Same-sex marriage and politics. What say you?

[wildcat69410]

The bible is left to interpretation - Its been used to keep slaves and kill many.. an interpretation of any text is always prone to error both when it is read in context and when read without none.

 

I don't exactly see how one can misinterpret Leviticus 18:22. It's pretty direct, straightforward, and speaks in very literal terms. There isn't any type of metaphor going on, it's direct and to the point. It's a command, and shouldn't be interpreted any differently. Sure, some parts of the Bible have been misinterpreted, but it's pretty safe to say that when they call it detestable, God doesn't want us to do it.

 

Oh, and how exactly does the Bible allow people to keep slaves?

 

Most people use mosaic law to persecute {censored} in modern times, even though one of the main emphases of the New Testament like the epistles of Paul, is that Christians are no longer under the rule of the mosaic law.

 

Okay, but the New Testament mentions it too, in Romans, written by the apostle Paul. Particulary Romans 1:26-27, and Romans 1:32.

 

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

 

Again, very little interpretation to make here, fairly direct in its stating, and this time it is not part of Mosaic law. The Bible specifically mentions that homosexuality is a bad thing, it is a sin. And even still, we use parts of the mosaic law today, including the 10 commandments. So, I don't think we can just ignore what it says here.

 

So with that said, there is good reasoning not to have religion as basses for law. People should know what is right (look at how well atheist do).

 

Oh, yeah. Atheists do so well... Prove it to me. I don't think you'll be able to show me endless examples of how well, or how much better Atheists are than Christians for example. Sure, when you believe in nothing, it makes it so much harder to disagree in anything, but that doesn't make any group of people substantially better than another.

 

So why can't we let individuals decide for themselves what to call their civil union? If I want to get married I will – My faith allows that no matter what my sexuality and so I will get married one of these days. If someone is a devout Christian, they to would be able to marry no matter what their sexuality unless they interpret their sacred text in a way that would not allow them.

 

I don't think that that's fair though. Allowing people to call something something that it isn't, just isn't right. Marriage isn't a bond between a man and man or a woman and a woman. It's a bond between a Man and a Woman. I don't think that it is exactly fair that because you were limited rights before, you now get to reorganize how my Religion is based. I agree that you had your rights limited, and that needs to be changed, but I disagree that you should be able to call it Marriage.

 

Why can't you call it something else? Why?

 

The law should be clear in that it will not persecute. Homosexuals still do not have the same protections under the law as heterosexual couples (in most states anyway) and I believe that is the gist of this thread no?

 

Unfortunately no, although I have agreed, and this thread has commonly stated that {censored} have had their rights abused, the biggest issue here is that they want to call it Marriage and I don't. The rights really aren't an issue anymore, its come down to the naming of the union. Personally I don't think THEY have the right to invade on my religious understanding of Marriage, but they do have a right to all the benefits that come along with it.

[gwprod12]

Honestly, I've never met a "Good Christian" who would flinch at committing any sort of dastardly deed. The only Christians I know with a conscience are Closet Christians... the ones who dont blather on all day about their faith. I dont know if these things are related, but that's been my experience. (Ahem, In real life, fyi)

 

(When I say "Good Christians" I mean people who refer to themselves as Good, Christian People, or similar. And there are TONS of them)

 

I help people in need.

I volunteer at the local food bank.

I do a lot of donation and fundraising work for worthy causes.

I feed anyone who doesnt have food

A lot of times, I take in strays and assist them getting back on their feet.

 

And I'm a radical atheist. (A lot of people I volunteer with are religious, but mostly their religion mandates caring behavior towards the disadvantaged). There are a lot of Atheists who are bad people, just like there are a lot of Christians who are bad people. Your religion or lack thereof doesnt have a lot of bearing on whether or not you're going to be a boon to or a parasite of society.

 

I just dont appreciate being characterized as a "bad person" simply because i dont believe in God. (I dont mean to characterize people who do believe in God as bad people, btw)

 

EDIT: I think it's great that you like and obey the bible. I dont like and wont obey the bible. Why should that specific book have power over me? (Also, only three commandments are laws in the United States as a whole. Kill (Murder), Steal and Bear False Witness. And Honestly... did it really require divine intervention to figure those three out?)

[wildcat69410]

Honestly, I've never met a "Good Christian" who would flinch at committing any sort of dastardly deed. The only Christians I know with a conscience are Closet Christians... the ones who dont blather on all day about their faith. I dont know if these things are related, but that's been my experience. (Ahem, In real life, fyi)

 

(When I say "Good Christians" I mean people who refer to themselves as Good, Christian People, or similar. And there are TONS of them)

 

I help people in need.

I volunteer at the local food bank.

I do a lot of donation and fundraising work for worthy causes.

I feed anyone who doesnt have food

A lot of times, I take in strays and assist them getting back on their feet.

 

And I'm a radical atheist. (A lot of people I volunteer with are religious, but mostly their religion mandates caring behavior towards the disadvantaged). There are a lot of Atheists who are bad people, just like there are a lot of Christians who are bad people. Your religion or lack thereof doesnt have a lot of bearing on whether or not you're going to be a boon to or a parasite of society.

 

I just dont appreciate being characterized as a "bad person" simply because i dont believe in God. (I dont mean to characterize people who do believe in God as bad people, btw)

 

 

EDIT: I think it's great that you like and obey the bible. I dont like and wont obey the bible. Why should that specific book have power over me? (Also, only three commandments are laws in the United States as a whole. Kill (Murder), Steal and Bear False Witness. And Honestly... did it really require divine intervention to figure those three out?)

 

Yeah, as laws, but how many of those to people obey just in General because it's considered morally right. People don't want to commit adultury, people try to honor their parents, people try to focus on what they have rather than what they want. Most of those commandments are impossible to legislate anyway, imagine a senator trying to pass a Bill that made Coveting illegal. It would be ludicrous, so obviously part of the 10 commandments are moral.

 

Why should a book have power over me? The same types of reasons that documents have power over you. I'm not asking you to obey the entire Bible here, that's your choice. You, personally, can tell everybody that you're "married" to your significant other. However, by the law, I don't want that to be referred to as Marriage. Why? Because that isn't what Marriage is. Nobody's really seemed to refute that part of my argument, they just want to refute the fact why I'd believe in the Bible in the first place.

 

Unfortunately if you look at history, you'll notice that we really did need divine guidance to figure a lot of things out. Heck, even today you can't deny some divine guidance wouldn't do us any help. In today's world, once society has accepted these concepts, then it becomes a whole lot easier to say that we didn't need divine guidance to come up with things like that. But if you look back in history, you'll see a lot of uncivilized people killing other people, running around stealing from one another, all without any form of guidance. So, it may be easy to say now, but that doesn't make it truth.

 

Of course, I didn't mean to make it a characterization issue. It is really impossible to characterize two entire groups of people that way, or judge the way they compare to eachother. I was just asking for proof that atheists have done so well, because he apparently believed so.

[killbot1000]

Yeah, as laws, but how many of those to people obey just in General because it's considered morally right. People don't want to commit adultury, people try to honor their parents, people try to focus on what they have rather than what they want. Most of those commandments are impossible to legislate anyway, imagine a senator trying to pass a Bill that made Coveting illegal. It would be ludicrous, so obviously part of the 10 commandments are moral.

 

Why should a book have power over me? The same types of reasons that documents have power over you. I'm not asking you to obey the entire Bible here, that's your choice. You, personally, can tell everybody that you're "married" to your significant other. However, by the law, I don't want that to be referred to as Marriage. Why? Because that isn't what Marriage is. Nobody's really seemed to refute that part of my argument, they just want to refute the fact why I'd believe in the Bible in the first place.

 

Unfortunately if you look at history, you'll notice that we really did need divine guidance to figure a lot of things out. Heck, even today you can't deny some divine guidance wouldn't do us any help. In today's world, once society has accepted these concepts, then it becomes a whole lot easier to say that we didn't need divine guidance to come up with things like that. But if you look back in history, you'll see a lot of uncivilized people killing other people, running around stealing from one another, all without any form of guidance. So, it may be easy to say now, but that doesn't make it truth.

 

Of course, I didn't mean to make it a characterization issue. It is really impossible to characterize two entire groups of people that way, or judge the way they compare to eachother. I was just asking for proof that atheists have done so well, because he apparently believed so.

 

Atheists are just like any regular people, Im a radical atheist as well, and I help whoever needs it, whoever I can help, just because its morally right, I know in my heart its morally right, it has nothing to do with the bible, or rewards, etc.

 

I too am sick of people who criticize atheists for only the reason of not believing in god, as if thats so bad...

 

whats worse, somebody who does good deeds because they are good deeds, or somebody who does good deeds because they will be rewarded in the afterlife? Think about that for a while.

 

People change definitions all the time, in fact weve even changed the definition of the word man (all men are created equal meant "white men" whether you want to believe it or not, this is true) so why cant we change the definition of a less important word like Marriage, we can just call it {censored} marriage, because thats what it is, {censored} marriage.

 

What do you mean by back in history we needed divine guidance to figure things out, can you give me an example, not related to the bible in some way? People had just as much guidance thousands of years ago as they did today, the only difference is that it was emperors masqueraded as gods rather than a book, theres really no difference.

 

Many people point at our world today and say its the worst its ever been, but I beg to differ, I honestly think the world is a much better place than it was even 50 years ago, the only reason why we think the world is worse today is because we hear about things more, the news is worldwide, and isnt there to serve anybody, so it says whatever comes across the news desk, many of these events happened 50 years ago, we just never heard about it, ignorance is bliss...(sarcasm)

[wildcat69410]

Atheists are just like any regular people, Im a radical atheist as well, and I help whoever needs it, whoever I can help, just because its morally right, I know in my heart its morally right, it has nothing to do with the bible, or rewards, etc.

 

Yes, because the Morals held by the Bible for example, as well as morals valued by other religious texts have become the norm of the society. Rather than being specifically concerned with Religious Morals, the Society has begun to pick up and use some of the morals for their own. I'm not trying to say that only Religious people have morals here.

 

I too am sick of people who criticize atheists for only the reason of not believing in god, as if thats so bad...

 

There's one thing in not believing in a God, but some Atheists are downright abusive when it comes to Christianity. Now although I have no right to judge why that may be, for all I know they may have had negative experiences with it at a younger age, I don't see the reason why they have to be outright negative about it. Of all the Atheists I've met, only one actually respectfully disagreed with me on a topic about Christianity. The others started with insults, and moved on to criticizing my intelligence. Atheist to me isn't not believing in a God, it's more or less become anti-Christian.

 

whats worse, somebody who does good deeds because they are good deeds, or somebody who does good deeds because they will be rewarded in the afterlife? Think about that for a while.

 

Okay, I've thought about it, but you're premise is wrong. People don't do good deeds to be rewarded in the Afterlife. The point of the New Testament is to show that we have already made it to the Afterlife because of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for us, we don't need to do good deeds to raise our rewards in heaven. The impetus in performing good deeds is the fact that no matter how secretive we are about performing them, God will still see the Good deed, just as he sees the bad. And at the end of days, all of our sins will be laid bare before him. I personally want to limit that to as few as possible.

 

People change definitions all the time, in fact weve even changed the definition of the word man (all men are created equal meant "white men" whether you want to believe it or not, this is true) so why cant we change the definition of a less important word like Marriage, we can just call it {censored} marriage, because thats what it is, {censored} marriage.

 

Yeah, we changed the definition of something WE created. I can change the definition of something I did, it's mine, but Marriage was created by God. We have no right at all to change what Marriage is or what it isn't. God defined Marriage, and the laws were simply written down by Men commanded by God. Man didn't invent Marriage, so Man does not have any right to change it. In my opinion, Marriage is a far more important word than Man, so we shouldn't call it something it isn't. {censored} Marriage to me is an oxymoron, a homosexual bond between a man and a woman. By definition itself, it doesn't make any sense.

 

What do you mean by back in history we needed divine guidance to figure things out, can you give me an example, not related to the bible in some way? People had just as much guidance thousands of years ago as they did today, the only difference is that it was emperors masqueraded as gods rather than a book, theres really no difference.

 

Haven't you ever heard of the different Stories and historical writings speakings of Men and Women haunted in their dreams by a God. Or, a God sending messages to people while they sleep, or visions, or signs. This is all part of divine Guidance, helping an individual or a group of people along on their mission or quest. This could apply to any religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddism, etc etc. It could just be a random individual being given guidance by an unknkown deity. Stories of which have been circulated, and recorded for hundreds of years. Some of history's greatest men have claimed to have been given guidance by a God.

 

Many people point at our world today and say its the worst its ever been, but I beg to differ, I honestly think the world is a much better place than it was even 50 years ago, the only reason why we think the world is worse today is because we hear about things more, the news is worldwide, and isnt there to serve anybody, so it says whatever comes across the news desk, many of these events happened 50 years ago, we just never heard about it, ignorance is bliss...(sarcasm)

 

Oh yes, the world is a much better place when we have to worry about Mass Murder and Genocide rather than if our children packed their lunch before they went off to school. Now, instead of community problems, we get to worry about International Issues fueled by Nuclear Weapons. This isn't an illusion caused by increased communication, it's because the world's gotten worse. One can always argue that people are gaining more rights, and that now some groups are finally being treated as equals. But with more rights, we are experiencing more rights conflicts. The world is slowly losing a sense of Morality and placement, with people telling us we are virtually non-existant in comparison to the rest of the world, we are beginning to no longer care if we live or die. Murder rates are skyrocketing, violent crime rates have reached unheard of numbers, if you look at statistics 50 years ago, you'll notice not nearly half as many murders or violent crimes. Why? Because the world had morals.

 

Oh, and the fact that the news doesn't serve anybody is laughable. Objective News reporting is impossible, that's why we must continually check multiple news sources to check the validity of anything you see on TV.

[killbot1000]

Yes, because the Morals held by the Bible for example, as well as morals valued by other religious texts have become the norm of the society. Rather than being specifically concerned with Religious Morals, the Society has begun to pick up and use some of the morals for their own. I'm not trying to say that only Religious people have morals here.

There's one thing in not believing in a God, but some Atheists are downright abusive when it comes to Christianity. Now although I have no right to judge why that may be, for all I know they may have had negative experiences with it at a younger age, I don't see the reason why they have to be outright negative about it. Of all the Atheists I've met, only one actually respectfully disagreed with me on a topic about Christianity. The others started with insults, and moved on to criticizing my intelligence. Atheist to me isn't not believing in a God, it's more or less become anti-Christian.

Okay, I've thought about it, but you're premise is wrong. People don't do good deeds to be rewarded in the Afterlife. The point of the New Testament is to show that we have already made it to the Afterlife because of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for us, we don't need to do good deeds to raise our rewards in heaven. The impetus in performing good deeds is the fact that no matter how secretive we are about performing them, God will still see the Good deed, just as he sees the bad. And at the end of days, all of our sins will be laid bare before him. I personally want to limit that to as few as possible.

Yeah, we changed the definition of something WE created. I can change the definition of something I did, it's mine, but Marriage was created by God. We have no right at all to change what Marriage is or what it isn't. God defined Marriage, and the laws were simply written down by Men commanded by God. Man didn't invent Marriage, so Man does not have any right to change it. In my opinion, Marriage is a far more important word than Man, so we shouldn't call it something it isn't. {censored} Marriage to me is an oxymoron, a homosexual bond between a man and a woman. By definition itself, it doesn't make any sense.

Haven't you ever heard of the different Stories and historical writings speakings of Men and Women haunted in their dreams by a God. Or, a God sending messages to people while they sleep, or visions, or signs. This is all part of divine Guidance, helping an individual or a group of people along on their mission or quest. This could apply to any religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddism, etc etc. It could just be a random individual being given guidance by an unknkown deity. Stories of which have been circulated, and recorded for hundreds of years. Some of history's greatest men have claimed to have been given guidance by a God.

Oh yes, the world is a much better place when we have to worry about Mass Murder and Genocide rather than if our children packed their lunch before they went off to school. Now, instead of community problems, we get to worry about International Issues fueled by Nuclear Weapons. This isn't an illusion caused by increased communication, it's because the world's gotten worse. One can always argue that people are gaining more rights, and that now some groups are finally being treated as equals. But with more rights, we are experiencing more rights conflicts. The world is slowly losing a sense of Morality and placement, with people telling us we are virtually non-existant in comparison to the rest of the world, we are beginning to no longer care if we live or die. Murder rates are skyrocketing, violent crime rates have reached unheard of numbers, if you look at statistics 50 years ago, you'll notice not nearly half as many murders or violent crimes. Why? Because the world had morals.

 

Oh, and the fact that the news doesn't serve anybody is laughable. Objective News reporting is impossible, that's why we must continually check multiple news sources to check the validity of anything you see on TV.

 

When I said the news doesnt serve anybody, I meant that they serve themselves only, its about ratings, not reporting the news.

 

The crime rates have actually gone down for the last 10 years, the reason why the crime rate has doubled is because the number of people have doubled, maybe even more than doubled since 1950, the ratio of good people to bad people remains constant, violent crime is not at an all time high, its just been the same.

 

People have morals whether they have religion or not, religion doesnt give people morals, people give religion to morals.

 

God didnt create marriage, people did. It was a tradition of the father giving their daughter to another man, essentially selling her, (why do you think the woman changes her name?), it was never about love until the 19th century. God didnt create marriage at all, people did, and people can change the definition if they so choose, which they have done, throughout history.

 

Many atheists are abusive to christians because they themselves have been abused by christians, if you push somebody, they are likely to push back, religion or not, if one doesnt live in an enlightened environment, its hard to be an atheist, real hard, you wouldnt understand because the majority agrees with you, but if you were a minority religion, or if you didnt have a religion, youd understand.

 

Your statement about jesus makes even less sense than my statement about rewards, so whats worse, somebody who does good deeds because theyre good and goes to hell, or the convicted rapist who believes in jesus and goes to heaven?

 

Ive heard "stories" of people who have had "god" talk to them, but thats all they are, stories, they dont mean anything. Just because you talk about santa clause doesnt mean he exists.

 

 

But my main point, GOD DID NOT CREATE MARRIAGE, people did, I cant stress that enough, it was about ownership. The word family actually comes from a word that means slave, the man owned the wife and the children, they were his property to do with as he saw fit, not much more to it than that. I repeat, not created by god, its views like this that make me want to scream

[kday]

I say let's focus on topics that are important and really matter, and stop worring about this political nonsense. We have bigger issues to worry about.... like violent video games.

 

(kidding)

[killbot1000]

I say let's focus on topics that are important and really matter, and stop worring about this political nonsense. We have bigger issues to worry about.... like violent video games.

 

(kidding)

 

Thank god (jk) videogames should not even be on most peoples minds, let the kids have their grand theft auto heheh

[BMC6053]

Okay, but the New Testament mentions it too, in Romans, written by the apostle Paul. Particulary Romans 1:26-27, and Romans 1:32.

 

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

 

Again, very little interpretation to make here, fairly direct in its stating, and this time it is not part of Mosaic law. The Bible specifically mentions that homosexuality is a bad thing, it is a sin. And even still, we use parts of the mosaic law today, including the 10 commandments. So, I don't think we can just ignore what it says here.

 

Thats funny - I dont see the word "homosexual" ever appear in the bible so saying the bible specifecally mentions it is just wrong.

 

Second - If you only read bits and peaces your viewpoint would be not only justifiable, but absoulty correct. However, you should read further - The verses preceding 26 might indicate that he (Paul) was referring to sexual acts associated with idol worship. Also it is wise to read the preceding since it sheds light on what is actualy being said.

 

The Gentiles need the Gospel. (1:28-32) The examples of their "uncleanness" include idolatry and homosexual acts which are either connected to or resulting from idolatry.

 

It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual acts, not homosexuals. We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just assume that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context?

 

Also, as for athests - I never said they were better than anyone else .. I was only saying they live lives with morality without the need for a bible (or faith) to dictate their lives.

 

Ok - I think I should have some coffee now - I'm not a christian and all this bible talk hurts my head because the only references I have to the bible are from the king james version with all its awfull old english. Plus video games do sound more entertaining about now (GTA: Vice City LOL).

[Ouch]

On what basis should the levitican command be revoked by anything said in the new testament? Regardless of your interpretation of the passage above i don't understand how that question can be answered based on any biblical context.

[BMC6053]

On what basis should the levitican command be revoked by anything said in the new testament? Regardless of your interpretation of the passage above i don't understand how that question can be answered based on any biblical context.

 

levitican law is revoked via jesus' crusification of course. If not.. well then that would totaly suck. The christian authority best find a way to interprete them so they can use somthing other than stones.. because I'm sure the rest of the world for the most part would just lock anyone up who even dared to justify any crime against humanity because of livitcan law.

 

Which question exactly? In any case - one would have to resort to reading the bible to answear them.. and if the answear is not there then I guess the bible would be useless in this case now wouldn't it?

[drcreek]

But Science has no bearing, no measure on the human soul.

 

Souls are as much a belief as god. I personally believe in neither.

[Ouch]

levitican law is revoked via jesus' crusification of course. ...

 

Only the aspects of levitcan law which related to the forgiveness of sins are revoked on teh basis that jesus death was the ultimate sacrifice - this ordenance has nothing to do with forgiveness. You can't say that the entire old testement law became invalid because of jesus death and resurection.

[BMC6053]

Well then - Let the christians have Livitcan law then. I'm sure they'll be happy with that.

 

Stone anyone who has cloths made of two textiles.

Stone childreen who are disobedient.

Stone cheaters, theives and anyone who is not christian.

etc etc etc...

 

Lets see how far that gets anyone - And who ever belives that livitican law is just - They are admiting that human rights are invailid. Could you imagine a world under livitican law? IMHO that is the most discusting portion of the bible next to mosas killing people because of their belifes were different.

[Rhapsody Guru]

If {censored} want to get "married", they should move to Canada and stay there. I am against same-sex marriage because there is no benefit to society from it. Also, have you ever noticed that {censored} couples don't seem to stick together for very long? It's been said that on average, {censored} couples divorce every two years. I'm Roman Catholic by the way.

 

 

Guru

[gwprod12]

I'm against Catholocism because it has no benefit to society. Have you ever noticed how many Catholic Priests molest the children in thier congregations? Catholics should go to hell and stay there.

[Rhapsody Guru]

I'm against Catholocism because it has no benefit to society. Have you ever noticed how many Catholic Priests molest the children in thier congregations? Catholics should go to hell and stay there.

 

Actually, the Catholic Church has played an important role in society. Lets just look at the 1980's for example. If Ronald Reagan had not have the support of the Catholic Church, the Soviets would still be here today and the cold war would still be going on. And really, about the molester priests, the percentage of them is actually not that large and Priests are, in general, good men to be looked up to.

 

Guru

[gwprod12]

The Catholic Church supported the Nazis, Mussolini, The Crusades, etc. Point Proven.

[BMC6053]

If {censored} want to get "married", they should move to Canada and stay there. I am against same-sex marriage because there is no benefit to society from it. Also, have you ever noticed that {censored} couples don't seem to stick together for very long? It's been said that on average, {censored} couples divorce every two years. I'm Roman Catholic by the way.

 

Catholics should move to Canada. *JK*

 

Actualy, anyone with such a narrow point of view shouldn't be allowed to vote in the states. You are a prime example why we have seperation between church and state.

 

As far as so-called 'devorce' rates go... it isn't really that bad considering that the right of marrage is hardly available and rather new. It would only be natural for people with new found rights take advantage of them in the beggining .. we all know what happens when we rush (look at MS Windows ME for example LOL). Take a look at str8 people and the devorce rates too while your at it.

 

The cold war wouldn't still be going on and the catholic church really wasn't that big of a player in reality - Seems there was just a need to glorify a pope nothing more.

[killbot1000]

If {censored} want to get "married", they should move to Canada and stay there. I am against same-sex marriage because there is no benefit to society from it. Also, have you ever noticed that {censored} couples don't seem to stick together for very long? It's been said that on average, {censored} couples divorce every two years. I'm Roman Catholic by the way.

 

 

Guru

 

 

More like...Not Guru.

 

Im with GWprod on this one, catholics should go to hell, and stay there, heheh

[wildcat69410]

I'm against Catholocism because it has no benefit to society. Have you ever noticed how many Catholic Priests molest the children in thier congregations? Catholics should go to hell and stay there.

 

The molestation stuff has been overplayed by the media. Do you know how many cases there have been since 1970, only a couple thousand. Do you know how many teachers have molested their students since then, over one hundred thousand. Of course, we only hear about the priests, because some believe that's a bigger deal. I disagree. My point is that you can't characterize all Catholics under that because of a couple thousand child molestation cases. I'm not catholic and I can't see the logic in that at all.

 

Thats funny - I dont see the word "homosexual" ever appear in the bible so saying the bible specifecally mentions it is just wrong.

 

That possibly is the stupidest response I have ever heard against the bible. The bible doesn't mention abortion either, nor rape, nor grand larceny, but are does that mean the Bible doesn't have a problem with it? No! The bible doesn't say homosexuality directly, but what does a man lying with a man mean? It means a man having a sexual relationship with another man! And does anyone know what homosexuality is? Uhm, lemme think here, a Man having a sexual relationship with another man!

 

It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual acts, not homosexuals. We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just assume that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context?

 

Anything related with idolotry was already considered bad, that was stated in the 10 commandments, which even by your logic would still be in effect. So, Paul wasn't just speaking of Homosexuality in terms of idolotry. Never in the Bible is a sin considered okay everywhere else, but if commited here, or if commited with this specific group of people a bad thing. Sin is sin. Of course the Bible never mentions homosexuals, because the entire premise of the New Testament was to hate the sin, but love the sinner. The New Testament would never mention homosexuals in a negative way, just the acts they choose to practice.

 

The Catholic Church supported the Nazis, Mussolini, The Crusades, etc. Point Proven.

 

Not exactly. You can point out all of the negative influences Catholocism has had on society, but you can't forget the positive ones. It has held together, and provided hope and salvation for people for hundreds of years. Religion and a love for God has stopped people from committing suicide, and has provided some people a purpose to live. The Catholic church, although having had many mistakes, partially due to the fact it's been around so long, has done so much to the structure of society. You can't deny that the advent of Christianity hasn't had a positive influence on not only society, but all of Western Civilization.

 

Actualy, anyone with such a narrow point of view shouldn't be allowed to vote in the states. You are a prime example why we have seperation between church and state.

 

No, I think a better example is Atheists who can't stand the thought of anything Religious being an important part of anyone's lives. That's why we have separation of church and state.

 

As far as so-called 'devorce' rates go... it isn't really that bad considering that the right of marrage is hardly available and rather new. It would only be natural for people with new found rights take advantage of them in the beggining .. we all know what happens when we rush (look at MS Windows ME for example LOL). Take a look at str8 people and the devorce rates too while your at it.

 

The divorce rates may be high for straight people as well, but if what he says is true, homosexual marriages last about 2 years, then I can confidently say that Straight marriages are working a little bit better than your average homosexual marriage. Look at all the people out there who have been married 40, 50, even 60 years! Of course we can't exactly make that kind of comparison with a homosexual couple, as {censored} marriage hsan't been around as long, but how many {censored} couples have lasted half that time? I can guarantee you, divorcing after two years of marriage is bad, no matter how new your marriage is.

 

Your statement about jesus makes even less sense than my statement about rewards, so whats worse, somebody who does good deeds because theyre good and goes to hell, or the convicted rapist who believes in jesus and goes to heaven?

 

God asks us not to do good deeds to get into heaven, just to believe that he is who he is. A convicted rapist who ends up finding Christ and repenting his sins, has done what he needs to do. He's seen what he's done wrong, and he tries to fix it. That's all god asks us to do. God's made it pretty easy.

[gwprod12]

Where exactly do these "{censored} Marriage" statistics come from?

[wildcat69410]

Where exactly do these "{censored} Marriage" statistics come from?

 

That is a very good question, hopefully Guru didn't falsify that one.

[killbot1000]

That is a very good question, hopefully Guru didn't falsify that one.

 

Guru was pulling it out of his ass is what he was doing, theres no statistics on {censored} marriage, because its not allowed in most of the world, also, in the places where it is allowed, its only been allowed for a little while and theres not enough time to gather data, and even if hes right, so what? Strait people get divorced like theres no tomorrow, its nothing new, it has no bearing on this argument...

[wildcat69410]

Guru was pulling it out of his ass is what he was doing, theres no statistics on {censored} marriage, because its not allowed in most of the world, also, in the places where it is allowed, its only been allowed for a little while and theres not enough time to gather data, and even if hes right, so what? Strait people get divorced like theres no tomorrow, its nothing new, it has no bearing on this argument...

 

There's always time to gain statistics, just not necessarily accurate statistics. I'm waiting to see if he'll reply with the sources for those statistics. The reason is has bearing on this argument is because Guru is talking about the benefits of Homosexual Marriage to the society. The counterargument to that was how the divorce rate is so high on Straight Marriages, that there shouldn't be as much of an impact. If the divorce rates for {censored} marriages were as high, then their counterargument would be null and void.