Looks like Bush won ...

[Codemonger]

Codemonger:
Sorry if you felt insulted.
What i want you and other to understand is:

- 1)

Blame it on God and Christianity that's a good argument.

Lets suppose there is a God, or several Gods who created Earth and all, ok? Well, I've said lets suppose, this is lets get in the hipotetic case that God in which you (or whoever believer) believe. The question is easy: if we can not perceive it using our simple and mean senses and reason, then it is an invent, a tale, a story. Even finally the story is true or false, but NOW, FOR US, it is a tale. Aren't you agree with this easy argument?
I just call sickness to the believing and living into a tale.
As i've explained, I call tale to something which is an story based in ideas created by humans. Ideas which are always product of our fenotype (icons which are saved in our mind and body; some of them since our birth, and others saved by learning)
Tales created by humans needs, weaks and limitations are DANGEROUS TALES. (I explain this below very clearly in a short phrase in bold face font).

No I do not feel insulted. I'm not a church goer, and I do pitty the southern US protestant/baptists who take religion so serious that everyone else is evil and wrong. I am sorry that you feel this way about Christians, the Christians I know, where I live are really good people, play the same games you and I do, and surf the same internet. They are not bible thumpers.

I will be the last one to argue about whether GOD exists as they way you would like to percieve. I think Faith is much greater than a silly person or symbol of a person.

As far as tales go, I love Lord of the Rings (best movie ever, can't wait till DVD release). Anyway I wish I lived in that fairy tale, you know wizards, magic , hobbits and stuff. OH yeah I forgot. They just discovered what we would consider fairy tales of hobbits and halfling like humans ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm

So maybe their are explanations for events in the bible, explanation that are beyond simple human comprehention. I think you percieve Christians as taking the bible literal, when in fact the people that I know don't take it that seriously and do understand between fact/fiction. What you are suggesting is what I remember learning in Law class at College. Their are certain things that you simply can't proove, such as prooving that you flipped open a book yesterday or prooving that you took a piss last night, theirs a latin name for it too. Well my friend, that is how you would classify GOD, you just have to believe ... Don't take my word for it though ...

Also to think everyone in the world is wrong about God and you are right is almost a God-like complex in itself, wouldn't you say ? I would call that sickness to the believing and living into a tale.

[Codemonger]

Damn I keep on double posting ...

[the.weavster]

If nobody told you about god until you were 18 and then they sat down with you and said "look, there's this amazing chap called Mr God who made the universe in seven days blah, blah, blah..." you wouldn't believe them would you?

It's patently nonsense, it's only because you've had it drummed into your head since you were very small that you believe it.

Who cares if the Bible says marriage is for a man and a woman? It also says in Leviticus it's OK to have slaves as long as they are from a neighbouring country. Oh let's see... shall I have Scottish, Welsh or French

[Codemonger]

If nobody told you about god until you were 18 and then they sat down with you and said "look, there's this amazing chap called Mr God who made the universe in seven days blah, blah, blah..." you wouldn't believe them would you?

It's patently nonsense, it's only because you've had it drummed into your head since you were very small that you believe it.

Who cares if the Bible says marriage is for a man and a woman? It also says in Leviticus it's OK to have slaves as long as they are from a neighbouring country. Oh let's see... shall I have Scottish, Welsh or French

I don't think your getting it, I'm not preaching to you like you are preaching to me. It's you who wan't to force your values on me, not the other way around.

No, I don't believe God made the universe in seven days, I think your not too bright if you believe that it was drummed up in my head since I was little. I went to a Catholic elementary school and I never ever recall being told to take something like that literally. Your just being foolish.

Look, Gay marriage has been an issue that has recently climbed into the political arena in US. I'm not sure how 2000 year old bible gets dragged into it. I think liberals just wan't to force their values, which are probably not even the same values they were raised with, on other people and their families. I think that is wrong.

If you wan't to poke fun at a religion please poke fun at http://www.scientology.org/ first. A whole pile of hollywood stars have endorsed it.

The bible/slavery thing is just lame ... I never ever quoted the bible in any of my arguments, so what are you talking about ?

[J. Baker]

If nobody told you about god until you were 18 and then they sat down with you and said "look, there's this amazing chap called Mr God who made the universe in seven days blah, blah, blah..." you wouldn't believe them would you?

It's patently nonsense, it's only because you've had it drummed into your head since you were very small that you believe it.

Who cares if the Bible says marriage is for a man and a woman? It also says in Leviticus it's OK to have slaves as long as they are from a neighbouring country. Oh let's see... shall I have Scottish, Welsh or French

No, I don't believe God made the universe in seven days...

I believe, a day to GOD is a thousand years to us.

[GedB]

I think liberals just wan't to force their values, which are probably not even the same values they were raised with, on other people and their families. I think that is wrong.

How does allowing gay marriages force values upon you or your family?

Compulsive gay marriage, they would be focing values, sure. However, nobody in your family will be forced to marry somebody of the same sex. Where are values being forced?

Bill and Susan in HappyHampton re living the heterosexual dream, married since high school and still in love at 60. Will and Joel over in San Francisco get married, how is Bill and Susan affected, exactly?

Denying a gay couple marriage, on the other hand, is forcing you values upon somebody else. Will and Joel live together for 25 years. Will was the big wage earner, with Joel playing a more supportive roll. For the last 5 years Will was sick, very sick and Joel nursed him. In all this time his disapproving family refused to visit.

Now Will is dead and Joel has no rights. The home is has contributed to, the pension of his partner nursed for years, the results of their life together. He has no rights to any of it. It all goes to his legal next of kin, who haven't spoken to Will since he came out in the 80s.

Why? Because you don't approve of their lifestyle?

Please explain how allowing gay marriage is forcing somebody elses values onto you?

[Dare2]

Perhaps marriage should be seen as a formalisation of a union intent on propogation of the species.

Perhaps it should be seen as an institution that is entirely focussed on creating and raising children.

Perhaps, if seen this way, then the state can be seen to provides benefits for those involved in perpetuation of the species.



Marriage can have business arrangements between the partners, eg, pre-nuptials. This has nothing to do with the concept of raising a family, instead it is based on the relationship between two people.

Same sex unions can cover themselves with business arrangements of this nature.



Benefits (tax perks, etc) intended for those unions that ensure continuation of the species (Procreation, nurturing, etc) have no validity whatsoever for unions not intended for this.

This is Darwinism in the modern age. It has nothing to do with morality. Protect, improve, perpetuate the species.


Unfortunately male-female unions can be sterile, through choice, or through circumstance.

So rather than look at providing incentives to same-sex unions, perhaps there should be a rethink on incentives to traditional unions. Did the couple produce offspring? Did the couple provide for the children. Etc.

[localmotion34]

actually IN THE UNITED STATES:

loving vs virginia established marriage as a fundamental right, and ended the ban on interracial marriage. NOW:

go to alabama and see if a Baptist minister there will marry an interracial couple.

go to a judge next, HE MUST MARRY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

get married in a church where the priest has let his STATE licence to marry expire. see if the government considers you married.

marriage has a DUAL nature in the US. there is the CIVIL part of marriage that the government recognizes and establishes. and there is the RELIGIOUS. the government has used the term "marriage" to really mean "civil union", a LEGAL CONTRACT between people. all the government cares about is if the person who married you was LICENSED to perform a civil union.

with respect to same sex marriage, the government may not discriminate as to which people choose to enter a STATE SANCTIONED civil contract. when this reaches the US Supreme Court, they will apply Loving vs Virginia, and extend CIVIL marriage to same sex.

this doesnt threaten "marriage", it doesnt harm it. All they are asking is the ability to have EQUAL PROTECTION under the law in CIVIL CONTRACTS (14th amendment).

[GedB]

Perhaps marriage should be seen as a formalisation of a union intent on propogation of the species.

Perhaps it should be seen as an institution that is entirely focussed on creating and raising children.

Perhaps, if seen this way, then the state can be seen to provides benefits for those involved in perpetuation of the species.

So women should not be allowed to marry post menopause?

[Dare2]

So women should not be allowed to marry post menopause?

My post was attempting to explore when govt benefits should go to married couples, not whether couples can marry. Sorry for the poorly written post.

Perhaps there should be no benefits for couples unless the govt is assisting those bringing up children.

DINKs (Double Income, No Kids) = No special benefits via tax, etc.
Couple both working, with offspring = some benefit.
Couple, one working, one "parenting" = more benefit.

Of course it has complexities: Divorce, Widowhood, Unmarried mothers, de-facto v de-jura, etc.

But perhaps the only reason for a govt to differentiate with, eg, tax laws, is if there is a potential disadvantage for those who wish to have children and have a parent at home.

Also, any individual in a relationship with another (or with an entire mob of anothers, for that matter) can take whatever legal precautions they want regarding the relationship, the equiv of pre-nuptials, writing wills, etc etc.

So, perhaps the Govt should only concern itself with marriages/partnerships where kids are concerned.


Edit:

Because Kids are everything. They should be protected and nurtured to the fullest we can. Most creatures protect and teach their young.

[GedB]

Dare2,

Now I see that you are talking sense.

I totally agree. At the moment the law seems more concerned with property and morality than it does with the wellbeing of children.

[the.weavster]

I think your not too bright if you believe that it was drummed up in my head since I was little. I went to a Catholic elementary school and I never ever recall being told to take something like that literally. Your just being foolish.

Did you have to go to assembly and sing hymns and say prayers?

[Codemonger]

I think your not too bright if you believe that it was drummed up in my head since I was little. I went to a Catholic elementary school and I never ever recall being told to take something like that literally. Your just being foolish.

Did you have to go to assembly and sing hymns and say prayers?

Yeah we went to assembly like any other schools, had to sing sometimes though at assembly. Prayers are done in the morning. But I also taught high school at a public high school, so don't need a lecture on the differences of Private school and Public school. Big difference in teacher dedication though. My sister in-law teaches at a public school (grade 8's)by Toronto in Canada, and she enjoys it. They send their son to a Catholic school. Catholic schools have more funding, better text books, bigger budgets, and seem to have more commitment to the students in general. Thats my experience anyway. But that's a totally seperate subject and I'm sure it's drastically different all over the world.

[the.weavster]

No, I don't believe God made the universe in seven days, I think your not too bright if you believe that it was drummed up in my head since I was little.

Sorry but making you sing hymns and say prayers at elementary school qualifies as drumming christianity into your head when you are little.

I never ever quoted the bible in any of my arguments, so what are you talking about ?

If the bible is not your point of reference then what is your basis for objecting to gay men and women enjoying the same rights and privileges as you?

[Codemonger]

No, I don't believe God made the universe in seven days, I think your not too bright if you believe that it was drummed up in my head since I was little.

Sorry but making you sing hymns and say prayers at elementary school qualifies as drumming christianity into your head when you are little.

I never ever quoted the bible in any of my arguments, so what are you talking about ?

If the bible is not your point of reference then what is your basis for objecting to gay men and women enjoying the same rights and privileges as you?

Your nuts man, singing hymns is brain washing ? You live in a very isolated and cold, cold, world. You have no problem bashing my views, my upbringing, and you consistently bring up Christianity as a tool to manipulate the subject of how I personally feel about gay marriage.

Almost as if, if I was not Christian I would enjoy the thought of some guy sticking his rod up another guys harry a$$. In general the sexual connection is not family oriented to me and not marriage material. But then again I get the same feeling of a fat chick nailing a donkey (or even a fat chick nailing for that matter), I wanna puke, but thats my personal preference. I don't see God in there, do you ? Also homosexuality has never been brought up in any church that I have attended, and I've never seen it in the bible. So my religion has nothing to do with it. Just a personal preference and the same applies to gay marriage, you should not force your views on me.

On another note, marriage has already been defined Federally in US between a man and women. The ONUS is on 'you' to proove that this should change, not me. This is the same position that is taken in the states, this is what happens in a democracy. The Legislature and Courts are completely two seperate entities. Democrats/liberals will never be able to pass law changing what the federal definition of marriage between man/women, but they will try to take recourse through courts to say it's unconstitional. Good luck.

On a physchological note, when political issues of a sexual nature are brought up, people tend to take a personal stance and feel like their personal rights are being taken away. Whether you are on left/or right, this includes gay marriag, abortion etc.. This is why so many people went out to vote against Democrats in US.

One great and fantastic thing about Canada is in general we don't have people like you, we can actually speak our mind and not be persecuted or labeled like it's done in the US. That is one thing I will always enjoy about Canada, and the rest of the world could probably learn a lesson. I can have gay relatives, friends, and not include homosexualtiy as a family value in my family, I can talk to someone that has had an abortion and not hate them, but I am free to disagree with them. It seems like where you come from, if people don't think your way, they are racist, gay-basher etc.. Sounds like U.S. to me. So polarizing and secular, no value or morality is allowed. Religion is now considered bad by people who change their values on a yearly basis. That's awesome ...

Anyway this topic could go on forever and ever and is leaving no room for other off-topics. My last post in this thread.