NBVegita Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 Arguing religion is like trying to teach a re!@#$%^&*ed kid the hokey pokey. The problem as stated is there is no right or wrong, specially with religion. On a religious level you believe those terrorist who flew planes into the world trade center are in "!@#$%^&*" right now. But according to their beliefs, for their god, they were doing a devine duty, and will be well rewarded in the after life. And I have a more formal knowledge of the religion than you might think. And when I was referring to events that have happened, I was referring to events concerning christianity as a whole. Catholic, protestant, episcople, they're all under the broad scope of christianity. And as for the bible, the only facts they are uncovering is that the people and or places in the bible may have existed, it does not do anything to credit the validity of the bible. And I didn't mean to come across that any church, or sects are evil, just remember the old quotation: "don't cast stones if you live in a gl!@#$%^&* house" Oh and holy ego batman. I respect quick a lot for being able to admit that his religion isn't perfect. You'd be surprised, or maybe not, to find how many people think just like thunder.
AstroProdigy Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Posted August 21, 2006 Protestants are the prominent ones now? There are 240 million Orthodox Christians, 1100 million Catholic Christians, and 590 Protestant Christians (including all Protestant denominations). There's nothing bad to Protestants' names? I beg to differ.
Aileron Posted August 22, 2006 Report Posted August 22, 2006 There is a point in arguing religion...one's religion affects one's behavior in this world. Generally, the major difference between Christians is that Catholics believe in works, Protestants in faith, and Calvanists in grace. This difference causes a fundimental difference in mindset of these groups. Calvanists, with the main and most offshoot denominations extinct, believed that God decided who his chosen were regardless of any action of the person. This caused them to not look inward but outward at to blame others..creating the mindset that caused the witch trials. Catholics believe in works, which causes each individual to look inward and mind themselves rather than others. This mindset, along with an absolutely overwhelming political background incomprehensible by modern people, caused the corruption as the non-corrupt clergy were reluctant to condem the sins of others. (Most of the things Catholics are blamed for though - the Inquisition, the Conquistadors, Holy Wars - were actually actions of one secular government of Spain who liked to hijack religion as propaganda due to them being so weak as to not be able to control their armies otherwise.) I believe in works. They simply prove faith. One can claim they follow God however much they wish...they only do so in actuality if their actions follow suit. Back to the topic, as Astro said marriage has been around a very long time. In a way, the tradition pre-exists humanity. In general, the reasons for traditions that old are very fundimental and should not be messed with lightly. Marriage and family go hand in hand, and family is the building block of society. If we use the analogy literally, let us view traditional marriage family as a square brick, gay marriage family as a triangular brick, and and a brick wall as a society made up of many families. Now, in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with a triangular brick. Furthermore, if you wanted to construct a wall with them, you could. What you can't do however is take an already existing square-brick wall, knock out a few square bricks and fill the space with triangular ones. Well, maybe you could do so in a few spaces, but such occurrances would weaken the structure and the wall could only tolerate so many. The only way one could construct a wall containing both square and triangular bricks is to segregate the patterns, having one wall of square bricks and another wall out of triagular. (And before you make the racial comparison...families of other races are different colored bricks, and multi-ethnic families are multi-colored bricks.) Gay families simply do not fit in with traditional ones. Oh...and while the Romans practiced homosexuality they never practiced gay marriage.
NBVegita Posted August 22, 2006 Report Posted August 22, 2006 notice how you can make a rectangle with triangles.
AstroProdigy Posted August 22, 2006 Author Report Posted August 22, 2006 Gay people aren't bricks and there's a reason why we live in 21st century America and not medieval Europe. Things don't stay the same and they shouldn't because chances are back then people were too ignorant to accept things as they should be. If we lived by their standards we'd still have slavery and women with no rights and crucifictions for the "herecy" of questioning clergy or kings (as there would be no democracy in medieval Europe).
LearJett+ Posted August 22, 2006 Report Posted August 22, 2006 protestants persecuted catholics just as much as catholics persectuted protestants in the 1500s and 1600s. "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" actual quotes from the Bible. i'm not even really religious. i don't go to Church every Sunday. i drink. i smoke. some may say i 'debauch'. but i don't believe that quotes like these are apt for as radical interpretations as would be necessary to believe that the Bible does not condemn gay marriage. i have no problem with gays. my best friend just came out. there's nothing wrong with it. i just feel that gay marriage (being of the religions sense) is wrong. i believe also, however, that homosexuals with civil unions should be recognized by the state and that there should not be any STATE laws governing marriage by any means. same rights, different name and connotation. anyone else agree?
AstroProdigy Posted August 22, 2006 Author Report Posted August 22, 2006 That would probably be acceptable if it was offered, but I don't think that's what most conservatives are REALLY looking for.
NBVegita Posted August 22, 2006 Report Posted August 22, 2006 The way I look at it is that statistically 50% of males under the age of 45, and 52% of women under the age of 45 end their first marriage in divorce. Now that just helps to create one !@#$%^&* of a family unit eh? Honestly in todays day and age, the family unit is almost extinct. Me and my fiance have already planned that when we have children, not for a good amount of time, she will stop working so that she can take care of our kids. We don't want what the majority of society does, and just poof send em off the baby sitter and let a stranger raise your children. I mean is it better to have two parents, both male or female, who will love and nurture and take care of a child, or is it better to have two heterosexual parents who are constantly arguing, break up, and put you in the middle? I know that isn't every family, but it is a lot of families. I'm sure you all either have been through it, or know a decent amount of people who have.
quickspy Posted August 22, 2006 Report Posted August 22, 2006 The way I look at it is that statistically 50% of males under the age of 45, and 52% of women under the age of 45 end their first marriage in divorce. Now that just helps to create one !@#$%^&* of a family unit eh? Honestly in todays day and age, the family unit is almost extinct. Me and my fiance have already planned that when we have children, not for a good amount of time, she will stop working so that she can take care of our kids. We don't want what the majority of society does, and just poof send em off the baby sitter and let a stranger raise your children. I mean is it better to have two parents, both male or female, who will love and nurture and take care of a child, or is it better to have two heterosexual parents who are constantly arguing, break up, and put you in the middle? I know that isn't every family, but it is a lot of families. I'm sure you all either have been through it, or know a decent amount of people who have. Homosexual couples are not immune to arguing, fights and break ups. There are no accurate statistics on the divorce rate of homosexual couples because in a lot of places they are not allowed to get married anyways. Even less statistics on how they raise children because that does not happen to often either. Homosexual parents could even be worst at raising kids then heterosexual parents. Just imagine the mental distress it would give young kids to have parents of the same gender. Maybe teenagers understand but a first grader wondering why he doesn't have a Mother or vice versa. I teach in a summer program for impoverished kids and many times children feel dejected in the simple fact that they do not have as new clothes as other children in the camp.
NBVegita Posted August 22, 2006 Report Posted August 22, 2006 But those same feelings of dejection can come from many things. As you say new clothes, the house you own, or don't, the race of your parents, if your parents are fat, if they don't look perfect, if they aren't perfect. So are we to say that you may only reproduce if you exist in a perfect society? That you must be rich, have a beautiful house, be wonderfully attractive, and so must your mate? People will always get harr!@#$%^&*ed about something, its in the insecurity of other people to do so. I'm not saying that homosexual parents would do any better, I'm just saying with our current rates, and looking at the youth of today, they can't do any worse than we heterosexuals have been doing over the past couple decades. I mean !@#$%^&*, there is a reason that the leading cause of death among teenagers, at least in the united states is suicide. And as stated many many times, no matter how wrong anyone believes it is on a religious level, there is a strict cons!@#$%^&*utional separation of church and state. The state grants marriage, not the church. So if using religion as the backbone of your arguement on why they should not be wed, then you are basically saying that those people do not deserve cons!@#$%^&*utional rights. You are saying that they are less citizens of the united states, mind you I'm only using the united states as an example, and do not deserve their full cons!@#$%^&*utional rights. I want to know where in the !@#$%^&* do you have the right to deny anyone, man, woman, or child the rights that our forefathers fought for, and are by the rights of a United states citizen, granted to them? Just because their lifestyles don't coincide with yours? If you are a united states citizen, and an atheist, should you be denied marriage too? Where does it end?
ThunderJam Posted August 22, 2006 Report Posted August 22, 2006 a) I don't mean protestants are perfect, of course their not, thats the core of our religion. My point was that people often criticize "The Church" as being so corrupt etc, when their really talking about the catholic church. As for being prominent... Yes catholics have protestants outnumbered substantially. Protestants are the ones who are being very outspoken, noticed, and are taking the bible literally. Im not saying this is good or bad, but the catholic church has been the same for ages, people have gotten used to it, and take it in stride. Recently, the protestants are getting noticed more then previously, thus me saying they are prominent.
AstroProdigy Posted August 22, 2006 Author Report Posted August 22, 2006 1) Gay marriages are more successful than straight marriages due to many reasons including the fact that there's never a situation where the woman is nocked up and they have to get married. 2) What makes you think kids get traumatized from having 2 same sex parents? YOU think it would be traumatizing, but to a kid who hasn't been taught bigotism towards gay people I don't think they'd really be hurt. Getting made fun of at school about it is really something that Conservatives cause by teaching their kids that gay people are evil. I think this is just an extreme exaggeration Conservatives make to incite public sentiment the way they compare abortion to a 14 year old girl raped by her father and then forced to have an abortion to hide the evidence.
quickspy Posted August 22, 2006 Report Posted August 22, 2006 1) Gay marriages are more successful than straight marriages due to many reasons including the fact that there's never a situation where the woman is nocked up and they have to get married. 2) What makes you think kids get traumatized from having 2 same sex parents? YOU think it would be traumatizing, but to a kid who hasn't been taught bigotism towards gay people I don't think they'd really be hurt. Getting made fun of at school about it is really something that Conservatives cause by teaching their kids that gay people are evil. I think this is just an extreme exaggeration Conservatives make to incite public sentiment the way they compare abortion to a 14 year old girl raped by her father and then forced to have an abortion to hide the evidence. My parents who are Conservatives have always taught me that the behavior is wrong, never that the person is evil. I could ask the same question why liberals always teach their kids that the Bible is garbage and God doesn't exist. No one is trying to stir anything up, just stating facts. Again I could say Liberals incite public sentiment when they repeatedly highlight the civilian loss in Lebanon and ignore what the Hezbollah are doing.
AstroProdigy Posted August 23, 2006 Author Report Posted August 23, 2006 Liberals don't teach their kids that the Bible is garbage, maybe some atheist liberals, but for the most part there are lots of Christian liberals. Democrats are Christians too even though many Conservatives like to assume they're all atheist. Also, the Democratic Party for the most part supports Israel over Hezbollah (most Jews are Democrats in America). I'm solidly a Democrat and I support Israel over Hezbollah. Both your statements are baseless, ignorant claims. I'm not even atheist; I'm agnostic. I don't think the Bible is garbage I just think it should be a religious book for Christianity not a political tool for bigots. What I find a travesty is a religion of love and tolerance is used for hatred and bigotry.
quickspy Posted August 23, 2006 Report Posted August 23, 2006 Liberals don't teach their kids that the Bible is garbage, maybe some atheist liberals, but for the most part there are lots of Christian liberals. Democrats are Christians too even though many Conservatives like to assume they're all atheist. Also, the Democratic Party for the most part supports Israel over Hezbollah (most Jews are Democrats in America). I'm solidly a Democrat and I support Israel over Hezbollah. Both your statements are baseless, ignorant claims. I'm not even atheist; I'm agnostic. I don't think the Bible is garbage I just think it should be a religious book for Christianity not a political tool for bigots. What I find a travesty is a religion of love and tolerance is used for hatred and bigotry. I never said you were atheist nor did I ever claim to know what religous affiliation you were. I don't think i'm using the Bible as a poltical tool either, i'm just stating what I believe in. I also hardly think I have used the Bible for hatred and bigotry espcially when I noted that I dont hate homosexuals I just disagree with the behavior.
Trip' Posted August 23, 2006 Report Posted August 23, 2006 My opinion on gay marriage is this. I don't personally like the idea of two guys or two girls getting married, but honestly, that is their decision. This is their life, and the government has no right telling anyone they have no right getting married. That's the government controlling a person's (in this case two people) life. The government is not there to tell people how to live life. Government is there to just watch over everyone and make sure everything is going fine, not to interfere with personal situations. And it should be the same thing with religion and government. Religion should not be used to determine what laws to pass There should not be a law saying gay marriage is illegal because the Bible says it's bad. It's the same thing with abortion. Yes, it's a touchy issue and we all want to come to a conclusion on whether it is a necessary evil or just plain wrong and we shouldn't do it. The government isn't any more qualified to make that decision than we are. They can't make a law that say's abortion is illegal just because the Bible says its bad. That's why the founding fathers came up with seperation of church and state. The Church should not influence political leaders when they are making their decisions about passing bills into laws. Truth is, who cares about gay marriage. Are they really bothering anybody when they get married.....no, only touchy extremist church people. Those are the ones that need to wake up and realize that the world is not heaven and never will be. As for abortion, it is a necessary evil. The world is already over populated, and it's either kill a zygote made up a few cells or get fixed, or deal with insane overpopulation in which we wouldn't be able to feed all these unwanted babies and they'd probably die anyways...
LearJett+ Posted August 23, 2006 Report Posted August 23, 2006 Getting made fun of at school about it is really something that Conservatives cause by teaching their kids that gay people are evil. I think this is just an extreme exaggeration Conservatives make to incite public sentiment the way they compare abortion to a 14 year old girl raped by her father and then forced to have an abortion to hide the evidence. Astro, please stop being so god !@#$%^&* ignorant about conservatives. you sound so uneducated when you stereotype an entire group of people like that. you seem to not have a problem with my ideas most of the time -- and i'm one of those homophobic, prisoner-killing, fetus-saving, racist and any other stereotyped conservative that you hate.
AstroProdigy Posted August 23, 2006 Author Report Posted August 23, 2006 Well if you're admitting that it's your opinion then why do you promote a lack of rights on this issue. Just because I disagree about something doesn't mean I want a law to stop your rights. Lear, you're conservative, but you don't take it as far as most conservatives. You don't like gay marriage and disagree with homosexuality, but you don't take the point to try to prevent it legally. Trying to do that goes from having a difference of opinion based on your religion to trying to control people based on religion. Yes the majority and ESPECIALLY the leadership of Conservatives tries to control people based on the Bible. It's like Islamists using Islamic law.
»Ducky Posted August 26, 2006 Report Posted August 26, 2006 Astro, please stop being so god !@#$%^&* ignorant about conservatives. you sound so uneducated when you stereotype an entire group of people like that. you seem to not have a problem with my ideas most of the time -- and i'm one of those homophobic, prisoner-killing, fetus-saving, racist and any other stereotyped conservative that you hate.I could ask the same question why liberals always teach their kids that the Bible is garbage and God doesn't exist Seems like a stereotype battle to me.Match, continue. Conservatives send babies to die in war.
ThunderJam Posted August 31, 2006 Report Posted August 31, 2006 Honestly astro, lear hit the nail on the head. You are re!@#$%^&*ed - You sayGay marriages more successful because women cant get controlled. Success shouldnt even be a factor in whether or not its legal. And if it was, a fight between two men could be even worse, because now you have two very strong individuals damaging each other, instead of one strong !@#$%^&*ailant and one victim. - As for kids being "traumatized." I would agree because "traumatized" is not the right word. However they'd be started in life with a notion that gets them ridiculed, confused, and they would have a hard time coping with this. PLUS conservatives dont tell their children thats gays are evil, just that the act is not right. How can you say such crap, then go and ridicule the next poster? you are unbelievable. And if we want to examine your rebuke of the quickspy... -We dont assume that liberals are atheists, we do assume that they dont take the bible literally. Therefore we believe they could be catholics or w/e else, but if they read the bible LITERALLY (as most protestants do), they would find that things in it directly contradict gay marriage. - You retort with "IM not even atheist, im agnostic." He never said you were atheist... wtf are you ranting about? - You say liberals dont teach kids that the bible is garbage. Im not going to stereotype them and say they ALL do, but a very high percentage of them basically grow up with that notion, maybe without their parents directly saying "The bible is garbage."
ThunderJam Posted August 31, 2006 Report Posted August 31, 2006 i have no problem with gays. my best friend just came out. there's nothing wrong with it. i just feel that gay marriage (being of the religions sense) is wrong. i believe also, however, that homosexuals with civil unions should be recognized by the state and that there should not be any STATE laws governing marriage by any means. same rights, different name and connotation. anyone else agree?To this astro, you said "yes that is fine, but i dont think thats what conservatives REALLY want." Do you think you know know more about them they they know about themselves?What lear said is basically what ive said and want and support. I dont like gay relationships, i think their wrong, but oh well, theres nothing i can do about it. I dont think the gays are evil, i just dont the the ACT is right, but im not gonna tell them what to do. Now comes the marriage part. Almost all the conservatives (the christians at least) could care less if they are legally recognized as being married. What we dont like is the mindset. I dont like them acting like its the traditional marriage (the photos of 2 guys, one in a dress, one in a tux, leaving a chapel). Thats like trying to spit in religions face. LEgally i know we shouldnt be able to stop them from getting married, but they should be satisfied with living together, and being legally recognized as married. IT doesnt need to be flaunted, it doesnt need a big wedding or stuff making it look like anything religious.
AstroProdigy Posted August 31, 2006 Author Report Posted August 31, 2006 Action speak much louder than words. Hence all the state bans on any form of gay union. If you read the Bible directly you find that things contradict most things. That doesn't mean we are going to follow the whole Bible literally (unless you want a similar situation to Islamic fundamentalism). "I could ask the same question why liberals always teach their kids that the Bible is garbage and God doesn't exist." -quickspy"I never said you were atheist nor did I ever claim to know what religous affiliation you were." -quickspy"He never said you were atheist... wtf are you ranting about?" -Thunderjam OH OK BECAUSE YOU CAN TEACH THAT THE BIBLE IS GARBAGE AND GOD DOESN'T EXIST, BUT STILL BE A CHRISTIAN!
Drake7707 Posted August 31, 2006 Report Posted August 31, 2006 It's stupid to argue whether someone believes in something or not, if you don't believe it, well good for you, but don't try to convince the other one that he/she is wrong in his/her beliefs. That's whats happening way too much, and is the cause of many many quarrels, fights and even wars. "Spread the word" is just the biggest crap ever, you can tell others about what you belief, but you'll have to accept that persons personal beliefs too. All religions force in some way their beliefs to others, and thats just what the problem is. Beliefs are just an escape of reality, a thing to hold on to when you're having difficult times and maybe a motivation to keep going. Anyway, back on topic: marriage is originally invented by the church, but the way it's integrated into our society has changed the meaning from religion-based to a more general; someone loves someone else, so marriage is more the bond of those 2 persons. It has nothing to do with man-female relationships anymore. Those who oppose gay marriage should wait for a sec, and think about "why am i opposing it ?". Is it because the church says so, or is it because i believe so? If you always belief the church more than your own beliefs then you're a narrowminded person that beliefs everything you hear. Maybe you should consider beliefs that have been written down as actual "guidelines" or "considerations" than actual facts or laws.
NBVegita Posted September 1, 2006 Report Posted September 1, 2006 The point I'm arguing is not opinion. Its that people think that marriage started with churches...IT DID NOT. Marriage and church = seperate en!@#$%^&*ies. Marriage was a civil union used ages before it was committed in religious ceremonies to colaborate land and posessions. Or to join clans ect. It did not become an active part of religion until the 17th century and even then it was only common place for the nobles to have ceremonies in churches. They happened before then, but they were not widely practiced. Most of the early marriages were not even monogomous. Plain and simple church has nothing to do with marriage other than if you want to have them hold the ceremony. For no other reason does it exist in marriage besides as much as your faith wants it to. If you chose to get married without ever talking to a religious figure, or stepping onto religious grounds, its just as solid of a marriage by LAW as if you did. That is my big arguement. Church should have nothing to do with it. So if states are banning it due to what they believe is wrong religiously, then that violates seperation of church and state, and is thus illegal.
Recommended Posts