I'm not going to be responsible for starting a flame war. I have my stance. you have your stance.

That would have extreme repercussions, including the extinction of the human race.

That's understandable. So you object to the characterization of that particular passage as both irrelevant and offensive to modern society? Or you feel that it's still relevant and accurate? Or something in between those two extremes?

No, it says that the government will not establish a federal religion. In fact, none of the founders ever even mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state".

Good read: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123

Edit:
Oops, forgot about when Jefferson mentioned it. Slipped my mind, hehe. That is dealt with in the article though.

arg. so... confused... I don't get along with big words so im not sure what to say now

exept... rulz!

...
Back on topic now

This is correct, although many believe that Jefferson in particular was indeed interested in such a separation. Also, that's the reason I mention the 20th century Supreme Court rulings as strong support for my position of the current legal precedent of separation of church and state.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I'm straight, and it doesn't effect me. I've had sleep-overs with gay friends, and have not been molested, so even that argument is complete bullsh*t. However, you guys seem to think that the only opposition to gay marriage is bible-based. That's not entirely true. People may think, do to their religion or otherwise, that something is wrong. Most people acknowledge that murder it wrong, but not because the bible say so. Much the same, someone could argue that homosexuality is wrong, not because the bible says so, but because they believe it to be wrong. We don't make murder a crime because the bible says so, we make it a crime because we think it's wrong. Thus if people think homosexuality is wrong, the law shouldn't support it. In addition, If same-sex marriage is recognized by the government, then when marriage is discussed in tax-funded public schools(like, for instance, sex-ed), they'll have to teach that homosexuality is OK, which conflicts with the parents moral beliefs. I don't agree with this line of thinking mind you, it's just the kind of thing the other side would say, and I wanted to make sure to get that out there. Honestly, I think Kllrnoj said it best so far.

Okay, that phrase is been taken out of context so many times, it's starting to get annoying. There is a difference between them being separate, and them being in the opposite corner's of society. If you go back through time, you will see that what they were coming from was where the state and church were pretty much one in the same. Corruption ran through both of them. So, the authors did not mean that they shouldn't influence each other, but that they shouldn't be as one. Religious ideas permeate the state, and vice-versa. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Plus, if you say that we must be accepting to something totally foreign from the Bible as homosexuality, then you must at least give credence to the fact that that the Bible could hold bearing in this situation. You are against The Bible, and make no effort to even understand it. You make fun of the Bible, yet you don't even know what it says. You see a religious person as a lunatic, completely devoid of any truth or knowledge.

So, do you agree?



Actually, life is an inalienable right. In the Declaration, it says:

For those of you who don't know, the word Inalienable/unalienable is defined as so:

Now, it says that they are endowed, or given, by their Creator these rights that can't be given away. One of them is life. The founders of this country understood that there is a God, that he is holy, and that these rights are given by God, not by man, to all men. So, even so, Homosexual men have the right to life, liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. (As well as property, which isn't really shown in the Declaration, but it's God given and inalienable.) In other words, as much as I don't agree with them, they have as much right as straight people to do what they want. As do we, as non-homosexuals, have the same rights.

In essence, this discussion is fairly futile, as so far, this seems to be a Bible and religious bashing thread. Why? Because the thread was started that way. If you have read to this point, I applaud you. It is a long post.

This is just tautological snobbery.

Our forefathers most certainly did not intend for religious morality to influence law. They more closely followed in Deist values than religious dogma, which upholds that organized religion is slavish and oppressive. They were still very much religious, but believed religion was a largely existential matter.

For a society to unilaterally impose religious morality on others goes against the fundamental nature of freedom. If you cannot comprehend this, then please do us all a favor and don't vote - ever.



Appeal to unqualified authority. It doesn't matter if a person is, or is not, ignorant of the Bible. I'm not; but even if I were, you have no reasonable basis to rescind my civil liberties over it. Slap people in the face with dogma all you like, but you're not going to convince any reasonable person that it's logical to deny someone their civil liberties on the basis of personal faith. People will just reactantly dislike you for being a freedom-hating prude.



Then I guess you have a problem with God, since he / she / it is responsible for introducing homosexuality in species.

These appeals to God / nature make absolutely no sense. Homosexuality happens. Who or what is responsible for that? God or nature, depending on your beliefs. Why, then, are you asking humans to justify it? They're just living with the circumstances that were thrust upon them. Is it also my onus to justify why I have blue eyes, or dark hair? All I can do is try to be comfortable in my own skin. It's of no concern to me if some quality I possess makes you unhappy. That's a problem with you, and your values. Leave my rights out of it.



Homosexuality has not compromised the survival of any species; thus, it has not been removed from the genepool. Whether a genetic mutation is beneficial or not doesn't entirely matter, so long as it doesn't outright compromise the ability of a species to survive and continue to propagate this trait. Since homosexuality occurs so infrequently, it has no notable impact on population decline. Such a trait wouldn't even be permitted to spontaneously erupt in a large percentage of the population, simply because they would be unable to reproduce and spread this more aggressive version of the gay gene. (or genes)

Evolution is not a perfect design. It doesn't even occur with any specific goal in mind. It just occurs; and it often produces random effects that neither benefit nor hinder a species.

[quote=Elderofmagic]I am a homosexual, a very much jaded one, and painfully single. I say, if the straights have to suffer marriage, so too shall the gays. If you want to protect traditional marriage, let your father tell you who to marry, and outlaw divorce.[/quote]
agreed about traditional marriage, and sorry to hear about the other stuff...

Snake and Graphmastur: you guys are making a pretty large assertion there. if you want anyone to further address your issues give some evidence to back it up.



i have a similar opinion about the existence of "evil" in the world which so far no member of any religion has been able to explain. those who make an attempt seem to believe that it simply appeared all on it's own...
that's off topic, however(sorry)

im very glad to see so many intelligent arguments all in the same place and wish more forums were off this quality.

It *DOES* say all sort of ridiculously stupid crap. Here is a great collection of awesome passages: http://www.evilbible.com/

For example:

And


If the bible was law, how many of us would ever live to see adulthood? Probably about zero, yup, gonna go with zero.

It always amazes me how many Christians have never actually read the bible and have no idea how horrible it actually is.



Evolution isn't a "non-Christian" view. Being a Christian doesn't make you an idiot, you can absolutely be a Christian and still "believe" in science and fact. Heck, the Pope believes in evolution: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ Which makes sense, given that evolution is real. God may or may not be real, but we're pretty darn positive that evolution is real.



FYI, being homosexual doesn't mean your junk doesn't work. Gays have babies all the time - they just don't like making 'em as much as straights.

Also, evolution doesn't "allow" things - they just happen.



No, evolution is a *scientific* theory. People often like to say "Oh, it's 'just a theory'", but a scientific theory is nothing like the theory we use in normal speech. A scientific theory is more or less fact. Gravity is also "just a theory" - we are just as confident in evolution as we are in gravity. So confident, that it is a scientific theory. Really the only thing more certain than a theory is a law.

So no, it is not "proposed as a theory", it is accepted as the most accurate model of what happened. It is, to our best understanding, fact.

Kllrnohj knows his sh*t... and kudos for not bashing all Christians, I really appreciate that.

I don't see why everyone acts weirdly when they spot a gay/lesbian couple on the street. Being a musician*, I know quite a lot of homo- and bisexual people (of both sexes). You often don't even realize until they tell you. Given that they are just as normal as 'straights', why should we have more rights than gays?


* In the early music scene, 'coming outs' are more common than average.

D:

God wants me to hit babies against rocks, holy s*it


anywho, I must say, homosexuality is ok, despite what god wants to say, it is perfectly legal, no one is getting hurt, the gay couples are getting their happiness, I dont see what the problem here is >:/

thanks for bringing that up. i was a member of that same group not all that long ago.


i thought it would be obvious that i was referring to evolution as a scientific theory because i mentioned the scientific community in the previous sentence, and i emphasized “believe in evolution” because it seemed to me that graphmastur was referring to it as a faith-based system of beliefs similar to his own. however, beyond those points i must disagree with you. the scientific theory of evolution is still very much a “proposed theory.” it has undergone quite a few modifications over the years since darwin first proposed it, as has the theory of gravity since the days of newtonian physics. it's true that such theories are the closest to the truth as modern science can make them, and they are used as bases for many other theories, but that does not mean they are accepted as fact. the very reason that science is so useful is that NOTHING is accepted as unapproachable fact. true, there are some things that are far more trusted than others, but if any discrepancies are found between what is observed and the theories which have been constructed then the latter will definitely be the first to go.

That would make you wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory, period. It is not a "proposed theory", it is not a hypothesis, it is a full scientific theory. It can be discussed as fact.

For those who don't know, here is what a scientific theory is:




True, and also largely irrelevant. For one, it was not a scientific theory when darwin proposed it. Two, the past isn't now.

Also:

I'm against it. I dunno, I always have liked girls, and never thought of another man or boy in a romantic way. They're cool people, but I have not thought of them that way. It kind of creeps me out when I see other people that way . Anyway, just instinctual I guess...

I don't understand. You oppose same-sex marriage on the basis that homosexuality makes you feel uncomfortable? That's a slap in the face of civil rights.

It creeps me out when you talk, so I'm against you being alive.

Not really a reason, now is it?