It was probably rather ridiculous of me to submit post 156. I mean, honestly, why should I speak if I'm not going to continue talking about the matter anyway? It's like just shooting in a kind of "last word" pointlessly :rolleyes: . Oh well :o .

Just a question.... Isn't the United States suppose to keep religion and state seperate. And if so, why are gays still denied marriage, when one can argue they are being denied their pursuit of happiness?

Personally, I think every american who is against gay marriage, is pathetic. Same goes to the religous, I think if you are against gay marriage you deserve to go to hell. Discriminating agianst homosexuals because of intolerance is not what I call decent, just or morally right.

Well, in my above post I expressed some of the reasons why I believe homosexuality to be harmful. If it is harmful, then the government equating it with heterosexuality is also harmful.

A person doing illegal drugs all the time is probably pursuing happiness. It can be debated whether these drugs should be made legal or not. However, it clearly should be illegal for the government to say "the drugs are fine!" when they aren't! Don't you agree?

The government saying that homosexuals wanting marriage should be given the same rights as heterosexuals desiring marriage would be the same as the government saying, "homosexuality is fine!" Perhaps this is true. The fact is that without good, reliable, impartial studies being taken, we don't know. What I advocate is therefore that we know whether or not homosexuality is fine before we say it is. We should know that it is essentially the same as heterosexual marriage before we apply heterosexual marriage laws to homosexuals. Acting based on a lack of knowledge is not smart.
I would have been very surprised if you didn't.
Belief is not an argument. My statement was based on what I've seen around me.
Inked has already provided evidence that AIDS originated from homosexual behavior. It is also perpetuated by that kind of behavior. People do catch it who aren't homosexuals, true. Many of them get it because of homosexuals though, for example if a person has a bisexual husband, or receives a nasty blood transfusion.

There are other diseases that also come from this kind of behavior. Sure, other people get other STDs as well. However, monogomous, heterosexual marriage is an almost 100% foolproof means of protection from these things.

good :D i wasn't speaking about belief, i was speaking of what i know
there is also a theory that the CIA released AIDs to kill off the gays 'that kind of behavious'? :rolleyes:generalisation? well in this country you are not allowed to give blood if you are gay and even if you are, surely it should be screened?'this kind of behaviour'? why not just make homosexuality a crime again? :rolleyes:and how many people can you truly say have never had sex before marriage, will not divorce, and will stay truly faithful? human nature is a factor...

Umm, Lief, I don't believe I have ever said or argued that HIV/AIDS originated in homosexuals. I believe that the evidence is that it is a zoonosis in Africa that has successfully made the transition to endemic illness in humanity. What I have plainly maintained (and still maintain) was that the dissemination of this localized zoonosis to a world-wide plague was accomplished via predominantly homosexual behaviours in its long-latency phase in a well-nourished and otherwise healthy population of 1st-worlders.

The disease itself is spread via transmission of a virus, specifically a retrovirus. It is sexually transmitted in both heterosexuals and homosexuals(of either stripe, by the way, though much less commonly in lesbians as a group without other risk factors).

The CDC statistics to this day show that the riskiest behaviours for acquiring AIDS/HIV remain MSM (men who have sex with men, e.g., homosexual fluid exchanging, fluid retentive behaviours primarily), drug users who share needles (anyone worry about hepatitis anymore?), multiple partners, etc. {I have posted the links to this data}.

The "separation of church and state" is from a private letter by Thomas Jefferson. The actual law is that the government shall not establish a religion. Remember, we came from England, where they had forced religions on people, with various nasty penalties if they didn't comply. That's the background of our establishment clause. It's to give FREEDOM of religion by allowing people to choose how, if, and what they want to worship (within the laws of the country - i.e., cults that murder people wouldn't be legal).

The "pursuit of happiness" is not a wholesale freedom to do whatever you want. It is subject to restrictions. It's illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded public building, even if you really enjoy it. It's also currently illegal to have more than one husband or wife, even though it made the Mormons (well, at least the men!) happy. Are they being denied their pursuit of happiness in the same way that gays are? Obviously, yes. So as you can see, the "pursuit of happiness" is indeed subject to some restrictions.

I'm sorry, but this double standard just cracks me up! People get upset at Christians when they say they believe hell exists, but that they don't want anyone to go there. Is anyone upset at this statement by Raggy? I doubt it!

I agree.

on a lighter note, i find it incredibly amusing that whilst the uk has an offical religion, and the us does not, the us is far more religious than the most religious areas of the uk!

Yes, Rian, I noticed Raggy's little faux pas! I was having problems clearing my eyes of the tears of laughter and thus couldn't respond! (Reminds me of CS Lewis' observations about folks who opposed capital punishnment in principle but then offered to horsewhip to death anyone who mistreated any animal.) It also reminds me of the country song "I live for little moments like that!"

Yes, LCoU, the freedom of worship in the USA to not have to attend a prescribed state church does in fact result in most folks choosing to go to worship. It's only those beastly holdovers from pre-fall of the Communist world view as applied in the enlightened policies of Lenin, Stalin, etc who hold the abolition of religion (as a religious doctrine themselves, BTW) the chief goal of the state (and those poor souls who have not yet recovered from the seemingly enlighted tutorage of similarly afflicted individuals) who advocate that in the USA. The latter group like to pretend to enlightenment not vouchsafed to the hoi polloi as well. They, after all, know what is best; as they will quickly tell you. (Their only problem is history. For when the dialectic applied by Marx is applied to his theory and its results, it fails.........except for those who hold it an article of faith! :evil: )

Meanwhile, I attach this little interesting article about the late Pope JPII and President Bush and their respective moral views on selected subjects as derived from their religious traditions: this seems the most appropriate forum.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0505030809.asp

What thinkest thou?

Okay. Thanks for catching me on that, before I made some real mistakes.
Funny, I agree.
You don't know, Last Child. If you are not promiscuous, that does not mean much about other homosexuals. You too have your belief, based upon your observation (and your observation of yourself can count there, too).
I wasn't talking exclusively about this country.
Many things are human nature that are not good. Selfishness, for example, is inherent in everyone. The drive for sex can be fulfilled in monogomous marriage. The sex drive is inherent in human nature. However, of multiple partner sex, I could not say the same. If right now in human history, sex outside of wedlock is a frequent occurrence for some parts of America, there are many other parts where this behavior is almost completely not to be found. During the earlier parts of our nation we were predominantly Christian. There have been times in various countries when this behavior has been largely eliminated from a community.

If the drive for sex with multiple partners was absolutely strong in every person, I think we might find more supporting it in world religions. Islam, Christianity and Judaism all stomp on this. Islam's laws allow up to four wives, but modern Muslim theologians argue that this was because Muhammad was trying to get the best that could be expected. In other words, he was working toward a goal when he offered this law.

Jesus said that the law allowing people to divorce whenever they pleased was given "because their hearts were hard."

I believe that the desire for sex is inherent in human nature. I believe that having multiple partners or sex outside of wedlock is a perversion of this, and I don't believe it is truly fulfilling for anyone who is involved in it.

I understand your point, but can I ask you a question? What specifically about gay marriage do you find harmful? How can you oppress (or justify oppression of) another human being without a guilty conscience. I don't understand why its such a big deal to make homosexual marriage legal. Is it just that homosexuals should be denied marriage because Christians and Catholics don't agree with it? Why can't a homosexual raise an adopted child, or other use other recently developed reproduction methods ( Intracytoplasmic sperm injection or use a surrogate mother) and have the benefits of marriage at the same time? Is it is because traditionally marriage was meant to be for a man and woman. Is it on that precedent that we must follow tradition even though it is wrong and discriminating?



Personally, I don't believe in religion or a God/Gods, I'm just judging the religous (Christians/Catholics to be more precise) by thier own standards.

So does that mean you think gay marriage should be allowed, even if your religion would conflict with that belief.


And Inked, I'm glad you found that funny.

We'll have to go over to the gay/les/bi thread or the homosexual marriage thread (I think it's called that) for this discussion :) Could you please move it there? I probably won't be back on until Tuesday, tho.

And a reminder post to IRex, who appears to be gone this weekend -

IRex:

i know from my own experience, and through the many many other gay, lesbian and bisexual people that i know

in he words of emma kennedy "Here is a wall, here is my head, go bash it"

Rian, in what way is gay marriage harmful to anyone? What IR is saying is that while PBA causes obvious physical harm, gay marriage does not.

Can you please say in what way it is harmful exactly, and to whom?

I'll pick up the discussion of gay marriage on the glb thread if you want me to, since I don't want to be chided by an admin for going off-topic ... :D

For this thread, I"m just pointing out several things about inconsistent attitudes by IRex. He says that I shouldn't restrict the freedom of people to do something they think is right (gay marriage), yet HE does the exact same thing when he wants to restrict the freedom of people to do something they think is right (partial birth abortion).

He's tried to make the determining factor to be if it's harmful or not, but that can't be true for two reasons -

(1) he's said before that even if gay marriage WAS scientifically proven to be harmful (like smoking), that we STILL shouldn't restrict it.

(2) I'm guessing he's against restricting earlier abortions, and those abortions also, obviously, harm the fetus, so it looks like there's other things involved than harm, such as an individual's definition of personhood.

So it's NOT only about harm, even tho he is apparently trying to make it seem so (and people even disagree on the definition of what is harmful, depending on their worldview, altho the physical part is pretty well agreed upon - for example, some people think games that keep score and there is a winner and loser are very harmful, so they invent games where there are no losers). So to be consistent, if HE is supporting restrictions on partial birth abortions, then he should stop telling ME to support restrictions on marriage. (But I've noticed that consistency and IRex sometimes part ways ... ;) ) That's what started this discussion - I get tired of him telling me to not force MY views on others when he feels free to force HIS views on others. Personally, I think my position is more logical - I think everyone should vote for what they think is right, even if I don't think it's right.

So for this thread, Hobbit, since we're talking about determinations of right and wrong and things like that, do you think partial birth abortions are totally fine, or would you support any type of restriction on them? If you would support restrictions, do you then tell other people (like me) to not vote against gay marriage (which would be a double standard on your part), or do you just ask me why I think it is wrong, and share why you think it is fine, and discuss the matter, and then say we should both vote for what we think is right?

Will since you are just ignoring what I keep saying and resorting to the same old name calling rather then actually LISTENING to what im SAYING then I guess Im gonna just have to resort to doing the same with you. Im saddened that you choose to use this kind of tactic.

as for the rest...

this is a clear misrepresentation bordering on being a lie. Gay marriage doesnt kill another person. Partial birth abortion DOES. Until you get the concept that when you ban gay marriage you are restricting the liberty of another person for NO good reason then you arent going to get anywhere in this discussion.

hey hey nice try... I said if you could prove direct harm (i.e. people blow up upon saying “I do” THEN we could TALK about restrictions. But if you can only show smoking level harm then you cant ban it because its a judgement call for the individual since it doesnt effect others (like smoking does...). And since you cant even show it causes even this level of harm then your argument is moot. Give us the studies or stop using this line of argument.

As I stated and was ignored in my previous posts, we have a general idea SCIENTIFICALLY when a fetus has reached a point in development where it would achieve some level of sentience and pain threshold that would make a procedure like abortion wrong according to our constitution UNLESS the life of the mother is at stake. Its pretty cut and dry.

I cant do a better job of pointing out the clear apples to oranges comparison that you keep ignoring then you do here rian. Two whole different ball games here. Just sticking your fingers in your ears and insisting gay marriage is as harmful as partial birth abortion or that it is harmful at ALL does not make it so. sorry.

You want to restrict the rights and freedoms of gays for no good reason other then religion. For you can NOT say its to “protect” gays because you have no evidence for such. I want to follow straight forward and logical rules TO PROTECT a developed sentient human life barring the life or health of the mother. You tell me whose forcing what here...

First of all, where did I do any "name calling"?! :confused:
Second, I do NOT ignore what you say - I listen to what you say, and think about it, and analyze it, and I point out where I don't agree with your reasoning. That's not "ignoring"! That's disagreement. People don't always agree.

I'm trying to understand you here - do you think any time a person disagrees with you that they're ignoring you? I don't think that - I think that people can have honest disagreements, even after carefully listening to each other. Do you? I think that's what's happening here, and I wish you would stop saying I'm ignoring you, because I am NOT.

I still think that your reasoning is in error, and you are applying a double standard, and I"m trying to show that. I guess I could say that you are ignoring me, too, if disagreement is what you mean by "ignoring" :confused:

Well said. :)

You mean "NO good reason" that YOU accept, based upon your admitted imperfect knowledge of the universe.

(My knowledge of the universe is imperfect, too, obviously :) - but we each need to go on what we think is right, based upon our own personal observations and experience, IMO.)


Before I answer any more, would you please answer this: do you think partial birth abortion is wrong? If so, why? If not, why not?

:eek: , I want to hear this.... what "good" reasons are there for banning gay marriage?