Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
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.
Snake X wrote:
im just saying i take offence to the discrimination of the bible. Religion is a very touchy subject..
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?
SirCmpwn wrote:
Support your religion all you like, but the consitution dictates that the church and state *must* be seperate, so a religious based argument is completely and totally unacceptable, and the only argument that would fly is one based entirely outside of religion, hence why I said that no one was to justify their position based on religion in my first post!

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 Question

exept... Graphing Calculator rulz!
...
Back on topic now
calc84maniac wrote:
SirCmpwn wrote:
Support your religion all you like, but the consitution dictates that the church and state *must* be seperate, so a religious based argument is completely and totally unacceptable, and the only argument that would fly is one based entirely outside of religion, hence why I said that no one was to justify their position based on religion in my first post!

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
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.
SirCmpwn wrote:
Support your religion all you like, but the consitution dictates that the church and state *must* be seperate, so a religious based argument is completely and totally unacceptable, and the only argument that would fly is one based entirely outside of religion, hence why I said that no one was to justify their position based on religion in my first post!


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?

DShiznit wrote:
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.


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

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.

For those of you who don't know, the word Inalienable/unalienable is defined as so:
Dictionary.com wrote:
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

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.
graphmastur wrote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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.

graphmastur wrote:
I do not support same-sex marriage. I am heterosexual. As I do believe that religion, specifically Christian world view based on the Scriptures of The Bible, can be used as a valid argument, I will say that the when God first created Man, he created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.


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.

Quote:
As for a non-Christian view, evolution is what most of the scientific community believes, correct? Let's assume that Evolution created a man and woman, judging from the fact that they both exist today? Why would evolution force them to coexist? If evolution was to make same-sex marriage okay, then why did it not allow same-sex couples to be able to re-produce.


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.

Quote:
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?


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.
Snake X wrote:
I was pointing to the 'Bible says all sorts of ridiculously stupid crap' part.


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

For example:
Quote:
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

And
Quote:
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)


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.

Quote:
As for a non-Christian view, evolution is what most of the scientific community believes, correct?


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.

Quote:
Let's assume that Evolution created a man and woman, judging from the fact that they both exist today? Why would evolution force them to coexist? If evolution was to make same-sex marriage okay, then why did it not allow same-sex couples to be able to re-produce.


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.

Quote:
the scientific community does not "believe in evolution". natural selection/mutation/genetic drift has been proposed as a theory to explain why the things we see are the way they appear to be, and any legitimate conflicting evidence that may be found will be taken into account and this theory will be revised.


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 >:/
Kllrnohj wrote:

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.


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

Kllrnohj wrote:
Quote:
the scientific community does not "believe in evolution". natural selection/mutation/genetic drift has been proposed as a theory to explain why the things we see are the way they appear to be, and any legitimate conflicting evidence that may be found will be taken into account and this theory will be revised.


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.

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.
shmibs wrote:
however, beyond those points i must disagree with you. the scientific theory of evolution is still very much a “proposed theory.”


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:
Quote:
In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made that contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely.


Quote:
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.


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 Sad. Anyway, just instinctual I guess...
adept wrote:
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 Sad. Anyway, just instinctual I guess...


Quote:
I'm against it


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.
adept wrote:
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 Sad. Anyway, just instinctual I guess...


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

Not really a reason, now is it?
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 3 of 22
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement