Actually, separation of church and state is supposed to be a principle of the United States, due to it being founded on religious equality and freedom. You can't have that if the Christian religion goes hand in hand with government, now can you?

 

 

 

Now I haven't read up on this in more than a while, but if I remember correctly; The US was founded on no state funded church, because they didn't want the government to fund a church like UK funded the Church of England. Along down the road, after then US was founded, someone decided the throw in separation of church and state. So technically , under the constitution wouldn't one be able to base their political decisions off their preferable religion, weather it be Christianity or Buddhism as long as their decision was not to give money or government hand-outs to the religion?

 

 

 

I'm down with people being homosexual and what not, but I think there are certain rights (like tax benefits and the shift of veteran's pay to the spouse) that a married man and woman have that should be for a married man and woman, not 2 married men or 2 married women.

Good for them. Honestly I don't understand homosexuals, but what I don't understand more is why people are fighting this issue tooth and nail. Yes the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, but there are also a few scriptures that basically say that Christians shouldn't be dabbling in politics in the first place (and really, for a true separation of Church and state, religious issues should never be considered in politics). But whatever.

 

If you want a seperation of church and state, you shouldn't be living in the US in the first place (I don't know if you live there though).

 

 

 

Actually, separation of church and state is supposed to be a principle of the United States, due to it being founded on religious equality and freedom. You can't have that if the Christian religion goes hand in hand with government, now can you?

 

Exactly.

 

I'm down with people being homosexual and what not, but I think there are certain rights (like tax benefits and the shift of veteran's pay to the spouse) that a married man and woman have that should be for a married man and woman, not 2 married men or 2 married women.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't they be given equal rights?

 

I'm down with people being homosexual and what not, but I think there are certain rights (like tax benefits and the shift of veteran's pay to the spouse) that a married man and woman have that should be for a married man and woman, not 2 married men or 2 married women.

 

 

 

Hypothetical situation for you.

 

 

 

Married couple A is a Man and a Woman, happily married for 10 years but one's infertile meaning they haven't had children and decided not to adopt.

 

Married couple B is 2 Men, obviously as we've learned in science it's impossible for them to reproduce.

 

 

 

Now, as the vast majority of rights and benefits arguments such as Marriage, Tax benefits etc are argued purely on the point of children, what makes couple A suitable for marriage and tax benefits yet couple B is denied this, as on paper they are both the same other than their sex.

 

 

 

So, in this situation what is it that makes couple A allowed benefits while life is made harder for couple B?

Good for them. Honestly I don't understand homosexuals, but what I don't understand more is why people are fighting this issue tooth and nail. Yes the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, but there are also a few scriptures that basically say that Christians shouldn't be dabbling in politics in the first place (and really, for a true separation of Church and state, religious issues should never be considered in politics). But whatever.

 

If you want a seperation of church and state, you shouldn't be living in the US in the first place (I don't know if you live there though).

 

 

 

Theoretically the First Amendment(I will find a quote) states that the government is supposed to recognize religious organizations but not support them in any way, shape, or form. Effectively rendering a separation of church and state. Too bad it doesn't work that way sadly because of the amount of religious groups involved with the government.

 

 

 

EDIT: found one.

 

 

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... endment01/

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

 

 

 

Basically, they cannot support or deny religion, so no laws can be passed giving them power or removing power.

Good to know :thumbup:

Too bad it doesn't work that way sadly because of the amount of religious groups involved with the government.

 

 

 

 

And that's exactly what I ment to say.

 

Actually, separation of church and state is supposed to be a principle of the United States, due to it being founded on religious equality and freedom. You can't have that if the Christian religion goes hand in hand with government, now can you?

 

 

 

Now I haven't read up on this in more than a while, but if I remember correctly; The US was founded on no state funded church, because they didn't want the government to fund a church like UK funded the Church of England. Along down the road, after then US was founded, someone decided the throw in separation of church and state. So technically , under the constitution wouldn't one be able to base their political decisions off their preferable religion, weather it be Christianity or Buddhism as long as their decision was not to give money or government hand-outs to the religion?

 

 

 

I'm down with people being homosexual and what not, but I think there are certain rights (like tax benefits and the shift of veteran's pay to the spouse) that a married man and woman have that should be for a married man and woman, not 2 married men or 2 married women.

 

 

 

The line where seperation of church and state came from reads to the effect "the United States Government shall not endorse a specific religion". While seperation of church and state is very important, we often see it strawmanned to try and derail religion.

 

 

 

Why would you want to legalize gay marriage but withhold those specific rights?

I can't imagine why it would need to be legal in the first place? Just marry a girl

^ Misinformation about homosexuality is probably as big a factor as religion in it's opposition, if they aren't linked.

 

Good job, New Hampshire

I can't imagine why it would need to be legal in the first place? Just marry a girl

 

Indeed, all these homosexuals are just rebels!

 

 

 

I'll just joke along, because you weren't serious either... amirite?

I like to laugh at the ridiculous reasons some people give for opposing gay marriage. The other day someone told me they oppose gay marriage because "homosexuals only think they're gay. I know a girl who said she was lesbian, but now she's dating a guy." I brought up that we let hundreds of people marry that only think they're in love, only to divorce later. Should we outlaw that?

I don't think this is right. Being gay is wrong. It's blasphemy. It's genocide.

 

 

 

I don't believe they were born that way, but rather their life experiences changed them. It makes me cringe whenever a gay person uses that excuse.

 

 

 

You can go back to being normal if you want. You can stop going against The Lord if you please. If you can change one way, who's to say you can't change back?

 

 

 

Go on, flame me.

I don't think this is right. Being gay is wrong. It's blasphemy. It's genocide.

 

 

 

I don't believe they were born that way, but rather their life experiences changed them. It makes me cringe whenever a gay person uses that excuse.

 

 

 

You can go back to being normal if you want. You can stop going against The Lord if you please. If you can change one way, who's to say you can't change back?

 

 

 

Go on, flame me.

 

 

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

It's genocide.

 

Explanation required. On a side note, I find your signature slightly ironic.

I don't think this is right. Being gay is wrong. It's blasphemy. It's genocide.

 

 

 

I don't believe they were born that way, but rather their life experiences changed them. It makes me cringe whenever a gay person uses that excuse.

 

 

 

You can go back to being normal if you want. You can stop going against The Lord if you please. If you can change one way, who's to say you can't change back?

 

 

 

 

Looks like it's time to tear this argument apart.

 

 

 

Being gay is not "wrong or blasphemy", just perceived as such. It is NOT genocide, because no killing is involved.

 

 

 

And you expect to stop a BIOLOGICAL urge, which they cannot control?

 

 

 

A quote:

 

[hide=From wikipedia, under Etiology, in the Homosexuality Article]The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences".[84] The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". It stated that, for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.[85] The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse".[31] Research into how sexual orientation may be determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises fears about genetic profiling and prenatal testing.[86][/hide]

 

 

 

Check the sources on that, and tell me that you can prove it's a choice.

 

 

 

And your Lord doesn't exist either. Get over it.

It's genocide.

 

Explanation required. On a side note, I find your signature slightly ironic.

 

Eh, it's a coincidence, irony involves things being related on a topic, this is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Dammit double post lag.

It's genocide.

 

Explanation required. On a side note, I find your signature slightly ironic.

 

Eh, it's a coincidence, irony involves things being related on a topic, this is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Dammit double post lag.

 

Well, more to the point of "differing from hollow lies" and his religion/reasons against homosexuality.

It's genocide.

 

Explanation required. On a side note, I find your signature slightly ironic.

 

Eh, it's a coincidence, irony involves things being related on a topic, this is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Dammit double post lag.

 

Well, more to the point of "differing from hollow lies" and his religion/reasons against homosexuality.

 

It all depends on how you interpret what the hollow lies are.

Good job New Hampshire. =D>

It's genocide.

 

Explanation required. On a side note, I find your signature slightly ironic.

 

Eh, it's a coincidence, irony involves things being related on a topic, this is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Dammit double post lag.

 

Well, more to the point of "differing from hollow lies" and his religion/reasons against homosexuality.

 

It all depends on how you interpret what the hollow lies are.

 

 

 

They start in genesis; the first in a series of books which form a pillar upon which your stupidity has chosen to build itself a nest of bigotry and insubstantiality. You could choose to stop going against your lord and start treating people equally and with respect. Or you could wake up and realize your hollow lord isnt real and start treating people equally out of a sense of common deceny and respect for your fellow man. Or, you could continue to be an idiot, in which case you will see an actual verbal thrashing of your arguments.

Lies, or what was once thought to be truth?

 

We did learn things in the past 2,000 years, didn't we? I doubt a holy book is written for the sole purpose of misleading a naturally intelligent and superior species, is it? :lol:

Lies, or what was once thought to be truth?

 

We did learn things in the past 2,000 years, didn't we? I doubt a holy book is written for the sole purpose of misleading a naturally intelligent and superior species, is it? :lol:

 

Humans are exactly like the animals around them. There is nothing "superior" about us.

Lies, or what was once thought to be truth?

 

We did learn things in the past 2,000 years, didn't we? I doubt a holy book is written for the sole purpose of misleading a naturally intelligent and superior species, is it? :lol:

 

Humans are exactly like the animals around them. There is nothing "superior" about us.

 

Forgot the sarcasm tags, sorry

 

 

 

They start in genesis; the first in a series of books which form a pillar upon which your stupidity has chosen to build itself a nest of bigotry and insubstantiality. You could choose to stop going against your lord and start treating people equally and with respect. Or you could wake up and realize your hollow lord isnt real and start treating people equally out of a sense of common deceny and respect for your fellow man. Or, you could continue to be an idiot, in which case you will see an actual verbal thrashing of your arguments.

 

I still don't think it is right to be gay. But I think your post has awaken me to what I had actually said in my post. I think that I will treat people with more respect and not be so much of a hypocrite. I'm sorry for any feelings I have hurt and will hurt. I've realized that I have committed as much, if not more, blasphemy than the ones of which I've accused. Again, I am sorry. There is in no way, however, that you can challenge my belief and devotion to God. I have faith in him, and I have faith in the bible. People have the right to be treated equal, and from this point onward I will follow that given right. My decisions were far to rash. They were based on the fact that you need to be perfect to receive God's love. I don't know where I got that idea. Since I was saved, I've always believed that God loves everyone equally. I still believe that, but I think it was from thinking that America was becoming a godless nation and wanting to try to fix it. Ultimately, I did more harm than good, and I apologize. I still think America is becoming godless. And we don't trust in God. And that we should fix it. I've learned the way to fixing it isn't through outright calling it out, but rather in being an example of what it should be in yourself. I want all of you to consider something: what if I'm right? as much as I'm consider what happens if I'm wrong.