The Church and the Government...

[NIIIC]

Every body knows the Pope did on Saturday 2 of this month. you also all know that most of the government chiefs were at the funeral. Maybe you also know that a few countries (Spain, Germany, France, parts of Switzerland and others) decided to bring the national flag at half-mast on every governmental building. What you might not now is that some of this countries are laic, including FR.

 

Now that the setting is done, we can go on to the problem.

 

In France, and maybe in other places, there was a very strong polemic : Was the French government, being laic, right to put the flags at half-mast, did they do to much or should they have done more?

 

The main argument for is that the Pope was not only a man of Church, but also a great man who worked for peace in the world.

The second one is that the Pope was the chief of country (Vatican) with who the French government has good relations.

 

The main argument of the opposition is that, maybe you heard of it, but a few month ago, the French government decided to forbid people to wear any religious things to school, well, they say that if you declare school non-religious, and the state at the same time, you can put the flags at half-mast.

 

A third smaller group think that the state should of declare a national mourning.

 

 

Now, what do you think.

 

May I ask you if it isn’t indiscreet, to precise at the end of you message, if your opinion could have been affected, or was affected by your opinion.

 

Also, please answer by giving your opinion on the French problematic, and your opinion on what should have been done, laic country or not if they are different.

 

Thank you

[BadSamaritan]

Polotics? On a gaming board? BLASPHEMY!!!

 

 

But anyways.... The French were right to lower the flag to half mast. Whenver any countries leader died, they should be honered in that way at least, even if you dont like them.

 

But since it was the pope, I think national mourning would have been appropriate also. The man did a lot of good for the world, and touched millions. he will probably be remembered as the most loved pope in history.

[Texas_Fett]

Another consideration is that France was known for ages as the "eldest daughter of Rome" for having such staunch support across the board for the Vatican and Catholicism in general. Now, 'separation of church and state' aside, (a phrase that appears NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or ANY legal document apart from the opinions of activist judges, thank-you-very-much. So long as Congress doesn't pass a law saying "Christianity is the only sanctioned religion of the US", we're fine. But I digress...) you cannot ignore the history of your country or the opinions and attitudes of the majority of your citizens. Honoring a religious and secular leader like Pope John Paul II is not an endorsement of Catholicism, contrary to the Socialist's perspective. I know they're trying to 'prevent the passionate upheaval caused by religious fervor in government', but really...

 

BTW, what does 'laic' mean?

[Mad78]

Laic means that the country does not belong to any religion. So you couldn't say the country was a catholic-country and so on.

 

To answer your question N3C i will quote what one of the french congressmen said:

"France is surely the only place were there is actually a question of if you should lower the flag."

I agree with that opinion.

Geneva did not lower the flag btw.

[NIIIC]

I know, Bern and most of the Cantons did, but GE, VD and NE decided not to, even though the CH federation asked each Canton to. For Geneva, I suppose it must be because it is historically a protestant church and because today more than half the population isn’t CH or Christian.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

First off, what is CH? Just a question...

 

Honestly, shows of solidarity regarding the Pope are entirely political in motivation. The fact that there were French representatives there is of little coniquence. Why is it that you didn't point out the leaders there from Middle Eastern countries? I would think that a representative from a country who's religious beliefs are so different was there would be more interesting than a relatively neutral party being there.

 

Add on to that the fact that Prince Charles, an anglican, was there, yet this is of no consiquence. At one point you couldn't serve in any important British office unless you signed a paper denouncing the Pope. You couldn't even be an officer in the army/navy if you were a papist.

 

I think that these officials being there make it obvious that these representatives were not there in relation to any religious statement, but in a show of respect for the man. The same can be said for flags being at half-mast.

 

 

Just as a side note, you might be interested TF, that the First and Fourteenth Amendmants to the US Constitution, though not using the exact phrase, essentially support such a separation.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

 

That's not to say there is a complete separation, but it is in your constitution.

[NIIIC]

CH means Switzerland.

 

I think that it was a good thing that the fags where put to half-mast. No because France was a Christian country, but because this last Pope was a great man not only for the Christian community, but for the whole world as well.

 

Maybe GAT and some of you have understood that I have personally asked my self if FR did too much. Not at all. Which means that I don't know why no one mentioned the fact that there were so many different religions present. For me it is as obvious as putting the flags to half-mast.

[Texas_Fett]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

emphasis mine - TF

 

That's not to say there is a complete separation, but it is in your constitution.

Precisely my point! The ONLY thing that the US Constitution says is that "CONGRESS shall make no law" It doesn't say a thing about prayer in schools (regardless of whether or not they receive federal money), the Ten Commandments in public buildings and courthouses, or even if individual States want to establish an official state religion! That section of the Constitution is listing the limitations of the Legislative Branch of our government, not limiting the actions of all Americans. It applies ONLY to the House of Representatives and the Senate.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Iin my opinion, a complete separation of Church and State isn't really possible, nor is it completely desireable. I'll speak in terms of Canada, since that is where my experience lies.

 

For the past twelve years Canada's ruling political party has been the Liberal Party of Canada (liberal here doesn't seem to carry the almost negative connotation it does south of the border), which is relatively neutral regarding religion. They still provide government funding to the nation's Catholic schools, though it is decidedly less than what the public schools get. The Government does not, nowever, provide funding to the various Muslem and Jewish schools in the country, nor do the provincial governments (though not all of the provinces are controled by a Liberal government. Some are Conservative). In addition, the Canadian constitution (which is far less cited than the American, and is probably less known), states that Canada is founded "under the supremacy of God" (which is apparently the chief difference between the Canadian and American constitutions). We also maintain the Queen/King of England as our Head of State, which is a religous position (as leader of the Anglican Church that is).

 

Despite this, most Canadian political parties (save for the current opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada) have done their best to be neutral in regards to religion while running the country. We do not have the ten commandments in our courts, we do not pray in our schools (well, not the public ones anyhow), and no province could declare a provincial religion. I think the current bill that is being pushed through Parliment is a perfect example of this.

 

Bill C-38 (I think) would establish the right for gay couples to marry. Now, the primary opposition for this bill are the religous organizations (sorry to say, but primarily Christian). Despite this, the Government is pushing ahead. There are arguments that marriage is sacred and what not, but as these areguments hinge on a religous base, the Government cannon in good concience consider them.

 

Of course, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which ensures religous freedom, which is the primary reason the Government can't pass any legislation based on such grounds. and I think it's a good thing to have.

 

That said, I think that the move toward neutrality in religion can go too far. American and Canada were founded on such principals, and some things should be left alone. I'm not against praying in schools, though I would rather it be kept to the Catholic schools. Public schools are intended to be neutral (teachers are prohibited from sharing their political views as well). The Ten Commandmends, though religous. are a good thing. Even if you're not Christian or Hewish, they represent a fundamental conept of right and wrong. A courthouse is a good place to have them displayed. A State or Provincial religion... well, that might be too far.

 

I know that a while ago there was a move to have a line cut from the Canadian National Anthem. In O'Canada there is a line tha goes "God keep our land". Some extreemests wanted to have it removed saying it was too one sided. Of course, this was thrown out, but there are other movements in this direction.

 

Well, this post may be a little disconnected, and for that I appologise, I'm trying to get some ideas down in as organized a way possible.

 

Just to put a little more light on this: everything above is from an atheist. I have no religion, and I think a perfect world would be one with no religion. I know that that isn't going to happen any time soon, and so I think that equality is the best way to go. Even in equality there must be some sacrifice. If we were to move to Iran we wouldn't expect them to suddenly change their ways to accomodate Christians in every way possible, as such the reverse is true. We do our best, but things (just using TF's examples) like praying in some schools (even ifthey are publically funded), or the Ten Commandments in a court room are not oppressing them, and so can be tolerated. Of course, once things move into discrimination you have problem...

 

I'll have to read this through and see if it makes any sense...

[Mad78]

Well first about the CH. It officially stands for Confederation Helvetique which is basically a posh way of saying switzerland but if you see a car with a CH sticker it means it comes from over here.

 

Now back to the church business.

I will start but telling you why Geneva did not put the Flags down. This is because Geneva has strict rule that flags will only be lowered for a a personnality who comes from Geneva. There have been exeptions though when there a was a bomb attack (I think that was what happened ) somewhere else in Switzerland. The Canton decided not to make an exeption and stuck to its rules.

 

About church and governement.

I already believe that church and school should be seperated. I think (unlike France) that students should be allowed to wear the mark of there religion if they wish as long as it does not disturb other people. But i also think that Teachers should stay neutral. By this i mean that they must not overly show there religion (ie they shouldn't come to class dressed as a priest).

Now this is basically how things are in Switzerland. But i could not tell you which religion is most present.

But it is also clear that religion will never be absent from politics. This is simply because religion will always in someway forge the opinions (religion is not the only thing to do this mind you) of people.

 

About this gay marriage thing.

I agree to allow gay religious weddings wouldn't be a good idea but a non-creligious wedding i believe could be allowed.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Well, as it stands, they will be able to be married in a church, so long as the church agrees to it. No church, mosque or sinagogue (sp?) can be forced to perform the ceremony. Remember, if they weren't permitted a religious ceremony it would be discrimination again.

 

The main opposition resides in the fact that the definition of marriage will be changed. IMO opposers are using the "but that's the way it's always been" defence simply to justify their religous beliefs.

[Mad78]

Well old habits are hard to change.

[Texas_Fett]

I think you may have it backwards, GAT. You said yourself that

"Canada is founded under the supremacy of God"

...and this is pretty much the same ideal behind the US Constitution. As such, fundamental Christian beliefs are inherently part of our respective societies and serve as the building blocks for our legal systems. Central to that theme is the the sacrament of marriage and it's definition as prescribed by God; i.e., between a man and a woman. Therefore, to challenge that definition and seek to change it undermines the foundation of the entire legal system which will, in turn, lead to even greater challenges which will eventually result in it's entire collapse. Best to avoid the end of civilization as we know it, IMHO.

 

Of course, from an atheist's perspective, that whole scenario may be hard to swallow, but that's the basis for the concept. We're not using a "but that's the way it's always been" argument...that's just childish. As is the "change/progression for change's/progression's sake". I mean, from a scientific standpoint, why are we even having a discussion about gay marriage, anyway? It flies in the face of 'evolution' and 'Darwin's Theory' to begin with, and whenever homosexuality occurs anywhere else in nature it quickly dies out since it goes against the natural order. Yet we, as humans, are suddenly above all that? Logical thinking there. I believe that is called a 'plot hole' in literature.

 

I'd go into more depth, but I've gotta get to work. Laters!

[Mad78]

Well law states that all people are equal in rights

[Texas_Fett]

Correct. I, also, do not have the right to marry someone of the same sex. We are, therefore, equal. Likewise, they have the same rights I do: to marry someone of the opposite sex and reap the 'benefits' of the marriage tax. Citizens of the US are entitled to "the pursuit of happiness."...they aren't guaranteed happiness. Just as people aren't guaranteed to have a good marriage. The 'right' to marriage, despite sexual preferences, doesn't exist.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Well, not in the US, and that is quite unfortunate.

 

Here, howver, it seems that we are able to take the values and ideas codified in our national Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, analyse them, and come to the conlcusion that the spirit in which they are enacted must certainly extend to homosexual couples. There is no section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that even mentions homosexuality, and yet it has been the fundamental source of support in he case fur same sex unions, and even the supreme court upheld that.

 

Now, you arguments are quite equivocational. No, you do not have the right to marry someone of the same sex, but you do have the right ot marry someone of the smae sexual preference as you (a person of the opposite sex). As the gay population is growing, I think such legislation is inevitable, or at least appropriate. If I recall, there was a time in your nations history that it was legal for white citizens to own black slaves. While this is certainly nowhere near the level of severity as that, I tink the equality concers are just as real...

Edited April 13, 2005 by Grand_Admiral_Thrawn

[Texas_Fett]

Well, not in the US, and that is quite unfortunate.

Huh? What's this in reference to?

 

Here, howver, it seems that we are able to take the values and ideas codified in our national Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, analyse them, and come to the conlcusion that the spirit in which they are enacted must certainly extend to homosexual couples. There is no section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that even mentions homosexuality, and yet it has been the fundamental source of support in he case fur same sex unions, and even the supreme court upheld that.

Ah, the old "Liberal Activist Judges" ploy, eh?

 

Now, you® arguments are quite equivocational.

Now, I take issue there. According to webster.com:

Main Entry: equiv·o·cate

Pronunciation: i-'kwi-v&-"kAt

Function: intransitive verb

Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing

1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive

2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

I am in no means attempting to deceive, and I'm quite committed in what I say. I'd counter that anyone attempting to argue that homosexuals are being denied rights is being "equivocational" in the first definition, although I don't doubt their commitment.

 

No, you do not have the right to marry someone of the (same) sex, but you do have the right ot marry someone of the smae sexual preference as you (a person of the opposite sex). As the gay population is growing, I think such legislation is inevitable, or at least appropriate. If I recall, there was a time in your nations history that it was legal for white citizens to own black slaves. While this is certainly nowhere near the level of severity as that, I tink the equality concers are just as real...

Again, gays have all of the same rights that I, as a heterosexual, do. They just choose not to exercise them. So now we're supposed to create new rights for them? Or even worse, redefine a fundamental tenet of the law despite its roots in Christianity for the sake of a tax break? I don't think so. If anything, I'd tentatively support a civil union, but gays should by no means have the same status as a heterosexual married couple, and should not be able to force society at large to accept that they're 'married'. (So much for freedom of religion!)

 

Their 'cause' is nowhere near the level of the civil rights movement for blacks/afro-americans/whichever-PC-term-is-in-vogue-this-week, and it's a travesty that they're seeking to make it so. Are they enslaved? No. Are they being denied rights? No. They are CHOOSING not to exercise them!

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Ah, the old "Liberal Activist Judges" ploy, eh?

 

This is something that has fonfused me for some time. How is it that every Republican, and indeed much of the American population, seems to think that the term "Liberal" bares a negotive connotation?

 

There are nine judges in the Canadian Supreme Court, one of whom is the Cheif Justice. Each is apppointed by the Governor General, a neutral member of the Canadian Government, who represents the King or Queen of England in Canadian government. I should point out that if you want to accuse any judges of being politically biased, perhaps the Supreme Court of the United States should be your target, as the Justices there are appointed by the President (although the Senate must approve them).

 

Now, I take issue there. According to webster.com...

 

I am in no means attempting to deceive, and I'm quite committed in what I say. I'd counter that anyone attempting to argue that homosexuals are being denied rights is being "equivocational" in the first definition, although I don't doubt their commitment.

 

I turn to the Oxford Dictionary:

 

 

• equivocal
   
  1 (of a word, expression, etc.) ambiguous or capable of more than one interpretation. 2 (of evidence, signs, etc.) of uncertain or doubtful significance. 3 (of a person, condition, tendency, etc.) questionable, suspect, of doubtful merit or character.
   
  equivocate
   
  1 hedge, precaricate, or use ambiguous words and expressions to mislead.

 

I think that 1 of both equivocal and equicovate are applicable here. You stated that gays have the same rights as you. As individuals, this would be correct. Taken into consideration with a gay couple, however, this changes. You could say that they have hte exact same rights as you, but they do not have the right to become joined in a civil union with their significant other. They do not have the right to the same benefits as a non-gay couple. Your words fit into the above because, though they have the same rights as you, those rights are not at all applicable to their situation.

 

My argument was not that they are being denied rights. That woud imply that the rights are there, but that they are not being permitted to exercise them. My argument is that they are being discriminated against because of their sexual preference.

 

Let us, for arguments sake, reverse the situation. If the opposite were true, and only members of the same sex could be married, would it be fare to prevent couples of different sex from marriage?

 

Again, gays have all of the same rights that I, as a heterosexual, do. They just choose not to exercise them.

 

Again, if you were in a society where only homosexual marriage was permitted, would you marry another man simply because that was your right? I have the right to own a gun, and yet I do not. Perhaps I should exercise that right because it's there?

 

So now we're supposed to create new rights for them? Or even worse, redefine a fundamental tenet of the law despite its roots in Christianity for the sake of a tax break?

 

Yes, heaven forbid you might make new rights! I don't think that's ever been done before... oh wait, I'm pretty sure it has. New laws are created and rights affirmed to adapt to the ever changing world. That's how democracy works. Ou do your best to provide equally for all.

 

Marriage predates Christianity, and before that, there wasn't any set rules or guidlines, and therefor nothing that stated "a woman cannont wed another woman, nor a man another man". I would suggest that you try and look at this by putting your religion asside. I know it is a difficult thing to do, I find it hard to look at things from the perspective of Christians, Muslems or Jews, but I do my best.

 

Tax break? Yes, I'm certian that is exactly what every gay couple is thinking of when they press for the right to wed. Might I suggest that you step off of that giant elephant for a moment and look at the issue?

 

I don't think so. If anything, I'd tentatively support a civil union, but gays should by no means have the same status as a heterosexual married couple, and should not be able to force society at large to accept that they're 'married'. (So much for freedom of religion!)

 

Yes, freedom of religion. So, are there Christian gays? I think there are. And accepting that they are married is not encroaching on your religion. An athiest can be married, and yet such a union certainly has no religous bearings on them. How is it any different for gays? Certianly a church should not be forced to perform such unions, that would be unfair. I am having a difficult time seeing how you differentiate between a gay and a strait couple. They are the same thing in terms of a relationship...

 

Their 'cause' is nowhere near the level of the civil rights movement for blacks/afro-americans/whichever-PC-term-is-in-vogue-this-week, and it's a travesty that they're seeking to make it so. Are they enslaved? No. Are they being denied rights? No. They are CHOOSING not to exercise them!

 

And as I said, their cause is nowhere near as serious. But allow me to use another analogy. For hundreds of years women were not people, they were property. Even in the early 20th century they could not be doctors, nor could they vote. I think you will find that this, too, is rooted in religous beliefs. Despite this, we've all learned that it was wrong, and that equality was very much deserving, and long overdue. [/i]Legally[/i] there was nothing wrong with those limitations, but morally there very much was.

[Texas_Fett]

This is something that has fonfused ( ) me for some time. How is it that every Republican, and indeed much of the American population, seems to think that the term "Liberal" bares a negotive connotation?

"Liberal" is a term in the American vernacular which describes a far-left political viewpoint. With little consideration for the rule of law (or the Constitution for that matter) a liberal seeks to redefine society at large based on what they perceive to be "fair" with little regard to the facts. As the previous two US Presidential elections and the last five Congressional elections show, the US population is growing more conservative in their idealogy after three and a half decades of the pendulum swinging toward the liberal view. Outrage is growing over "Liberal Activist Judges" who change laws by fiat rather than through the established legal system, overstepping their authority in the judicial branch. Much the same, there is growing unrest at Liberal Senators overstepping their authority in regards to filibustering judicial nominations. In short, a "liberal" is out-of-touch with Real America, as evidenced by their stubborn insistance that the reason they keep losing elections is because they aren't communicating their message loudly enough rather than the fact that more Americans are simply rejecting that message.

 

There are nine judges in the Canadian Supreme Court, one of whom is the Cheif Justice. Each is apppointed by the Governor General, a neutral member of the Canadian Government, who represents the King or Queen of England in Canadian government. I should point out that if you want to accuse any judges of being politically biased, perhaps the Supreme Court of the United States should be your target, as the Justices there are appointed by the President (although the Senate must approve them).

I was by no means accusing your Supreme Court; that was merely a jest. But the current U.S. Supreme Court sits at a 4-4-1 balance, with Ruth Bader Ginsberg as the "independant". I certainly won't vouch for their complete impartiality, but they have shown a bit more restraint than, say, the 9th Circuit (Circus) Court of Appeals.

 

I turn to the Oxford Dictionary:

 

 

• equivocal
   
  1 (of a word, expression, etc.) ambiguous or capable of more than one interpretation. 2 (of evidence, signs, etc.) of uncertain or doubtful significance. 3 (of a person, condition, tendency, etc.) questionable, suspect, of doubtful merit or character.
   
  equivocate
   
  1 hedge, precaricate, or use ambiguous words and expressions to mislead.

 

I think that 1 of both equivocal and equicovate are applicable here. You stated that gays have the same rights as you. As individuals, this would be correct. Taken into consideration with a gay couple, however, this changes. You could say that they have hte exact same rights as you, but they do not have the right to become joined in a civil union with their significant other. They do not have the right to the same benefits as a non-gay couple. Your words fit into the above because, though they have the same rights as you, those rights are not at all applicable to their situation.

Sure they have the same rights as a couple! They have the same right to become a heterosexual couple that I do! They could only claim inequality if I, or a certain demographic group, were allowed to wed homosexally and they weren't! There is NO inequality of rights here! And my words do NOT fit into your definitions, btw, (even though it's the same definition that I listed ) because there is no intent on my part to mislead! It's not my fault you're comparing apples and oranges.

 

My argument was not that they are being denied rights. That woud imply that the rights are there, but that they are not being permitted to exercise them. My argument is that they are being discriminated against because of their sexual preference.

No, they aren't being discriminated against. Period. They are being challenged on their attempt to redefine the institution of marriage. They want to force change upon the American public regardless of the consequences.

 

Let us, for arguments sake, reverse the situation. If the opposite were true, and only members of the same sex could be married, would it be fare to prevent couples of different sex from marriage?

Yes, it would be. But thank God, in his infinite wisdom, that this is NOT the case. And thank mother nature that the only way to reproduce where mammals are concerned is via a heterosexual relationship.

 

Again, if you were in a society where only homosexual marriage was permitted, would you marry another man simply because that was your right? I have the right to own a gun, and yet I do not. Perhaps I should exercise that right because it's there?

No, that would be a right that I would choose not to exercise, just as you have chosen not to exercise your right to own a gun. That wouldn't give me the 'right' to claim discrimination.

 

However, it's a moot point because any such society would be doomed to extinction within a single generation.

 

Yes, heaven forbid you might make new rights! I don't think that's ever been done before... oh wait, I'm pretty sure it has. New laws are created and rights affirmed to adapt to the ever changing world. That's how democracy works. Ou do your best to provide equally for all.

Not when inacting new legislation to accomdate the supposed inequity sacrifices the stability of the entire society. What about all the unintended consequences? Do you know who else is building on the "gay-marriage" bandwagon? Polygamists, pedophiles, bestiality...where does it end? No. Gay 'marriage' goes against the natural order (that's a scientific fact, not just a religious p.o.v.) and should not be rewarded. It has always contributed to or directly brought down societies, not enlightened them (i.e., Rome, Greece, Sodom & Gamorrah...). It is wrong. It is perverse. It is a sin. It cannot be tolerated, let alone thought to be the same as a married heterosexual couple.

 

Marriage predates Christianity, and before that, there wasn't any set rules or guidlines, and therefor nothing that stated "a woman cannont wed another woman, nor a man another man". I would suggest that you try and look at this by putting your religion asside. I know it is a difficult thing to do, I find it hard to look at things from the perspective of Christians, Muslems or Jews, but I do my best.

You're right. If anyone should have a say in this, it's the Hebrews. Oh, look at that! They're against gay marriage too! To go back to the beginning means back in Genesis...and we all know what happened there. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

And I would suggest that you look at this issue from the perspective that as an athiest you are just as prejudiced in your approach. Athiesm is actually described as a religion itself, since it is a belief that their is no higher power. I can no more "put my religion aside" than you can put your atheism aside. Your P.O.V. is by no means superior to mine, and your insinuation that it is is an insult to me and to millions of others who think likewise. You think it's some kind of crutch? A ploy? That I don't truly believe what it says in scripture? Do you think it's some delusional mass hysteria...a need for purpose and belief in what you deem (in your all-knowing atheist state) to be a false mythology? I sincerely hope not, but your comments are beginning to sound that way.

 

I'm talking about a society (i.e., The United States) whose entire legal and moral system was/is founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs, like it or not. Undermining those beliefs undermines the system. And "gay marriage" DEFINITELY undermines...well, everything. And you DO need guidelines for it to be considered a marriage. Where, in recorded history, has gay "marriage" ever been sactioned? What's more, in the unlikely event that situation has occured, has that society prospered? Now I don't mean that the act itself was 'sactioned' in that it was tolerated while everyone else looked the other way. I mean was the act of homosexuality and subsequent "marriage" ever condoned? Don't bother looking...we all know the answer. No, it hasn't, and for good reason. It's destructive to society. That's not just religious hysteria, either; history backs me on this one.

 

Tax break? Yes, I'm certian that is exactly what every gay couple is thinking of when they press for the right to wed. Might I suggest that you step off of that giant elephant for a moment and look at the issue?

Oh, I'm well aware of their desire for spousal powers regarding wills, right-to-life issues, etc. But I was simplifying the matter for the sake of argument. No 'elephant' (or Rhino) was involved.

 

Yes, freedom of religion. So, are there Christian gays? I think there are. And accepting that they are married is not encroaching on your religion. An athiest can be married, and yet such a union certainly has no religous bearings on them. How is it any different for gays? Certianly a church should not be forced to perform such unions, that would be unfair. I am having a difficult time seeing how you differentiate between a gay and a strait couple. They are the same thing in terms of a relationship...

Yes, there are Christian gays. Or rather, reformed Christian gays, as the majority have realized the perversion and sin of their ways and have since repented. As for those who want to blurr the line and continue practicing their 'lifestyle' while claiming to still be Christian...I definitely question their faith.

And yes, it does encroach on my religion to 'accept' a gay married couple. They cannot be married in Christ (as per Jesus' own words...it's a sin equal to witchcraft and idolatry, in that they cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven), therefore they are not married. And forcing me to 'accept' that they are married is an infringement upon my beliefs.

An athiest technically cannot be married in a Catholic Church, and such a marriage would be strongly advised against in any other Protestant Church as well.

A 'gay' and 'straight' couple are most certainly not the same in terms of a relationship. How can children be produced? Sure, there's adoption, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.

 

And as I said, their cause is nowhere near as serious. But allow me to use another analogy. For hundreds of years women were not people, they were property. Even in the early 20th century they could not be doctors, nor could they vote. I think you will find that this, too, is rooted in religous beliefs. Despite this, we've all learned that it was wrong, and that equality was very much deserving, and long overdue. [/i]Legally[/i] there was nothing wrong with those limitations, but morally there very much was.

True, but you'll also find that those old-time limitations on slaves and women were proven wrong scripturally, as well. No such chance on gay marriage. The strongest proponents of civil rights and suffrage were Christians. The strongest detractors of civil rights were Liberal Democrats. The US Civil Rights Act would not have passed without Republican support, as more than half of the Senate Democrats (including sitting Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd) voted against it.

 

Anyway, I've said my piece. I can dance in circles on this topic and I know I won't change your mind, GAT. But I do hope I've opened your eyes a bit.

 

"Any man under the age of thirty who is not a liberal has no heart...yet any man over the age of thirty who is not a conservative has no brain."

-Winston Churchill

[Guest JediIgor]

"The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds."

- John Maynard Keynes

 

It flies in the face of 'evolution' and 'Darwin's Theory' to begin with, and whenever homosexuality occurs anywhere else in nature it quickly dies out since it goes against the natural order.

 

Not at all. This is natural selection at its finest, the gays join in a union, cannot have kids, and the homosapiens have less people running around who disbelieve in opposite sex reproduction. If they adopt kids, all the better, as the government will have to pay less for orphanages (and hence tax us less).

 

"Liberal" is a term in the American vernacular which describes a far-left political viewpoint. With little consideration for the rule of law (or the Constitution for that matter) a liberal seeks to redefine society at large based on what they perceive to be "fair" with little regard to the facts. As the previous two US Presidential elections and the last five Congressional elections show, the US population is growing more conservative in their idealogy after three and a half decades of the pendulum swinging toward the liberal view. Outrage is growing over "Liberal Activist Judges" who change laws by fiat rather than through the established legal system, overstepping their authority in the judicial branch. Much the same, there is growing unrest at Liberal Senators overstepping their authority in regards to filibustering judicial nominations. In short, a "liberal" is out-of-touch with Real America, as evidenced by their stubborn insistance that the reason they keep losing elections is because they aren't communicating their message loudly enough rather than the fact that more Americans are simply rejecting that message.

 

Far-left? I always thought the far-left were communists or socialists. Actually, I think you have it a little wrong. It goes like this

 

radical (left-most)

liberal (slightly left of center)

middle-of-the-roader / moderate (middle)

conservative (slightly right of center)

reactionary (right-most)

 

At least according to the single axis theory anyways. Now if you are a Republican, or a conservative, to you a liberal will be anyone who is more left than you are, it's as simple as that.

 

But hey, maybe liberals are out of touch of America. Or maybe America is out of touch with themselves. Our voting outcomes are lower than before, who are we to say who the real America is if more than half don't even show up to vote for our President? As such, I don't really see our President even representing more than 25% of the nation.

 

Sure they have the same rights as a couple! They have the same right to become a heterosexual couple that I do! They could only claim inequality if I, or a certain demographic group, were allowed to wed homosexally and they weren't! There is NO inequality of rights here! And my words do NOT fit into your definitions, btw, (even though it's the same definition that I listed ) because there is no intent on my part to mislead! It's not my fault you're comparing apples and oranges.

 

Ok, now let's analyze part of the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

"All men are created equal." That's self-explanatory right, if they are equal, then why can some marry their loved one, and why can some can't? Ok, "Pursuit of happiness," well they are certainly barred from that if they can't marry whomever they want.

 

Let's see, the purpose of the Governments is to secure these rights, so I don't see what's wrong with changing current "rights" to what we are endowed with by the Creator.

 

"it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" -- that should be self-explanatory again, our rights need changing and it is our Right to alter the laws until they are as we see fit.

 

No, they aren't being discriminated against. Period.

That's just ridiculous, I leave an exercise to you to find articles where gays have been discriminated against, in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world. Hint: It has happened before, many times (the Army for one).

 

And thank mother nature that the only way to reproduce where mammals are concerned is via a heterosexual relationship.......................However, it's a moot point because any such society would be doomed to extinction within a single generation.

Test-tube babies? Cloning? Heh. This is the 21st century you know.

 

Gay 'marriage' goes against the natural order (that's a scientific fact, not just a religious p.o.v.) and should not be rewarded.

 

How exactly does it go against the "natural order?" As I have outlined above, married gays will not pass on their genes and hence the DNA in general will have more people inclined towards reproduction. You have also said yourself that gays cannot reproduce, so as long as we don't introduce laws to somehow allow homosexuals to reproduce, then we aren't going against the natural order, now are we? Marriages are only unions in the eye of God, and the State. They bear no relevance to whether or not one can reproduce with his or her loved one.

 

It has always contributed to or directly brought down societies, not enlightened them (i.e., Rome, Greece, Sodom & Gamorrah...).

That's interesting. Greece is still around today, as is the city of Rome. You go on to bring Sodom & Gomorrah, even though they aren't nations (and their existence even haven't bene proven yet)! Back to Rome though, I thought it was one of the greatest Empires of all times? And that it was brought down by barbarians and a failing economy? Maybe the Emperor was a homosexual Christian directly responsible! Yes, more conjectures!

 

It is wrong. It is perverse. It is a sin. It cannot be tolerated, let alone thought to be the same as a married heterosexual couple.

It's wrong? According to whom? Perverse? Sin? Cannot be tolerated?

 

I like all those conjectures there, except you forget there is a little something called freedom of religion in our country, so I really don't care for you trying to impose baseless Christian views on the government and laws.

 

To go back to the beginning means back in Genesis...and we all know what happened there. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Are you that dense? He was talking about ancestors of the Homo sapiens such as the Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, etc.

 

Athiesm is actually described as a religion itself, since it is a belief that their is no higher power. I can no more "put my religion aside" than you can put your atheism aside.

 

Nah, you can definitely put your religion aside. It's called keeping an open mind and using logic in your arguments instead of bringing God into it. One could argue with you an entire lifetime about the existence of God and it wouldn't (dis)prove anything. Therefore the atheists ask you to leave God out of it, just as they do.

 

I'm talking about a society (i.e., The United States) whose entire legal and moral system was/is founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs, like it or not. Undermining those beliefs undermines the system.

Yes to that first sentence. Refer to my quote of the Declaration of Independence for that second sentence.

 

Where, in recorded history, has gay "marriage" ever been sactioned? What's more, in the unlikely event that situation has occured, has that society prospered?

 

Are you serious?

 

Belgium: Legalized gay marriage in 2002.

Denmark: The first country to legalize same-sex unions in 1989, later giving couples adoption rights.

France: Allows civil unions since 2000.

Germany: Introduced civil unions in 2001.

The Netherlands: Became the first country to legalize gay marriages outright in 2001.

 

As to how are they doing, you may want to read the newspaper, but generally the euro area has economic growth on par with the United States.

 

No, it hasn't, and for good reason. It's destructive to society. That's not just religious hysteria, either; history backs me on this one.

Refer to above.

 

And yes, it does encroach on my religion to 'accept' a gay married couple. They cannot be married in Christ (as per Jesus' own words...it's a sin equal to witchcraft and idolatry, in that they cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven), therefore they are not married. And forcing me to 'accept' that they are married is an infringement upon my beliefs.

The issue isn't to make a law legalizing same-sex marriages by the Church, but for the State to accept same-sex marriages as legal. So just because they are cannot be married in the Christian sense, I don't see why they can't be married in the modern sense (that is a civil union between two people, usually granting certain governmental priviliges).

 

The US Civil Rights Act would not have passed without Republican support, as more than half of the Senate Democrats (including sitting Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd) voted against it.

At the time the Republicans were liberal (controlling the North), and that the Democrats were conservative (controlling the South). This is a moot point, akin to trying to prove that Republicans still have state rights on their general agenda.

 

I can dance in circles on this topic and I know I won't change your mind, GAT.

 

Most people's minds are already made up, they only stick to the views which they themselves find agreeable. I believe Tolstoy says this (or maybe Shaw?) but the exact quote escapes me at the moment.

 

But I do hope I've opened your eyes a bit.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

- Matthew 7:3

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Not when inacting new legislation to accomdate the supposed inequity sacrifices the stability of the entire society. What about all the unintended consequences? Do you know who else is building on the "gay-marriage" bandwagon? Polygamists, pedophiles, bestiality...where does it end? No. Gay 'marriage' goes against the natural order (that's a scientific fact, not just a religious p.o.v.) and should not be rewarded.

 

Well, polygamy happens in many segragated towns in the US already, yet the Government doesn't seem to be making any move against that. The otehr two, well, there is a slight difference. Pedophilia and bestiality encroch on the rights of another person, as well as violate other laws. Gay marriage does not. It is not illegal for some one to be gay (not in America anyhow). If gay marriage (though I think you meant homosexuality in general as well) goes against the natural order, how is it that it persists in society?

 

It has always contributed to or directly brought down societies, not enlightened them (i.e., Rome, Greece, Sodom & Gamorrah...). It is wrong. It is perverse. It is a sin. It cannot be tolerated, let alone thought to be the same as a married heterosexual couple.

 

Hmm, if I'm not mistaken Rome was ultimately destroyed by a little thing called Christianity. You see, when it was evident that Jesus was a hit with the masses, the Roman Emperor of the time decided that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. And thus the Roman Catholic Church was founded. Odd that such an institution's first leader was a pagan priest, and that most of the symbols still used today go back to pagan religions, but that's not what's at issue...

 

You're right. If anyone should have a say in this, it's the Hebrews. Oh, look at that! They're against gay marriage too! To go back to the beginning means back in Genesis...and we all know what happened there. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

Well, marriage predates even the Hebrews. I should also point out that marriage isn't strictly a religous affair. I could go to my local City Hall and simply apply for a Marriage Cirtificate, have my wife sign it, and BAM, we're married.

 

And I would suggest that you look at this issue from the perspective that as an athiest you are just as prejudiced in your approach. Athiesm is actually described as a religion itself, since it is a belief that their is no higher power. I can no more "put my religion aside" than you can put your atheism aside. Your P.O.V. is by no means superior to mine, and your insinuation that it is is an insult to me and to millions of others who think likewise. You think it's some kind of crutch? A ploy? That I don't truly believe what it says in scripture? Do you think it's some delusional mass hysteria...a need for purpose and belief in what you deem (in your all-knowing atheist state) to be a false mythology? I sincerely hope not, but your comments are beginning to sound that way.

 

I agree, my P.O.V. is quite biased by my "beliefs" and opinoins, and that my expecting you to put your beliefs and opinoins aside is quite unfair.

 

However, if you remove crutch, ploy, your not truly believing scriptrue, well, yes that would be my opinion of Christianity and of religion in general. I in no way think that athiesim is infallable, but I can no more budge from my beliefs than you can from yours.

 

I'm talking about a society (i.e., The United States) whose entire legal and moral system was/is founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs, like it or not. Undermining those beliefs undermines the system. And "gay marriage" DEFINITELY undermines...well, everything. And you DO need guidelines for it to be considered a marriage. Where, in recorded history, has gay "marriage" ever been sactioned? What's more, in the unlikely event that situation has occured, has that society prospered? Now I don't mean that the act itself was 'sactioned' in that it was tolerated while everyone else looked the other way. I mean was the act of homosexuality and subsequent "marriage" ever condoned? Don't bother looking...we all know the answer. No, it hasn't, and for good reason. It's destructive to society. That's not just religious hysteria, either; history backs me on this one.

 

Odd. For the last five or so months Gay Marriage has been quite legal here in Canada. I have yet to see the buildings crumbling, ruits in the streets, mass orgies, the corruption of our youth, or the destruction of society in any way. Things are going just as they were before. Maybe we need to add water?

 

Oh, I'm well aware of their desire for spousal powers regarding wills, right-to-life issues, etc. But I was simplifying the matter for the sake of argument. No 'elephant' (or Rhino) was involved.

 

The rhino is also a Republican symbol. I had it there to begin with, but then I had an inkling that elephant was more corect.

 

Yes, there are Christian gays. Or rather, reformed Christian gays, as the majority have realized the perversion and sin of their ways and have since repented. As for those who want to blurr the line and continue practicing their 'lifestyle' while claiming to still be Christian...I definitely question their faith.

And yes, it does encroach on my religion to 'accept' a gay married couple. They cannot be married in Christ (as per Jesus' own words...it's a sin equal to witchcraft and idolatry, in that they cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven), therefore they are not married. And forcing me to 'accept' that they are married is an infringement upon my beliefs.

An athiest technically cannot be married in a Catholic Church, and such a marriage would be strongly advised against in any other Protestant Church as well.

 

Again, a marriage doesn't have to occur in a Church, nor does it have to be performed by a priest or member of the cloth for other sects. My cousin, though Catholic, was married at a Golf course (quite beyond me why), and they were married by some one certainly not of a religous background.

 

If you look at the "Gay Marriage" bill here in Canada, no Church can be forced to perform a Gay union. That would be against their freedom of religion.

 

A 'gay' and 'straight' couple are most certainly not the same in terms of a relationship. How can children be produced? Sure, there's adoption, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.

 

Since when are children a prerequesite of a relationship? Many people get married yet never reproduce. Whta of the elderly? It's not uncommon for two 60-year-olds to wed, and I doubt at least one of them can't reproduce anymore.

 

Oddly enough this topic came up between some co-workers last night. One was opposed and one was for gay marriage. Sitting back I was able to see that both sides are equally stubborn in their support of their views.

 

Those for want equality. Sounds good, but they also want to impose something that is against the beliefs of a good number of people. It would hardly be fair to say "Yea, well suck it up. We're changing marriage!"

 

On the other side, the opposition wants to preserve their beliefs. This is completely fair. Why should they change them against their will. However, the majority religion and belief cannot overrule all (that's what happened in Germany, 1936).

 

So, would the following serve: Gays want to be able to be joined in some sort of union that gives them the same rights as a couple as a strait couple. So, create a new term rather than change an existing one. "Gay Union" or some such. They would have all of the benefits of a strait couple, but it does not change the definition of marriage, would be specific enough to avoid other groups, such as polygamists, from moving forward. and in general would keep every one happy.

 

Though this would still be contradicted by some of Fett's arguments, I would point to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a UN document, signed by every nation represented here in the forums).

[Texas_Fett]

Not at all. This is natural selection at its finest, the gays join in a union, cannot have kids, and the homosapiens have less people running around who disbelieve in opposite sex reproduction. If they adopt kids, all the better, as the government will have to pay less for orphanages (and hence tax us less).

Which just proved my point.

 

Far-left? I always thought the far-left were communists or socialists. Actually, I think you have it a little wrong. It goes like this

 

radical (left-most)

liberal (slightly left of center)

middle-of-the-roader / moderate (middle)

conservative (slightly right of center)

reactionary (right-most)

 

At least according to the single axis theory anyways. Now if you are a Republican, or a conservative, to you a liberal will be anyone who is more left than you are, it's as simple as that. ( -TF)

 

But hey, maybe liberals are out of touch of America. Or maybe America is out of touch with themselves. Our voting outcomes are lower than before, who are we to say who the real America is if more than half don't even show up to vote for our President? As such, I don't really see our President even representing more than 25% of the nation.

Actually, we've had higher turnouts over the course of the last three elections. 48% in '96 to 51% in 2000 to an estimated 54% in the last one. And if over half of registered voters are having their say...that's a good thing.

 

Ok, now let's analyze part of the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

"All men are created equal." That's self-explanatory right, if they are equal, then why can some marry their loved one, and why can some can't? Ok, "Pursuit of happiness," well they are certainly barred from that if they can't marry whomever they want.

Not at all. They are free to pursue their happiness. They just can't marry another homosexual.

 

Let's see, the purpose of the Governments is to secure these rights, so I don't see what's wrong with changing current "rights" to what we are endowed with by the Creator.

 

"it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" -- that should be self-explanatory again, our rights need changing and it is our Right to alter the laws until they are as we see fit.

Except that no rights are being trampled on, so no change is necessary.

 

That's just ridiculous, I leave an exercise to you to find articles where gays have been discriminated against, in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world. Hint: It has happened before, many times (the Army for one).

What, you think it's an arbitrary decision? No, there are reasons why gays aren't allowed in the military, and disruption of unit cohesiveness is but one of many. It's a DESTRUCTIVE 'lifestyle', and one that cannot be allowed into the military. Sure, there are areas other than the gay marriage debate (which was the subject of the argument and the reason for my statement above) where descrimination is necessary. You can't just let anyone into the military; you have to discriminate. I can't fly a fighter jet because of my vision, but I'm not about to storm congress because I can't adequately "pursue happiness" because of it.

 

Test-tube babies? Cloning? Heh. This is the 21st century you know.

And also not part of the natural order.

 

How exactly does it go against the "natural order?" As I have outlined above, married gays will not pass on their genes and hence the DNA in general will have more people inclined towards reproduction. You have also said yourself that gays cannot reproduce, so as long as we don't introduce laws to somehow allow homosexuals to reproduce, then we aren't going against the natural order, now are we? Marriages are only unions in the eye of God, and the State. They bear no relevance to whether or not one can reproduce with his or her loved one.

Geez, again you've just proven my point. It's against the natural order, hence they can't reproduce.

 

That's interesting. Greece is still around today, as is the city of Rome. You go on to bring Sodom & Gomorrah, even though they aren't nations (and their existence even haven't bene proven yet)! Back to Rome though, I thought it was one of the greatest Empires of all times? And that it was brought down by barbarians and a failing economy? Maybe the Emperor was a homosexual Christian directly responsible! Yes, more conjectures!

You know as well as I that I was referring to the Grecian civilization that was conquered first by the Persians and then the Romans. The Romans had a failing economy, true, but the decadence of Rome and the atrophy of it's armies (due to relaxed standards) were also direct causes.

 

And I take offense at your last line, JI. I expected better of you.

 

It's wrong? According to whom? Perverse? Sin? Cannot be tolerated?

 

I like all those conjectures there, except you forget there is a little something called freedom of religion in our country, so I really don't care for you trying to impose baseless Christian views on the government and laws.

That's your right, just as it is mine to disregard yours.

 

Are you that dense? He was talking about ancestors of the Homo sapiens such as the Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, etc.

Was he? And we're sure they married, are we? That's a rather civilized development, and one that I would find to be quite above the missing links...that is, from what we know of them, which isn't much.

 

Nah, you can definitely put your religion aside. It's called keeping an open mind and using logic in your arguments instead of bringing God into it. One could argue with you an entire lifetime about the existence of God and it wouldn't (dis)prove anything. Therefore the atheists ask you to leave God out of it, just as they do.

So it's impossible to "keep and open mind" and/or be logical if you're religious? And somehow the prejudice atheists bring to the argument is somehow superior to anyone else's argument? That sounds awful 3rd-Reich-ish, JI.

 

I'd say y'all should try to be open minded and see the argument from our side, rather than just dismissing outright it from your obviously superior intellect and position.

 

Yes to that first sentence. Refer to my quote of the Declaration of Independence for that second sentence.

I fail to see what bearing that has on things, other than to hint you're for the downfall of society. Personally, I'd rather try to rescue what we have before resorting to armed insurgency and the overthrow of government, but hey! Whatever floats your boat...

 

Are you serious?

 

Belgium: Legalized gay marriage in 2002.

Denmark: The first country to legalize same-sex unions in 1989, later giving couples adoption rights.

France: Allows civil unions since 2000.

Germany: Introduced civil unions in 2001.

The Netherlands: Became the first country to legalize gay marriages outright in 2001.

 

As to how are they doing, you may want to read the newspaper, but generally the euro area has economic growth on par with the United States.

Ah yes, the almighty Euro. We'll see how long the corrupt European Union lasts. It even doubts the longevity of it's own existence because of it. Great for trade (assuming you can eliminate the corruption), but they cannot agree on any other aspect of existence.

 

I'd refer you to the birth rates of pretty much all respective European countries. You have to maintain an birth rate of 2.1 to maintain your population size. Each Western European country has a birth rate below 1.5! (Great Britain might be an exception, though. See this story for more info. Or here.) That, my friend, is NOT a sign of a prosperous society. That's a dying one. I'd like to stop the trend here in the US.

 

Refer to above.

 

The issue isn't to make a law legalizing same-sex marriages by the Church, but for the State to accept same-sex marriages as legal. So just because they are cannot be married in the Christian sense, I don't see why they can't be married in the modern sense (that is a civil union between two people, usually granting certain governmental priviliges).

As I already said, civil unions don't particularly bother me. It's when they begin attempting to redefine marriage that I take issue.

 

At the time the Republicans were liberal (controlling the North), and that the Democrats were conservative (controlling the South). This is a moot point, akin to trying to prove that Republicans still have state rights on their general agenda.

Republicans were liberal? They were even more conservative than they are now! Isolationist, protectionist...you name it! Democrats were more conservative than they were now, but they've been drifting left since then. JFK was pushing tax cuts, for Pete's sake! But all in all...a pretty accurate assessment.

 

Most people's minds are already made up, they only stick to the views which they themselves find agreeable. I believe Tolstoy says this (or maybe Shaw?) but the exact quote escapes me at the moment.

Cuts both ways, don't it?

 

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye, ’when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

- Matthew 7:3

Now that's taking scripture out of context! Now I'm a hypocrite? For what, not compromising my beliefs?

 

Thanks for the riposte, JI. I'd love to continue, but I'm gone for the next month. Glad we've at least tried to keep things civil.

[Guest JediIgor]

Which just proved my point.

No.. since it follows the law of natural selection, it doesn't go against natural order. Going against natural order would be cloning people or changing their DNA. Choosing to die out because of a lack of desire to reproduce does not go against the natural order.

 

Actually, we've had higher turnouts over the course of the last three elections. 48% in '96 to 51% in 2000 to an estimated 54% in the last one. And if over half of registered voters are having their say...that's a good thing.

In the 1800s there were voting turnouts of 80+%, specifically in the Gilded Age. 54% is nothing to be glad for, especially when you account for the people who voted for Bush/Kerry and you will see that they don't even have a simple majority of the U.S. population.

 

Not at all. They are free to pursue their happiness. They just can't marry another homosexual.

Read Declaration of Independence repeatedly until you see the fact that our nation was founded on the notion that laws should change when they bar the pursuit of happiness. If to achieve happiness you need to marry someone of the same sex, that's certainly barring the pursuit.

 

Except that no rights are being trampled on

Correct. There is a lack of rights, therefore the Right (notice the capital R) is to change the current rights (lowercase r) until they are more suitable.

 

What, you think it's an arbitrary decision? No, there are reasons why gays aren't allowed in the military, and disruption of unit cohesiveness is but one of many. It's a DESTRUCTIVE 'lifestyle', and one that cannot be allowed into the military. Sure, there are areas other than the gay marriage debate (which was the subject of the argument and the reason for my statement above) where descrimination is necessary.

I choose not to respond to this since it's wholly based on opinion.

 

You can't just let anyone into the military; you have to discriminate.

Excuse me, how does your sexual preference affect how well you can follow orders, fire a gun, protect your country etc? None of the goals in the military is to reproduce with someone of the opposite sex, so to discriminate on something irrelevant is to discriminate without reason.

 

I can't fly a fighter jet because of my vision, but I'm not about to storm congress because I can't adequately "pursue happiness" because of it.

Your vision would impair your ability to fly a fighter jet. Your sexual orientation wouldn't. If you want to storm the Capitol building (which I assume is what you meant when you said congress), I will support you given you have the correct reasons for doing so (i.e. Congress is slowly replaced by a bunch of evil aliens bent on taking over the world).

 

Geez, again you've just proven my point. It's against the natural order, hence they can't reproduce.

Ok, if you still think it goes against natural order, think about mutations. Species mutate all the time, and if they mutate successfully, for the better, their DNA is passed on. Otherwise they will not be able to reproduce and the faulty mutations will not get passed on. So then the lack of reproduction completely follows the laws of natural selection.

 

You know as well as I that I was referring to the Grecian civilization that was conquered first by the Persians and then the Romans.

Heh, and then Alexander the Great came out of nowhere and went as far East as India taking over almost all of the known world, becoming the new Emperor of Persia as well. Oh, wait, and he was possibly homosexual to boot.

 

I'll have you know by the time the Romans rolled around (who respected the Greeks very much, eh) the leftover Alexandrian empire of Generals Ptolemy and Seleucid were still around.

The Romans had a failing economy, true, but the decadence of Rome and the atrophy of it's armies (due to relaxed standards) were also direct causes.

Ok. Did you just forget to mention homosexuality here, or did you finally realize it had nothing to do with the decline and fall of Rome?

 

And I take offense at your last line, JI. I expected better of you.

I expected better of you. You denied my points of the Declaration of Independence, but I failed to see your interpretation of the quotes I cited. And if you don't believe in the founding document, then how can I prove to you the legitimacy of the issue?

 

That's your right, just as it is mine to disregard yours.

I offer proof and evidence. If you see me make a conjecture, please point it out to me and I will offer logical or factual evidence alongside it.

 

Was he? And we're sure they married, are we? That's a rather civilized development, and one that I would find to be quite above the missing links...that is, from what we know of them, which isn't much.

Oh, really, so just because they had a different word for it back then, it doesn't mean they were married? So because the Russian word for marriage, брак, isn't the same as the English word, it means the people in Russia aren't married? *gasp*

 

Civilization has nothing to do with it. As long as they were recognized in the eyes of their peers and betters as being *married* in their words of the time, they effectively were. Back then the authority were the tribal chieftains and the elder mothers, now they are just replaced with the Government and the State.

 

So it's impossible to "keep and open mind" and/or be logical if you're religious? And somehow the prejudice atheists bring to the argument is somehow superior to anyone else's argument? That sounds awful 3rd-Reich-ish, JI.

Okay, so go ahead and mention God. Oh, yeah, he's omnipotent.. and omniescent.. so that means he must be against gay marriage, right? God has nothing to do with it.

 

You could of course say.. "but the Bible says so and so on page X of Book Y" but may I remind you that there is no proof that the Bible was written by God?

 

You want to keep an open mind, try arguing without fundamentalist Christian beliefs and you'll be fine.

 

I'd say y'all should try to be open minded and see the argument from our side, rather than just dismissing outright it from your obviously superior intellect and position.

Yes, I totally said I had a superior intellect and position. If you think so genuinely though, thanks.

 

I fail to see what bearing that has on things, other than to hint you're for the downfall of society. Personally, I'd rather try to rescue what we have before resorting to armed insurgency and the overthrow of government, but hey! Whatever floats your boat...

I didn't mention anything about armed insurgency, where did you get that idea from?

 

Ah yes, the almighty Euro. We'll see how long the corrupt European Union lasts. It even doubts the longevity of it's own existence because of it. Great for trade (assuming you can eliminate the corruption), but they cannot agree on any other aspect of existence.

I'd like to see evidence of the corruption please without linking to any Eastern European country (which are in the process of purging corruption). Once you can do that I will see if that statement is arguable. Until then it is a conjecture.

 

I'd refer you to the birth rates of pretty much all respective European countries. You have to maintain an birth rate of 2.1 to maintain your population size. Each Western European country has a birth rate below 1.5! (Great Britain might be an exception, though. See this story for more info. Or here.) That, my friend, is NOT a sign of a prosperous society. That's a dying one. I'd like to stop the trend here in the US.

A birth rate of 2.1?

 

I thought this was basic math.. as long as the birth rate > death rate, it doesn't matter what the birth rate is. The birth rate can be 0.1 and if the death rate is 0.05 then the country has a net growing population.

 

To rebut your article, look at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ee.html and you will see that since 2004 their birth rate has been slightly here than their death rate. Declining society? Hardly.

 

As I already said, civil unions don't particularly bother me. It's when they begin attempting to redefine marriage that I take issue.

Maybe you should try banning marriage outside of the Church, since obviously by your definitions marriage is a union between two people of the opposite genders in the eyes of the (Christian) God.

 

Republicans were liberal? They were even more conservative than they are now! Isolationist, protectionist...you name it! Democrats were more conservative than they were now, but they've been drifting left since then. JFK was pushing tax cuts, for Pete's sake! But all in all...a pretty accurate assessment.

Go read your history books, Amendments such as #14 and #15 were passed thanks to Republican support. Lincoln himself was a Republican. Views change.

 

Right now both the Republicans and the Democrats are closer to the center than before. If the trend continues we may see a new party (hard left, or hard right) become popular in the future.

 

Cuts both ways, don't it?

Most people Fett. Most. My views are changed in school daily, or by conservations with the family. For example, before this year I thought that Bush's tax cuts were a completely idiotic idea. Now, I can see that his fiscal policy pulled us out of recession. On the other hand, we went to war soon after and the increased government spending pulled us further into debt.

 

Now that's taking scripture out of context! Now I'm a hypocrite? For what, not compromising my beliefs?

 

Heh, you saw the hypocrite sentence and failed to see the sentence that says people see small flaws in others while miss the major flaws in themselves? Very interesting selective reading there. Feel free to put it back into context anyways, since you think it's out of it.