HeavenSent is bigoted

[genocidal]

For the record, neoconservatism has nothing to do with fundamentalist Christianity. Just because Bush's staff is stacked with both fundamentalists (Karl Rove) and neocons (Rumsfeld) does not mean that they are the same thing. In fact, a staunch neoconservative probably could care less about gay people getting married because their ideology is predicated on limited government and military hard power.

[Vykromond]

chiming in to agree with genocidal- these two designators are incorrectly mixed in the dialogue in a misleading way.

[Kolar]

For the record, neoconservatism has nothing to do with fundamentalist Christianity. Just because Bush's staff is stacked with both fundamentalists (Karl Rove) and neocons (Rumsfeld) does not mean that they are the same thing. In fact, a staunch neoconservative probably could care less about gay people getting married because their ideology is predicated on limited government and military hard power.

So what is Bush?
He doesn't seem to interested in limited govn. yet he does love the hardware..

[Subjugation]

chiming in to agree with genocidal- these two designators are incorrectly mixed in the dialogue in a misleading way.

It was a bit of hyperbole, but you two are right. And I appreciate being kept honest.

[genocidal]

So what is Bush?
He doesn't seem to interested in limited govn. yet he does love the hardware..

Bush is Bush. The eagerness to label people often creates misconceptions; for example my buddy has a subscription to Adbusters (for all you Canadians that actually read and take to heart this garbage, fuck you) and every article in there is about how Bush is becoming so far-right with Patriot Acts, government spying, etc. that he is becoming fascist. Of course this is far from the truth but the right-wing/fascist label fits the bill if you want to sell your shitty magazine. The problem is people actually believe this garbage having not paid attention to any other war in history and how it affects privacy.

My personal opinion is that Bush himself is too inept to have a solid philosophy. He surrounds himself with big Republicans from all walks of the party - which is actually a plus for his administration. For example, Condy Rice was a Democrat and a college professor before her political career. Then you also have the Cheneys, representing big business interests. The thing that most people get hung-up on is trying to lambaste Bush for being too conservative when the fact of the matter is he's a fairly moderate Republican. He's not on the level of John McCain or anything but his immigration policy and his foreign policy are both fairly moderate.

[Kolar]

I think he's too stupid to have a solid philosophy as you say but he is too weak to gonvern effectly and keep the two major sides of the republican party together for much longer (Big Business and the Fundementists). If I had to peg him as anything it would be more on the business side of the party even though his own base is mostly white evangelicals. I think he has more then any president abused his power. NSA wire taps, signing statments on almost every bill, using presidential power to kill off law suits, the whole Plame thing, secret jails, gitmo, Iraq and probably Iran... The political climate has become corrupt, self serving, and apethic. Fundementists and neo-cons are just another version of it. I think a lot of people have a hard time actually figuring out who is on what side or whatever when a majority of the republican party is supported by the fundementialists but their issues and concerns only come up during an election year, I know most of them are not happy with Bush on his record so far with banning gay marriage and installing biblical teachings in public schools and other things... I don't think any of this is evidence the US Admin. has become a dictatorship, it's a sign of the times and the political climate.

As for the whole Canadian thing, I can't speak for all of them but the sense I get from people on the left and middle is basicly shock at how much the American people are willing to take with their representatives.

[Galleleo]

i'm convinced that it is a personality trait, and not as closely linked to ideology or doctrine as people make it out to be. having said that, i don't think people telling others how to live is necessarily a bad thing. that's because i think it comes from caring about their well being. it can lead to bad situations, but it can also lead to good.

There is a difference however between telling a friend he should stop doing drugs because they are bad and making laws so gay people get less rights. As I stated earlier, my live and let live viewpoint applies to people telling other people how to live their live while those other people do not want to be told how to live their live. Among friends this is different, you might not like it when someone tells you you are living your life wrong, but you'll accept it, think about it because it's a friend and therefor you respect him.

I was talking more about, years back for example, the church sending people to Afrika to tell the Africans they should become christian. More in that sense. I am fine with you (general not anyone specific) being christian and because you are christian you dislike gay people, no problem. You should decide that for yourself. But then don't go and tell that gay man he can't get married, he doesn't deserve the same rights because you think being gay is bad. That is where you cross the line, in my opinion.

[ÆNIMA]

Seeing that the general consensous on this forum is that either God doesn't care about what Christians label as sinful or that religion should entirely be left out, I decided to post from the religious point of view. This goes back to what Conc was saying about getting both sides of the argument, and the person who was heading up the job has apparently aborted and involved too much emotion. Emotion shouldn't govern any argument, maybe except...perhaps between husband and wife (or husband and husband and wife and wife).

- Everything from here is basically based on what's given in the Bible which in turn SHOULD (but doesn't necassarily) dictate every Bible-toting Christian's beliefs. These passages are taken from the King James Version of the Bible and will be used for informative reasons, and not for "shoving down peoples' throats." Besides, the apostles who preached the gospel were told by Jesus not to teach those who would not accept...hence a Christian in turn shouldn't be doing any shoving.-

Now, considering what marriage is:
Genesis 2:24. Right after Adam and Eve have been created the verse reads, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Two verses before that we read that God created Eve from Adam's rib. God created the two to cleave unto eachother in what we call today marriage. Marriage was instituted by God between a man and a woman. I believe that when men and women are married either religiously or secularly, they're doing what God intended them to do in the first place.

To my knowledge there are no references of two men or two women marrying. In fact, I don't believe there are any references where it is explicitly stated that two people of the same sex should not marry. But there are very clear passages regarding homosexual acts.

Leviticus 18:22. This verse is found in a chapter where the Law of Moses is being outlined concerning sexual sins including incest and bestiality. It reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." There's the commandment, the same goes to women. For those of you less informed, the term to lie with someone in the old testament is like us saying to sleep with or in other words, to have sex with. A man shouldn't have sex with a man as if the latter was a woman is essentially what that verse reads.

"But I thought Jesus did away with the Mosaic law, the Law of Moses doesn't apply to us anymore."

Well let's see what the New Testament says, which outlines the life of Christ and gives the teachings of his apostles after his death and ascension.
In the letter sent to the Romans, written by Paul, chapter 1, Paul mentions some of the sins or ungodliness in which people were indulging themselves.
Romans 1:26,27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

-Note read verse 25 to understand the phrase "For this cause God gave them up..."
Now this verse shows Paul's dislike for the behavior of men lusting toward other men, but there's no clear statement that it is wrong.

So we read again from the New Testament in Paul's letter to the Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 6:9 -Note a Christian's ultimate goal is to attain the Kingdom of God.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, no effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind."

The list of people indicated by certain sins (NOTE: all who claim belief in the Bible as God's word, fornication, or sex before marriage, is a sin that will keep you from the Kingdom of God) includes "abusers of themselves with mankind." You could also say that they defile themselves with men (as you may notice, mankind and womankind in the earlier verses indicated men and women), or commit homosexual acts.

So here are the listings of a few references from the Bible that dictate to a Christian mind that homosexual acts are a sin. In the old testament (the new testament attests to this as well) cities and people were destroyed not only for their idolatry, but also for their pride and other things, homosexual acts was one reason. Count that, one. Sodom and Gomorrha are two examples most referred to. Jude 1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengance of eternal fire."
These cities weren't destroyed right away when people started this. It happened when God wanted it to. That can explain why today we don't see any godly destruction in areas that very openly embrace homosexuality. Simply because God isn't ready to what he's promised to do to the wicked. And I don't believe that those cities were destroyed for the single reason that they were practicing those sins, I believe there were many other sins involved. In fact, we don't even know who long those cities were as evil as they were before they were destroyed.

That is where Christians are coming from when they talk about hellfire and the awfulness of homosexuality.

If you believe in the Bible, then you believe that. Also, if you believe in the Bible, you are to "love one another as [Christ] hath loved you."

Considering that homosexual acts are sinful acts, Christians do not want it inter-mingled with marriage. Marriage was instituted by God, it need not be reinterpereted according to man.

I feel like I have more to say, but something came up, and I'll just post this. Remember, this is the religious person's reasoning.

And you religious people, don't forget that judgement, salvation, and condemnation is left up to God and not to us. We need to focus more on the perfection and salvation of people instead of the quick-to-condemn attitudes that many people harbor. Seek not to remove the mote in your brother's eye until you've removed the beam that is in your own.

[PaulOakenfold]

Quick someone pull the Adam and Steve Joke



fffffffffffff

[Kolar]

That is where Christians are coming from when they talk about hellfire and the awfulness of homosexuality.

If you believe in the Bible, then you believe that. Also, if you believe in the Bible, you are to "love one another as [Christ] hath loved you."

Considering that homosexual acts are sinful acts, Christians do not want it inter-mingled with marriage. Marriage was instituted by God, it need not be reinterpereted according to man.

I feel like I have more to say, but something came up, and I'll just post this. Remember, this is the religious person's reasoning.

And you religious people, don't forget that judgement, salvation, and condemnation is left up to God and not to us. We need to focus more on the perfection and salvation of people instead of the quick-to-condemn attitudes that many people harbor. Seek not to remove the mote in your brother's eye until you've removed the beam that is in your own.

I don't really consider religious reasoning or logic to be anything worth more then half a cent but I will present the other half. The bible was writen by many people some 200-300 years after Jesus of Nazar was killed by the ancient Romans for defying their rule of law and spreading a cult (supposidly, there's little evidence of his real existance minus the divinity, miracles ect..). There are many different religious writing still in existance that didn't make the cut as a committee of men decided what went into the Christian bible. These works became the structure of the church and worked for the time. 2,000 years ago social structures were weak so one person not producing a family, being gay or fucking a sheep would basicly be a drain on society. Thus it became taboo out of necessity and if God said it so much the better.


There's roughly 6 billion humans on Earth now. With modern science, reasoning and technology we know that your sexually is not a choice, it is not entirely genetic nor entirely a case of upbringing. Now there is no way 6 billion+ people are going to stop fucking or start fucking their same sex just because it is legal or not taboo. Society isn't going to collapse because of it nor is it the Government's job to step into any of our lives and judge us gay or stright. You're free to express your beliefs but my freedom and rights also protects my right not to listen to you or have you and your friends take over this country or the USA and install law based on religious doctrine. An ideal goverment is one where freedom comes before everything else and where the Govnerment's power and view on social issues is non-existant.

Marriage is a insutition of secular governments, it has nothing to do with any god of yours or any religious organization. It is your belief that your God wants us to do anything.

I find it perfectly reasonable to debate topics like these with anyone if religion or faith is not part of it or a motive behind it.

[ÆNIMA]

...Society isn't going to collapse because of it nor is it the Government's job to step into any of our lives and judge us gay or stright. You're free to express your beliefs but my freedom and rights also protects my right not to listen to you or have you and your friends take over this country or the USA and install law based on religious doctrine... It is your belief that your God wants us to do anything...

Please, don't misrepresent me. I never stated that the government should step into anyone's life. There currently are no laws banning homosexual marriages and making it a crime. The existing system just doesn't make due for them. That's really what the debate is about. I completely agree with you that the government should not punish people because of their sexuality.

I completely understand and moreover, I respect the fact that you have the unalienable right to have your own view. You don't need tell me that. I also have no intention of forcing my views on anyone else. I think you can understand that from what was stated at the beginning of my post.

What I posted was more informative than argumentative. However, it can be argued that information alone is a form of argument.

[Kolar]

Please, don't misrepresent me. I never stated that the government should step into anyone's life. There currently are no laws banning homosexual marriages and making it a crime. The existing system just doesn't make due for them. That's really what the debate is about. I completely agree with you that the government should not punish people because of their sexuality.

Some states have banned it and our joke of a PM is going to force an election over the issue when it was passed and made into law by the previous Government of Canada. They have the right to marriage if they wish. The way marriage is defined or not defined does not exclude them. It is only the religious right putting up road blocks because of their beliefs. If marriage is a secular institution then their beliefs and wish for marriage should be irrelevant. Sadly as I stated above somewhere that although laws can not and should not be directly related to doctrines and beliefs law makers generally base decisions off of them. The majority doesn't equal right and freedom comes before doctrine.

[PH]

I'll still fuck you 'til you love me, faggot.

[DoTheFandango]

Adam and Eve produce children. How do those children reproduce without incest?

BITCHES?

[Liquid Blue]

Since Heavensent is not replying, this is pretty much a one-sided argument. Not a whole lot to be gained if everyone just agrees with eachother.