Quote: Simple question we both should already know the answer to.
Look I think the bigger picture to look at here is that the founders would have no inkling whatsoever that anyone would ever consider marriage anything other than between a man and a woman. It just always was and always would be. You might as well have told them that trees will stop growing and the birds will stop singing.
Marriage is what is. There is no need to change it just on the word of a few radically minded individuals. Ask yourself a question. Will it make the world a better place if you got your way and marriage was no longer a legal entity?
There are many reasons for marriage to be part of the legal system. Marriage is important to society. It's important to children. Children with mothers and fathers do much better usually in life.
Two married people can spend their whole lives building up assets together. It goes without saying the spouse should be legally protected in maintaining those assets.
As far as gays go, they can make legal arrangements without the title marriage on their property and so forth.
Why make life so complicated? Are you just against marriage because you have commitment issues with your girlfriend or something? Because there are much bigger things to worry about changing in this world like human rights violations in China. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 16 Mar 2009 20:34 Last Edited By: pakratmak
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Look I think the bigger picture to look at...
Rights of the individual. All I need to look at. You also didn't answer the question.
Quote: Will it make the world a better place if you got your way and marriage was no longer a legal entity?
It will make the country better if it goes back to the religious ceremony it started as with the states not having to recognize it at all and instead having the ability for anyone to set up a legal contract with whoever they want for whatever they want. Yes, worlds better.
Quote: There are many reasons for marriage to be part of the legal system.
Name one that isn't a personal anecdote and supported by fact and/or evidence.
Quote: It goes without saying the spouse should be legally protected in maintaining those assets.
No it doesn't-that's why it's a legal swamp.
Quote: Are you just against marriage because you have commitment issues with your girlfriend or something?
Stop trying to make this something it isn't. It isn't about me and it isn't personal. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 17:57 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Oh brother, you only choose to see what you want to see. The founding fathers were all about God and country. I can say it a million times, but here's a million and one. They were only concerned with the government choosing one specific church that forced people to attend. They weren't worried that God or the Bible would be a part of the legal system in any way.
With your logic we couldn't condemn murder or stealing because it's in the Bible.
I got news for you at least in this decade or two there is not going to be a chance that marriage will no longer be a part of the legal system.
I keep saying it, but you don't seem to get it though. You got to look at the legal precedence for the last couple of hundred years not only in this country but for thousands of years on other countries where marriage has been a man and a woman.
You keep going on about rights, but define what a right is. What gives someone a right. Is it because they desire to have a certain privilege? Does that automatically give them the right to it? Do you have the right to come along and make an argument for taking away a privilege that has been afforded people since the beginning of time? Why is your definition of marriage superior to the definition that has been around for thousands of years? What makes this new generation's ideas superior in your thinking to that of the last generations ? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 21:51
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Oh brother, you only choose to see what you want to see.
You must be speaking to a mirror.
Quote: The founding fathers were all about God and country.
1)Prove it. 2)'all about country' is meaningless tripe unless you think they came here to start a record label or radio station. 3) Many of them were deists, not Christians and they wanted the freedom and safety to practice or not practice whatever spiritual path the individual chose-so not 'all about God'-clearly.
Quote: They weren't worried that God or the Bible would be a part of the legal system in any way.
1st amendment says you're wrong and that they were indeed aware of such problems and made the effort to prevent those problems. Your not accepting the other half of that part of the amendment doesn't make it disappear.
Quote: With your logic we couldn't condemn murder or stealing because it's in the Bible.
I do love how this keeps becoming all about me-it does sound a bit childish on your end though. Anyways-in response-we don't need the Bible to condemn anything or create laws over. We know murder and theft are wrong culturally and as a society. My logic says we can actually ignore the Bible, just like so many 'good Christians' do.
Quote: I got news for you at least in this decade or two there is not going to be a chance that marriage will no longer be a part of the legal system.
Source?
Quote: I keep saying it, but you don't seem to get it though.
People who keep repeating themselves because they think it actually makes what they're saying true are either children or insane. You and I both have opinions and sad to say, one can be wrong if not both.
Quote: You got to look at the legal precedence for the last couple of hundred years not only in this country but for thousands of years on other countries where marriage has been a man and a woman.
Let's see. Legal precedents are court cases decisions that have already been decided that help shape our current laws and better our understanding of such laws. Go ahead and show me all those precedents about a court saying who the individual can and can't marry in THIS country. We live here-stick with here. Other countries are not a concern.
----------------------------------------------------
Quote: You keep going on about rights, but define what a right is. What gives someone a right. Is it because they desire to have a certain privilege? Does that automatically give them the right to it?
I don't think your line of questioning is serious, but just in case:
Quote: Do you have the right to come along and make an argument for taking away a privilege that has been afforded people since the beginning of time?
I have the right to make any argument I want-so do you. As a follow up to your loaded question-what gives you the right to determine who can marry who? Remember-it's either a secular arrangement or a religious one-try not crossing the streams.
Quote: Why is your definition of marriage superior to the definition that has been around for thousands of years?
What definition is 'mine' and what definition is the one that's 'been around for thousands of years' exactly, so I can compare? Remember again-secular or religious-pick one.
Quote: What makes this new generation's ideas superior in your thinking to that of the last generations ?
Progress. The same reason why you're using a computer instead of making cave paintings. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 18 Mar 2009 17:53
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Let's see you think because we have greater technology these days that means we have greater wisdom. Well let me ask you. Did you invent the automobile, the computer, the phone, or anybody else in this generation? Nope, it's been the work of the previous generations that you think are so backward. Without the foundations they built we wouldn't have any of the things we have now.
Speaking of foundations, that's what marriage is. It's the foundation of society. The more marriage and family erode the worse society will become.
Quote: We know murder and theft are wrong culturally and as a society.
We do huh? Society can't agree on anything. Murder is wrong because a higher power let us know it was and gave us a conscience. If we followed evolution for instance, only the strong would survive. Murder would be A-okay would it not? It wouldn't even be called murder it would be called survival of the species or some other nonsense. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 18 Mar 2009 20:55
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Let's see you think because we have greater technology these days that means we have greater wisdom.
No, I never said that or even implied it. Progress does not necessarily mean wisdom at all, except in the obvious cases where it does.
Quote: Without the foundations they built we wouldn't have any of the things we have now.
Your logic is odd. Because I didn't make these pieces of technology myself, somehow progress has to be frozen to the exact moments in time when those things were invented and we should completely ignore the fact that other advances have been made more recently and that others will be made that we have not even dreamed of yet. Makes no sense boss-not for the discussion mostly, but just by itself it's flawed.
Then somehow, because of these foundations of how things are learned or how technology progresses we have to see the originators as superior somehow? Why not go back to the real originators who made it all happen? The discovery of fire for one. How about indoor plumbing? How about the mudmonkeys that first figured out how to grunt with meaning? We'd be nowhere without their contributions, wouldn't you say?
Quote: Speaking of foundations, that's what marriage is. It's the foundation of society.
I think you have that backwards. A foundation as you're using it would mean either the basis for something else or the initiator of that something else. In that case, society, in a rather loose connection, is the foundation for marriage-not the other way around.
Quote: The more marriage and family erode the worse society will become.
Right after you provide evidence that gays marrying somehow erodes the system to begin with, then you can prove the connection between it and family deterioration and THEN you can show us how bad society will become as compared to now.
Quote: Murder is wrong because a higher power let us know it was and gave us a conscience.
No. That's actually a discussion for another topic though.
Quote: If we followed evolution for instance, only the strong would survive. Murder would be A-okay would it not? It wouldn't even be called murder it would be called survival of the species or some other nonsense.
It's actually called the food chain, and look, it's sanctioned and acceptible. You eat steak, don't you? Chicken? Bacon?
Your grasp of evolution is still shaky but at least you're progressing.
-------------------------------------------------
I'll ask these again, at the very end, so maybe you won't ignore them this time.
Where is marriage referred to in the Constitution?
(this one's from ways back, because every time I bring it up, you brush right past it, presumably out of fear)Why should a non-Christian pay any heed whatsoever, much less live their life according to 'Christian values'? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 20 Mar 2009 14:44
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Why should non-Christians pay heed to Christian values? You do at least part of the way. Unless of course you steal, kill, etc.
Now it's likely you might be committing adultery, lying, coveting other people's property, hating your neighbor, being ungrateful, etc etc.
But wouldn't it be a better world if we all heeded these Christian values and didn't do these bad things?
Quote: Where is marriage referred to in the Constitution?
I could say the same to you. You say gay people have a right to marriage then where is that written exactly? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 20 Mar 2009 18:48
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
We need to clear that up - not killing and not stealing are not the sole property of Christianity. Killing and stealing were around long before your religion was created and laws against them were around long before as well. Lying also belongs with this group as being around and being frowned upon long before Christianity.
Can't commit adultery without marriage, correct? If marriage is strictly a religious affair as it's been painted, then only the religious folks that got married could have been adulterous, yes? If religion created marriage-religion gets the baggage of adultery too, by proxy.
Coveting someone elses' things is the only reason our economy ever thrived in the first place- I can't think of a reason not to covet someone else's property. It did bring a smile to my face remembering that one of the things you're not supposed to covet is your neighbor's slaves-why something so unjust is something laughably considered justice?
If your neighbor is even a fraction of an asshole, you can't be expected not to hate them, unless you're a fool or a doormat.
Being ungrateful is some sort of crime or offense and harms who exactly and in what way?
---------------------------------------------
Quote: I could say the same to you.
The answers are the same-nowhere. It was left up to the states.
If we leave it up to the states again, explain all the very good secular reasons to not allow a person to marry whatever person they choose. Explain how they don't deserve the same protection and recognition under the law because their choice is not the popular one. While you're at it, you can also explain to me how this is any different from the time when blacks couldn't marry whites by authority of the law. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 21 Mar 2009 17:50
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Killing and stealing were around long before your religion was created and laws against them were around long before as well. Lying also belongs with this group as being around and being frowned upon long before Christianity.
Long before Cain and Able?
Quote: If your neighbor is even a fraction of an asshole, you can't be expected not to hate them
Doesn't seem to jive with the whole anti-prejudice equal rights bit. So what are justifiable reasons to hate somebody?
A man and a woman being together is as natural as the birds flying south and bees making honey. That doesn't need any defense.
You can't relate this argument to black and white relations. It's two different subjects. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 21 Mar 2009 20:48
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Long before Cain and Able?
Now you want to adhere to something in the OT, when you've ignored other things in it? Cain and Abel is just a story, so yes, before that story was ever told there was murder and mayhem and rules against them.
Quote: So what are justifiable reasons to hate somebody?
Whatever reason you like-just don't act on it. Pedople still have their prejudices and jealousies regardless of religion, regardless of legislation and they don't need to justify any of them to anyone.
Quote: A man and a woman being together is as natural as the birds flying south and bees making honey. That doesn't need any defense.
It didn't need to be brought up either as it doesn't seem to reference anything I said. If you were trying to imply that homosexuality is 'unnatural' than you're wrong actually-plenty of animals do same sex things. Look it up.
You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Quote: You can't relate this argument to black and white relations. It's two different subjects.
I can, I did and they're not. How are they different? (it should be stunning to see you balance which prejudice or discrimination is better than the other, if you answer this at all) __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 23 Mar 2009 16:02
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Now you want to adhere to something in the OT
Nobody ever said that actually believes the Bible the OT didn't happen. What Christians believe is that after Jesus died for our sins it brought us into the age of grace which changed how we and God react to sin. Jesus took the penalty so stoning becomes old school. His death meant that God the Father now sees only Christ's blood atonement when he sees us.
"There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus."
Quote: Whatever reason you like
Ok, basically you are saying then that hate crimes are silly because what a person feels or doesn't feel is not anybody's business? Would that be a about right?
Of course on the other hand while I am against legislating feelings, I'd much rather show love to my neighbor than hate. Hating people just because doesn't cut it for a Christian. In fact we are supposed to love our enemies.
As far as nature anomalies, do any same sex animals ever have kids together?
On the black and white thing. Color of somebody's skin means not a whole lot to me in terms of dating or marriage. We all got the same parts who cares what color they are. Further as a Christian while some others in my faith have rejected black and white marriage I can't say that it's ever mentioned in the Bible. They confuse the commandment to marry someone of like faith to like race. Moses married an Ethiopian. There are no examples of a Christian man marrying another man in scripture.
Now obviously in times past it would be extremely difficult on a mixed racial family and probably a lot of good people did not want their kids to get involved in something like that to protect them and their grand children from discrimination. Don't think it's as big an issue these days, but again this is comparing apples to oranges.
Right is right and wrong is wrong. If a 50 year old man wants to marry a 8 year old girl is it going to be ok if society changes it's mind in 20 years? Course not, but you define right and wrong by society and what they deem ok. You see your definition of right and wrong is always changing. Mine does not change because my source does not change. And please don't tell me that society's idea of right and wrong doesn't constantly change.
What are you going to do with the liberal elites come up with some new lifestyle change even you can't get behind? Just oh well it's what they want so everybody get out of the way and give them whatever they want. Dog marriages, people and cats, just whatever floats their boat? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 23 Mar 2009 21:01
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Ok, basically you are saying then that hate crimes are silly because what a person feels or doesn't feel is not anybody's business? Would that be a about right?
Already answered this. VV
Quote: just don't act on it.
That takes hate crimes out of the equation if somebody doesn't act on their feelings correct?
-------------------------------------------------
Quote: As far as nature anomalies, do any same sex animals ever have kids together?
No. What's your point?
Quote: Color of somebody's skin means not a whole lot to me in terms of dating or marriage.
When did this become about you? If the only difference you can point out is your preference you have nothing.
Quote: some others in my faith have rejected black and white marriage I can't say that it's ever mentioned in the Bible.
Gay marriage and inter-racial marriage are mentioned in equal amounts-another non-argument. And yet again-how does something in the Bible concern non-Christians in the least?
Quote: a lot of good people did not want their kids to get involved in something like that to protect them and their grand children from discrimination.
-or-
those 'good people' were acting on nothing but their own prejudices. Parents of gays probably pull the same stunt, hiding behind supposed concerns or worse-hiding behind children, especially through duplicitous language.
Quote: Right is right and wrong is wrong.
and black is black and white is white and day is day and night is night... A=A never says anything.
Quote: If a 50 year old man wants to marry a 8 year old girl is it going to be ok if society changes it's mind in 20 years?
No. We have very good reasons as a society to not allow that, therefore we won't. Those reasons aren't based on some religious superstition or fanatacism. That actually flies in the face of some religions. Mohammad and the Mormons come immediately to mind.
Quote: Mine does not change because my source does not change.
If good things are good and bad things are bad, there is no need for a 'lawgiver'-we can figure out the good and bad all by ourselves. On the other hand, if things are only good or bad on their say so, and the party responsible for creating them is also responsible for labeling them, then that creator and lawgiver is exactly responsible for the things we're supposed to avoid, thus being good AND evil themselves and is thus unworthy of praise or devotion. Your 'lawgiver' isn't worth the paper he's printed on.
Again, for whatever amount we're up to-why should a non-Christian be the slightest bit concerned with what's in the Bible?
Quote: And please don't tell me that society's idea of right and wrong doesn't constantly change.
I won't. Through a handful of misfires it usually improves. You're pitting your preference(or mine it seems) against the whole of society. That's a bad argument again.
Quote: What are you going to do with the liberal elites come up with some new lifestyle change even you can't get behind? Just oh well it's what they want so everybody get out of the way and give them whatever they want. Dog marriages, people and cats, just whatever floats their boat?
This is a mess caught somewhere between whiny and rediculous. It's something of an insult to both of us when you do this. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 23 Mar 2009 22:13
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: why should a non-Christian be the slightest bit concerned with what's in the Bible?
Maybe that's the problem. Perhaps you should rethink the not being a Christian thing especially if it leads to putting a stamp of approval on things that are immoral.
Just my opinion mind you, but still.
We all have gods. Yours is society. You think society has the correct idea of right and wrong except for one problem. Nobody in today's culture agrees 100 percent on anything. So whose right and wrong do you choose? That's why you have to have a standard to which to live by. My standard doesn't change. Yours does. You have no definitive source of truth to which to cling to. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 24 Mar 2009 13:23
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Perhaps you should rethink the not being a Christian thing especially if it leads to putting a stamp of approval on things that are immoral.
The mistake is yours for thinking we have to agree with what Christianity says is immoral when we're not Christians. Perhaps you should think of morality we can all agree on regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Quote: We all have gods. Yours is society.
I don't have a god and society is not a god anyways.
Quote: So whose right and wrong do you choose?
Today, I'll go with Thor. Tomorrow might be Apollo or Zeus-I'll let you know after the coin flip.
Seriously though, because we all can't agree 100% on any issues is exactly why it shouldn't be based on one faith or another, especially in a diverse and secular culture.
Quote: You have no definitive source of truth to which to cling to.
My truth excludes mysticism and double speak, which trumps any religion. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 24 Mar 2009 15:29
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: The mistake is yours for thinking we have to agree with what Christianity says is immoral when we're not Christians
One thing is certain there is a definitive moral code to live by. Right and wrong is as certain as 2+2=4. The problem sometimes is with our math. The answer is the same whether we get it or not.
The question one needs to ask is what is the truth. You look at religion as though it's impossible to weed through all the different beliefs. I understand that. I really do, but I don't see atheism offering any easier answers from my perspective.
Might be easier for you to understand my perspective if you knew some really good old fashioned Bible believing Christians personally. They are getting more rare every day. Me, I'm not a great example of a great Christian. There are people out there that give up everything to preach the gospel to others.
It's just you think the answers are in yourself. I think the answers are in God. The will to do right. The direction for our lives. Hope for eternity all rest in God. Which is fine for me because I realize that there are things way beyond my abilities.
It's too early for me to think so deeply so I'm going to shut up. I should have waited till I had more caffeine before jumping on the board. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 24 Mar 2009 21:18
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: I really do, but I don't see atheism offering any easier answers from my perspective.
Let me lay out similarly easy math. Binary code.
1=believe. 0=don't believe.
That switch doesn't rely on bartering-it relies on reason-evidenced premises that pass through the gauntlet of logic. I think it gets easier for that switch to shift to the 1 side the shoddier the evidence one allows for their premises and the more fractured their logical processes.
Quote: The question one needs to ask is what is the truth.
So then one has to ask oneself why, if Christians have the 'truth' are they themselves broken down in to over 30,000 different subgroups, each with their own version of the 'truth'. Even if one particular group had it right somehow, all the rest get obliterated. I'll also remind that my 'truth' doesn't rely on faith and mysticism and wordplay and unevidenced claims or making subordinates or enemies of other groups. By odds alone, my truth is more likely. By standards of actual morality, it's superior to anything offered by Abrahamic tradition-we actually think before we act, which is an incredible boon toward being a moral creature.
So, now that we've taken this wonderful detour, how bout we get back on track?
-----------------------------------------------
I'd still like to see actual answers to these(grab some coffee first):
Why should a non-Christian be the slightest bit concerned with what's in the Bible? You don't read or consult or consider any other holy books yourself for any reason-I'm not convinced you've actually read all of your book even. If you don't consider reading material from outside the sphere of your beliefs, I don't understand why you think anyone should. You can answer that question there by explaining to me why you should be taking the quran into consideration for anything in your life.
Is marriage secular or religious? If you were to try and say religous at this point-which religion? Considering that we're talking about the states recognizing a marriage-it MUST be a secular arrangement, or we need a new system besides marriage. You decide.
While you're deciding that, we'll go back to these gems-how are black adults not being allowed to marry white adults by law when both parties love each other enough to make that commitment >in any way different< than two adults of the same sex not being allowed to marry by law when both parties love each other enough to make that commitment? Secular reasons please.
In secular terms also, why should two consenting adults who would otherwise be allowed to marry anyone they wanted and chose each other, who happen to have the same reproductive organs not be allowed to marry? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 24 Mar 2009 21:27
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: if Christians have the 'truth' are they themselves broken down in to over 30,000 different subgroups, each with their own version of the 'truth'
I can't speak for a bunch of sub groups I just know what I have read and believe in the Bible. Do I know all. No, but I can read. When I hear other religions coming up with ideas that are obviously not in the Bible that they report to believe as well. I know they aren't right.
Quote: Why should a non-Christian be the slightest bit concerned with what's in the Bible?
Maybe the real question is why should a non-Christian stay a non-Christian. Does not believing give you more joy than believing? Does it give you answers? Does it make you feel fulfilled? Does it give you peace?
If you are looking at it secularly then nobody should get married because it's based on the Bible. So why would gays want to get married. If you look at it from the Biblical perspective then you can't obviously start redefining it to a secular position.
Either way gay marriage makes no sense logically. It's like fitting a square peg into a round hole. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 24 Mar 2009 21:45
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: why should a non-Christian stay a non-Christian.
Lack of evidence to do otherwise. No emotions necessary. No equivocation or bartering necessary.
Quote: If you are looking at it secularly then nobody should get married because it's based on the Bible.
First off, other religions get people married so the Bible is probably not the only source. Second, it's not that nobody should be allowed to marry-you should in accordance with your faith to do just that-it's the recognition of the state for these religious events and ceremonies to affect legal processes and contracts that has to be done away with. This straddling of that wonderful wall of separation needs to end- for the sanctity of your religion and the full authority of law through protection for all citizens equally-it's not working with this half and half bullshit. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 25 Mar 2009 15:34
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: the Bible is probably not the only source.
Is to me. I'm just after truth. I don't need to take into consideration that there are a million untruths or fabrications surrounding truth.
In my mind a person should seek what is right first. You spend all your time trying to reconcile why there are so many different religions, perspectives, view points, etc to really look at the evidence fairly to determine what is truth and what is a lie. Information overload perhaps, but I follow one good motto in my life that helps me get by.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it." I have found the Bible to work in my life, and Jesus to be my Savior. Not going to change my beliefs now. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 25 Mar 2009 22:58
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
When I said the bible is probably not the only source, that was in reference to marriage's origins.
Also,this:
Quote: I'm just after truth.
and this:
Quote: Not going to change my beliefs now.
don't add up-they defeat each other. You can't do both at the same time. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 26 Mar 2009 16:06
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Not going to change my beliefs about the Bible being the inspired Word of God because that is the truth. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 26 Mar 2009 17:52
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Nobody said you had to. The problem is that you seem to refuse to see anything else, and this is not truth-it's not even honest. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 26 Mar 2009 22:42
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
I could say the same to you about your atheistic beliefs. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 26 Mar 2009 23:29
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
I know I just said this elsewhere but it seems to need repeating.
I not only invite evidence to the contrary of what I 'know' already, I welcome it.
Your Bible has been considered for such evidence and is severely lacking. What else do you have? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 27 Mar 2009 16:46
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Certainly there is faith involved in my beliefs, but it's plain as the nose on your face when you look at the beauty of creation that there has to be a creator.
You ever get outside much? You know like walking out in a park or anything. You know with trees, a lake, birds, that kind of thing. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 27 Mar 2009 21:16
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Anecdotal drivel. There doesn't have to be a god for this >formation< of the planet. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 28 Mar 2009 22:12
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
It sure couldn't have been an accident. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 29 Mar 2009 01:32
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Doesn't leave a person or people doing it on purpose as the only option if that were true. However the onus is now on you to prove why it 'couldn't be an accident'.
Snowflakes and earthquakes aren't accidents, nor do they require a being to create them. Supposedly, your God had no creator. Why does the universe need one in light of that? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 30 Mar 2009 19:06
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
You'd argue a watch had not watch maker if you didn't know any better wouldn't you? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 30 Mar 2009 20:36
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
When watches can reproduce sexually, get back to me. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Because there are much bigger things to worry about changing in this world like human rights violations in China.
