You CAN post in this thread anonymously by logging out and posting in this thread as a "guest". This is one of the only threads with this type of set up. Due to the subject and very passionate emotions people have about it, we have set up the anonymous guest posting to encourage participation from people who might not otherwise feel comfortable.
Sergio wrote: Cole wrote:You showed a great deal of prejiduce against religious folk in that post as well. You also showed ignorance and you need to clarify your argument.
First off, you need to distinguish the difference between 'religion' and 'organized religion'. For example, the organized body of the Catholic Church has severely deviated not only from Biblical beliefs, but it has gone onto something totally different entirely. Religion, on the other hand, would be Christianity in general, which is governed by the teachings recorded in the compiled Bible (whether you want to observe the Bible of Sinai or the Bible of Nicea as your Bible, it does not matter, however I doubt anyone here has ever layed eyes on the Bible of Sinai, including me).
Second off (trying to keep up with consistancy), I do not understand how you can easily annouce the prejiduce that organized religion has against homosexuals, but you refuse to show your own prejiduce against religious folk. How can you denounce ignorance in general when you are ignorant yourself? To denounce prophets of God as 'make believe' and to label our Holy Book as a nonsense book of 'Mythical Fairy Tales' is pure and simple prejiduce not only against what we believe, but who we are. You are generally denouncing the whole of men who believe in God as ignorant and without intelligence.
If you want to express any viewpoint that includes accusing another of prejiduce, do not express your own prejiduce, that makes you look like a hypocrite.
And I usually do these disclaimers late at night: It is 2:30AM; when I stay up this late I usually find myself in an extremely cloudy and unhappy mood, if any of my post offended you at all, I apologize. I am sure you are a very intelligent and independant individual, I am just trying to point out my perspective.
Thanks!
And Good NIGHT!
(Post Script: Sergio, how about you register? You have a couple posts here, it may be nice to register at this point.)
I have only made 2 total posts on this site and an unsure if I will register, but thanks for the offer. Personally I enjoy the opportunity to post anonymously.
Back to the topic. I have no "prejudice against religious folk" as you stated, but I am willing to look at it with open eyes that see both ways, unlike you, who seems to only see it one way and one way only. I am not saying you are incorrect, but I just don't believe the same thing. You will NEVER see/read/hear me telling you not to believe in your religion, gods, books, or telling anyone of any other faith that. I respect the beliefs of others, while not practicing or believing the same things. OK, that said let's move on.
Why do I have to distinguish between organized religion and religion. That is irrelevant in my opinion for this discussion. My point all along is that gay marriage should be allowed. It should not be compared to the marriage of a human and an animal.
Maybe I should not have jumped on Lpspider for any specific "religion" issue related to this topic, but his post did say: If the issue at hand (gay marriage) deals directly with an issue directly associated with religion (marriage) then yes.
Question: Do you think 100 people should be able to get married to each other or than a man should be able to marry his horse? So I made the wrong jump to where I did. But regardless of if I think anyone's religion, gods, or stories are real or not does not change the fact that everyone should be allowed to marry who they want to and be happy with their own lives. This practice has been around for thousands of years.
And I think you Cole have said that if marriage is an accepted government union then you are OK with it, but not if it is a religious accepted union. OK, I can live with that IF the religious lobbyists and supporters would stay out of the issue and just let the different states legalize gay marriage. But every time the issue comes up it is the religious protesters that do everything to defeat it.
As you said you posted late at night, well it is the same for me early in the morning, lol I am very well read up on both different areas of religious belief (Hinduism, Confucionism [father/son], Judaism, Islam [the 2 latter are Abrahamic though]) as well as Atheism (The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins). I know my stuff when it comes to what I believe, unlike many other Christians. I have seen everything, and still hold my faith, it's not like I ignore everything but my own side.
roadkill wrote: You're comparing gay people to horses. What the hell is wrong with you.
no, I'm not. Being gay does nothing to affect one's status as human. I'm simply comparing the ability to "change the definition" of something, such as marriage.
MH0825 wrote: You're being a little ridiculous with that example though. If you give a horse rights for marriage you're then stating it should have human rights. If that's the case, no more buying or selling horses because you can't do that with humans.
You avoid the point, though. We're talking about the definition of something. If we can change it for one thing, why not another?
With all due respect - because your argument is completely silly, pointless, and to be honest irrelevant . Marriage is two humans. the debate here is if it can be man and a man or woman and a woman, as well as man and a woman. Your bringing up the horses and the bestiality just exposes your obvious and blatant prejudice that you are trying unsuccessfully to hide behind silly thoughts of a human marrying an animal.
It is not irrelevant nor silly nor pointless. While we are talking about a man marrying a man or a woman and a woman the fact is that CHANGES the definition of marriage. as would Multiple partners in marriage or marriage to animals.
You say marriage is with two humans. Marriage was with two humans of the opposite gender. Now youre saying it should be between two humans. next it'll be between unlimited humans. Then humans and animals. lpider, it is people like you who will always refuse to grasp that this is not a new thing. While not the majority, these types of relationships have been around for thousands of years. And it is the institution of religion that has used its make believe prophets and as someone else posted on this site mythical fairy tales to further a prejudice that has existed for hundreds of centuries. Let's not forget for one second that religion as a whole is "a business" and always has been. Simply put allowing homosexual marriages would be bad for business and bad for the institution they are trying so hard to protect, but failing more and more in recent times...
Firstly, I fail to see your point. And if you think that religion is simply a business, well, then I pity you.
Lpspider wrote: MH0825 wrote: You're being a little ridiculous with that example though. If you give a horse rights for marriage you're then stating it should have human rights. If that's the case, no more buying or selling horses because you can't do that with humans.
You avoid the point, though. We're talking about the definition of something. If we can change it for one thing, why not another?
Definitions change all the time. Intepretation changes. Your point is it shouldn't change becaus of religious beliefs. That is your only backing to why you think it shouldn't change. If not, give me a reason why you think the definition shouldn't change?
We change definitions and meanings of laws all the time as the world progresses. What is the reason this one can't change? Because the bible says no? Absolutely the worst reason ever if it is.
If we are to follow the rules of the Church then who can be married? The bride in white is a symbol of??? Do we remember? and when we stand there in the church we say yes to (forever) I'm not gay but I don't live up to all the rules that are set by the church..
Sorry but that's life. Does that make me a bad person??
MH0825 wrote: Lpspider wrote: MH0825 wrote: You're being a little ridiculous with that example though. If you give a horse rights for marriage you're then stating it should have human rights. If that's the case, no more buying or selling horses because you can't do that with humans.
You avoid the point, though. We're talking about the definition of something. If we can change it for one thing, why not another?
Definitions change all the time. Intepretation changes. Your point is it shouldn't change becaus of religious beliefs. That is your only backing to why you think it shouldn't change. If not, give me a reason why you think the definition shouldn't change?
We change definitions and meanings of laws all the time as the world progresses. What is the reason this one can't change? Because the bible says no? Absolutely the worst reason ever if it is.
No. My point is that it shouldn't change at all, not because of religious beliefs. And if it was to change why not change to the more extreme cases in which I gave examples for? Why should it change? It's been standing as it is for hundreds and thousands of years. Why change it now, when the minority wants it?
euroman wrote: If we are to follow the rules of the Church then who can be married? The bride in white is a symbol of??? Do we remember? and when we stand there in the church we say yes to (forever) I'm not gay but I don't live up to all the rules that are set by the church..
Sorry but that's life. Does that make me a bad person??
umm.... what?
spider: "No. My point is that it shouldn't change at all, not because of religious beliefs. And if it was to change why not change to the more extreme cases in which I gave examples for? Why should it change?"
What's so different about a man and woman wanting to get married and a man and man getting married?
It's about legal status, tax purposes, etc. It's two people who want to be bound together, legally.
When it comes to a man and a horse--are they in love? Are they both consenting to marriage? Does a horse think on the same level as a human? Can they COMMUNICATE? You believe that homosexuals are some weird aliens. They're not.
"It's been standing as it is for hundreds and thousands of years. Why change it now, when the minority wants it?"
Oh right, I forgot. The USA doesn't care about minorities. Minorities are useless and don't know anything. They are unimportant. Right?
roadkill wrote: spider: "No. My point is that it shouldn't change at all, not because of religious beliefs. And if it was to change why not change to the more extreme cases in which I gave examples for? Why should it change?"
What's so different about a man and woman wanting to get married and a man and man getting married?
It's about legal status, tax purposes, etc. It's two people who want to be bound together, legally.
When it comes to a man and a horse--are they in love? Are they both consenting to marriage? Does a horse think on the same level as a human? Can they COMMUNICATE? You believe that homosexuals are some weird aliens. They're not.
"It's been standing as it is for hundreds and thousands of years. Why change it now, when the minority wants it?"
Oh right, I forgot. The USA doesn't care about minorities. Minorities are useless and don't know anything. They are unimportant. Right?
Roadkill, do you think a man and a woman or a man and a man are in love? May people would say that they can, indeed, communicate. What of the multiple partner example? It doesn't matter if they can communicate or not - it's the basis of changing the definition. If they could communicate would it be okay?
