PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     no religion in the law
       the bible is not a valid arugment

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
kill3rqu3en

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

whatever the bible says about the gay marriage should not be used as an argument for a topic of a law. it says the consitution that religion and state should not be brought together. the debate on gay marriage is about a law, which falls under the issue of state. the bible has no place in this issue and no place in the american government.

and if you are christian why is it a big deal. you're not comitting the sin, you're not the one who you believe is going to hell, and you can vote against it in the polls. so please don't stand up and try and stop people from being happy when it has nothing to do with you. it's your personal faith. keep it in your personal life and out of the government.


-------
“Buy the ticket, take the ride.” - Hunter S. Thompson
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 11:53 PM on August 15, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's true - this is probably the one time the government has to admit that they are allowing religion to dictate the law. It is the government's duty to ensure that the law applies fairly to all, and the issue of gay marriage just shows how they are failing to do what is right, fair and just in light of religious pressure. They are wasting the one opportunity they have to prove that the law is free from the influence of religion, and that is just so sad to me.  
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 04:24 AM on August 17, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, let's remove all laws that could possibly be religiously influenced... thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, we wouldn't possibly want to be accused of mixing religion (atheist word) with government.  There's no POSSIBLE way that the government is doing this simply because they believe it is unnecessary.  It reminds me of a joke I once read....

( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )
- - - -
  "Next."
  "Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
  "Names?"
  "Tim and Jim Jones."
  "Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
  "Yes, we're brothers."
  "Brothers? You can't get married."
  "Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
  "Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
  "Incest? No, we are not gay."
  "Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
  "For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
  "But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
  "Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
  "And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
  "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
- - - -
  "Hi. We are here to get married."
  "Names?"
  "John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
  "Who wants to marry whom?"
  "We all want to marry each other."
  "But there are four of you!"
  "That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
  "But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
  "So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
  "No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
  "Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
  "Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
  "All right, all right. Next."
- - - -
  "Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
  "In what names?"
  "David Deets."
  "And the other man?"
  "That's all. I want to marry myself."
  "Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
  "Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
  "That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"






-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:38 AM on August 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, let's remove all laws that could possibly be religiously influenced... thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, we wouldn't possibly want to be accused of mixing religion (atheist word) with government.  There's no POSSIBLE way that the government is doing this simply because they believe it is unnecessary.


Unlike laws against murder, manslaughter, rape, burglary, assault, etc, anti-gay marriage sentiments have no compelling reason.

"We would have to change the definition of marriage as provided by the English dictionary!" is hardly a compelling reason to deny 30 million Americans the right to marry one another, along with the 1,049 additional rights marriage entails.

"Allowing gay marriage will destroy the image of marriage!" is hardly a compelling reason to deny 30 million Americans the right to marry one another, along with the 1,049 additional rights marriage entails.

"Allowing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of worse practices, like prostitution," is hardly a compelling reason to deny 30 million Americans the right to marry one another, along with the 1,049 additional rights marriage entails. If that's the case, we should back up entirely and make it illegal for people of different races to marry one another.

"The [Holy Book] says [blank] is wrong!" is never a compelling reason on its own to deny any right. We might as well outlaw the slaughter of cows, because the Hindu religion is strictly against it.

"Allowing gay marriage will just encourage America's moral decline!" is nothing more than a religiously-subjective claim, and is hardly a compelling reason to deny 30 million Americans the right to marry one another, along with the 1,049 additional rights marriage entails.

Please, Edward. What's the compelling reason to deny 30 million Americans the right to marry one another, along with the 1,049 additional rights marriage entails?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:32 PM on August 17, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How can you deny something that was never granted?

I can't buy a thermonuclear warhead.  Someone, somewhere in the Pentagon probably can.  We are both U.S. citizens.  I've never had that right.  I don't see that right anytime in the future.  How am I being denied my rights?

You can't lose what you never possessed in the first place.  To say they are being "denied their rights" is to show an ignorance of the meaning of the very words.  There is no compelling reason to change it.

P.S.  Before you go quoting the 1049 additional rights marriage entails, you would do yourself justice to actually read the document from which this statistic came.  And I quote...

"Finally, no conclusions can be drawn, from our identification of a law as one in which marital status is a factor, concerning the effect of the law on married people versus single people.  A particular law may create either advantages or disadvantages for those who are married, or may apply to both married and single people.  For example, those who are unmarried fare better than their married counterparts under the so-called marriage penalty provisions of the tax laws, while married couples enjoy estate tax benefits not available to the unmarried.  Other laws apply to both married and single people by virtue of terms like "survivors," "relatives," "family," and "household."




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:09 PM on August 17, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Murder, theft, rape, incest, etc. are not outlwed due to religious influence.

They are outlawed because people know they are wrong - why?

Because they harm or have the potential to harm people physically, emotionally and psychologically.

Not because 'the Bible says so' - if that were true, premarital sex would be outlawed also.
Why isn't it?

Because people can see that it doesn't harm or have the potential to harm people physically, emotionally or psyhcologically.

Why should gay marriage be legalised? Because it doesn't harm or have the potential to harm people physically, emotionally or psychologically.

Why is it outlawed? Due to religious influence. This is unfair, unjust and extremely unconstitutional (if you're an American).  
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 04:04 AM on August 18, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, as I'm sure you know, premarital sex was against the law for the majority of this country's existence.  Many laws against it are still on the books, just not enforced.  Kind of like jay walking.  Not getting ticketed doesn't mean you didn't break the law.

Secondly, only an atheist can come to the conclusions you just made.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:08 PM on August 18, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, as I'm sure you know, premarital sex was against the law for the majority of this country's existence.  Many laws against it are still on the books, just not enforced.  Kind of like jay walking.  Not getting ticketed doesn't mean you didn't break the law.

Secondly, only an atheist can come to the conclusions you just made.


The point is, there is a reasonable foundation to the laws K8 listed. There is no such foundation in restricting marriage rights from 10% of the American population.


You can't lose what you never possessed in the first place.  To say they are being "denied their rights" is to show an ignorance of the meaning of the very words.  There is no compelling reason to change it.


You've got to be joking. What do you think the compelling reason to grant blacks the right to vote was? Or to grant marriage rights to different races?  Give me a break. The simple fact of the matter is that marriage supplies multiple advantages to its participants, including financial and mental support, and the homosexuals of America want that support they have thusfar been denied. The compelling reason in all civil rights battles has been based on the foundation of an American citizen's unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. In this instance, opponents of gay marriage have the burden of explaining why the homosexual population should be excluded from their particular persuit of happiness


Therefore, I'll ask it again (with your preferanced wording, if you'd like): What is the compelling reason to prevent the expansion of marriage rights to homosexuals?

"Finally, no conclusions can be drawn, from our identification of a law as one in which marital status is a factor, concerning the effect of the law on married people versus single people.  A particular law may create either advantages or disadvantages for those who are married, or may apply to both married and single people.  For example, those who are unmarried fare better than their married counterparts under the so-called marriage penalty provisions of the tax laws, while married couples enjoy estate tax benefits not available to the unmarried.  Other laws apply to both married and single people by virtue of terms like "survivors," "relatives," "family," and "household."


From what I gather in the citation above, the compelling reason to deny homosexuals this specific persuit of happiness is because it won't make them all that much happier. However, that decision is of course not up to anyone but those who are getting married.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/20/2006 at 02:01 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 01:53 AM on August 20, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 01:53 AM on August 20, 2006 :


Therefore, I'll ask it again (with your preferanced wording, if you'd like): What is the compelling reason to prevent the expansion of marriage rights to homosexuals?

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/20/2006 at 02:01 AM).


The Bible.

A book written thousands of years ago by men and edited by men.

A book that says wearing clothes made of different materials is wrong.

Yes, the fairness and legitimacy is almost shocking isn't it?



 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 05:36 AM on August 20, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 6:08 PM on August 18, 2006 :
Secondly, only an atheist can come to the conclusions you just made.


How so exactly?

 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 05:37 AM on August 20, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ent,
  Any homosexual, right now, today, can get married in any state in the Union.  The definition of marriage is (and I quote) "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."  In no state of the Union is this being denied to any person of legal age.

  Second, we are guaranteed the right to "pursue" happiness.  There is absolutely no guarantee that we will actuall achieve it.  Kind of like the way they perverted the obligation to PROMOTE the general welfare into PROVIDE the general welfare, but oh well.

  And the reason that I provided the quote based on your assertation that there were  1,049 additional rights marriage entails was to show that there are not necessarily 1049 additional rights.  And even amongst those that were "rights", many were not beneficial.  People throw the number 1049 around because it looks big and impressive, but it has no meat on it, so to speak.

Kate,
  As any non-atheist will tell you, religion is a made-up idea.  To the Christian (or Catholic or Protestant or Jew or whatever) there is no "religious" part of life.  God created all (including the conscience).  While its true that many people have managed to sere theirs, the basic moral compass that most every man and woman has is theirs because they are created in the image of God.  Only an atheist believes that man came up with morals all on his own.  And every law you stated has a moral underlining.  There is a reason that premarital sex, abortion, sodomy, pedophilia, necrophelia, bestiality and many other morally questionable ideas are (or have been until recently) against the law in this country.  Once upon a time this country's collective conscience had not been sered.  That day is quickly coming to a close.  The "pursuit of happiness" is the new rallying cry in this country (has been since the 60's).  Anything that gets in the way of "my happiness" is being put down and thrown out.  Why do you think so many denominational churches are becoming accepting of "alternative" lifestyles (to the point of making some of them "priests" and "elders") and spend more time on social programs than they do on preaching?  We have more John 3:16 churches in this country than any other kind  (you know, the ones who teaches "God loves you" every week and never touch any topic {divorce, abortion, any sexual topic} for fear that someone might be offended).  I've always figured if someone reading the Bible offends you, then maybe you ought to be paying attention to what they are reading.  Obviously this line of thinking is not going to get through to an atheist, but they have bigger problems in the first place.

Religion is not a part (or a way) of life.  What atheists call religion, Christians call life.  Your mother and father gave birth to you.  That is not "your belief".  That is not part of your "personal life" that doesn't have anything to do with the rest of life.  It is the truth.  Understand?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:17 AM on August 20, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Any homosexual, right now, today, can get married in any state in the Union.  The definition of marriage is (and I quote) "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."  In no state of the Union is this being denied to any person of legal age.


Same argument that was used against interracial marriage. You don't need to keep playing the word games; we both know I'm talking about homosexuals of the same gender wanting to marry each other.

And the reason that I provided the quote based on your assertation that there were  1,049 additional rights marriage entails was to show that there are not necessarily 1049 additional rights.  And even amongst those that were "rights", many were not beneficial.  People throw the number 1049 around because it looks big and impressive, but it has no meat on it, so to speak.


Not a problem. I'll replace "1049" with:

Retirement plans, continued health insurance, pensions, hospital rights, social security survivor benefits, freedom from taxation on health benefits for their domestic partner, etc...

More than a compelling reason.

Religion is not a part (or a way) of life.  What atheists call religion, Christians call life.


The secular government of the United States calls it religion.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/20/2006 at 11:53 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:49 AM on August 20, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The secular government of the United States calls it religion.


Well than I guess you'll have no problem with their definition of marriage.  Case closed.

P.S.  How do we get rid of this stupid right shift?  

(Edited by EMyers 8/20/2006 at 9:34 PM).


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:30 PM on August 20, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well than I guess you'll have no problem with their definition of marriage.  Case closed.


"Oh no! We'll have to change the definition of marriage if we allow homosexuals to marry! Imagine the utter panic it will induce on our country!"

... Not a compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage. At one time, the U.S. did, after all, define black people as 2/3rd's of a real person.

P.S.  How do we get rid of this stupid right shift?


K8 has to fix a problem involving a quote box html.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/20/2006 at 11:33 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:31 PM on August 20, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry - i don't know how i managed to do that...
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 07:36 AM on August 21, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And i maintain that it is quite possible that "morals" or "morality" develop from the empathy we as people have for each other. Some feel it, some don't so much or at all - hence why some adhere to what is considered 'moral' and why others don't.  

But when i say "what is moral" i mean e.g. not killing/raping/robbing/assaulting eachother - nothing to do with homosexuality as i do not consider that to be immoral on a societal basis, but simply on a religious one (actually, it's Biblical, so not necessarily what God believes).

And if religion just "is", and it is "truth" that God created us, then how can you tell a homosexual what they feel naturally / how they were born is immoral/wrong when God must have created them that way? Yes, i can hear you say a pedophile could argue the same thing, but for a pedophile to fulfill themselves sexually is to hurt another and THAT is immoral and wrong. However, telling a homosexual that they cannot fulfill themselves sexually because a book (i'll say it again - written and edited by  men)  says it would be wrong to do so is understandably ludicrous from their (an my) point of view. Surely you can see that...
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 07:52 AM on August 21, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And if religion just "is", and it is "truth" that God created us, then how can you tell a homosexual what they feel naturally / how they were born is immoral/wrong when God must have created them that way? Yes, i can hear you say a pedophile could argue the same thing, but for a pedophile to fulfill themselves sexually is to hurt another and THAT is immoral and wrong. However, telling a homosexual that they cannot fulfill themselves sexually because a book (i'll say it again - written and edited by  men)  says it would be wrong to do so is understandably ludicrous from their (an my) point of view. Surely you can see that...

I can see that an atheist would argue so.  And you are correct, the exact same arguments for "I was born that way" does apply to both.  And the responsibility for acting upon those feelings still rests upon the individual.  Besides, who really believes people are "born that way"?  I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I had no sexual attraction to anyone when I was six years old.  Didn't even know what sex was (I know, I grew up during a more "innocent" time OR I grew up in a "sheltered" environment OR whatever).  Do you really think a necrophiliac was "born" being attracted to corpses?  Really?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:10 AM on August 21, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well when did you choose to be a heterosexual?
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 08:04 AM on August 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Answering a question with a question... that always is a sure sign that you know what you are talking about.  Just to be fair, it was probably around kindergarten... I've liked the fairer sex since then.  Now try answering the question I posed instead of deflecting it.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:54 PM on August 25, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What? The question regarding a necrophiliac? Let me just find one and I'll ask.

Although, i don't actually agree with you drawing parallels between homosexuality and sexual attraction to various things (i.e. children, corpses, animals, inanimate objects, etc.) as anyone who is attracted to such things will still either be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Necrophilia (for example) is not a sexual orientation, rather a sexual attraction to corpses - a necrophiliac will still have a sexual orientation resulting in an attraction to males, females or both. So i guess i don't see the point in tracking one down and asking the question.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 12:18 AM on August 27, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Deflection!  You play soccer?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:10 AM on August 27, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed i do, actually.

However i don't see exactly how i can answer such a question anyway as i'm not one myself - i only say homosexuality is from birth as heterosexuality seems to be, and homosexuals seem to believe it to be so. Necrophilia on the otherhand is not a sexual orientation, so i can't say for sure where or when it begins - it's more a sexual attraction to a certain thing, a 'fetish' if you will, while homosexuality is one of three possible primary sexual orientations.  
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:58 AM on August 28, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, I can have an attraction to men, women, both, horses, corpses, blow-up dolls, apple pie, etc.  But only some of those are orientations and some are fetishes...  Let me guess, some psychologist came up with the line of demarcation.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:53 AM on August 28, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it's pretty obvious that the distinction between orientation and a fetish is the fact that one is plainly primary and the other secondary. One might have an attraction to a particular thing, but underlying that will be their primary sexual orientation - i.e. their attraction to men, women or both sexes. You could have a straight necrohphiliac, a gay necrophiliac or a bisexual necrophiliac - i.e. the first would prefer corpses of the opposite sex, the second would prefer corpses of the same sex, and the third would have it either way.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 06:53 AM on August 29, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I suppose you could have a regular bestial (not sure of the noun for that one) and a necrophiliac bestial as well.  Just because you can mix and match, doesn't mean they are two separate categories.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:20 AM on August 29, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's right, you can mix and match within the secodary category of sexual attraction (i don't know whether it's common, but it's certainly possible). But you can't in the primary category - you can't have a bisexual heterosexual, a homosexual heterosexual, a heterosexual homosexual or a bisexual homosexual, because they are the primary sexual orientations and it's one or the other. So the two must be different, and therefore the likes of pedophilia/necrophilia/bestiality etc. cannot be equated with homosexuality.  
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:01 PM on August 29, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wouldn't a heterosexual homosexual be a bisexual?  Or am I simplifying things?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:56 AM on August 30, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I knew you'd say that. No - you're either one of the three. A heterosexual homosexual or a homosexual heterosexual cannot exist as they must be one or the other or bisexual. A heterosexual homosexual makes no sense as the two cancel each other out - i'm just pointing out that you can't combine these primary sexual orientations.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 07:38 AM on September 2, 2006 | IP
77752

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In my opinion, all beleifs and all religions should be respected at a reasonable level in the eyes of the law, for example, Christians should be able to practice their religion, Muslims should be able to practice their religion, Jews should be able to practice their religion, Buddhists should be able to practice their religion, and so on, I beleive that people should respect other's beleifs and that all people should be able to have their beleifs, without others imposing their beleifs onto them, for example, A Christian should be able to Pray, Go to Church, and so on, without Others looking at them like idiots, Buddhists should be able to Meditate without being laughed at for being mad, athiests should be able to live without beleif without having every other religion attacking them what I have found is most with religous imposers, which is their "only way" talk, which is simply accusing athiests of being lost, satanic and wrong, I'm not trying to say that athiests are innocent, and are caught in the crossfire of a religous war, I know (and have been) atheists who have talked to Christians, and when they found out they were talking to beleivers, they challenged their beleifs, and offended them, I do not beleive in turning everyone into athiests, or Christians or Muslims, I beleive that everyone should be free to have their own religion, or no religion at all, without having it challenged by others, which I think is fair for everyone, except for those who cannot stand others having a different beleif to themselves, who I think are being slightly closed minded and need to be more accepting.


-------
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. Richard Armour
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 3:42 PM on September 16, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you saw a blind man walking into a busy intersection, would you try to stop him?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:07 PM on September 16, 2006 | IP
77752

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My point isn't that any religion is right or wrong, my point is that all religions and no religion should be respected equally, athiests are not living a bad life just because they do not beleive in any religion, just to clarify, by a blind man walking into a busy intersection, do you mean an athiest walking into hell or have I misunderstood?

I would stop a blind man walking into a busy intersection, but Christianity is faith, there is no undeniable proof of it's existence, as opposed to a busy intersection, which is undeniably dangerous, are you implying by any chance that Christianity is the only way?  If so, I would like to ask you to be more open-minded and respectful of other people's beleifs.
Thank You.


-------
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. Richard Armour
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 02:30 AM on September 17, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And by that I suppose you mean that Muslims, Druids, Wiccans, etc. all believe that Christianity "may be true"?  Ask a Muslim if they think Christians will get to meet Allah.  One can only deny the existence of God if one ignores the obvious.  In which case there isn't much I can do to open one's eyes.  It is my duty to try, as much as it's your duty to warn the blind man.  Those who don't believe in anything will fall for everything.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:22 AM on September 17, 2006 | IP
77752

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess what I'm tyring to say is I'd like the impossible, that people of all beleifs should be open-minded and respect the beleifs of others, to answer your question EMyers, no, I don't think that all Muslims, Druids, Wiccans, etc beleive Christianity may be true, as much as I'd like them to consider the possibility, that's just not the case, life's just too cruel.

And by "One can only deny the existence of God if one ignores the obvious." do you mean that the existence of the Christian God is obvious, because I personally don't see that as the case, for me, obvious is the fact that if you jump off a skyscraper, you're going to get hurt, obvious to me is if I post personally offending words, and call you names, then your response will be less hospitable than your last, that is what I call obvious, the Christian God is not obvious to me, I understand that the bible doesn't state that God is a big, huge 80 year old in the sky with a beard who casts light onto Earth with his holy might, if so, I'd have proof that the Christian God doesn't exist, instead, the bible states that God is invisable, physically untouchable, and does not intervene with events directly, and I respect what the bible states about the Chistian God, but whether God exists or not is an ultimate question, I do not mind if someone beleives in something I do not, I'm for abortion, I beleive that a woman should have the right to choose, but at the same time, I have seen incidents where women have used abortion as a form of birth control, using it several times a year, which I would find offensive if I was the doctor having to perform this abortion, (I got a bit off topic there didn't I?), my point is that in most topics, I am not the type who likes to be a "Right-Winger" or "Left Winger", a Liberal or A Democrat, I like to be a mix of Right and Left Wing, if either side was perfect for me, then I'd join them, but I have beleifs that both wings would support and oppose, and that's what I think everyone should try doing, in politics, you're either with us or against us, you can't be both, the two Wings hate each other so much, it's stupid, that's why I have a signiture that says what it says, because we've lost sense of right or wrong, we only have right or left now, two stubborn parties throwing mud at each others eyes and, attacking each other until the country they're supposedly trying to help becomes a shadow of their own stubbornness.

I hope I didn't stray too far from the subject there, I think I might of wrote a book there and responded to your post at the same time.


-------
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. Richard Armour
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 4:58 PM on September 17, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me state it this way.  If I look at the world, I can see that there is a design, an order to all things.  Where there is design, there is a designer.  Now why do I believe that Jehovah is the designer?  Because when I study all the different religious texts that are out there, only one can I lay down next to recorded history and find it to be true.  Do you have any idea how much time (and how much money) the Mormons (for one example) have spent trying to prove ANY of the history recorded in the book of Mormon?  The biggest obstacle between Christianity and its acceptance is the sheer number of people who have twisted the words of the Bible to their own end and have tainted the world's view of what Christianity is.  They deny it out of hand without ever studying it, because of the atrocities carried out supposedly in its name.

As for your "sig", I wholeheartedly agree with it.  I'd prefer there were no "parties" at all, but that will never happen.  Humans like to label people and groups are the easiest way to do that.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:04 AM on September 18, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from kill3rqu3en at 11:53 PM on August 15, 2006 :
whatever the bible says about the gay marriage should not be used as an argument for a topic of a law. it says the consitution that religion and state should not be brought together. the debate on gay marriage is about a law, which falls under the issue of state. the bible has no place in this issue and no place in the american government.

and if you are christian why is it a big deal. you're not comitting the sin, you're not the one who you believe is going to hell, and you can vote against it in the polls. so please don't stand up and try and stop people from being happy when it has nothing to do with you. it's your personal faith. keep it in your personal life and out of the government.



Where in the constitution does it say that? I carry a copy of it with me every where I go, and I have as of yet to find were it says separation of church and state. If you find it, please enlighten me.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 09:03 AM on February 7, 2007 | IP
Aino-Ailill

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 07:38 AM on August 17, 2006 :
Yes, let's remove all laws that could possibly be religiously influenced... thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, we wouldn't possibly want to be accused of mixing religion (atheist word) with government.  There's no POSSIBLE way that the government is doing this simply because they believe it is unnecessary.


The laws you proposed are not there solely due to religion, a law against homosexuality and homosexuals' rights would be. Comparing a law against homosexuality to one against murder is a false analogy in this case.










-------
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 9:56 PM on February 8, 2007 | IP
Aino-Ailill

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 09:03 AM on February 7, 2007 :
Quote from kill3rqu3en at 11:53 PM on August 15, 2006 :
whatever the bible says about the gay marriage should not be used as an argument for a topic of a law. it says the consitution that religion and state should not be brought together. the debate on gay marriage is about a law, which falls under the issue of state. the bible has no place in this issue and no place in the american government.

and if you are christian why is it a big deal. you're not comitting the sin, you're not the one who you believe is going to hell, and you can vote against it in the polls. so please don't stand up and try and stop people from being happy when it has nothing to do with you. it's your personal faith. keep it in your personal life and out of the government.



Where in the constitution does it say that? I carry a copy of it with me every where I go, and I have as of yet to find were it says separation of church and state. If you find it, please enlighten me.


"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." - Thomas Jefferson

This should make clear the intent of the first amendment was to establish a 'wall of separation'.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html


-------
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 10:03 PM on February 8, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I could be wrong, but I think he asked where IN the Constitution you found that.  But that's just me.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:12 PM on February 9, 2007 | IP
Aino-Ailill

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:12 PM on February 9, 2007 :
I could be wrong, but I think he asked where IN the Constitution you found that.  But that's just me.


I showed how the first amendment was intended to mean this and so it was implied in the Constitution.




-------
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 11:18 PM on February 9, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hardly.  How many people signed off on the constitution?  How is it that one letter written by Jefferson to state that he (i.e. the Federal government) would not interfere in a State's right to make decisions of a religious nature get warped into the idea that government (including the individual states which Jefferson's letter obviously SUPPORTS) must include this so called "separation of church and state"?  And what of the 55 total members that attended the convention that wrote the Constitution?  Why does Jefferson's views trump everyone else (providing we totally mangle what Jefferson said and assume that States can't make religiously based decisions)?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:04 AM on February 10, 2007 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How many people signed off on the constitution? How is it that one letter written by Jefferson to state that he (i.e. the Federal government) would not interfere in a State's right to make decisions of a religious nature get warped into the idea that government (including the individual states which Jefferson's letter obviously SUPPORTS) must include this so called "separation of church and state"?  And what of the 55 total members that attended the convention that wrote the Constitution?  Why does Jefferson's views trump everyone else (providing we totally mangle what Jefferson said and assume that States can't make religiously based decisions)?

I read the link posted by Aino and I also read this link http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/who2.htm

They say, "Separationists have long taken Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as an accurate and historically significant summary of the intent of the First Amendment. Indeed, we take the metaphor so seriously that we are sometimes accused of worshipping Jefferson, as if the only reason we think the Constitution requires the separation of church and state is because Jefferson wrote his letter. But this is nonsense; the history of the Constitution and the First Amendment is well documented, and it suggests beyond doubt that the framers wanted to put as much distance between government and religion as possible. Jefferson's metaphor is simply a handy way of stating the obvious. If Jefferson had never written his letter, we would still be defending the wall, since the wall exists in the Constitution itself."


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 11:10 PM on February 11, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree that the FEDERAL government can not make any law that ESTABLISHES a particular religion.  Why is it that we have warped this to mean that the FEDERAL government can not ALLOW anyone to do anything of a religious nature outside the privacy of their own homes?  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:35 AM on February 12, 2007 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

According to FindLaw.com, "State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court."

Why is it that we have warped this to mean that the FEDERAL government can not ALLOW anyone to do anything of a religious nature outside the privacy of their own homes?

This is way off topic, and false. You went from asking why states don't have the right to make religious decisions, to saying people aren't allowed to practice religion outside of their home? That's pretty extreme.


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 11:54 AM on February 12, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is extreme, that's the point.  The very document that "separation of church and state" zombies recite was specifically written to show that the FEDERAL government would not get involved in any way, shape, or form with the STATES rights to make laws concerning religion.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:08 PM on February 12, 2007 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wrong. Jefferson's letter was not promoting a states right to make laws concerning religion (where did you get that?). He just took the opportunity to reinforce the fact that the federal government couldn't. The only reason Jefferson was powerless to do something about the Danbury Baptist/Congregationalist problem is because "the First Amendment did not yet apply to the states."

Did you read the link I supplied in an earlier post?
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/who2.htm

This website goes further to address three other  common arguments against separation of church and state. You should read #1.



ARGUMENT ONE: The phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution

Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant. As noted earlier, separationists take this language from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he argued that the Constitution created a "wall of separation between church and state." But, as noted above, separationists have never taken the phrase as anything more than a handy (if historically significant) summary of the intent of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Separationist scholar Leo Pfeffer, for example, notes:

   "No magic attaches to a particular verbalization of an underlying concept. The concept at issue here is more accurately expressed in Madison's phrase 'separation between Religion and Government,' or in the popular maxim that 'religion is a private matter.'" (Church, State, and Freedom, pp. 118-119).

Second, accommodationists don't apply this argument consistently. Pfeffer, for example, observes that:

   (T)he phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles (pp. 118).


ARGUMENT TWO: Jefferson's "separation of church and state" letter was hastily written and does not accurately represent Jefferson's view of church and state.

On the contrary, Jefferson saw his letter to the Danbury Baptists as an important opportunity to clarify his policies concerning church and state and, hence, crafted the letter carefully. Indeed, Jefferson was so concerned about the wording of his letter that he sent a working draft to at least two people, Gideon Granger, his Postmaster General, and Levi Lincoln, his Attorney General. According to historian Dumas Malone (Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801-1805, p. 109), Granger wanted nothing in the letter changed. Lincoln, on the other hand, thought it would be prudent to eliminate the part of the letter in which Jefferson emphasized his opposition to proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving, on the grounds that this might cost him political support in the eastern states, which had long-established traditions of government proclamations of thanksgiving. Accordingly, Jefferson omitted this portion of the letter.


ARGUMENT THREE: Thomas Jefferson actually said that the wall of separation between church and state was "one directional."

This claim, frequently encountered on the internet and widely circulated by the religious right, serves as an excellent example of the lengths to which accomodationists will go to challenge the plain meaning of Jefferson's words. No one knows where this claim originated, but it was popularized by religious right author and anti-separationist activist David Barton in the first version of his hour-long videotape "America's Godly Heritage" (a second version omits this claim; see Rob Boston, "Sects, Lies, and Videotape," Church and State, April 1993). Additionally, Barton uses the "one-directional" language, without directly attributing it to Jefferson, in his 1989 book, The Myth of Separation, p. 42. Indeed, the claim was so widely accepted in religious right circles that it was repeated by the head of the Colorado branch of the Christian Coalition before the 1992 Colorado state Republican Party convention ("Sects, Lies, and Videotape," Church and State, April 1993).

Barton's claim is that Jefferson makes the following statement about his "wall" metaphor in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

   That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

Needless to say, Barton's claim is pure fantasy. Jefferson made no such statement, either in the Danbury Baptist letter or in any of his other writings. No professional accommodationist scholar gives Barton's claim the slightest credence. Still, the story continues to circulate, and has now become so widely disseminated among religious right activists that it has all but assumed the status of a religious "urban legend."

Barton's "one directional" wall story is only one of the many ways that the religious right attempts to discredit Jefferson's staunch separationism.


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 12:05 AM on February 13, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.