AChimp]

Because that's just gay.

[sspadowsky]

OK, I feel compelled, in the sense of fairness, to explain my stance.

If I come across as arrogant, I sincerely apologize. Many people on this board have met me in person, and I feel confident that they would vouch for the fact that this is not my aim. I'm just trying to establish a little perspective here.

One of my biggest beefs with "traditional values" is that a lot of people believe what they believe without question. They don't truly examine WHY they believe what they believe. Having said that, I know that many people on this board DO examine why they hold their beliefs. But not all, and those people who do not shall remain nameless, even if their initials start with VinceZeb.

So, if a church, let's say the Catholic Church, just for an example, tells you that homosexuality is wrong, well, WHY? It's not like they just came out with homosexuality fifty years ago. And it's not like there hasn't been any homosexual behavior within the confines of the Catholic Church, as we all know. It's been around as long as history has been recorded by humans. In many cultures, homsexuality has been acknowledged, and even tolerated. It's not as though people just denied its existence. Indeed, fifty years ago, I think many people knew of it, and they just regarded it as, "It's their thing, and it's none of my business."

And here's the central issue: No one in this thread, or any other relating to this topic, has ever said, "OK, here's the reason(s) gays SHOULDN'T be able to marry. No one has come up with that one. That's why I make vitriolic references to the Bible being a work of fiction. In fact, deep-seeded religious beliefs are often the CAUSE of such conflicts.

"Homosexuality is WRONG!"

Why?

"Because the BIBLE say so!"

Well, the Bible was written by men. And it has been interpreted, and re-interpreted by many people and groups, primarily based on their beliefs. Read a "modernized" version of the Bible, and I guarantee you'll see that it's far different from the King James version, which I was raised to read.

The inherent flaw in the argument against gay marriage always, ALWAYS, goes back to deeply-held religious beliefs. Because God said so. Well, that's not good enough for me. I believe in the Constitution. And the Constitution, even though it can be amended, was created in the interest of upholding equal rights for everyone, in spite of the fact that those who wrote it were White, land-holding, slave-owning males. That's why the Constitution is referred to as a "living document." Not because it can be changed to hold to the beliefs of the crackers in power, but because its purpose is to serve the People. It is designed to protect everyone.

[VinceZeb]

sspadowsky, you sure are pretty humble. With your track record for humbleness, you should become a monk. And calling me fat doesnt make me gain 200lbs everytime I sit at this keyboard. I wish you would at least try to insult me with the facts you have about me.

[Dole]

Yeah Sspad! Why pick on that facet when you could have called him bigoted, prejudiced, ignorant, misanthropic, unpleasant, hateful, petty, cowardly, racist....

why there is a whole cornucopia of unpleasant character traits to pick a delightful nosegay from.

[kellychaos]

A legal union of same sex persons really has nothing to do with the church. The "laws" created by the government define what is legal and the church does not. It's really that simple. The only reason for the "stink" is that the church and the combined force of all it's congregations represent a strong lobby. This lobby equates "legal unions" with marriage when, actually, they are not the same. Again, the various churches act as if they invented marriage and; therefore, they have the right to define what "marriage" IS for everyone else. Again, they did not. I'm sure that the idea of lifelong mates began long before the marriage label was slapped onto it.

[The One and Only...]

There are plenty of non-religious arguments against homosexuality. Example:

Homosexuality is wrong because of Kant's Formula of Universal Law.

It would be bad if everyone were gay.

Therefore, it is immoral to be gay.

Each individual should be moral and follow those rules, so banning homosexuality is moral.

[ziggytrix]

Using that same logic:

It would be bad if everyone was male.

Therefore it is immoral to be male.



I don't buy it.

[sspadowsky]

Originally Posted by doofus

There are plenty of non-religious arguments against homosexuality. Example:

Homosexuality is wrong because of Kant's Formula of Universal Law.

It would be bad if everyone were gay.

Therefore, it is immoral to be gay.

Each individual should be moral and follow those rules, so banning homosexuality is moral.

OAO, that's incredibly stupid, even for you, and even as a hypothetical. It's wrong to be gay because Kant said so?

Originally Posted by dim bulb

And calling me fat doesnt make me gain 200lbs everytime I sit at this keyboard.

You're absolutely right. It's the gallons of Haagen-Daas you shovel down that's doing that.

[VinceZeb]

Originally Posted by dim bulb

It's the gallons of Haagen-Daas you shovel down that's doing that.

Sorry. Never had Haagen-Daas in my life. You need to come up with some better insults. I know your not that intelligent, so don't try to swing to the fences when you can't even hit a grounder. Start with twinkies, pizza, and McDonald's first. Then move up to the higher-level insults.

[pjalne]

Hahaha, Sspad doesn't know what food Vince eats

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

I know your not that intelligent,

As days go by, I've seen my taste in humor change. However, I don't think I'll ever be tired of the ironic "your stupid" line and all its analogues.

[The One and Only...]

I believe that Kant's moral principle only applies to acts- and homosexual acts can be changed, even if homosexuality cannot.

But I'm no Kantian, and I support gay rights. I was just pointing something out.

[Emu]

So, have you lost the ability to think for yourself or did you ever have it?

[The One and Only...]

I've thought for myself many times.

And you don't deserve Lokar for an avatar.

[AChimp]

Obese Adolescent Orator's Thoughts

• "I analyzed the nutritional content of the candy bars I ate for lunch. They only put me ninety points over. I can make up for it by just having three slices of cake after supper."
  
• "While I was pooping, I decided that since I can't see the calories, they must not exist."
  
• "I realized that if my parents didn't have to pay taxes, they could use the extra money to build a chocolate factory in the backyard."
  
• "My mom said the only absolute truth that matters is that I'm her special boy."