February 7, 200719 yr Remember how it was like before you were born? You can't. That's what it's like to be an emberyo. You don't exist. Therefore it cannot be called murder. I'm not going to get into the abortion debate here, but I had to flag this up as one of the worst arguments I've ever heard :P Do you remember how it was like before you were 2 years old? You can't. That's what it's like to be an infant. You don't exist. Therefore it cannot be called murder to kill an infant. For it is the greyness of dusk that reigns.The time when the living and the dead exist as one.
February 7, 200719 yr That is the stupidest law i have ever read. I dont see why they are doing this. To make it fair for same sex marriages and homosexual marrages? Gay people should not get married. It is somthing between a man and a women. GAH! http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/975/70961xn8.jpg[/img]Playing WoW
February 7, 200719 yr Author The problem is that the people trying to pass the bill are assuming that human procreation is the only reason people are opposing gay marriage.It's one argument against gay marriage; and one which shouldn't get used anyways (due to the reasons outlined in the article). Unless the argument is used with other points. That happens so often there is a word for it: synergy. One point by itself might not be enough of a reason to do something, but if you combine all the points together you could result with enough reason to pass the bill. As I said in my previous post, exploding only one point of the argument and pretending like it's the only point, therefore making the argument ridiculous, is dishonest.
February 7, 200719 yr The problem is that the people trying to pass the bill are assuming that human procreation is the only reason people are opposing gay marriage. The only other arguments are from a religious point or a socilogical point. Some don't want gay people to marry because they find it 'weird' and some religious people don't want gay people to marry because they find it goes against their religion. However the law should be blind too both religious and sociological discrimination and allow any minority too conduct themselves anyway they wish which mirrors everyone else's laws. That is the stupidest law i have ever read. I dont see why they are doing this. To make it fair for same sex marriages and homosexual marrages? Gay people should not get married. It is somthing between a man and a women. GAH! This is more of a logical argument, same sex couples can't be married because they can't have children. So opposite sex couples can't get married because they won't have children. If you oppose the opposite sex couples you oppose the gay couples too. If not then you are discriminating agaisnt one of the groups. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 7, 200719 yr It's the only excuse they can use without out-right saying "The Bible says..." in their reasoning. What about the effects on a child that grows up in a single gender parent home? Most people I know would argue that it is better for a child to grow up with a mother and a father than one father, two fathers, or vice versa. It's too early for there to be statistics on the behaviour/actions of children that grow up with homosexual parentS, but I know that idea of a child growing up in a single parent household is a negative thing where I live.
February 7, 200719 yr I don't understand the need to fundamentally change a word that has existed since humanity can record. Marriage... marriage is a union usually in a religious context between a man and a woman. That is what it has always been for thousands of years. Saying homosexuals can be married is fundamentally going against the meaning of the word. Why don't they just make up their own word for whatever it is they are doing? It is just stupid to try to change a word to mean something it isn't. Calling it "homosexual marriage" is like describing a blue crayon as the color pink. The fundamental meanings of the words are at odds so it just doesn't make sense.
February 7, 200719 yr The government doesnt have the right to controll somones life like that. Plus gays shouldnt even get married. Im not a gay basher, nor a homophobe, but i dont think they should. http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/975/70961xn8.jpg[/img]Playing WoW
February 7, 200719 yr 1: I'm not using religion is an argument. I'm just explaining one of the larger roots of the ideology against it (Ambassador's being another). People may not be religious, but religion has largely shaped the ideologies of the human race throughout history, so they're past and present ideas are embedded deeply in our minds. 2: Going against gay marriage is [developmentally delayed]d. I can't even think of a valid argument for going against it. 3: Tigra, not to go off topic, but Christians view god as a loving God. Whether they believe in Hell nowadays, I dunno. Well, it's just like the abortion issue. Church has to make a choice, so it's better for them to take the safe one than to make the wrong choice and have to go back (presumption of personhood for the abortion debate). Abortion has been proven safe and gay marriage won't harm anyone except homophobic people. Wha :-s ? You do know what the "Presumption of Personhood" is, right? Please don't respond to that if you don't know what I'm referring to... [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
February 7, 200719 yr no sex before kids! Is what i think. Edit: just read what the title said... lol But why within 3 years? what if guy can't get his thing hard, or woman has this... well, i dont know what its called, but that she can't have kids? or if guys "stiffy" isn't good enough for making kids? Your title is wrong IMHO =/ [/url]">[4Th in Finland to achieve 99 mining. 3Rd of June 2007]Pixels make me horny.
February 7, 200719 yr I don't understand the need to fundamentally change a word that has existed since humanity can record. Marriage... marriage is a union usually in a religious context between a man and a woman. That is what it has always been for thousands of years. Saying homosexuals can be married is fundamentally going against the meaning of the word. Why don't they just make up their own word for whatever it is they are doing? It is just stupid to try to change a word to mean something it isn't. Calling it "homosexual marriage" is like describing a blue crayon as the color pink. The fundamental meanings of the words are at odds so it just doesn't make sense. Words change meanings all the time, all of our current curse words were at one time or another fine to say. Saying you "googled" something use to be going against the meaning of the word, as it was just a number with 1mil(I think) zeroes following it, recently(within the last year) it has been changed to also allow being used as a verb. Times change, vocabulary changes, and so does society. Why don't you want to accept this change? The government doesnt have the right to controll somones life like that. Plus gays shouldnt even get married. Im not a gay basher, nor a homophobe, but i dont think they should. Why?
February 7, 200719 yr I don't understand the need to fundamentally change a word that has existed since humanity can record. Marriage... marriage is a union usually in a religious context between a man and a woman. That is what it has always been for thousands of years. Saying homosexuals can be married is fundamentally going against the meaning of the word. Why don't they just make up their own word for whatever it is they are doing? It is just stupid to try to change a word to mean something it isn't. Calling it "homosexual marriage" is like describing a blue crayon as the color pink. The fundamental meanings of the words are at odds so it just doesn't make sense. The vast majority of gays couples are satisfied using the term 'civil union'. But that's not the problem. Still, both Canada, the UK, and the rest of Europe use marriage and I don't see them complaining or outbreaking in protests and riots against the legalization of gay 'marriage'. Me doing staff.
February 7, 200719 yr no sex before kids! Is what i think. That doesn't make any sense at all. If you don't have sex before kids, how are you supposed to get kids?
February 7, 200719 yr I don't understand the need to fundamentally change a word that has existed since humanity can record. Marriage... marriage is a union usually in a religious context between a man and a woman. That is what it has always been for thousands of years. Saying homosexuals can be married is fundamentally going against the meaning of the word. Why don't they just make up their own word for whatever it is they are doing? It is just stupid to try to change a word to mean something it isn't. Calling it "homosexual marriage" is like describing a blue crayon as the color pink. The fundamental meanings of the words are at odds so it just doesn't make sense. Like someone else said, words change over time. Religion isnt the only thing that can use the word "married" because aetheist people can get married. So it doesnt have anything to do with religion. I have an idea, why dont we stop aetheist people from getting married? Yeah! That'll show those free will choosing rational minded people! I am glad to see over the progression of this thread that people have realized this proposed law will never get passed and is solely used to provide a logical window to show the ignorance and stupidity of all people who are opposed to gay "marriage". (I put marriage into quotes if you religious people think its blasphemy for those immoral sinning gay people to be married). Do you know why people are against homosexual marraige? They are injected with fallacies from their parents and society today. Oh how i wish i could go back in time and try to save the minds that are being corrupted by their own parents. Stop forcing your beliefs on others. Let people be the judges of their own lives. We are willing to give up our freedoms and free will for us to be stable and happy. I blame the government. We people are too lazy to care to try and preserve the way we live. We would rather have the government control everything for us as long as we are happy... (I just got done reading a Brave New World. Sorry) [/rant] Everybody lovin' it, but ain't no body touchin' it
February 7, 200719 yr I don't understand the need to fundamentally change a word that has existed since humanity can record. Marriage... marriage is a union usually in a religious context between a man and a woman. That is what it has always been for thousands of years. Saying homosexuals can be married is fundamentally going against the meaning of the word. Why don't they just make up their own word for whatever it is they are doing? It is just stupid to try to change a word to mean something it isn't. Calling it "homosexual marriage" is like describing a blue crayon as the color pink. The fundamental meanings of the words are at odds so it just doesn't make sense. Words change meanings all the time, all of our current curse words were at one time or another fine to say. Saying you "googled" something use to be going against the meaning of the word, as it was just a number with 1mil(I think) zeroes following it, recently(within the last year) it has been changed to also allow being used as a verb. Times change, vocabulary changes, and so does society. Why don't you want to accept this change? The government doesnt have the right to controll somones life like that. Plus gays shouldnt even get married. Im not a gay basher, nor a homophobe, but i dont think they should. Why? Because the bible says so...Youre either atheist or gay. http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/975/70961xn8.jpg[/img]Playing WoW
February 7, 200719 yr Because the bible says so...Youre either atheist or gay. Maybe he's Hindu, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Taoist? Why is it always the Bible. :wall: #-o Me doing staff.
February 7, 200719 yr I like the way these activists are making their point with this proposal. Getting everyone on their hind legs, there's no better way to get through to them. :mrgreen: I live in a country where gay marriage is allowed and I really don't see the problem. Nor do I see any problem in gay partners having children, apart from the whole issue of adoption/in vitro/whose kid is it if they split up/... I mean, you do need some serious regulation. Then again, many hetero couples have no choice but to take those routes as well and encounter the same problems. IMO, I'd rather have people marry the right person for them so they can build a wholesome family, than having them marry someone against their inclination, being unhappy and seriously messing up their kids. Oh and as for religion... I live in a predominantly christian (even catholic!) country, yet we have gay marriage. Officially, the catholic church does not endorse gay marriage, obviously, but many catholics -whose basis of belief is LOVE and forbearance, hello?- don't mind at all.
February 7, 200719 yr Oh and as for religion... I live in a predominantly christian (even catholic!) country, yet we have gay marriage. Officially, the catholic church does not endorse gay marriage, but many catholics -whose basis of belief is LOVE, hello?- don't mind at all. Basically. Most Catholic's don't give a rat's [wagon] about the Church's opinion on gay marriage. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
February 7, 200719 yr The government doesnt have the right to controll somones life like that. Plus gays shouldnt even get married. Im not a gay basher, nor a homophobe, but i dont think they should. Why? Because the bible says so...Youre either atheist or gay. Where does it say this in the Bible? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 7, 200719 yr I know it says somthing against being homosexual. Im not a die hard christian so i dont really know where...get reading satenza. http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/975/70961xn8.jpg[/img]Playing WoW
February 7, 200719 yr I know it says somthing against being homosexual. Im not a die hard christian so i dont really know where...get reading satenza. And since when do you take the Bible seriously? Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched. One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day. Case in point, not even theologists take it literal. Me doing staff.
February 7, 200719 yr Author Case in point, not even theologists take it literal. Theologians, unlike yourself, have a very in depth understanding of the cultural context in which the Bible was written in. Theologians, unlike yourself, understand the nature of a Hebrew story in context. Your point is obviously true, but unfortunately for you, you have no idea how to even begin to interpret the Bible. Just saying, "It's up to interpretation" is easy for you, because you have no understanding of it. It doesn't make your point valid though.
February 7, 200719 yr Case in point, not even theologists take it literal. Theologians, unlike yourself, have a very in depth understanding of the cultural context in which the Bible was written in. Theologians, unlike yourself, understand the nature of a Hebrew story in context. Your point is obviously true, but unfortunately for you, you have no idea how to even begin to interpret the Bible. Just saying, "It's up to interpretation" is easy for you, because you have no understanding of it. It doesn't make your point valid though. I'm not even going to bother to rebuttal that, considering it is true I have had limited theological study, and have only gone as far as reading the Bible, Qur'an, and Vedas, but not as far as deep interpretation of them. Me doing staff.
February 7, 200719 yr Author I'm not even going to bother to rebuttal that, considering it is true I have had limited theological study, and have only gone as far as reading the Bible, Qur'an, and Vedas, but not as far as deep interpretation of them. Exactly my point. Just throwing out verses that are not taken literally in the year 2007 doesn't prove a point about homosexuality, it only proves you don't know what is taken into consideration when the Bible is interpreted. Throwing out verses like that doesn't show that you know all of the verses that speak about homosexuality and WHY they can be refuted - it only reinforces the point that you don't have much in depth Biblical knowledge and probably shouldn't be entering a debate about it. That is not to say the person you responded to should either.
February 7, 200719 yr I'm not even going to bother to rebuttal that, considering it is true I have had limited theological study, and have only gone as far as reading the Bible, Qur'an, and Vedas, but not as far as deep interpretation of them. Exactly my point. Just throwing out verses that are not taken literally in the year 2007 doesn't prove a point about homosexuality, it only proves you don't know what is taken into consideration when the Bible is interpreted. Throwing out verses like that doesn't show that you know all of the verses that speak about homosexuality and WHY they can be refuted - it only reinforces the point that you don't have much in depth Biblical knowledge and probably shouldn't be entering a debate about it. That is not to say the person you responded to should either. By your standards, I don't think anyone here is really qualified to argue and discuss this. Me doing staff.
Create an account or sign in to comment