To those who don't understand why so many of us hate organized religion

[SweetMoolah 0]

From a post I made on another thread...

 

In Webster's dictionary, Marriage is defined as "the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united". The purpose of marriage is to provide a situation in which a man and a woman, through means of procreation, can bring children into that commitment and raise them to be responsible citizens and productive members of society.

 

The fact that there are numerous variations of that commitment, unwed mothers, sperm donor "fathers", homosexual partnerships, etc. does not change the fact that it is the culturally and socially accepted most desirable environment in which a child is raised. Statistics and consensus from researchers, educators, etc. prove this point. Children from broken homes, single parent families and other variations from this norm and ideal are far more likely to become a drain on the rest of society. Is that always the case? no, but generally speaking it is the rule rather than the exception.

 

I guess it comes down to what you really think the definition and purpose of marriage is. Society has a vested interest in maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. A homosexual couple's relationship has no effect on my marriage personally, but that's not the point. I have no problem if a homosexual couple wants to be together but there is no cultural, social or logical reason to call it marriage.

 

Does that help answer the question? The idea of "protection" comes from protecting the institution from the efforts of a self appointed "minority" group that defines itself by their sexual orientation and attempts to mainstream the lifestyle. Homosexuals still have the "right" to marry, just like we all do, as long as it is done within the context of the definiton of the word.

 

It is imperative that a society create a set of rules for acceptable behavior and norms by which they live and parameters for those norms must be respected. Take the religious aspect out of the equation and from a sociological perspective the idea of preserving marriage as it is now defined still makes sense. Marriage is a lot more than just two people getting together because they love and care for each other.

 

If you can look past the end of your own nose and keep from getting pissed off, you'll understand why it makes sense.

[davebg 0]

The fact that there are numerous variations of that commitment, unwed mothers, sperm donor "fathers", homosexual partnerships, etc. does not change the fact that it is the culturally and socially accepted most desirable environment in which a child is raised. Statistics and consensus from researchers, educators, etc. prove this point. Children from broken homes, single parent families and other variations from this norm and ideal are far more likely to become a drain on the rest of society.

Please provide a link to the study that shows that children raised by gay couples are more at risk to become a "drain on society" than their counterparts who were raised in a hetero home.

 

Furthermore, let's explore what you're saying...because we saw this thought process applied in the recently passed proposition in Arkansas. I had previously said that it was a meansure to ban gays from adopting. That wasn't entirely accurate. It really banned single parents from adopting, which prevents gays from adopting, as they do not have the right to marriage in Arkansas. Now, why was it worded this way? Likely because previous attempts to pass and enforce legislation barring gays from adopting in the state had been struck down by the Arkansas Supreme Court under the grounds that it was unconstitutional. So, this measure was proposed to get around that. I was reading more about this the other night and it told the story of one woman who was now being prevented from adopting her own grandchild, as she was not married to her male partner.

 

I dunno...seems to me as if this child would be inherently better off with their grandmother than the foster care system, no?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

From a post I made on another thread...

 

In Webster's dictionary, Marriage is defined as "the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united". The purpose of marriage is to provide a situation in which a man and a woman, through means of procreation, can bring children into that commitment and raise them to be responsible citizens and productive members of society.

 

The fact that there are numerous variations of that commitment, unwed mothers, sperm donor "fathers", homosexual partnerships, etc. does not change the fact that it is the culturally and socially accepted most desirable environment in which a child is raised. Statistics and consensus from researchers, educators, etc. prove this point. Children from broken homes, single parent families and other variations from this norm and ideal are far more likely to become a drain on the rest of society. Is that always the case? no, but generally speaking it is the rule rather than the exception.

 

I guess it comes down to what you really think the definition and purpose of marriage is. Society has a vested interest in maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. A homosexual couple's relationship has no effect on my marriage personally, but that's not the point. I have no problem if a homosexual couple wants to be together but there is no cultural, social or logical reason to call it marriage.

 

Does that help answer the question? The idea of "protection" comes from protecting the institution from the efforts of a self appointed "minority" group that defines itself by their sexual orientation and attempts to mainstream the lifestyle. Homosexuals still have the "right" to marry, just like we all do, as long as it is done within the context of the definiton of the word.

 

It is imperative that a society create a set of rules for acceptable behavior and norms by which they live and parameters for those norms must be respected. Take the religious aspect out of the equation and from a sociological perspective the idea of preserving marriage as it is now defined still makes sense. Marriage is a lot more than just two people getting together because they love and care for each other.

 

If you can look past the end of your own nose and keep from getting pissed off, you'll understand why it makes sense.

 

Ok, here's the problem with that analysis.

 

"Marriage" has two meanings. A religious one, and a legal one.

 

As for the religious meaning, that is up to the various cults to decide. I don't care.

 

But the legal marriage is simply the option to choose to form a partnership with another, and share in a bundle of rights vis a vis the other. There are tax advantages, estate advantages (such as the sposal share), health care advantages, debtor/creditor law advantages, etc. to being spouses rather than co-habitants.

 

Now IMO, if the government is going to offer these advantages to straight couples, then there is no justifiable reason to deny them to gay couples. As such, it is discrimination, and unconstitutional.

 

Now, whether we call their unions "marriage" or "civil unions" or "legally united butt buddies" doesn't matter to me (although it may to them.) Yes, many of the rights conveyed by marriage can be set up in other ways. But that costs money in legal fees, which is unfair. Furthermore, some of these rights (the income tax ones, estate tax issues, etc.) cannot be set up outside of marriage.

 

As for "society determining what the purpose of marriage is" that is a bunch of bunk. Each married couple has the right to determine what the "purpose" of their marriage is. For some, it is to reproduce. For others, companionship. For some, perhaps its just a financial arrangement. Whatever, that's their business.

 

I know you religious types wish you could just put the cat back in the bag, and return to the world of the 50's, where divorce was taboo, gays didn't officially exist, and everyone lived according to stilted social and religious pressure, and where the majority gave a fock about your religious babble. But you can't, so get over it, shut up, and quit trying to tell others how to live their lives. If you want to live in a monolitic religious utopia, buy some desert and start a compound. Isn't that what Utah is for you guys anyway?

 

BTW: Last time I check, Mirriam focking Webster doesn't get to make the law, he gets to make the dictionary. So fock him.

[SweetMoolah 0]

Ok, here's the problem with that analysis.

 

"Marriage" has two meanings. A religious one, and a legal one.

 

As for the religious meaning, that is up to the various cults to decide. I don't care.

 

But the legal marriage is simply the option to choose to form a partnership with another, and share in a bundle of rights vis a vis the other. There are tax advantages, estate advantages (such as the sposal share), health care advantages, debtor/creditor law advantages, etc. to being spouses rather than co-habitants.

 

Now IMO, if the government is going to offer these advantages to straight couples, then there is no justifiable reason to deny them to gay couples. As such, it is discrimination, and unconstitutional.

 

Now, whether we call their unions "marriage" or "civil unions" or "legally united butt buddies" doesn't matter to me (although it may to them.) Yes, many of the rights conveyed by marriage can be set up in other ways. But that costs money in legal fees, which is unfair. Furthermore, some of these rights (the income tax ones, estate tax issues, etc.) cannot be set up outside of marriage.

 

As for "society determining what the purpose of marriage is" that is a bunch of bunk. Each married couple has the right to determine what the "purpose" of their marriage is. For some, it is to reproduce. For others, companionship. For some, perhaps its just a financial arrangement. Whatever, that's their business.

 

I know you religious types wish you could just put the cat back in the bag, and return to the world of the 50's, where divorce was taboo, gays didn't officially exist, and everyone lived according to stilted social and religious pressure, and where the majority gave a fock about your religious babble. But you can't, so get over it, shut up, and quit trying to tell others how to live their lives. If you want to live in a monolitic religious utopia, buy some desert and start a compound. Isn't that what Utah is for you guys anyway?

 

BTW: Last time I check, Mirriam focking Webster doesn't get to make the law, he gets to make the dictionary. So fock him.

 

Let's round up all the "religious types" and put em' in a compound. We don't like what they think or say...

 

THANK GOD we have the freedom to come on a message board and express our opinions and beliefs, religous or not. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me, but I'm fine with that and I don't have to get all angry over it.

[Durtee 0]

I know you religious types wish you could just put the cat back in the bag, and return to the world of the 50's, where divorce was taboo, gays didn't officially exist, and everyone lived according to stilted social and religious pressure, and where the majority gave a fock about your religious babble. But you can't, so get over it, shut up, and quit trying to tell others how to live their lives. If you want to live in a monolitic religious utopia, buy some desert and start a compound. Isn't that what Utah is for you guys anyway?

 

Seems to me that it is the gheys out there protesting, because they can't marry and it is the religious folks sitting at home saying "you can't marry, because it is wrong and illegal, so get over it and shut up"

 

Also, if two men or two women were meant to mate, then why are men and women made the way they are. Seems to me that if the same sex was supposed to mate, then there would be a natural way for them to procreate as well. There is a saying out there that pretty much sums up everything, however inappropriate it may be. Silly ######, d!icks are for chicks.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

They aren't. That's why they should be allowed to marry.

 

 

 

They are allowed to marry, in all 50 states.

[zmanzzzz 1]

Who posted in: To those who don't understand why so many of us hate organized religion

Poster Posts

davebg 29

Recliner Pilot 26

wiffleball 11

SweetMoolah 10

titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 9

Sho Nuff 7

surferskin 6

MedStudent 4

naomi 3

Snoopy1 2

TimmySmith 2

Durtee 2

jerryskids 2

Bill E. 2

Gepetto 1

EAwer 1

GettnHuge 1

Voltaire 1

Terrapin Flyer 1

listen2me 23 1

Big Blue 06 1

MLCKAA 1

jjsparty68 1

Me_2006 1

Blitzen 1

[naomi 360]

Mormons do not claim, as members of their church, dead people who have had baptismal work done for them. Billions of people have not had the opportunity to learn about Jesus Christ in this life. 1 Corinthians 15 talks about resurrection and verse 29 specifically about the principle of baptism for the dead. It only provides an opportunity for them, if they so choose it

 

In the book that I was reading, that verse was mentioned. As far as I know, the entire doctrine about posthumous baptism is based on that verse but one thing I do know for sure is that I don't know a lot about Mormon doctrine, but I'm open to learning about it.

 

If you're familiar with the Book of Romans, you're probably familiar with how Paul writes in terms of delivering arguments that reveal the nature of Christ and salvation. This might strike you as entirely needless, but notice how Paul presents that entire chapter. Notice his use of explaining a hypothetical argument, building all the premises up, presenting a connection as representative of truth, and then concluding by saying "else..." and giving what it would mean if else you took the approach he offered as a hypothetical. I'm not reading at all into the passage to suggest that is how Paul is going about it, I think it can clealy speak for itself and that can be concluded.

 

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

 

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

 

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

 

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

 

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

 

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

 

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

 

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

 

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

 

11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

 

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

 

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

 

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Because he was just another man

 

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

 

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

 

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

 

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. Like those in the Old Testament, who had faith in the atonement, which was yet to come

 

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. If our hope is so far as what we saw of Christ...if the hypothetical is true.

 

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

 

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

 

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

 

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

 

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

 

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

 

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

 

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? In other words, why are they baptized in Christ? (given the hypothetical that he didn't resurrect from the dead)

 

30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

 

31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

His note that he dies daily is another clue this is about considering what the the literal resurrection of Christ means, as it proved he was not just another man, thus salvation through him is effectual. Paul is a sinner, daily dead in his sins, yet alive through Christ.

 

32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

Note this emphasis too, this is about salvation being of no effect if we are baptized for the dead (meaning Christ...given the hypothetical he has been offering) If this was about post humous baptism by proxy, why is he going on about living for himself in this life...which makes sense when your hope towards the eternal picture is empty. After all (the hypothetical): people who are baptized for Christ are baptized for the dead. Paul's set up heretofore (esp. verses 13-17) supports this is what he's getting at.

 

33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

 

34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

 

35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

 

36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

 

37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

 

38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

 

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

 

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

 

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

 

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

 

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

 

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

 

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

 

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

 

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

 

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

 

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

 

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

 

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

 

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

 

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

 

57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

 

There's a lot of scripture that indicates (and at least one that just says) it is appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgment. I just don't understand how there's a wealth of scripture that seems pretty clear on that note, and then that verse is used to support an entire doctrine based on an opposing note. Truthfully, it makes sense that Paul is talking about what it would mean that people be baptized into Christ, if he was nothing he claimed to be, never did resurrect, and no means of effectual salvation. He also puts emphasis in places, that-if this were about posthumous baptism, you would have to wonder why.

[SUXBNME 1,596]

In the book that I was reading, that verse was mentioned. As far as I know, the entire doctrine about posthumous baptism is based on that verse but one thing I do know for sure is that I don't know a lot about Mormon doctrine, but I'm open to learning about it.

 

If you're familiar with the Book of Romans, you're probably familiar with how Paul writes in terms of delivering arguments that reveal the nature of Christ and salvation. This might strike you as entirely needless, but notice how Paul presents that entire chapter. Notice his use of explaining a hypothetical argument, building all the premises up, presenting a connection as representative of truth, and then concluding by saying "else..." and giving what it would mean if else you took the approach he offered as a hypothetical. I'm not reading at all into the passage to suggest that is how Paul is going about it, I think it can clealy speak for itself and that can be concluded.

 

 

 

There's a lot of scripture that indicates (and at least one that just says) it is appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgment. I just don't understand how there's a wealth of scripture that seems pretty clear on that note, and then that verse is used to support an entire doctrine based on an opposing note. Truthfully, it makes sense that Paul is talking about what it would mean that people be baptized into Christ, if he was nothing he claimed to be, and no means of effectual salvation. He also puts emphasis in places, that-if this were about posthumous baptism, you would have to wonder why.

 

STOP IT ALREADY

Also, check your pm's at TDZ

[jerryskids 7,090]

They aren't. That's why they should be allowed to marry.

 

Dave hit the nail on the head here. Religious groups are free to belief whatever they want, and to live by those beliefs, regardless whether or not said beliefs are patently absurd.

 

However, they should not be permitted to run to the legislature and limit the freedom of others to live thier lives as they see fit.

I disagree. Caveat: I don't care if gheys marry.

 

That being said, the issue here, and especially with Dave, is the fact that RELIGIOUS groups attempt to influence legislation. But see, in a democracy like ours, there are lots of special groups which push the agendas of a subset of the people -- AARP, NAACP, NOW, and in Sux's case NAMBLA, to name but a few of the thousands and thousands of such groups. If you read thru the proposition info in your state, I can virtually guarantee that there were special interest groups both supporting and opposing every one.

 

So in America, people are allowed to band together to push their agendas. We the voters listen to the pros and cons, make up our minds in the voting booth, and walla! we have a winner.

 

Sometimes, the winner attempts to do something against the state or federal constitution, and judges overturn it. That may or may not happen in the case of ghey marriage, but that is not the point.

 

The point is that churches have every right in this country to push their agendas on the voting public.

 

I hope this little civics lesson has been helpful.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I disagree. Caveat: I don't care if gheys marry.

 

That being said, the issue here, and especially with Dave, is the fact that RELIGIOUS groups attempt to influence legislation. But see, in a democracy like ours, there are lots of special groups which push the agendas of a subset of the people -- AARP, NAACP, NOW, and in Sux's case NAMBLA, to name but a few of the thousands and thousands of such groups. If you read thru the proposition info in your state, I can virtually guarantee that there were special interest groups both supporting and opposing every one.

 

So in America, people are allowed to band together to push their agendas. We the voters listen to the pros and cons, make up our minds in the voting booth, and walla! we have a winner.

 

Sometimes, the winner attempts to do something against the state or federal constitution, and judges overturn it. That may or may not happen in the case of ghey marriage, but that is not the point.

 

The point is that churches have every right in this country to push their agendas on the voting public.

 

I hope this little civics lesson has been helpful.

 

I agree with you to an extent, with this caveat.

 

"Because God says so" is never a valid reason to legislatively prohibit or prescribe behavior in America.

 

Now, "because we as a society think its wrong" is fine.

 

That's the difference. The religious groups get on my nerves not when they talk about something being immoral, but when they talk about sin and the violation of gods law. Gods law has no bearing on what the law of the land is, namely because there are hundreds of opinions on what god's law entails.

[SweetMoolah 0]

"Because God says so" is never a valid reason to legislatively prohibit or prescribe behavior in America.

 

Now, "because we as a society think its wrong" is fine.

 

That's the difference. The religious groups get on my nerves not when they talk about something being immoral, but when they talk about sin and the violation of gods law. Gods law has no bearing on what the law of the land is, namely because there are hundreds of opinions on what god's law entails.

 

You are talking in circles...

 

The religious groups get on your nerves NOT when they talk about something being immoral, but when they talk about sin and the violation of God's law?

 

Let me ask you this tbb... how is something determined to be immoral? From the beginning of mankind (however you think it started or we came to exist) how was the morality or immorality of something determined? If there is no sin (going against God's law), then how can something be immoral? If it isn't wrong, it isn't immoral. Homosexuality and Adultery (among other things) have always been immoral, just because they have become socially more acceptable doesn't change the fact that they are still immoral.

 

Then this, "God's law has no bearing on what the law of the land is"? What is the law of the land based on then? There are hundreds of opinions on what God's law entails but likewise are there not hundreds of opinions on what man's law or the law of the land are? The law of the land is based on (the generally accepted interpretation of) God's law, exactly opposite of what you said. Through discussion of the hundreds of opinions of what God's law entails, we have developed man's law. That is where it all started.

 

If there is no God, then there is no sin and if there is no sin, then there is no immorality, hence there is no right or wrong. If you follow this line of thinking then nothing matters... do whatever you want to do

[jerryskids 7,090]

I agree with you to an extent, with this caveat.

 

"Because God says so" is never a valid reason to legislatively prohibit or prescribe behavior in America.

 

Now, "because we as a society think its wrong" is fine.

 

That's the difference. The religious groups get on my nerves not when they talk about something being immoral, but when they talk about sin and the violation of gods law. Gods law has no bearing on what the law of the land is, namely because there are hundreds of opinions on what god's law entails.

I don't think you understood my post. To go with your simplistic analogy, "because God says so" is the agenda pushed by religious groups. We as a society then vote to determine whether we believe it is right or wrong.

 

Also, you are wordsmithing with your attempt to differentiate between "immoral" and "sin and violation of god's law." You choose to set your moral compass independent of a god, others choose differently. To view the moral compass of a person as less valid than yours is, IMO, being guilty of the same thing you accuse the "fundies" of.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

You are talking in circles...

 

The religious groups get on your nerves NOT when they talk about something being immoral, but when they talk about sin and the violation of God's law?

 

Let me ask you this tbb... how is something determined to be immoral? From the beginning of mankind (however you think it started or we came to exist) how was the morality or immorality of something determined? If there is no sin (going against God's law), then how can something be immoral? If it isn't wrong, it isn't immoral. Homosexuality and Adultery (among other things) have always been immoral, just because they have become socially more acceptable doesn't change the fact that they are still immoral.

 

Then this, "God's law has no bearing on what the law of the land is"? What is the law of the land based on then? There are hundreds of opinions on what God's law entails but likewise are there not hundreds of opinions on what man's law or the law of the land are? The law of the land is based on (the generally accepted interpretation of) God's law, exactly opposite of what you said. Through discussion of the hundreds of opinions of what God's law entails, we have developed man's law. That is where it all started.

 

If there is no God, then there is no sin and if there is no sin, then there is no immorality, hence there is no right or wrong. If you follow this line of thinking then nothing matters... do whatever you want to do

 

 

I don't think you understood my post. To go with your simplistic analogy, "because God says so" is the agenda pushed by religious groups. We as a society then vote to determine whether we believe it is right or wrong.

 

Also, you are wordsmithing with your attempt to differentiate between "immoral" and "sin and violation of god's law." You choose to set your moral compass independent of a god, others choose differently. To view the moral compass of a person as less valid than yours is, IMO, being guilty of the same thing you accuse the "fundies" of.

 

To answer both of you, in my view, nothing should be illegal if it does not harm others or infringe upon their rights.

 

I personally think homosexuality (for doods anyway) is gross. I hate it when guys kiss on tv, it makes me cringe and look away. But what two consenting adults do with their peemuses is no threat to me, so let em do what they want. Letting them get married doesn't do anyone any harm, thus there is no good reason to stop them.

 

Society has outlawed adults having secks with persons under the age of 18. We did this because we felt as a society that this is wrong, because such minors are too young to adequately consent to what they are doing. That is a good example of society drawing a moral line to protect someone.

 

Truthfully, even though I disagree with them, I don't mind the religious crowd's argument against abortion. They feel that it is murdering people, which is obviously wrong. Once again, I disagree, but at least their argumen has merit.

 

But with homosexuality, they are just cloaking their bigotry in morality. They have no reasonable objection to gay marriage, other than the fact that "they just don't like it, and Leviticus says its wrong." That is not a good reason to deny people the right to live as they choose.

 

But to clarify... Yes, many, if not most, people set their moral compass by their view of God's word. They have that right. What they do not have the right to do is to impose that moral view onto society at large, as that is an imposition of their god, absent some objective harm to another's rights.

[jerryskids 7,090]

To answer both of you, in my view, nothing should be illegal if it does not harm others or infringe upon their rights.

Personally I agree; then again I'm fairly libertarian. Some may however disagree with your assertion that ghey marriage doesn't affect others. Most notably, it is a step in the direction of enabling or expanding the ability of a ghey couple to adopt children. Since there is not proof that homosexuality is always genetic, there is a chance that being raised in that environment would influence a child's sexuality. Some may also believe that expanded acceptance in society of homosexuality, thus providing less barriers for young people to experiment.

 

I'm not arguing the right or wrong of the above attitudes, but rather pointing out that there are valid arguments of "harming" others.

 

BTW, if a group like the NAACP, say, lobbies to get tax dollars towards minority scholarships, that affects me personally.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Personally I agree; then again I'm fairly libertarian. Some may however disagree with your assertion that ghey marriage doesn't affect others. Most notably, it is a step in the direction of enabling or expanding the ability of a ghey couple to adopt children. Since there is not proof that homosexuality is always genetic, there is a chance that being raised in that environment would influence a child's sexuality. Some may also believe that expanded acceptance in society of homosexuality, thus providing less barriers for young people to experiment.

 

I'm not arguing the right or wrong of the above attitudes, but rather pointing out that there are valid arguments of "harming" others.

 

BTW, if a group like the NAACP, say, lobbies to get tax dollars towards minority scholarships, that affects me personally.

 

Gay marriage and allowing gay couples to adopt are two different issues. I support the former, as there is no good argument against it.

 

I don't really know where I stand on the latter... If we had an adequate number of loving, stable, straight homes to place children in, I would agree, and not allow them to adopt. But we don't, and I figure a kid is much better off being raised by a gay couple than he or she is being raised in state's custody or foster homes.

 

As for your argument concerning "expanded acceptance removing barriers to experimentation" I don't by it. First of all, the same logic could be used to ban any "negative" behavior, including alcohol, tobacco, heterosexual premarital sex, etc. People are under no obligation to provide positive role models for other people's kids.

 

But from a pragmatic standpoint, I just don't see it working that way. I don't care how accepted it becomes, I ain't ever sucking cack, and I imagine most of you feel the same way. I don't know if its genetic or not, but I don't think its strictly chosen. Why on earth would a teenage boy choose to be gay, with all the pain and grief that carries with it?

[jerryskids 7,090]

Gay marriage and allowing gay couples to adopt are two different issues. I support the former, as there is no good argument against it.

 

I don't really know where I stand on the latter... If we had an adequate number of loving, stable, straight homes to place children in, I would agree, and not allow them to adopt. But we don't, and I figure a kid is much better off being raised by a gay couple than he or she is being raised in state's custody or foster homes.

 

As for your argument concerning "expanded acceptance removing barriers to experimentation" I don't by it. First of all, the same logic could be used to ban any "negative" behavior, including alcohol, tobacco, heterosexual premarital sex, etc. People are under no obligation to provide positive role models for other people's kids.

 

But from a pragmatic standpoint, I just don't see it working that way. I don't care how accepted it becomes, I ain't ever sucking cack, and I imagine most of you feel the same way. I don't know if its genetic or not, but I don't think its strictly chosen. Why on earth would a teenage boy choose to be gay, with all the pain and grief that carries with it?

As I said, I was not arguing the right or wrong of the beliefs; rather I was pointing out that there are valid reasons, based on your definition of what should or should not be illegal, for religious groups to be able to lobby for their agenda.

[SweetMoolah 0]

Well at least the tone of the discussion has improved

 

I couldn't understand why ttb and davebg seem so angry about everything, but I'm new here so I guess I wasn't sure what to expect, especially with regards to subjects that involve strong opinions.

 

I hope everyone can understand that in spite of how the no on 8 supporters and media portrayed the situation, there is not the least amount of hate for those who have same gender attraction, especially within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That assertion is completely baseless.

 

I can understand where it would be easy to say, "what's the big deal with ghey marriage, it doesn't hurt anybody". However, when something as traditional and entrenched in a society as marriage has been throughout history (and accepted as the best way for society to function) is redefined, it is difficult to know where it will lead. I can't go into details, but in many ways our society (based on history and experience) is patterning itself after so many of the great societies and cultures of the past that have ultimately failed. In other words, history often repeats itself and we don't seem to learn from it.

 

I'm not suggesting that we should regress and go back in time to the 50's or whatever, but I believe it is important to preserve freedom for all. I think jerryskids touched on this concept somewhat, but it is very possible that by giving what some think is "equality and freedom" to one group will eliminate certain freedoms from all of us in the future. Granted we can't see into the future, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for or anticipate what it might be either.

[jerryskids 7,090]

Well at least the tone of the discussion has improved

 

I couldn't understand why ttb and davebg seem so angry about everything, but I'm new here so I guess I wasn't sure what to expect, especially with regards to subjects that involve strong opinions.

 

I hope everyone can understand that in spite of how the no on 8 supporters and media portrayed the situation, there is not the least amount of hate for those who have same gender attraction, especially within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That assertion is completely baseless.

 

I can understand where it would be easy to say, "what's the big deal with ghey marriage, it doesn't hurt anybody". However, when something as traditional and entrenched in a society as marriage has been throughout history (and accepted as the best way for society to function) is redefined, it is difficult to know where it will lead. I can't go into details, but in many ways our society (based on history and experience) is patterning itself after so many of the great societies and cultures of the past that have ultimately failed. In other words, history often repeats itself and we don't seem to learn from it.

 

I'm not suggesting that we should regress and go back in time to the 50's or whatever, but I believe it is important to preserve freedom for all. I think jerryskids touched on this concept somewhat, but it is very possible that by giving what some think is "equality and freedom" to one group will eliminate certain freedoms from all of us in the future. Granted we can't see into the future, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for or anticipate what it might be either.

If you aren't really an alias and instead really are new here, you should shut up now, as I've won this thread in as much support for your side as you are going to get here. T&b&C&R&S&Q&whatever pretty much has no response to me at this point. Enjoy the victory I've earned for you; a simple "thank you" would suffice.

[aeropushb4 0]

So the next time the jehovah's witnesses come to the door trying to tell me the Invisible Pink Unicorn is really not the way to go, I'll tell 'em the Mormons got my back.

[SweetMoolah 0]

If you aren't really an alias and instead really are new here, you should shut up now, as I've won this thread in as much support for your side as you are going to get here. T&b&C&R&S&Q&whatever pretty much has no response to me at this point. Enjoy the victory I've earned for you; a simple "thank you" would suffice.

 

Not an alias

 

I didn't realize winning or losing a thread is what it's all about but I guess that helps prove my newness.

 

It is apparent that I am in the minority on this topic, but considering the heat members of our church took (Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day-saints might have been 1 or 2% of those that voted yes) after prop 8 passed, I'll willingly stand next to the african-american and hispanic populations in California that sent the proposition to victory anyway. After all, they are the ones that know and understand real discrimination.

 

I may stick it out here after making it through the first round of insults relatively unscathed.

 

I'll "shutup" now and thank you.

[jerryskids 7,090]

Not an alias

 

I didn't realize winning or losing a thread is what it's all about but I guess that helps prove my newness.

 

It is apparent that I am in the minority on this topic, but considering the heat members of our church took (Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day-saints might have been 1 or 2% of those that voted yes) after prop 8 passed, I'll willingly stand next to the african-american and hispanic populations in California that sent the proposition to victory anyway. After all, they are the ones that know and understand real discrimination.

 

I may stick it out here after making it through the first round of insults relatively unscathed.

 

I'll "shutup" now and thank you.

You've done well grasshoppa, and I understand your desire to defend your religion, and you've done an admirable job. In a way I shouldn't have dissuaded you from doing so, but I was trying to isolate a winning point, which I did. You can get personal satisfaction trying to make the arguments that you did, and that's greta, but you should also recognize that you aren't going to persuade anyone here, as we are all horrifically polarized in our positions.