I am half opposed to homose*ual marriages. They can marry if they want. But I dont like them doing stuff publicly. It's kinda distrubing two men kissing each other at a resturant...They do whatever they want in their house, privately.

 

 

 

the sad thing about this is that alot of people would add on to this "but with 2 girls its ok"

 

 

 

i find it hillarious about how i shouldnt be alowed to kiss my boyfriend beacause they find it "gross"...

 

 

 

well i find a guy and a girl kissing to be gross, does that mean it should be banned?

 

I am half opposed to homose*ual marriages. They can marry if they want. But I dont like them doing stuff publicly. It's kinda distrubing two men kissing each other at a resturant...They do whatever they want in their house, privately.

 

 

 

the sad thing about this is that alot of people would add on to this "but with 2 girls its ok"

 

 

 

i find it hillarious about how i shouldnt be alowed to kiss my boyfriend beacause they find it "gross"...

 

 

 

well i find a guy and a girl kissing to be gross, does that mean it should be banned?

 

 

 

I guess that's just how society is. There was a time when scientists would be considered gross. There was a time when a man and a woman kissing in the street would be gross.

 

In some years it will become natural.

Well, according to the idea that "marriage is much more than a legal document binding a husband and wife" and that it "is a sacred convenant between two people, which is why the Bible says one should save yourself for marriage" - non-Christians wouldn't be able to partake in this convenant. They don't believe in the Bible...they don't necessarily believe it's a sacred covenant. So wouldn't non-Christians getting married be just as sinful as * marriage? So should we ban that?

 

 

 

 

Just because they don't believe it's sacred doesn't mean it isn't. It's like saying "I don't believe in gravity so it doesn't exist."

 

 

 

Non-Christians should get married! The Bible condemns promiscuity and there's nothing wrong with getting married. I'm still confused why you're thinking non-Christians can't get married. They can still enter into the covenant between God and each other...they just may refuse to believe in God but the covenant still exists.

 

 

 

I think the position both Astra and I take is this: people all over the world have been getting married where Christianity doesn't exist. In the Orient, people were getting without the influence of Christianity at all. What is sacred to Christanity is not the idea of "marriage" - because let's face it - we're not the only ones doing that - it's marriage through the church - as Astra said. If the government wants to legally bind to people together of the same sex, go for it. It's not less a sacred convenant than the government binding together two people who aren't Christians and therefore, don't believe it's a sacred convenant.

 

 

 

I understand that about people getting married all over the world. But it's something that God put into the heart of everyone who is human. The desire to be love and be loved. Obviously the greatest representation in this physical world is marriage. It's why so many get married and why marriage has been around since the creation of the world.

 

 

 

The government legally binding two people of the same sex isn't a marriage because a marriage means so much more. It's a covenant between the two in front of each other and God. The government recognizes it for legal reasons, but it means much more.

 

 

 

That's all I'm saying. Marriage is much more than a legal document. And because it is, God has set guidelines for it.

 

 

 

Marriage itself is not the sacred convenant God created for us. Secular marriages cannot be religious... can they? When we're talking about gay marriage, we're talking about the secular, legal version of a marriage. There is nothing Godly about it if the church doesn't acknowledge it.

 

 

 

I think it's kind of silly to say two non-Christians who get married through the government are making the same sacred pact that two Christians who are married through the Lord are making. No, silly isn't the right word. It's disrespectful to God and Christianity to make that claim.

Luckily, two non-christians that get married don't care. But either way, there are civil liberties that are tied to a government recognized union. I think that any two individuals that want to be paired this way should have the option open to them.

I've been enjoying reading all the posts, and I promise I'll be posting my thoughts on alternative-lifestyle (to not bypass the filter) marriages soon. I need to organize my thoughts and decide where I really stand on it. Thanks to everyone for making this fun and educational and remaining mature and intelligent about it.

i myself must admit that i am athiest, neutral in party status, for abortions in special cases and think that denying same gender rights and marriages is wrong

 

 

 

Now my parents and family are all christian but i grew up in a military family and my parents were away alot of time for training for long periods of time. During this time i became hooked on science and history and learned of all the stains/smudges on the good "faith." Slowly i pulled away from religion because my wars/conflicts come down over religion and i wish that people would realise that many choices in life are up to you and you can't fall back on hoping that your deity of choice will grant you your wish.

 

 

 

Also, i think that politics of two main opposing political parties is just wrong. George Washington warned that America must never split and make parties and must stay out of foreign affairs. Seems we listened to his advice :roll: It may sound extreme, but at our school we have a republican and democrat clubs, and well, there have been incidents about this... many friendships have been broken apart just becuase they are on opposite parties

 

 

 

Now abortion is a touchy subject (a case in need by Michael Crichton is a good read) i think if the mother and child are in danger, or the child is malformed and would lead a painful and short life, i think abortion would be good, but if it is just becuase it was a one night stand, i think the woman should go through it all and give it up for adoption

 

 

 

During the Civil Rights movement many minority groups protested until they got equal rights of the "white person" and before that they were being treated the same way as the "gender-same" people are today except they are being denied even more rights. My best friend is gender-same and to be honest i don't really care. Nothing has changed since i met his when we were in elementary school to now in highschool so why should i shun him now? Unfortunately he gets teased in school and his parents have basically disowned him. I keep asking myself why, why has his preference of gender changed 15 years of supposedly being "normal" changed the liking of him? I get taunts from people that i like guys too becuase i hang out with him even though i have a girl friend that i hang out with :roll: So why is it so hard to have them be allowed to be married or have the same rights as "normal people"?

 

 

 

Surprise suprise, one major thing....... can anyone guess what it is? that's right folks, religion. In my own personal opinion that source of most things that are wrong in this world today. Let me ask you something, what is Joshua Ben Joseph (aka Cristos) preference was other men? Then would gender-different people be in the same position that gender-same people are in today? Also, look at science, it was held back hundred's of years just becuase the pope said that only the divine one could have that knowledge. Or that the Jewish people were burned by the hundred's burning the plague years just becuase they were an easy scapegoat. Or perhaps mostly becuase the Catholic religion is mostly bits and pieces of other religions that they ripped off from. they ripped of from the pagans who they supposedly hated to get many of the major dates for the holidays, many stories in the bible were based off from other cultures stories and religions with the names changed and places move to be supposedly christian in ideas.

 

 

 

However as i've said before i believe that i am atheist and think that man should be responsible for his actions and not blame it on someone else that can't be proved and these are my opinions so before you flame me for this, 1) read my whole post and 2) these are my opinions and not fact and 3)THESE ARE MY OWN OPINIONS NOT FACT

 

 

 

thank you,

 

 

 

-brain

It's not same-sex marriage that is going to "destroy marriage". It's the 50% straight marriages that end in divorce that already have destroyed marriage. The term marriage nowadays is a joke and therefore people can marry animals for all I care, it doesn't really matter anymore.

 

 

 

An interesting side-note; a professor in Ontario is possibly having an honorary degree revoked because she opposed same-sex marriage. She supports people being openly homosexual, etc. She just beleives children have the right to a mother and a father.

 

 

 

Story here

 

or here

i myself must admit that i am athiest, neutral in party status, for abortions in special cases and think that denying same gender rights and marriages is wrong

 

 

 

Now my parents and family are all christian but i grew up in a military family and my parents were away alot of time for training for long periods of time. During this time i became hooked on science and history and learned of all the stains/smudges on the good "faith." Slowly i pulled away from religion because my wars/conflicts come down over religion and i wish that people would realise that many choices in life are up to you and you can't fall back on hoping that your deity of choice will grant you your wish.

 

 

 

Also, i think that politics of two main opposing political parties is just wrong. George Washington warned that America must never split and make parties and must stay out of foreign affairs. Seems we listened to his advice :roll: It may sound extreme, but at our school we have a republican and democrat clubs, and well, there have been incidents about this... many friendships have been broken apart just becuase they are on opposite parties

 

 

 

Now abortion is a touchy subject (a case in need by Michael Crichton is a good read) i think if the mother and child are in danger, or the child is malformed and would lead a painful and short life, i think abortion would be good, but if it is just becuase it was a one night stand, i think the woman should go through it all and give it up for adoption

 

 

 

During the Civil Rights movement many minority groups protested until they got equal rights of the "white person" and before that they were being treated the same way as the "gender-same" people are today except they are being denied even more rights. My best friend is gender-same and to be honest i don't really care. Nothing has changed since i met his when we were in elementary school to now in highschool so why should i shun him now? Unfortunately he gets teased in school and his parents have basically disowned him. I keep asking myself why, why has his preference of gender changed 15 years of supposedly being "normal" changed the liking of him? I get taunts from people that i like guys too becuase i hang out with him even though i have a girl friend that i hang out with :roll: So why is it so hard to have them be allowed to be married or have the same rights as "normal people"?

 

 

 

Surprise suprise, one major thing....... can anyone guess what it is? that's right folks, religion. In my own personal opinion that source of most things that are wrong in this world today. Let me ask you something, what is Joshua Ben Joseph (aka Cristos) preference was other men? Then would gender-different people be in the same position that gender-same people are in today? Also, look at science, it was held back hundred's of years just becuase the pope said that only the divine one could have that knowledge. Or that the Jewish people were burned by the hundred's burning the plague years just becuase they were an easy scapegoat. Or perhaps mostly becuase the Catholic religion is mostly bits and pieces of other religions that they ripped off from. they ripped of from the pagans who they supposedly hated to get many of the major dates for the holidays, many stories in the bible were based off from other cultures stories and religions with the names changed and places move to be supposedly christian in ideas.

 

 

 

However as i've said before i believe that i am atheist and think that man should be responsible for his actions and not blame it on someone else that can't be proved and these are my opinions so before you flame me for this, 1) read my whole post and 2) these are my opinions and not fact and 3)THESE ARE MY OWN OPINIONS NOT FACT

 

 

 

thank you,

 

 

 

-brain

 

 

 

I agree with everything, and thats the exact same reason im athiest even tho my parents are christians :)

 

 

 

It's not * marriage that is going to "destroy marriage". It's the 50% straight marriages that end in divorce that already have destroyed marriage. The term marriage nowadays is a joke and therefore people can marry animals for all I care, it doesn't really matter anymore.

 

 

 

 

completely agree too, marrage has lost all value, its like people do it because theyre bored.

I didn't use to understand why mods locked these topics. But now I do, they get NO where.

I didn't use to understand why mods locked these topics. But now I do, they get NO where.

 

 

 

So you decide to come in and spam whilst contributing nothing to the discussion? No one told you to read this thread so if you don't like it - pipe down.

Well, according to the idea that "marriage is much more than a legal document binding a husband and wife" and that it "is a sacred convenant between two people, which is why the Bible says one should save yourself for marriage" - non-Christians wouldn't be able to partake in this convenant. They don't believe in the Bible...they don't necessarily believe it's a sacred covenant. So wouldn't non-Christians getting married be just as sinful as * marriage? So should we ban that?

 

 

 

 

Just because they don't believe it's sacred doesn't mean it isn't. It's like saying "I don't believe in gravity so it doesn't exist."

 

 

 

Non-Christians should get married! The Bible condemns promiscuity and there's nothing wrong with getting married. I'm still confused why you're thinking non-Christians can't get married. They can still enter into the covenant between God and each other...they just may refuse to believe in God but the covenant still exists.

 

 

 

I think the position both Astra and I take is this: people all over the world have been getting married where Christianity doesn't exist. In the Orient, people were getting without the influence of Christianity at all. What is sacred to Christanity is not the idea of "marriage" - because let's face it - we're not the only ones doing that - it's marriage through the church - as Astra said. If the government wants to legally bind to people together of the same sex, go for it. It's not less a sacred convenant than the government binding together two people who aren't Christians and therefore, don't believe it's a sacred convenant.

 

 

 

I understand that about people getting married all over the world. But it's something that God put into the heart of everyone who is human. The desire to be love and be loved. Obviously the greatest representation in this physical world is marriage. It's why so many get married and why marriage has been around since the creation of the world.

 

 

 

The government legally binding two people of the same sex isn't a marriage because a marriage means so much more. It's a covenant between the two in front of each other and God. The government recognizes it for legal reasons, but it means much more.

 

 

 

That's all I'm saying. Marriage is much more than a legal document. And because it is, God has set guidelines for it.

 

 

 

Marriage itself is not the sacred convenant God created for us. Secular marriages cannot be religious... can they? When we're talking about gay marriage, we're talking about the secular, legal version of a marriage. There is nothing Godly about it if the church doesn't acknowledge it.

 

 

 

I think it's kind of silly to say two non-Christians who get married through the government are making the same sacred pact that two Christians who are married through the Lord are making. No, silly isn't the right word. It's disrespectful to God and Christianity to make that claim.

 

 

 

Sorry to not respond for a long time.

 

 

 

My first question is this: why does people's acknowledgement or belief change the fact that marriage is a sacred covenant?

 

 

 

Second question is: Why is it so disrespectful to God and Christianity to make that claim?

 

 

 

Third question: If you say that marriage is so terrible and ruined that people can do whatever they want with it (marry animals, etc.) then what would you say about Christianity? Christianity is dead in many respects. Few believe it unless it's "cool" and more still believe that Christianity means you should be a good person (NOT correct).

 

 

 

Basically my point is that your argument of "it's so terrible anyway, why even try to save it" is entirely wrong. Something sacred, even if it has been abused, should still try to be saved.

Sorry to not respond for a long time.

 

 

 

My first question is this: why does people's acknowledgement or belief change the fact that marriage is a sacred covenant?

 

 

 

Because it's not a convenant. A covenant is an agreement between God and his people (in the theological sense) and two non-Christians are NOT making that covenant. To two non-Christians, it might be the same word, but it's not the same thing.

 

 

 

Second question is: Why is it so disrespectful to God and Christianity to make that claim?

 

 

 

Because they aren't making a covenant with God and it's disrespectful to Christianity to say that two people joining in a secular marriage have the same covenant with God that two people joining in a Godly marriage have. It's disrespectful to try and say it's the same thing - why have God in the first place if you don't have to have Him in order to make a convenant with him?

 

 

 

Third question: If you say that marriage is so terrible and ruined that people can do whatever they want with it (marry animals, etc.) then what would you say about Christianity? Christianity is dead in many respects. Few believe it unless it's "cool" and more still believe that Christianity means you should be a good person (NOT correct).

 

 

 

I don't remember making that point - but it is true that the divorce rate among Christians is very high, and that's a shame. My point isn't about that - my point is that there is a difference between being married through the state and making a convenant with God. The only thing that's the same about it is the word "marriage."

 

 

 

Basically my point is that your argument of "it's so terrible anyway, why even try to save it" is entirely wrong. Something sacred, even if it has been abused, should still try to be saved.

 

 

 

That's not my argument so it doesn't matter.

I'm sorry, Ghost, you're right. You never made the claim that marriage is so terrible that it shouldn't be saved: that was insane.

 

 

 

Now for your viewpoint:

 

 

 

1. Marriage is a sacred covenant between the two people in the eyes of God and recognized by the state for legal purposes.

 

2. Because marriage is sacred, it should be preserved and not thrown out the window because some people have made it look bad.

Then looking at marriage from a christian p.o.v., wouldn't all other marriages that weren't christian not be deemed true? since this isn't deemed true though, why is it such a big deal between two people that are of same gender. If they like each other, there isn't that much that you can do to stop them from liking each other, so why try to stop loving each other by denying those the basic rights that others have?

 

 

 

(if you ever want to pm me about arguements about the bad parts of the catholic churches/religion, im free for your messages)

I'm sorry, Ghost, you're right. You never made the claim that marriage is so terrible that it shouldn't be saved: that was insane.

 

 

 

Now for your viewpoint:

 

 

 

1. Marriage is a sacred covenant between the two people in the eyes of God and recognized by the state for legal purposes.

 

 

 

I disagree.

 

 

 

2. Because marriage is sacred, it should be preserved and not thrown out the window because some people have made it look bad.

 

 

 

This same argument supports making divorce illegal except in the cases of adultrey. Do you support that?

Okay, I'm back. I'll try and be succinct, because I don't have anything to say that really fundamentally disagrees with you, GhostRanger. :D

 

 

 

2) I think you'll probably find that I agree with you a lot more than I let on. :P For instance, I'm 100% against any form of gay marriage ban because I think it is violating liberties. However, from a Christian perspective - I can see why some people would want it banned.

 

As I was reading this thread, the more of your posts I read, the more I suspected that this was true. :P

 

 

 

1) I don't agree with your assertion that we can "prove" morality. I think you did a good job proving that things such as murder and theft are counter-productive to our society and democracy, and clearly go against our consitution and the philosophies of our founding fathers, primarily the Locke-influenced Jefferson. But - I don't think that you can prove whether being counter-productive to society is right or wrong. Right and wrong is based on a personal belief and you have to decide what that is. We can decide as a country that every law we should pass needs to help society in some way, but that doesn't mean we are proving any sense of morality.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Many Christians believe that the rules God gave them, were given to us for our own good. For instance, Jews were ordered in the Old Testement to not eat pork because it was unclean. It turns out that in that time, they didn't know how to properly treat and cook the pork and eating it could get them very (fatally) sick.

 

 

 

On the point of homosexuality - it could be argued that it's a) counter-productive to the advancement of our population and that B) diseases such as AIDs are more common in the homosexual communities and those diseases are counter-productive to society. Please note that I'm not trying to argue for or against banning gay marriage - I'm merely stating one perspective.

 

 

 

To these Christians, their religious beliefs DO help society and democracies. By legislating these beliefs, it's possible that they are helping the community.

 

 

 

From this perspective, I don't see anything wrong with attempting to legislate their religious beliefs of right and wrong. Obviously I don't want a theocracy - obviously I am against any law respecting the establishment of a religion - but that doesn't mean I think that Christian beliefs should be out of politics because they are religious beliefs. I do, however, feel that if a group of Christians wanted to legislate their beliefs - they would have to show how it is productive to society and not that it's just something they believe.

 

 

 

Certainly, religious groups can attempt to legislate their beliefs of right and wrong, but their beliefs of right and wrong cannot be the justification for the legislation. What you said about gay marriage is a perfect example. We absolutely can make non-religious arguments against homosexual marriage. Maybe it impedes the advancement of population, maybe it increases the spread of AIDS, maybe it creates an unhealthy family atmosphere for children. These are all valid arguments that deserve consideration in the congressional debate. But we must ban any religious arguments from the debate. It is inappropriate to argue that because God does not condone homosexuality, the government shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t either. In the end, the law may be written that satisfies the religious group. But the law must be supported solely and completely by secular (non-religious) arguments.

 

 

 

Whether I have proven actual morality doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t change the issue. If morality is purely a personal judgement, then we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t legislate based on personal morality. Instead, these personal views have to be superceded by a greater regard for society as a whole. We must decide as a country that all laws need to be for the common good, where "good" means the traditional American democratic values as established by Jefferson et al. This is the only way to ensure that we do not force unfair moral judgements (such as a Jewish ban on ham/pork) on people who deserve the freedom to choose for themselves.

 

 

 

IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m starting to suspect that we really agree on the basic issue. Your last sentence seems to agree completely with my entire argument. "...if a group of Christians wanted to legislate their beliefs - they would have to show how it is productive to society and not that it's just something they believe." This is as good as saying that all laws must have secular justification. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s more or less what I was trying to prove all along. As Astralinre saidÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ

 

 

 

I don't believe the Church should recognize such marriages, but the government can define its own contracts however it wants to.

 

I think thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a perfect attitude to have. We wonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t force you to be tolerant, because that would be violating your beliefs, and you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t try and force any of your beliefs on us. Freedom for all! :D

You probably don't wanna hear this but I'm a right-hand extremist.

I'm going to be marrying a catholic. What do all you theists think of that?

I'm going to be marrying a catholic. What do all you atheists think of that?

Would you get married in a church?

Well her sister (catholic) just got married to another guy (atheist) and they got married in a church. However, this guy isn't as passionate an atheist as me. He's also not as strong willed.

 

 

 

What I don't like is that in situations like this it's almost always the atheist that has to compromise, not getting the wedding they want. She wants something religious - a ceremony in which I'd have to affirm things I know not to be true; I want a ceremony in which no reference to religion is made - it's not like I'll be asking her to affirm a disbelief in god.

Well her sister (catholic) just got married to another guy (atheist) and they got married in a church. However, this guy isn't as passionate an atheist as me. He's also not as strong willed.

 

 

 

What I don't like is that in situations like this it's almost always the atheist that has to compromise, not getting the wedding they want. She wants something religious - a ceremony in which I'd have to affirm things I know not to be true; I want a ceremony in which no reference to religion is made - it's not like I'll be asking her to affirm a disbelief in god.

 

 

 

Hahaha that's crazy man!

 

What does her family think of that?

I am very much of the opinion that a marriage is for me and her, not for her family. Their views will be listened to, but not considered - at least on my part. Should they have another child I doubt they'd appreciate me telling them not to get it baptised.

 

 

 

They know how much of an atheist I am and they have never expressed concern or disapproval and as far as I know they don't want to 'save my from myself'. They will understand that it is a wedding for me and her and they will want us to be happy whatever happens. They have always taken the happiness (and safety) of their children above anything, including religion.

I am very much of the opinion that a marriage is for me and her, not for her family. Their views will be listened to, but not considered - at least on my part. Should they have another child I doubt they'd appreciate me telling them not to get it baptised.

 

 

 

They know how much of an atheist I am and they have never expressed concern or disapproval and as far as I know they don't want to 'save my from myself'. They will understand that it is a wedding for me and her and they will want us to be happy whatever happens. They have always taken the happiness (and safety) of their children above anything, including religion.

 

 

 

Ahh well that's very mature of both you and the family.

 

Hahaha pretty funny too. :P

 

2. Because marriage is sacred, it should be preserved and not thrown out the window because some people have made it look bad.

 

 

 

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. I don't mean marriage should be thrown out the window - my point was merely that it's kind of funny how Christians who have never opposed or spoken out against divorce are now blaming same-sex marriage for destroying it.

 

 

 

 

 

What you said about gay marriage is a perfect example. We absolutely can make non-religious arguments against homosexual marriage. Maybe it impedes the advancement of population, maybe it increases the spread of AIDS, maybe it creates an unhealthy family atmosphere for children. These are all valid arguments that deserve consideration in the congressional debate. But we must ban any religious arguments from the debate.

 

 

 

I totally agree. The government is not in place to enforce Christian laws - the government is in place to enforce socially accepted laws.

 

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. I don't mean marriage should be thrown out the window - my point was merely that it's kind of funny how Christians who have never opposed or spoken out against divorce are now blaming same-sex marriage for destroying it.

 

 

 

You're exactly right. As Jon Stewart famously said, "Divorce is not caused because 50% of marriages end in gayness." :P